RAPE

People of the Philippines vs. Primo Campuhan Y Bello

G.R. No. 129433 March 30, 2000

FACTS:

On April 25,1996, Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan, mother of four (4)-year old

Crysthel Pamintuan, went down from the second floor of their house to prepare
chocolate drinks for her two (2) children. As Corazon was busy preparing the
drinks, she heard one of her daughters cry, "Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!" prompting Corazon
to rush upstairs. Thereupon, she saw Primo Campuhan inside her children's room
kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas or "jogging pants" and panty were already
removed, while his short pants were down to his knees.

As seen by Corazon, Primo was forcing his penis into Crysthel's vagina. Horrified,
she cursed the accused, "P - t - ng ina mo, anak ko iyan!" and boxed him several
times. He evaded her blows and pulled up his pants. He pushed Corazon aside
when she tried to block his path. Corazon then ran out and shouted for help thus
prompting her brother, a cousin and an uncle who were living within their
compound, to chase the accused. Seconds later, Primo was apprehended by those
who answered Corazon's call for help.

Physical examination of the victim yielded negative results. No evident sign of

extra-genital physical injury was noted by the medico-legal officer on Crysthel's
body as her hymen was intact and its orifice was only 0.5 cm. in diameter.

ISSUE:

Whether accused consummated statutory rape

RULING:

No. Statutory rape was not consummated in the case at bay.

The records reviewed failed to show the proof whether Primo’s penis was
able to penetrate Chrystel’s vagina. Failure to prove such penetration, even the
slightest one, cannot be considered consummated rape, however, only attempted
rape, if not acts of lasciviousness. Also, there were no physical signs of injuries on
the witness’ body to conclude a medical perspective that a penetration has taken
place. In rape cases, it is important that a valid testimony and medical certificate
complements each other, for relying alone on testimonial evidence may create
unwarranted or mischievous results. It is necessary to carefully establish a proof
that the penis, in reality, entered the labial threshold of the female organ to
accurately conclude that the rape was consummated. In cases of rape where there is
a positive testimony and a medical certificate, both should in all respects
complement each other; otherwise, to rely on the testimonial evidence alone, in
utter disregard of the manifest variance in the medical certificate, would be
productive of unwarranted or even mischievous results. It is necessary to carefully
ascertain whether the penis of the accused in reality entered the labial threshold of
the female organ to accurately conclude that rape was consummated. Failing in
this, the thin line that separates attempted rape from consummated rape will
significantly disappear

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court on convicting Campuhan guilty of

statutory rape is MODIFIED. Accused is convicted of ATTEMPTED RAPE
instead.
 People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Ayade y Pulod
G.R. No. 188561 January 15, 2010

FACT:

Accused Ayade was charged with Qualified Rape in an Information4 dated

March 31, 2003. Private complainant VVV was only thirteen (13) years old when
she was raped by Ayade, her own father, on March 26, 2003. According to VVV,
at around 12 noon of said date, while she was alone in a room in their house in
XXX Compound, Barangay ZZZ, Mandaluyong City, and while her mother was at
work, Ayade went to her room. Once inside, the latter forcing himself into her
vagina, and had sexual intercourse with her. All the while, VVV resisted and
struggled, but her attempts were futile as Ayade was bigger and stronger than her.
While the sexual assault was taking place, VVV cried. To prevent her from
shouting, Ayade punched her thigh.

After the incident, VVV went to her grandmother, GGG, and narrated to her the
sexual assaults committed by Ayade against her. Thereafter, they reported the
incident to the Mandaluyong Police Station. Subsequently, an investigation was
conducted. Hence, the instant case was filed against Ayade.

The RTC found Ayade guilty as charged while the Court of Appeals affirmed the
same with modification on such findings.

