People v. XXX

 

People v. XXX

G.R. No. 222492

June 3, 2019

FACTS:

The RTC and CA convicted appellant for the crime of rape. At the time of the incident, complainant,. her brother CCC, and appellant were sleeping in the sala. Her mother and her nine-year old sibling had already left around 3:30 in the morning. After their mother had left, complainant tried to wake her brother CCC to ask him to tum off the light. When CCC did not respond, she stood up and turned off the light herself. As she walked back to her sleeping area, appellant blocked her way with his foot. He held her hand and directed her to lie down on his "higaan." She obeyed. She did not shout, nor stomp her feet, or knock to catch CCC's attention. Appellant removed her t-shirt, shorts, and underwear. She pleaded with him to stop, but he ignored her. He took off his brief, put himself on top of her, and inserted his "ari" in her "ari." She felt intense pain. She did not see him actually insert his penis in her vagina. She tried to push herself up to evade his penetration, but it was in vain.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA erred in convicting appellant of qualified rape.

HELD:

                No. Rape is defined and penalized under article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 8353, viz: Art. 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. - Rape is committed - 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. Rape requires the following elements: (I) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) the offender accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when the victim was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under twelve years of age or was demented.

                Complainant made a clear, candid and positive narration of how her father blocked her with his foot when she was about to go back to sleep, held her, and made her lie down on his sleeping area, undressed her, and inserted his penis in her vagina. The thi11een-year-old complainant could not have merely concocted these ugly details had she not actually experienced them in the hands of her own father. The Court reiterates that a rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families and it is unthinkable for a daughter, or daughters in this case, to brazenly concoct a story of rape against their/her father, if such were not true.