PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

ROBERTO ABAY TRINIDAD

G.R. No. 177752

FACTS:
Sometime in December 1999, in the City of Manila, Philippines, appellant Roberto Abay Y. Trinidad, by
means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly commit sexual abuse
and lascivious conduct against [AAA], a minor, 13 years of age, by then and there kissing her breast and whole
body, lying on top of her and inserting his penis into her vagina, thus succeeded in having carnal knowledge of
her, against her will and consent thereafter threatening to kill her should she report the incident, thereby
gravely endangering her survival and normal growth and development, to the damage and prejudice of [AAA].
Appellant pleaded not guilty during the arraignment and trial ensued. Subsequently, Robert was
charged with rape in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
4. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC but modified the penalty and the award of damages.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the act constituting the crime should be prosecuted for statutory rape instead of sexual
abuse

HELD:
The Court affirm the decision of the appellate court. The act constituting the crime herein should be
prosecuted for statutory rape. Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of
sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for
statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On
the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under
Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot
be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A
person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be
complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on
complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense
penalized by a special law.
In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old when the crime was committed against her. The
Information against appellant stated that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the incident. Therefore, appellant
may be prosecuted either for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except
paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. While the Information may have alleged the elements of both
crimes, the prosecutions evidence only established that appellant sexually violated the person of AAA through
force and intimidation by threatening her with a bladed instrument and forcing her to submit to his bestial
designs. Thus, rape was established. The appellant is therefore found guilty of rape under Article 266-A(1)(a)
of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RODOLFO SUYU, et al.

G.R. No. 227705

FACTS:
That on or about August 9, 2009, in the City of Naga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a deadly weapon did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and with the use of violence against or intimidation of persons, take, steal and carry
away three cell phones (Samsung E200, Nokia 2660, and another Nokia); Four (4) pcs. gold ring; three (3)
wristwatches (2 lady and 1 men); three (3) gold necklaces, cash money of ₱4,000.00, bags, wallet, perfumes,
lotions, yellow jacket, BDO and RCBC ATM cards, or a total of ₱120,000.00, belonging to and owned by the
herein complaining witness [AAA] and that by reason or on occasion of said robbery, tied, boxed complainant
on the different parts of her body causing physical injuries and with the use of a bladed weapon, did then and
there [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously thru force and violence, by poking a knife succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with the said complaining witness against her will as evidenced by medical certificate hereto
attached, to her damage and prejudice.
 Hermin pleaded "Not Guilty" in his arraignment. Trial ensued while he was under detention, and the
RTC rendered a decision finding him guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape, defined and
penalized under article 294, in relation to Article 266-A and B of the Revised Penal Code. The case was
elevated to the CA, which denied the appeal for lack of merit.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the conviction of accused-appellant was based on the flawed testimony of AAA and on
speculations which have no basis in fact and in law

HELD:
The appeal ruled in the negative. The crime of Robbery with Rape is penalized under Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7659. To sustain a conviction for
robbery with rape, it is imperative that the robbery itself must be conclusively established; proof of the rape
alone is not sufficient. The crime of robbery, as defined under Article 293 of the RPC, has the following
elements: (1) intent to gain; (2) unlawful taking; (3) personal property belonging to another; and (4) violence
against or intimidation of person or force upon things. This situation contemplates that the offenders had an
intent to rob personal property belonging to another, and such intent preceded the rape.
In this case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of robbery with
rape. Since rape, by its nature, is usually committed in a place where only the rapist and the victim are present,
the prosecution is not bound to present witnesses other than the victim herself. An accused may be convicted
solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim provided that such testimony is credible, consistent with
human nature and the course of things, and in conformity with the knowledge and common experience of
mankind. When an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to
show that rape had been inflicted on her. No decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim
and thus run the risk of public contempt unless she is, in fact, a rape victim.
The Court has closely examined the records and there is no evidence to show that she has been
motivated by any ill will or improper motive to testify against Hermin. Thus, the courts affirmed with modification
the decision of the appellate court in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with
rape.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JERRY NAZARENO

G.R. No. 167756

FACTS:
The case herein centers on the rape by a father of his two children. The informations charged against
accused-appellant herein are as follows:
“That sometime and between January 1992 up to December 06, 1998, in Barangay Codon, Municipality
of San Andres, Province of Catanduanes, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused by means of force, violence and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and repeatedly made sexual intercourse with his daughter BBB at the age of 7 through 14 years old
against her will;”
“That from sometime in January 1990 up to December 1998 in barangay Codon, municipality of San
Andres, Catanduanes, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused, being the father of
the complainant, did then and there willfully, feloniously and criminally repeatedly had sexual intercourse with
her daughter AAA, then five years old up to the time when she was 15-years-old against her will.”
The accused-appellant was subsequently found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
with the aggravating circumstance of relationship and minority.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the Informations charging the accused-appellant herein are defective for failure to
state with specificity the approximate date of the commission of the offenses

HELD:
The argument is erroneous. An information is intended to inform an accused of the accusations against
him in order that he could adequately prepare his defense. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense
unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information (which includes the approximate time and date of the
commission of the offense), thus ensuring that the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him is not violated.
Further, it must embody the essential elements of the crime charged by setting forth the facts and
circumstances that have a bearing on the culpability and liability of the accused, so that he can properly
prepare for and undertake his defense. However, it is not necessary for the information to allege the date and
time of the commission of the crime with exactitude unless time is an essential ingredient of the offense.
In People v. Bugayong, the Court held that when the time given in the information is not the essence of the
offense, the time need not be proven as alleged; and that the complaint will be sustained if the proof shows
that the offense was committed at any time within the period of the statute of limitations and before the
commencement of the action.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HENRY GUERRERO AGRIPA