ISSUE:

Whether accused committed the crime of qualified rape

DECISION:

Yes. Accused committed the crime of qualified rape punishable under

Article 266-B. By the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction usually rests
solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is
credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things. Accordingly, the Court has consistently adhered to the following
guiding principles in the review of similar cases, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape
can be made with facility; while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more
difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that, in the
nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
Complementing the foregoing principles is the rule that the credibility of the victim
is always the single most important issue in prosecution for rape; that in passing
upon the credibility of witnesses, the highest degree of respect must be afforded to
the findings of the trial court.

Ayade failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in its
assailed Decision. Appellant could only but proffer the defenses of denial and alibi
in this case. Suffice it to say that denial and alibi are practically worthless against
the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses, especially by the
rape victim.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 03112, dated March 31, 2009, finding
appellant Felipe Ayade y Pulod guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Qualified Rape, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that said
appellant is ORDERED to pay herein private complainant VVV the amount of
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (₱75,000.00) as moral damages. No costs
 People of the Philippines vs. Rollybert Oropesa y Doe
G.R. No. 229084 October 02, 2019

FACT:

On February 12, 1998, AAA, then seventeen (17) years old and a high
school student, left her parents' house without their knowledge, in order to avoid
her brother-in-law, the Accused-Appellant, who already took sexual advantage of
her in December 1997. At around 10:00 p.m., while AAA and her friends were on
their way to the railroad track at Barangay Manangle, Sipocot, Camarines Sur, they
met the Accused-Appellant and his "compadre", Latonero. AAA's friends then left
her alone. The Accused-Appellant went to AAA, held her by the arm and, together
with Latonero, brought her inside an empty kubo located near the road. The
Accused-Appellant then mounted AAA and inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina
while Latonero held and raised AAA's hands parallel to her head. When she
revealed to her parents that the Accused-Appellant and Latonero raped her, AAA
underwent medical examination on February 23, 1998.

Dr. Aquino, the Rural Health Physician of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, found "normal
looking external genitalia, with scanty pubic hair, with recently healed hymenal
laceration at 9 o'clock position.

The Accused-Appellant denied the charges against him and stated that AAA was
only used by BBB, his mother-in-law and AAA's mother, in filing the complaint
because he did not like him as a son-in-law and she wanted him to separate from
his wife and AAA's sister, CCC. He testified that on the date and time of the
alleged incident, he did not meet Latonero.
 
ISSUE:

Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape

DECISION:

No. The accused is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape because the
element of force, threat, or intimidation is not present. In rape cases alleged to have
been committed by force, threat or intimidation, it is imperative for the prosecution
to establish that the element of voluntariness on the part of the victim be absolutely
lacking. The prosecution must prove that force or intimidation was actually
employed by accused upon his victim to achieve his end. Failure to do so is fatal to
its cause

In this case, there is no evidence to prove that appellant used force, threat or
intimidation during his sexual congress with AAA. The trial court noted that AAA
testified that on the date and time of the alleged rape incident, she was leaving
home without asking permission from her parents, because she wanted to avoid
appellant's threats.15 Yet, despite these supposed threats, "AAA went with accused
voluntarily in going to the hut where the incident complained of happened.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the appeal. The Court REVERSES and SETS
ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 21 July 2016, affirming with
modifications the Joint Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Libmanan,
Camarines Sur, Branch 57 which convicted appellant Rollybert Oropesa y Doe for
rape. Appellant Rollybert Oropesa y Doe is ACQUITTED for failure to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt and ORDERED immediately released from the New
Bilibid Prison unless he is detained for another lawful cause.
 People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Apattad
G.R. No. 193188. August 10, 2011

FACTS:

Accused was charged in four (4) separate informations of raping his 10 year-
old daughter, AAA in Cagayan. AAA testified that sometime in 2001, while she
was sleeping with her sisters, the accused pulled and positioned her just below the
feet of her siblings, and right then and there, succeeded in molesting her. AAA
was just seven (7) years old then. It was repeated in 2003 where the accused also
threatened to kill her if she reports the incident to her mother. When AAA finally
told her mother on June 13, 2003 that she was being abused by her own father, her
mother whipped her for not telling her about it immediately. Thereafter, they went
to the DSWD office in Peñablanca, Cagayan, where AAA was interviewed by
DSWD personnel. Afterwards, they proceeded to the police station where AAA
executed a sworn statement narrating what happened. Dr. Simangan subsequently
conducted a physical examination on AAA and discovered that the latter had a
healed hymen laceration at 4 and 7 o’clock positions, and that her vagina admitted
the tip of the fifth finger easily. She stated that the laceration could have been
caused by a blunt object.

