People vs. Pangilinan G.R.
171020, March 14, 2007
FACTS:
 Two charges of rape of his own daughter was filed to the accused.
 1st, the testimony of the victim herself and 2nd, by the appellant's admission that his
daughter is below 12 y/o.
 On May 1997, the accused was arrested and he then filed a petition for bail.
 In the hearings the prosecution presented the victim (AAA), BBB (Mother of AAA),
and Dr. Melinda Layug.
 The testimony of the daughter was on the month of Sept. 1995, his father thru force
and intimidation, countlessly raped her while she was sleeping with her siblings and
while she was left at home washing the dishes. His father warned her that if she
report to the authorities she will kill them. It stopped but continued on Jan. 1997,
despite of the fact that her mother already arrived from Singapore and was sleeping
downstairs at the sala. Before going back to Singapore, DDD, grandmother of AAA,
advised BBB not to leave her children because the appellant had been molesting AAA.
Shocked by it, she asked her daughter and the latter confessed everything. BBB
confronted the appellant but he denied the accusations. She brought her daughter to
Dinalupahan District Hospital, and examined by Dr. Melinda Layug, the results
revealed non-parous introitus with an old healed laceration at 4'oclock position. Thus,
the instant case was filed.
 The appellant presented his defence as sole witness. Back when he left for Saudi, his
wife was having an affair and that the youngest daughter was not his own, he lost
interest on going to back to work and stayed at home. He stated that his daughter
was sweet to her, she hugs and kiss him and she even became sweeter. While BBB
was in Singapore, he claimed that AAA approached him pointing finger at her palm.
Now, he claimed that he had no sexual relationship with her although she seduced
him.
 The trial court declared its decision in favour of the victim. It disregarded the defence
of the accused because it's unbelievable for a ten-year old girl to be as malicious and
that minor inconsistencies in private complainant's testimony did not in any way
affect her credibility. The charge was guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases
and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death.
 The trial court forwarded the case to the Supreme Court for review, but it was
forwarded to CA for appropriate actions.
 The accused filed petition for errors in trial court's decision.
ISSUES:
1. WON the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused guilty of 2 counts of rape, that he
was not properly arraigned and was not informed by the nature of the accusation against him?
2. WON the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable despite
the insufficiency of the evidence?
HELD:
1. No.
2. No.
RATIO:
1. The accused claimed that he was arraigned only after the case was submitted, he claimed it
as a procedural error, against his constitutional right and prejudicial to his part. Arraignment is
manner of implementing a constitutional right to be inform of the nature of a cause of
accusation against him regarding his possible loss of freedom and even life. The court
answered that it was not prejudicial in his part. First, that the procedural error was cured
when he participated in the trial without raising objection about his status of not being
arraigned. Second, there was no protest during the trial, only after the accused is convicted of
two death sentences. Thus, it is already too late to raise the procedural defect. In People v.
Cabale and People v. Atienza, under the same circumstances. Since appellant's rights and
interests were not prejudiced by lapse in procedure, it only follows that his constitutional right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was not violated.
2. First, the alleged accusation regarding the impossibility of the rape wherein she is sleeping
with her siblings in invalid because it is been said that lust don't respect time and place. There
is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion. Second, the court said that the failure
of the victim to report the incident and the delay of more than one year of the alleged
accusation is particular in incestuous rape, and due to death threats of victim. Thus, it does
not necessarily mean of discrepancies or non-credibility. Third, though the declaration of the
victim's sworn statement is contradictory to his testimony on how she reported the incident
but she fully explained to the court the said discrepancy due investigator who did not change
it, but her credibility was not impaired. Fourth, the alleged inconsistencies in the victim's
testimony refer to minor matters, The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge by the
accused in Article 335, RPC. Where the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime,
such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified.
Fifth, regarding the alleged accusation of the medical result that there were no signs of
violence on the victim's private part means she is not a victim of rape but the court states that
it was only after 2 years and 2 months that she had an examination and whatever physical
violence may healed at that time. The accused defense and allegations is deemed to invalid
and unsubstantial. With that, he is guilty beyond reasonable death with 2 counts of rape.
Under the RPC, sexual intercourse below 12 years old is statutory rape, and is always rape and
justified with death penalty under Art. 335 but with the effectivity of R.A. 9346, "an act
prohibiting death penalty". it shall reduced to reclusion perpetua. Thus, the court's decision
declared the accused, Pangilinan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified
rape is affirmed with the modification that each penalty of death imposed on appellant is
reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346.
And payment for civil, moral and examplary damages to the victim.