PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

AURELIO JASTIVA
G.R. No. 199268 February 12, 2014
FACTS: Aurelio Jastiva appealed from the decision of the RTC- Branch 9 Dipolog
promulgated on Se[t. 1 2009 and the CA’s decision promulgated on Aug. 31, 2011 for the
crime of rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
That on Aug. 3, 2004, AAA a 67 years old was drying corn in their small barn (Kamalig) in a
farmland located at Zamboanga del Norte, when her husband BBB left her alone to spend the
night with their daughter in their residence because she has no companion.
At about 11 P.M. on the same day, AAA was fast asleep when a certain man she later
identified as accused-appellant Aurelio Justiva covered her mouth, threatened her with a
knife and told her not to scream because he will have sexual intercourse with her. A AA
grabbed accused-appellant’s hand and felt the blade of the knife he held. Thereafter, accused-
appellant removed AAA’s underwear. However, he cannot proceed with his lewd design
because his penis was not yet erected (sic), accused-appellant therefore toyed with AAA’s
sexual organ by licking it. Accused-appellant then made his way up and tried to suck AAA’s
tongue. The latter evaded her assaulter’s sexual advances by closing her lips tightly and in the
process wounded the same through her teeth. Once done, accused-appellant held his penis
and inserted it to (sic) AAA’s vagina. After fulfilling his sexual desire and before AAA could
stand up, accused-appellant tapped AAA’s shoulder and said "Salamat" (Thank [y]ou).
AAA stood up and opened the door to let accused-appellant out. When the latter passed
through (sic) AAA, it was then that the (sic) AAA clearly recognized, through the
illumination of the moon, that it was their (sic) neighbor accused-appellant who abused her.
Engulfed with fear, AAA immediately closed the door because she thought that accused-
appellant might go (sic) back and kill her. AAA later learned that accused-appellant
destroyed a particular rack in their kitchen to enter the small barn. AAA was no longer able to
sleep after the incident.
ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty for the crime of rape
RULING: Yes, appellant Aurelio Jastiva is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of simple rape and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons,
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
Relative to the award of damages, the RTC correctly awarded ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity
and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages. Civil indemnity is in the nature of actual and
compensatory damages, and is obligatory upon conviction of rape. As to moral damages, it is
automatically awarded to rape victims without the necessity of proof, for it is assumed that
they suffered moral injuries entitling them to such award. Similarly, the Court of Appeals
fittingly imposed interest on all damages awarded to AAA, the private offended party, at the
legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Court's decision
in conformity with present jurisprudence.
This Court notes, however, that both the RTC and Court of Appeals overlooked the award of
exemplary damages. Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages can be awarded even in
the absence of an aggravating circumstance if the circumstances of the case show the highly
reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. Thus, this Court deems it necessary to
modify the civil liability of appellant Jastiva to include exemplary damages for the
vindication of the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by AAA, a woman of advanced
age, and to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to those who abuse the elderly, and to
protect the latter from sexual assaults.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RICKY ARGUTA alias "JOEL" and WILSON
CAHIPE alias "SIWIT,"
G.R. No. 213216 April 20, 2015
FACTS: On December 5, 1996, around 8 o'clock in the evening, AAA was instructed by her
father to fetch her sister in school. However, AAA failed to find her sister and decided to go
back home. On her way home, accused-appellants intercepted AAA, threatened her with a
bladed weapon, dragged her to a cottage at a nearby beach resort, and bound her hands and
feet. Thereafter, they removed her clothes and placed her on the floor. Arguta then mounted
AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. After Arguta satisfied his lust, Cahipe took over
and raped her. Thereafter, accused-appellants left AAA at the cottage. An hour later, Cahipe
returned and dragged AAA to a store owned by a certain Lino Ostero 7 (Ostero). There Cahipe
undressed her again, mounted her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Afterwards, AAA
was returned to the cottage. The next day, AAA's father found her crying at the cottage.