The accused denied the accusation of rape hurled against him and claimed that his
wife was the one who initiated the criminal complaint against him because she
thinks that he has a mistress.

ISSUE:

Whether accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape

DECISION:

Yes. Accused is guilty of rape. After a careful examination of the records of

this case, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution’s evidence established the guilt
of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

In reviewing the evidence in rape cases, the following considerations should be

made: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove
but more difficult for the person, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved,
the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3)
the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.63
Nonetheless, it also bears stressing that rape is essentially committed in relative
isolation or secrecy; thus, it is most often only the victim who can testify with
regard to the fact of forced coitus.

Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the crime of rape is
committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the
offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended
party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present

In People v. Orillosa, this Court held that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual
force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral
influence of the father would suffice. Thus, in order for the accused to be found
guilty of the crime of statutory rape in this jurisdiction, only two (2) elements must
concur: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that the
victim is below twelve (12) years old.

Verily, the prosecution has sufficiently established the foregoing element, thus
proving that accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3)
counts of rape.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision dated August 28, 2009 in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03173 finding accused-appellant Juanito Apattad guilty of
rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. As thus modified, accused-appellant
is ordered to pay AAA for each count of rape, PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PhP
75,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages.
 People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Entrampas
G.R. No. 212161 March 29, 2017

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Juanito Entrampas (Entrampas) and BBB were common-law

spouses. They co-habited for eight years, from 1995 to 2003. AAA, BBB’s
daughter from previous relationship, lived with them. She look up to Entrampas as
her adoptive father.

Sometime in February 2003, at about 5:00 pm., in a rural sitio of Barangay Bawod,
San Isidro, Leyte. AAA arrived from school to cook for her family. She was
interrupted by Entrampas and was asked to go to the room upstairs. Once in the
room, Entrampas forced AAA to lie down on the floor. She was warned by the
accused-appellant that if she shouted he would kill her. She was also warned that if
she told her mother about what he was about to do, he would kill them.

As he consummated the act, she noticed a knife on the wall within his reach. She
becomes more fearful. After satisfying himself, he again warned the child that he
would kill her and her mother if she informed anyone about the incident.

The incident occurred again a week later in February 2003. In July 2003 BBB
observed some changes in her daughter’s body. AAA’s belly had become
noticeably bigger. Entrampas and BBB went to BBB’s brother, CCC, on
September 2003, to confess the crime he had committed against AAA. Entrampas
allegedly felt remorseful and told CCC to kill him for avenge AAA. CCC
immediately reported the matter to the police.

ISSUE:

Whether the accused-appellant Juanito Entrampas is guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of two (2) counts of statutory rape

DECISION:

Yes, the accused-appellant Entrampas is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

two (2) count of statutory rape. On the two (2) charges of qualified rape, AAA
clearly and consistently communicated how the accused-appellant threatened and
forced her into having sexual congress with him. Her failures to resist the sexual
aggression and to immediately report the incident to the authorities or her mother
do not undermine her credibility. The silence of the rape victim does not negate her
sexual molestation or make her charge baseless, untrue , or fabricated. A minor
cannot be expected to act like an adult or a mature experienced woman who would
have a courage and intelligence to disregard the threat to her life and complain
immediately that she had been sexually assaulted.

