PEOPLE v ATOP (Pu)
PETIONER/s: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENT/s: Alejandro Atop “Ali”
G.R. 124303-05 | Feb. 10, 1998 | J. Panganiban | Penal
Statutes
DOCTRINE/RELATED STATUTES: Penal statutes are strictly
construed against the State and liberally construed in favor of
the accused
FACTS:
● The accused, Alejandro “Ali” Atop is the common law
husband of the victim’s grandmother, Trinidad Mejos.
(A manghihilot)
It started sometime in 1991 when Regina was 10 years
old, the accused started having lustful desires on her
and inserted his finger into her vagina. She told her
grandmother about this but she did not believe her
and told her it was just a “manifestation of fatherly
concern”
● The 1st time she was raped, Regina was then 12 years
old and her grandmother was away attending to a
delivery. She was called by the accused, when he
suddenly rushed towards her, removed her pants and
inserted his male organ into her vagina. She was not
able to defend herself because at that time the
accused was gagging her and carrying a knife. This
happened again sometime in 1993 (2nd rape) and
1994 (3rd rape). Every time, she told her grandmother
but Trinidad wouldn’t believe her.
● On Dec. 31, 1994 (4th rape): She was molested in the
presence of her aunt and Atop’s two nieces. Regina and
the two nieces kicked him so he stopped.
● In January 1995: She forgot she had no classes so she
went to her other grandfather’s house (Lolo Geva)
when the accused came and tried to force her to go
home. He kept on pulling her until they reached a
waiting shed where the accused smashed her to the
concrete wall. This explained all the bruises and
abrasions in her body upon medical examination.
● She only reported such incidents in January 1995
because she was afraid Atop will kill her. She did not
exactly tell the truth (in her sworn statement, she only
said that a finger was inserted) at first because Atop
was still not apprehended (he was hiding). When finally
he was arrested, she requested the fiscal to re-
investigate and then told them what was really done to
her.
● Version of Atop: He testified he personally knew
Regina because she was their adopted child and the
reason why Regina filed a case against because she was
coached by her aunts who wanted him and Trinidad to
separate.
● He was found guilty of 3 counts of rape and was
sentenced to 2 terms of reclusion perpetua and
death. In the other rape incident (Dec. 31, 1994), he
was found not guilty for insufficiency of evidence.
STATCON ISSUE: Whether the common-law husband of the
girl’s grandmother is included in the provisions of Sec. 11 RA
7659.
HELD: NO.

Sec. 11 of RA 7659, which amended Art. 335 of the RPC,
provides that the death penalty for rape may be imposed if
the “offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree,
or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim” (no
common-law husband of grandmother)
It is a basic rule in statutory construction that penal statutes
are to be liberally construed in favor of the accused. Courts
must not bring cases within the provisions of the law which
are not clearly embraced by it. No act can be pronounced
criminal which is not clearly within the terms of a statute can
be brought within them.
PENALTIES IMPOSABLE: (since no common-law husband of
grandmother present in provision)
- The 3rd rape incident occured after the effectivity of RA
7659 which imposed penalty on heinous crimes. Under this,
the penalty for rape with the use of a deadly weapon is
reclusion perpetua to death.
- Since there was no modifying circumstance, and the
attendant relationships enumerated under Sec. 11 of RA 7659
is not applicable. The penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua,
and NOT DEATH.
WHEREFORE, Decision appealed is AFFIRMED, with
MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appelant shall not suffer the penalty
of DEATH but shall serve 3 terms of reclusion perpetua.