People vs.

Orita
G.R. No. 88724 | April 3, 1990

FACTS:

Accused Orita was charged with crime of rape in Criminal case No. 83-031 before the RTC
Branch II in Borongan, Eastern Samar.

That on March 20, 1983, at about 1:30 o'clock in the morning inside a boarding house at
Victoria St., Poblacion, Borongan, Eastern Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, above named accused with lewd designs and by the use of a Batangas
knife he conveniently provided himself for the purpose and with threats and intimidation, did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lay with and succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with Cristina S. Abayan against her will and without her consent.

Upon the arraignment, accused plead not guilty to the offense charged. After the witnesses of
the plaintiff testified and exhibits were formally offered and admitted, prosecution rested its
case. Accused opted to present any exculpatory evidence and instead filed a Motion to
Dismiss.

On August 5, 1985, the RTC rendered its decision in which the court held that accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby adjudged to ten years and one day
imprisonment to minimum of twelve years of imprisonment and to indemnify the
complainant the amount of 4,000.00.

Not satisfied, the accused appealed to the CA. On December 29, 1988, the CA rendered its
decision with modification agreeing to the RTCs decision that the appellant found guilty of
the crime of rape and consequently sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the victim in the amount of 30,000.00.

On January 11, 1989, the CA issued a resolution setting aside its December 29, 1988,
decision considering the provisions of Section 9, par. 3 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 in
conjunction with Sec.17, sub-par. 1 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses discredit their
testimonies.
2. Whether there is a crime of frustrated rape under Philippine law

RULING:

The Court held the discrepancies to be minor and, in fact, indicative of the testimonies’
truthfulness. They maintained that Abayan’s testimony complemented by medical findings
and the condition of her genital organ suggested sexual assault. On the second issue, the
Court ruled that the frustrated stage of rape does not exist under Philippine law since rape
becomes consummated at the moment of penetration, as further elucidated by jurisprudence
and the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
 People vs. Campuhan
G.R. No. 129433 | March 20, 2000

FACTS:
In the afternoon of April 25, 1996, Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan was preparing Milo chocolate
drinks for her two children on the ground floor of their house. Primo Campuhan, an employee
of Corazon’s brother, was in the house filling plastic bags with water. Upon hearing her
daughter Crysthel cry out, Corazon rushed upstairs to find Campuhan kneeling before
Crysthel, whose lower garments were removed, while his shorts were down to his knees.
Corazon claimed to have witnessed Campuhan forcing his penis into her daughter’s vagina
and reacted by hitting him several times. Campuhan escaped her blows, pushed her aside, and
fled the scene. He was captured by local residents who responded to Corazon’s calls for help.
They detained him at the compound until they were later advised to bring him to the barangay
officials.
Medical examination of Crysthel revealed no evident sign of extragenital physical injury,
intact hymen, and a hymenal orifice of merely 0.5 cm in diameter. Campuhan, on his defense,
contested the credibility of Corazon’s testimony, providing an alternative story involving an
innocent play with the child that was misinterpreted by Corazon.
On May 27, 1997, the trial court found Campuhan guilty of statutory rape, sentencing him to
the death penalty and ordering him to pay moral and exemplary damages. The case was
brought to the Supreme Court on automatic review under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by RA 7659.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the Supreme Court should uphold the trial court’s ruling of Campuhan’s guilt for
statutory rape.
2. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove consummated rape.
3. Whether the actions of Campuhan constituted consummated rape or merely attempted rape.

RULING:
The Supreme Court, in a detailed analysis and considering the requisites for consummated
rape, found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Campuhan’s
penis penetrated or even touched the labias of Crysthel’s vagina. The Court determined that
Campuhan did not perform all the acts of execution necessary to accomplish the crime of
rape, as elements for consummated rape, such as penetration or at least touching of the labias
of the female organ by the male organ, were not substantiated.
Therefore, the Court modified the ruling of the trial court, finding Campuhan guilty of only
attempted rape. Campuhan was thus sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of eight years,
four months, and ten days of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen years, ten months, and
twenty days of reclusion temporal as maximum, replacing the death penalty initially imposed
by the trial court.
 People vs. Bution
G.R. No. 168932 | October 19, 2011

FACTS:

This case involves a man who had sexual intercourse with a woman who, although 29 years
of age, was a mental retardate with the mentality of a six- to seven-year old.

In the evening of October 7, 1998, AAA, then a 29-year-old mental retardate, was invited by
Butiong, her long-time neighbor, to go over to his house because he would give her
something. AAA obliged. He locked the door as soon as she had stepped inside his house, and
then took off his shorts and the shorts of AAA. He led her to the sofa, where he had carnal
knowledge of her.