G.R. No. 170360

FACTS:
That on or about the 30th day of May, 1998, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused by means of
force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously touch [AAAs][3] private part, a
minor 13 years of age, removed her panty and inserted his index finger on her vagina and thereafter have
carnal knowledge with the undersigned complainant against her will and without her consent.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Subsequently, trial ensued where he was found guilty
for the crime of rape by the Regional Trial Court, branch 49, of Quezon City, and which was affirmed with
modification by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime charged despite the
failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt

HELD:
An established rule in appellate review is that the trial courts factual findings, including its assessment
of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, as well as the conclusions
drawn from the factual findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect. These actual findings and
conclusions assume greater weight if they are affirmed by the CA.
The Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,[18] defines and penalizes Rape under
Article 266-A, paragraph 1; thus, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that
(1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished the act through force, threat or
intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or was otherwise unconscious, was under 12 years of age, or
was demented.
In her testimony, AAA positively identified the appellant as her rapist; she never wavered in this
identification. AAA’s testimony strikes to be clear, convincing and credible, corroborated as it was in a major
way by the medico-legal report and the testimony of Dr. Freyra. It bears emphasis that during the initial phases
of AAA’s testimony, she broke down on the witness stand when the prosecution asked her questions relating to
the rape she suffered. This, to our mind, is an eloquent and moving indication of the truth of her allegations.
Thus, the prosecution having proved all the elements aforementioned, and the testimony of AAA being
of credible standard, the decision of the CA finding the accused-appellant guilty is affirmed.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMEO SANTOS LABAY

G.R. No. 137993

FACTS:
The case herein centers on the rape by a grandfather of his granddaughter. The information charged
against the accuse-appellant provides that on or about the third week of December, 1997 in Pasig City, the
accused being a grandfather, a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Julie Ann Gutierrez, a minor, six years old,
against her will and consent.
The accused pleaded not guilty during the arraignment, and trial ensued wherein he was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape, aggravated by the circumstance of relationship and minority,
and was sentenced to the supreme penalty of death.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged for the
claimed inconsistencies in the victim’s testimonies by the accused-appellant

HELD:
No. The nature of the crime of rape is such that oftentimes it is only the accused and the complainant
who can testify as to the commission of the crime. Well-entrenched is the rule that the findings of the trial court
on credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons are presented
necessitating a reexamination.
After a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, the court found no cogent reason to depart from the
findings and conclusions of the trial court. The court agrees with its grant of full weight and credence to the
testimony of Julie Ann that her grandfather sexually assaulted her without her consent. She testified in a very
clear, spontaneous and straightforward manner. She unflinchingly identified her grandfather, the appellant, as
the person who raped her. She declared that she felt pain and screamed when he inserted his penis into her
vagina. She even experienced nightmares because of her trauma.
Furthermore, no woman, especially one of tender age like Julie Ann, would concoct a rape complaint,
allow a gynecologic examination and permit herself to be subjected to a public trial if she is not motivated
solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished. Considering that she was not shown to
have been ill-motivated in charging her grandfather, there is no reason to disbelieve her. The Court has held
that where there is no evidence to indicate that the prosecution witness was actuated by improper motive, the
presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is given full faith and credit.
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge
of a woman and the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed when the victim is under
eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Appellant’s
defense of denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive and candid testimony of the victim,
whose credibility was upheld by the trial court. Thus, the appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
rape and sentenced to the death penalty. 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARIO SANTIAGO, alias Payo

G.R. No. 129339

FACTS:
The information charged against the accused-appellant herein states that on or about the 7th day of
July, 1994, in the Municipality of Guimba, Province of Nueva Ecija, Republic of the Philippines, the accused-
appellant herein, Mario Santiago, alias Payo, by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of Michelle C. Mana, against her will.
The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty during the arraignment. Subsequently, trial ensued wherein
he was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court of Nueva Ecija guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
rape penalized under under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime charged as he argues that it
would have been physically impossible for him to have committed the rape when he was at a different place at
the time

HELD:
No, the court did not err in finding the accused-appellant guilty. It is well-settled that alibi is a weak
defense. For it to prosper, the accused must establish that he was so far away that he could not have been
physically present at the place of the crime, or its immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission. Where there
is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the alibi seldom will hold water.
It is accused-appellant’s testimony that at about 12:00 to 12:30 in the morning of July 7, 1994, he was
asleep in his house. His claim is buttressed by the testimony of his own mother, who affirmed that he was
indeed sleeping next to her at the time in question. Also according to accused-appellant’s mother, the house of
Michelle Mana was about 400 meters away from the house of the victim. The court is hard put to treat the
foregoing as credible and convincing proof that he could not have been at the scene of the crime. Considering
that alibis are so easy to fabricate with the aid of immediate family members or relatives, they assume no
importance in the face of positive identification, as in the instant case by the rape victim herself.
The court affirms the trial court’s finding in upholding the credibility of the testimony of complainant
Michelle Mana and that her accusations bore no apparent ulterior motive other than to tell the truth and seek
justice for herself. Her positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the rape is well-taken,
her vision during the incident having been aided by the light of a lampara and also because she knew accused-
appellant for quite some time.
Thus, in consideration of the facts and evidence, the court is convinced that the guilt of accused-appellant
has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

* * * END * * *