Further, the prosecution offered the findings of the physical examination by a certain Dr.
Eilleen Colaba on AAA, stating, inter alia, that: (a) AAA's genitalia was grossly normal,
which means no abnormality; (b) AAA has complete healed hymenal lacerations at the 5
o'clock and 7 o'clock positions and a partially healed hymenal laceration at the 12 o'clock
position; and (c) AAA's genitalia is negative for the presence of spermatozoa.
In their defense, accused-appellants both denied the accusations leveled against them, and
offered their respective alibis. Cahipe claimed that on the date and time of the alleged
incident he was minding Ostero's store. On the other hand, Arguta averred that he was at
Ostero' s house watching television during the time that the incident supposedly occurred.
They both asserted that they did not know why AAA would accuse them of raping her.
ISSUE: Whether or not Accused-appellants are guilty for the crime of rape
RULING: Yes, the elements of Rape are: (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of the
victim; and (b) said carnal knowledge was accomplished through the use of force or
intimidation; or the victim was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the
victim was under twelve (12) years of age or demented. The provision also states that if the
act is committed either with the use of a deadly weapon or by two (2) or more persons, the
crime will be Qualified Rape, necessitating the imposition of a higher penalty.
In this case, records reveal that accused-appellants threatened AAA with a bladed instrument
and tied her up before having carnal knowledge of her without her consent. Jurisprudence
holds that force or intimidation, as an element of Rape, need not be irresistible; as long as the
assailant's objective is accomplished, any question of whether the force employed was
irresistible or not becomes irrelevant. Intimidation must be viewed from the lens of the
victim's perception and judgment and it is enough that the victim fears that something will
happen to her should she resist her assailant's advances. In this regard, case law provides that
the act of holding a bladed instrument, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or, at least,
intimidation, and threatening the victim with the same is sufficient to bring her into
submission.
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of fact made
by the courts a quo that accused-appellants are guilty as charged, i.e., of raping AAA with the
use of a deadly weapon, as the same are supported by the records. It must be noted that the
assessment and findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight, and are
conclusive and binding to the Court if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact
or circumstance of weight and influence, as in this case. Nevertheless, considering that the
crime was committed by two (2) persons, the accused-appellants herein, with the use of a
bladed weapon, it is only appropriate to increase their conviction from Simple Rape to
Qualified Rape.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and AAA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 21st
DIVISION, MINDANAO STATION, RAYMUND CARAMPATANA, JOEFHEL
OPORTO, and MOISES ALQUIZOLA
G.R. No. 183652 February 25, 2015
FACTS: On March 25, 2004, AAA attended her high school graduation ceremony. That
night, she and friends, including the accused, went to Alson’s Palace, Maranding, Lala,
Lanao del Norte, for a celebration. The group engaged in a drinking session, during which
AAA became heavily intoxicated. She was later transported to Alquizola Lodging House,
where Carampatana and Oporto allegedly raped her, and Alquizola molested her. A medical
examination confirmed sexual assault. The accused, however, contended that the sexual
activity was consensual and brought witnesses to support their claim. The RTC convicted
Carampatana and Oporto for rape, and Alquizola as an accomplice, but acquitted others
involved. The CA reversed this decision, acquitting the accused due to lack of evidence
proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
ISSUE: Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in acquitting the accused based on the
premise of consensual sex despite AAA’s testimony?
RULING: Yes, The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s acquittal, finding the accused guilty
of four counts of rape. It was highlighted that the CA relied solely on the defense’s evidence,
disregarding AAA’s testimony and the RTC’s findings. The SC emphasized that the victim’s
state of intoxication rendered her incapable of consent, and her immediate report of the
incident negates the presumption of consensual sex. It further established the presence of a
conspiracy among the accused based on their coordinated actions. The SC sentenced
Carampatana and Alquizola to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, and Oporto, being a
minor at the time, received a lower sentence but with consideration for his minority status.