Upon reaching home, AAA forthwith told her older sister what had happened. Her sister
brought AAA to the police station and later on to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
AAA underwent a series of Psychological Test with result showed that she had a mild level of
mental retardation, and that her mental age was that of a child aged from six to seven years.

The RTC rendered judgment finding Butiong guilty of Rape.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of rape.

RULING:

Yes. Rape is essentially a crime committed through force or intimidation, that is, against the
will of the female. It is also committed without force or intimidation when carnal knowledge
of a female is alleged and shown to be without her consent. This understanding of the
commission of rape has been prevalent in both the common law and the statutory law
systems.

There are four modes of committing the crime of rape as provided in paragraph 1, Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, applied in his case, namely:

a. Through force, threat or intimidation;

b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;

c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age, or is demented, even though none of
the circumstances first mentioned is present.
Carnal knowledge of a mental retardate is rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 because a mental retardate is
not capable of giving her consent to a sexual act. Proof of force or intimidation is not
necessary, it being sufficient for the State to establish, one, the sexual congress between the
accused and the victim, and, two, the mental retardation of the victim. It should no longer be
debatable that rape of a mental retardate falls under paragraph 1, b), of Article 266-A, supra,
because the provision refers to a rape of a female “deprived of reason,” a phrase that refers to
mental abnormality, deficiency or retardation.
 People vs. Bonaagua
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 Pinas 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.

That on or about the month of December 1998 in the City of Las Pinas and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with abuse of influence and
moral ascendancy, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously insert his tongue and finger into the genital of his daughter,
[AAA], a minor then eight (8) years of age, against her will and consent.

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 Pinas City. In a single day, AAA was raped for the fourth and fifth time.
While spending the afternoon inside her father's room at the car-wash station, he removed her
shorts and panty then proceeded to touch and insert his finger into her vagina. Accused-
appellant repeated the same sexual assault shortly thereafter. AAA again did not report these
incidents for fear that her mother would be killed and cemented inside a drum.

On January 26, 2001, AAA complained of severe abdominal pain which prompted her mother
to take her to Gregg Hospital in Sariaya, Quezon.

After being discharged from the hospital, AAA's mother took her to the Police Headquarters
of Sariaya, Quezon to file a complaint for rape against accused-appellant. AAA's mother also
took her to the office of the National Bureau of Investigation in Legaspi City where she
executed a sworn statement against accused-appellant.

On August 6, 2007, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), after finding the evidence for the
prosecution overwhelming against the accused's defense of denial and alibi, rendered a
Decision [10] convicting Ireno with four (4) counts of Rape.

Aggrieved, Ireno appealed the Decision before the CA, which appeal was later docketed as
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03133.
On March 31, 2009, the CA rendered a Decision [12] affirming the decision of the RTC with
modifications on the imposable penalty in Criminal Case Nos. 03-0254, 03-0256, and 03-
0257, and finding Ireno guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No.
7610, instead of Rape, in Criminal Case Nos. 03-0255.
ISSUES:
1.Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish that the
intentional touching of the victim by Ireno constitutes lascivious conduct.
2. Whether the CA imposed the appropriate penalties.

RULING:
The court held that the Decisions of the CA dated March 31, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-H>C No.
03133 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:
1. In Criminal Case Nos. 03-0254, 03-0256, and 03-0257, IRENO BONAAGUA y
BERCE is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision
mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, for each count. He is likewise ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P30,000.00 as
civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for
each count of Qualified Rape Through Sexual Assault or a total of P90,000.00 for each count.

2. In Criminal Case No. 03-0255, IRENO BONAAGUA y BERCE is meted to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days
of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and ten (10) days
of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In addition to moral damages and fine, he is likewise
ordered to pay P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P15,000.00 as exemplary damages.
 People vs. Nuyok
G.R. No. 195424 | June 15, 2015

FACTS:
The accused, Rudy Nuyok, was charged with four counts of rape against his niece, AAA. The
incidents occurred in June, July, August, and September of 2005 when AAA was 13 years
old. AAA lived in the same house as the accused, her paternal uncle. The first incident
happened on June 25, 2005, when the accused laid down beside AAA as she was about to
sleep. He physically assaulted her, rendered her unconscious, and raped her. AAA reported
the incident to her grandmother and sister, but no action was taken.

The second incident occurred in July 2005 when AAA was sleeping in her grandmother's
house. The accused sexually assaulted her.

The third incident happened in August 2005 when the accused physically assaulted AAA
before raping her. AAA reported the incident to her grandmother and sister, but no action was
taken.

The fourth incident occurred in September 2005 when the accused threatened AAA with a
weapon, removed her clothes, and raped her.