Forced and intimidation must be appreciated in light of the victim’s perception and
judgment when the assailant committed the crime. In rape perpetrated by close kin,
such as the common-law spouse of the child’s mother, actual force or intimidation
need not be employed. While accused-appellant was not a biological father of
AAA. She considered him as a father since she was a child. Moral influence or
ascendancy added to the intimidation of AAA. It enhanced the fear that cowed the
victim into silence. Accused-appellant’s physical superiority and moral influence
depleted AAA’s resolved to stand up against her foster father. The threats to her
and her mother’s lives, as well as the knife within accused-appellant’s reach,
further prevented her for from resisting her assailant. As accused-appellant
sexually assaulted AAA, she cried and pleaded him to stop. Her failure to shout or
to tenaciously repel the accused-appellant does not mean that she voluntarily
submitted to his dastardly act.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Regional Trial Court

Decision dated December 6, 2008 and Court of Appeals Decision dated November
6, 2013 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
 People of the Philippines vs. Ireno Bonaagua y Berce
G.R. No. 188897 June 6, 2011

FACTS:

In four (4) separate Informations, Ireno was charged by the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City with four (4) counts of Rape under Paragraph 2,
Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, in relation to R.A. No. 7610, for inserting
his tongue and his finger into the genital of his minor daughter, AAA.

AAA was inside a room lying in bed one afternoon while her younger brothers
were playing outside the house and her mother was not home. Accused-appellant
entered the room. He approached her, rolled her shirt upward, and removed her
shorts and panty. She tried to resist by putting her clothes back on, but her father’s
strength prevailed. In December 1999, AAA was raped by accused-appellant for
the third time when he went to Candelaria, Quezon. In December 2000, AAA and
her mother spent the Yuletide season with accused-appellant in Pulanglupa, Las
Piñas City. In a single day, AAA was raped for the fourth and fifth time.

On January 26, 2001, AAA complained of severe abdominal pain which prompted
her mother to take her to Gregg Hospital in Sariaya, Quezon. AAA was transferred
to the Quezon Memorial Hospital in Lucena City where Dr. Melissa De Leon
performed on her a physical examination. The results revealed that there was a
healed superficial laceration at the 9 o’clock position on the hymen of AAA. This
medical finding forced AAA to reveal to her mother all the incidents of rape
committed by accused-appellant.

The RTC found the accused guilty of four (4) counts of rape while the CA found
the accused guilty of three (3) counts of rape and one (1) count of acts of
lasciviousness.

ISSUE:

Whether the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness were committed

DECISION:

Yes. Both crimes were committed in the case at hand. Acts of

Lasciviousness, as defined in Article 336 of the RPC, has the following elements:
(1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) That it is
done under any of the following circumstances: By using force or intimidation; or
when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when
the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) That the offended party is
another person of either sex.

In addition, the following elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of
R.A. No. 7610 must be established: The accused commits the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct. The said act is performed with a child exploited
in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. The child, whether male or
female, is below 18 years of age. Undeniably, all the afore-stated elements are
present in Criminal Case No. 03-0255. Ireno committed lascivious acts against
AAA by touching her breasts and licking her vagina and the lascivious or lewd acts
were committed against AAA, who was 8 years old at the time as established by
her birth certificate.

It must be emphasized, that in the crime of rape whereby the slightest penetration
of the male organ or even its slightest contact with the outer lip or the labia majora
of the vagina already consummates the crime, in like manner, if the tongue, in an
act of cunnilingus, touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act should also be
considered as already consummating the crime of rape through sexual assault, not
the crime of acts of lasciviousness. Notwithstanding, in the present case, such
logical interpretation could not be applied. It must be pointed out that the victim
testified that Ireno only touched her private part and licked it, but did not insert his
finger in her vagina. This testimony of the victim, however, is open to various
interpretation, since it cannot be identified what specific part of the vagina was
defiled by Ireno. Thus, in conformity with the principle that the guilt of an accused
must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the statement cannot be the basis for
convicting Ireno with the crime of rape through sexual assault.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated

March 31, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03133, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS.
 People of the Philippines v. Richard Ricalde
G.R. No. 211002 January 21, 2015

FACTS:

Before us is a criminal case for rape through sexual assault committed

against a 10-year-old boy. Accused Richard Ricalde (Ricalde) was charged with
rape as described under the second paragraph of Section 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code, committed "by any person who, under any of the circumstances
mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting
his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object,
into the genital or anal orifice of another person. On January 30, 2002, at around
2:00 a.m., XXX, then 10 years old, woke up as “he felt pain in his anus and
stomach and something inserted in his anus.” He saw that Ricalde, 31 years old, a
distant relative and textmate of XXX, “fondled his penis.” When Ricalde returned
to the sofa, XXX ran toward his mother’s room to tell her what happened. He also
told his mother that Ricalde played with his sexual organ. RTC found Ricalde
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape through sexual assault. CA affirmed the
conviction but lowered the amount of damages.

ISSUE:

Whether rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is present in the case at
hand

DECISION:

Yes. Rape through sexual assault is present in the case at hand. Rape under
the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as “instrument or object
rape,” “gender-free rape,” or “homosexual rape.” The gravamen of rape through
sexual assault is “the insertion of the penis into another person’s mouth or anal
orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person’s genital or anal orifice.”
The Court held that a victim need not identify what was inserted into his or her
genital or anal orifice for the court to find that rape through sexual assault was
committed. In People v. Soria, the Court ruled that “We find it inconsequential that
“AAA” could not specifically identify the particular instrument or object that was
inserted into her genital. What is important and relevant is that indeed something
was inserted into her vagina. By analogy, the same applies to the case at bay. The
slightest penetration to the victim’s anal orifice consummates the crime of rape
through sexual assault.
In this case, men can also become victims of rape through sexual assault, and this
can involve penile insertion.

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 34387 dated
August 28, 2013 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that for rape through
sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, accused-appellant Richard
Ricalde is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years, ten
(10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to
fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as
maximum. He is ordered to pay the victim civil indemnity in the amount of
₱30,000.00 and moral damages likewise in the amount of ₱30,000.00, both with
interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment
until fully paid.
 People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Amper y Repaso
G.R. No. 172708, May 05, 2010

FACTS:

On August 17, 1995, at approximately 7:30 in the evening, "AAA" was

walking along Mateo Manila Street near Leon Guinto Memorial College located at
Brgy. Zone II, Poblacion, Atimonan, Quezon to buy peanuts for her father. While
approaching the place of a certain Noni Magisa, appellant suddenly put his hand on
"AAA's" shoulder, poked a pointed instrument at the left side of her body and
ordered her not to make any move. The appellant then directed her to walk casually
towards the direction of the church. When they reached the back of the church,
appellant ordered "AAA" to sit on the cemented floor and to remove all the pieces
of jewelry she was wearing, particularly her wrist watch, bracelet and pair of
earrings. After ordering "AAA" to lie down on the floor, appellant removed
"AAA's" shorts and underwear then also lowered his own pants and briefs and
forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina and made push and pull movements.

On January 30, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting appellant of the
crime of robbery with rape, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. The appellate court affirmed with modification the Decision of the trial
court.

ISSUE:

Whether accused is guilty of the complex crime of robbery with rape

DECISION:

Yes. The accused is guilty of the complex crime of robbery with rape. Appellant
contends that the commission of rape was highly improbable because such was
done at the back of the church where there are several establishments. This cannot
hold any water to deter the victim’s case. That the crime was committed at the
back of the church and that there are several establishments in the area would not
make the commission of the same highly improbable. It is settled jurisprudence
that rape can be committed even in a public place, in places where people
congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house or
where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where there are other
members of the family who are sleeping.
Both the trial court and the appellate court correctly found appellant guilty of the
complex crime of robbery with rape, the elements of which are as follows: (1) the
taking of personal property is committed with violence against or intimidation of
persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized
by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated

August 18, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00716, which affirmed with
modification the Decision dated January 30, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of
Gumaca, Quezon, Branch 61, in Criminal Case No. 5195-G, convicting appellant
of the crime of robbery with rape, and the Resolution dated December 5, 2005
denying the motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
 People of the Philippines vs. Silvino Salarza, Jr.
G.R. No. 117682 August 18, 1997

FACTS:

At two o'clock in the morning of 1 May 1994 private complainant Zareen

woke up when she felt somebody take off her underwear. The room was dark as
the resort management switched off the lights at ten o'clock. Zareen said she did
not stop the man from removing her panties as she thought it was Enrico, her
boyfriend, and she was half-asleep. The man in turn removed his briefs and placed
himself on top of her, spread her legs, penetrated her and executed push-and-pull
movements. Later, the man softly whispered: "Zareen, it's not Ricky; it's Jun. I love
you." According to Zareen, when she heard those words, she pushed him aside.
She cried and became hysterical. It turned out that the man on top of her was
accused Silvino Salarza, Jr,

On the other hand, Silvino claims that it was Zareen who was flirting with him.
She asked him for a cigarette and insisted that he take his shower inside her cottage
instead of the public restroom which was about a hundred meters away. He
hesitated for a while but finally acceded. After emerging from his shower he was
surprised to see Zareen on the bed. She pulled him towards her and asked him to
make love to her. She embraced him tightly and kissed him lustfully. He was
surprised with the turn of events and felt uncomfortable because of Enrico whom
he did not wish to offend, much less betray, so he pushed her away.

The information alleges that Silvino had carnal communication with Zareen while
she was asleep, with the use of force, against her will and without her consent.

ISSUE:

Whether rape was consummated in the case at hand

DECISION:

No. Rape was not committed in the case at hand. First, the complaining
witness was not below twelve (12) years of age at the time of the alleged
commission of the offense. She was already thirty (30) years old. Neither was she
demented. Second, the Information avers use of force but the evidence negates any
use of force, nay, not even intimidation, in the commission of the offense charged.
In fact, as discussed hereunder, the sexual advances of the accused were done with
the consent of the complaining witness although she claimed she thought that the
man who lay with her was her boyfriend Enrico. Here it may be argued that
consent to the sexual act was given by Zareen only because of her erroneous belief
that the man on top of her was Enrico, thus implying that had she known it was
someone else she would have resisted. The evidence shows that this mistake was
purely a subjective configuration of Zareen's mind — an assumption entirely
contrived by her. Our impression is that Silvino had nothing to do with the
formulation of this belief; he did nothing to mislead or deceive Zareen into
thinking that he was Enrico. In fact, Silvino precisely, and confidently, told her,
"Zareen, it's not Ricky; it's Jun. I love you." It is thus obvious that whatever
mistake there was could only be attributable to Zareen — and her inexcusable
imprudence — and to nobody else. Clearly, the fault was hers. She had the
opportunity to ascertain the identity of the man but she preferred to remain passive
and allow things to happen as they did. Silvino never used force on her and was
even most possibly encouraged by the fact that when he pulled down her panties
she never objected; when her legs were being parted she never objected; and, when
he finally mounted her she never objected. Where then was force?

Third, Zareen was not deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious when the
accused had intercourse with her. Her lame excuse was that she was half-asleep.
However she admitted that in the early morning of 1 May 1994 she woke up to
find someone removing her underwear. Thuswise it cannot be said that she was
deprived of reason or unconscious. She knew, hence was conscious, when her
panties were being pulled down; she knew, hence was conscious, when her legs
were being parted to prepare for the sexual act; she knew, hence was conscious,
when the man was pulling down his briefs to prepare himself likewise for the
copulation; she knew, hence was conscious, when the man mounted her and lusted
after her virtue.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
accused-appellant SILVINO SALARZA JR. is ACQUITTED of the crime
charged; consequently, he is ordered immediately RELEASED from confinement
unless held for some other lawful cause.