The accused were also ordered to pay damages to AAA.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.CONRADO LAOG y RAMIN
G.R. No. 178321 October 5, 2011
FACTS: Accused-appellant Conrado Laog y Ramin was charged with murder before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, of Malolos, Bulacan. Accused-appellant was armed
with lead pipe and with intent to kill one Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal, did then and there
wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength
and treachery, attack, assault and hit with the said lead pipe the said Jennifer Patawaran-
Rosal, thereby inflicting upon said Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal serious physical injuries which
directly caused her death.
He was likewise charged before the same court with the crime of rape of AAA which was
docketed as Criminal Case No. 2308-M-2000. That on or about the 6th day of June, 2000, in
the municipality of San Rafael, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, by means of force,
violence and intimidation, that is, by attacking and hitting with a lead pipe one [AAA] which
resulted [in] her incurring serious physical injuries that almost caused her death, and while in
such defenseless situation, did then and there have carnal knowledge of said [AAA] against
her will and consent.
ISSUE: Whether or not accused- appellant is guilty for the crime of murder and rape?
RULING: Yes, The March 21, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC
No. 00234 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant Conrado Laog y
Ramin is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape with Homicide under
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, and is accordingly
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
Accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal ₱75,000 as
civil indemnity ex delicto, ₱50,000 as moral damages, ₱25,000 as actual damages and
₱30,000 as exemplary damages. He is further ordered to pay to the victim AAA the sums of
₱50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto, ₱50,000 as moral damages and ₱30,000 as exemplary
damages.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDMUNDO VILLAFLORES y OLANO
G.R. No. 184926 April 11, 2012
FACTS: Marita a five-year-old minor was found in the abandoned house. Her body was
covered with blue and yellow sack. When she was found her body was black and blue and
bloody. She was tortured and strangled till death.
Marita was playing outside their house and it was noon when her mother realized that she
wasn’t around. Her mother Julia then called her husband who is then working in Pasig City.
Her husband came about 2 pm and they both searched for Marita until 11 pm inquiring from
house to house in the vicinity.
The following day his father made a report that she was missing and her mother out of
desperation sought out a clairvoyant’s help, according to the clairvoyant they could find her
daughter in an abandoned house about five structures away from their own house.
The ensuing police investigation led to two witnesses, Aldrin Bautista and Jovy Solidum,
who indicated that Villaflores might be the culprit who had raped and killed Marita. The
police thus arrested Villaflores at around 5 pm of July 3, 1999 just as he was alighting from a
vehicle.
ISSUE: Whether or not Villaflores is guilty for the crime of rape with homicide.
RULING: Yes, We concur with the RTC and the CA.
The duly established circumstances we have considered are the following. Firstly, Aldrin
Bautista and Jovie Solidum saw Villaflores holding Marita by the hand (akay-akay) at around
10:00 am on July 2, 1999,28 leading the child through the alley going towards the direction of
his house about 6 houses away from the victim’s house. 29 Secondly, Marita went missing after
that and remained missing until the discovery of her lifeless body on the following
day.30 Thirdly, Solidum passed by Villaflores’ house at about 3:00 pm of July 2, 1999 and
heard the crying and moaning (umuungol) of a child coming from inside. 31 Fourthly, at about
7:00 pm of July 2, 1999 Solidum saw Villaflores coming from his house carrying a yellow
sack that appeared to be heavy and going towards the abandoned house where the child’s
lifeless body was later found.32 Fifthly, Manito, the father of Marita, identified the yellow
sack as the same yellow sack that covered the head of his daughter (nakapalupot sa ulo) at
the time he discovered her body;33 Manito also mentioned that a blue sack covered her
body.34 Sixthly, a hidden pathway existed between the abandoned house where Marita’s body
was found and Villaflores’ house, because his house had a rear exit that enabled access to the
abandoned house without having to pass any other houses.35 This indicated Villaflores’
familiarity and access to the abandoned house. Seventhly, several pieces of evidence
recovered from the abandoned house, like the white rope around the victim’s neck and the
yellow sack, were traced to Villaflores. The white rope was the same rope tied to the door of
his house,36 and the yellow sack was a wall-covering for his toilet. 37 Eighthly, the medico-
legal findings showed that Marita had died from asphyxiation by strangulation, which cause
of death was consistent with the ligature marks on her neck and the multiple injuries
including abrasions, hematomas, contusions and punctured wounds. Ninthly, Marita
sustained multiple deep fresh hymenal lacerations, and had fresh blood from her genitalia.