AAA finally reported the incidents to her mother in October 2005, who then brought her back
to their hometown. AAA filed rape charges against the accused with the help of a barangay
official. AAA underwent a medical examination, which showed evidence of sexual abuse.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the prosecution proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the information sufficiently alleged the qualifying circumstance of minority.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that the appeal lacked merit. The accused's guilt was proven beyond
reasonable doubt, and the information did not need to allege the qualifying circumstance of
minority.

The court emphasized that the credibility of the victim's testimony is crucial in cases of
sexual abuse. In this case, AAA's testimony was found to be credible and consistent with the
medical findings. The court also explained that the failure to specify the exact dates of the
rapes in the information did not render them defective since the date and time of the
commission of rape are not material ingredients of the crime.

The court further ruled that the prosecution successfully proved the charges of rape beyond
reasonable doubt. AAA positively identified the accused as her rapist, and her testimony was
corroborated by the medical findings. The court rejected the accused's argument that the State
did not establish the carnal knowledge on June 25, 2005, despite AAA being rendered
unconscious. It explained that circumstantial evidence can be used to establish guilt, and in
this case, the circumstances pointed to the accused as the perpetrator.
 People vs. Belgar
G.R. No. 182794 | September 8, 2014

FACTS:

On March 6, 2000, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur filed an
information charging Belgar with rape, thus:

That on or about the midnight of January 20, 2000 at Municipality of Tigaon, Province of
Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, with lewd designs, with force and intimidation and after entering and pulling
the victim from her house, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and
have carnal knowledge with AAA, a 15 year old lass, against her will and without her
consent, to her damage and prejudice in such amount as shall be proven in court.

Belgar pleaded not guilty to the charge. Testifying for the Prosecution were AAA, BBB
(AAA's mother), and Dr. Penafrancia N. Villanueva, while Belgar was the lone witness for
the Defense.

On January 20, 2000, at about 8:00 p.m., AAA and her two sisters were sleeping in their
house in Tigaon, Camarines Sur, when she was awakened because someone was touching her
feet. She saw that it was Belgar, who was poking her neck with a knife. She resisted but he
warned her not to shout or he would stab her and her sisters. He dragged her outside the
house and brought her to a nearby tree, where he injected an unknown substance into her
stomach. She fell unconscious afterwards. Upon regaining consciousness, she found herself
naked, and her vagina was aching and soaked with white and red substance. She put on her
clothes and returned to the house. She attended school the next morning. She was thus
brought to the Municipal Health Office of Tigaon, Camarines Sur, and was examined there by
Dr. Villanueva, who issued her medico-legal report.

On June 17, 2003, in its decision, the RTC found that all the elements of rape under Article
266-A (1) (a) of Republic Act No. 8353 had been duly established; that the State had shown
that Belgar had committed carnal knowledge of AAA by force, threat, and intimidation; that
AAA was candid and truthful as a witness; and that Belgar's alibi could not prevail because it
was uncorroborated, and he did not show the physical impossibility for him to be at the crime
scene at the time of the commission of the crime.

On appeal, Belgar contended that the rape had not been proven because no direct evidence of
the sexual intercourse was presented due to AAA having been unconscious during the rape;
and that the non-submission for laboratory examination of the red and white substance in
AAA's vagina casts doubt on the charge of rape.

On August 31, 2007, the CA affirmed the conviction, holding that the conviction for rape
could be based on the circumstantial evidence adduced through the testimony of AAA; that
the absence of spermatozoa from the vagina of the victim did not disprove rape because
ejaculation was not an element of the crime; and that the RTC properly rejected Belgar's alibi
upon finding AAA's testimony credible.

ISSUE:

Belgar's sole contention for reversal is that the Court a quo erred in finding the accused guilty
of the crime of rape when said victim was unconscious when the incident happened.

RULING:

The Court held that Belgar’s appeal lacks merit.

The information charged Belgar with rape committed through force, threat or intimidation as
defined under Article 266-A (1) (a), Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
8353, to wit:

Article 266-A. Rape; Rape; When and How Committed. Rape is committed.

1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:

a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

The elements of the crime charged are that the offender had carnal knowledge of a female,
and that the same was committed by using force, threat or intimidation. [16] The elements were
proved beyond reasonable doubt. According to AAA, Belgar poked a knife at her neck,
forced her to get up from her sleep, and dragged her outside of the house. She resisted and
would have shouted but he warned her against shouting and threatened to stab her and her
sleeping sisters. Once they were outside, he injected a substance into her belly, thereby
causing her to lose consciousness. Upon regaining her consciousness, she was already naked
and had blood in her vagina.