People v. XXX

 

People v. XXX

G.R. No. 225339

July 10, 2019

FACTS:

                The appellant was AAA’s uncle, brother of her mother BBB. He used to live with them in their residence. On January 13, 2004, around 3 o'clock in the morning, AAA was sleeping beside her three younger brothers when she felt a person on top of her. She realized she had already been undressed and the person on top of her, a man, was making a push and pull movement, his penis inside her vagina. She struggled but the man pinned her down. He continued to ravish her for about two (2) more minutes until she eventually managed to kick him off. He stood up and threatened to kill her parents if she reported the incident. She recognized it was appellant's voice. She was sixteen (16) years old at that time.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for rape.

HELD:

                No. Rape is defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353,.: Article 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.

                First, the alleged leading questions asked of AAA do not form part of her direct testimony. Rather, these were asked during the preliminary investigation. At any rate, records show that during the trial proceedings, the defense objected only once to the supposed leading questions of t prosecution. The trial court sustained the objection. Second, the alleged inconsistency in AAA's testimony pertaining to whether slip saw appellant sitting on the side of the bed with his clothes on or lying on top of her naked - is at best misleading. This purported inconsistency does not appear anywhere in the case records. Third, the presence of AAA's three (3) younger siblings in the same room which they shared with other members of the family including AAA and appellant himself obviously did not deter appellant from sexually ravishing his own niece right in the same room. Appellant's depraved behavior proved that lust is not a respecter of people, time, or place. The Court has encountered far too many instances where rape was committed in plain view. We even took judicial notice of the fact that among poor couples with big families cramped in small quarters, copulation does not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons there. Rape could be committed under circumstances as indiscreet as a room full of family members sleeping side by side.