The vaginal and periurethral smears taken from her body tested positive for
spermatozoa.38 And, tenthly, the body of Marita was already in the second stage of flaccidity
at the time of the autopsy of her cadaver at 8 pm of July 3, 1999. The medico-legal findings
indicated that such stage of flaccidity confirmed that she had been dead for more than 24
hours, or at the latest by 9 pm of July 2, 1999.
These circumstances were links in an unbroken chain whose totality has brought to us a
moral certainty of the guilt of Villaflores for rape with homicide.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE BRONIOLA @ "ASOT"
G.R. No. 211027 June 29, 2015
FACTS: This case is an appeal on the decision rendered by the CA in its decision dated Sept.
24, 2013.
On February 28, 2000, at around 5:30 in the afternoon, Alfredo Abag (Abag), a resident of
Sitio Kabanatian, Bgy. Tumanding, was on his way home bringing some "Taiwan" fish to sell
when he met the appellant at a shortcut road passable only to people and animals. He noticed
that appellant had scratches on his face and his hand was holding a lagaraw (bolo) with blood
on it. Appellant asked for the price of the fish but he did not buy and just left. From what he
had observed, appellant was restless and uneasy.
Meanwhile, AAA’s father, BBB, reported to the barangay authorities that his daughter was
missing. In the morning of February 29, 2000, he, together with Abag and two barangay
officials, began to search for AAA. They found her already dead, lying on a grassy area near
a farm hut owned by Jhonefer Q. Darantianao. AAA’s body bore several hack wounds, blood
oozed from her mouth, her one hand and one finger were cut off. He knows appellant because
they are neighbors. Their families had a rift because appellant’s father was killed by his son-
in-law, Lito Miguel.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC and the CA was correct to find the accused guilty for the
crime of rape with homicide.
RULING: Yes, we concur with the CA and RTC.
The RTC and CA found the following circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution
as sufficient for the conviction of appellant: First, witness Abag met the appellant on a
shortcut road near the place where AAA’s dead body was found, at about the same time (5:30
p.m.) AAA went missing as she failed to return home that day, February 28, 2000; Second,
appellant had scratches on his face and he was holding a lagaraw a type of bolo used in the
rural areas, which was stained with blood, and he was restless and uneasy; Third, in the
morning of the following day, February 29, 2000, AAA’s lifeless body was found with
several hack wounds inflicted on her face, neck and extremities, one hand and one finger
were totally severed; Forth. The post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Edu confirmed
that AAA died from loss of blood due to multiple hack wounds, her underwear was blood-
stained, she had hymenal lacerations and a whitish discharge was found in her vagina; Fifth,
appellant had the motive to commit the crime against AAA considering that it was BBB’s
son-in-law, Lito Miguel, who killed appellant’s father; and Sixth, appellant was evasive when
being questioned on his knowledge of the identity of his father’s killer and the latter’s
relationship to the family of AAA, and the amicable settlement executed by his mother in
behalf of appellant’s family.
Considering all the circumstances mentioned and in light of previous rulings, we are satisfied
that the evidence adduced against appellant constitutes an unbroken chain leading to the one
fair and reasonable conclusion that appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. It is doctrinal
that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a
degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only
moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. This was adequately established in the case at bar.