People v.

Ramon Mario y Mina

Kapunan, J.
February 19, 2001
G. R. No. 132550
Doctrine
Admissions and Confessions - An admission under Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court applies to
statements made by an accused which directly or impliedly point towards an acknowldgement of guilt for
the crime charged.
In order that an admission may be appreciated against the accused, the statement must have been clear and
unequivocal such that a reasonable construction of the same would lead to an acknowledgement of the fact
sought to be proven. Being merely an inference, an admission, standing alone, is insufficient to authorize a
conviction unless backed up by some other proof which would show the culpability of the accused.
Summary

Facts

Mario was convicted of rape allegedly committed against his daughter, 14 y.o. Emily. The victim didnt
recall how the rape was committed, but the trial court gave weight to her testimony that when she woke up
on her parents bed, her whole body was aching and her vagina felt wet and painful. Her father, who was
lying on the floor, told her, Madasok lang da gapaindi ka pa. Her 11 y.o. brother also testified that he saw
her father raping her sister (but he later said he was just coaxed by his mother). The Supreme Court found
Mario guilty only of acts of lasciviousness and held that the Marios statement is an admission but it was not
sufficient to create an inference that he raped his daughter. Also disregarded was the testimony of the
victims brother.
Mario was charged with the rape of 14 year-old Emily, the oldest of his six children, with his wife
Edita (a stay-in maid so that on weekdays, she was not in their house.) The prosecution presented
the testimonies of Emily and her brother, 11 y.o. Ramil and according to their version:
At around 10:00 p.m. of May 6, 1997, Emily was in their house and was about to go to
sleep beside her younger siblings when accused-appellant approached her and asked if he
could sleep beside her. She refused. Angered by her refusal, accused-appellant kicked her.
Accused-appellant then returned to his bed while Emily went to sleep beside her siblings on
the floor of their house.
When she woke up around 3 am, she was surprised to find herself on her parents bed with
her father lying on the floor. She felt her whole body ache and her vagina was painful, wet
and sticky. Her father then told her, Madasok lang da gapaindi pa. (It already entered but
still you refused or It is just being inserted but still you refuse). She alleged that it was the
third time that he raped her (the first two times when she was in Grade 3 and 5).
She went to school the same morning and on their way therein, her brother, Ramil, told her
that he saw her carried by their father on the bed and that he raped her. On the same day,
Emily went to her mother and reported the incident. The following day, she was brought by
her mother to the police station to file the complaint against her father and she underwent
examination by the health officer.
The medico-legal report states that she was no longer a virgin and that she suffered no
external physical injuries.
In his defense, he testified that when he returned from work, Emily was not in their house and that
she was often sleeping out in her friends house. She didnt sleep in their house and returned home
the next day at 8 am.
The defense also presented as witnesses: Raymundo Mario (accused-appellants brother),
Noemi Selosa (the wife of Raymundo Mario), and Valentina Mindoro (accused-appellants
aunt).
They testified that Ramil went to their house crying after the latter gave his statement at the
police statement incriminating his father. Ramil claimed that his mother forced him to say
that his father raped Emily and that she assured him that if he would say it, then his father
would be released.
The trial court convicted him of rape and sentenced him to death.

Ratio/Issue
s

1. Whether Marios alleged statement is an admission that he raped his daughter (NO)
COURT: A. (See doctrine) The Court agreed with the trial court that said statement is an admission under
Section 26 of Rule 130. However, this admission, standing alone, did not create an inference that accusedappellant raped his daughter in that he was able to actually penetrate her vagina with his sex organ. For one
thing, there was no mention at all that what was inserted was accused-appellant's sex organ. Neither was
there an indication that the insertion was made into her sex organ.
B. While the victim claims that she was raped, she admittedly did not awake during the entire length of the
episode when she was being undressed and her panty removed, when her legs were spread, when his body
was pressed against hers, when his penis entered into her private parts and when accused-appellant was
doing pumping motions into her vagina. From her testimony, her conclusion that she was raped by accusedappellant was only deduced from the latters statement.
C. Her testimony did adequately establish that he committed acts of lasciviousness. Foremost is that Emily
was not awakened by the molestation of his father. Unlike in rape where the perpetrator would normally
place his weight atop his victim, penetrate his organ into her vagina and make thrusting motions which
would readily awaken the victim if sleeping, where only the finger of the assailant or some other object is
inserted into the victim's private parts, which is less obtrusive, there is the possibility of the victim not
awaking throughout the act.
D. The SolGen argued that rape can be committed against a woman without her knowledge who is in deep
slumber, citing the case of People v. Corcina. But the Court held that the present case is not similar to the
latter, wherein the victim was a married woman who already had a child.
2. Whether Ramils testimony should be given credence (NO)
COURT: A. The trial court did not give much weight to his testimony because it was incoherent. This was
shown when Ramil Mario was recalled to the witness stand as the prosecutions rebuttal witness in view of
his uncle Raymundo Mario's earlier testimony that Ramil was coached by his mother to testify against his
father. Judge Placido Marquez had to conduct a very lengthy clarificatory examination of this witness in
order to determine if he really understood the statements he was making.
B. Also, the defense counsels cross-examination of Ramil Mario during rebuttal reveals why the testimony
of this eyewitness was discounted by the trial court. Although already 11 years old, he did not know what
the word "year" means. He did not know that his birthday, or Christmas day comes once in a year. When
asked what are the months and the year, he could only give eight (8), mentioning December ahead of
October.
3. Whether the accused is guilty of acts of lasciviousness (YES)
COURT: A. The absence of fresh lacerations renders doubtful the prosecutions assertion that Emily was
raped on March 6, 1997. The medico-legal findings indicating old scars in her vagina tend to buttress the
claim of Emily that she was raped by her father when she was 8 years old. Unfortunately, this incident is not
included in the information.
B. However, what has been established is that an object was inserted into her vagina which resulted in her
having felt pain and that she noticed to be wet and sticky after she found herself on his parents' bed. It could
be finger or another object not necessarily his penis; hence, what was committed was the crime of acts of
lasciviousness.
C. Though this crime was not alleged in the information. an accused may be convicted of a lesser crime than
that with which he is charged if such lesser offense is necessarily included in the one charged (see Secs. 3
and 4, Rule 120, RoC). Considering that the crime of acts of lasciviousness or abusos dishonestos is
necessarily included in rape, the accused who is charged with latter crime may be convicted with the former.
*aggravating circumstance of relationship alleged and proven, thus the penalty of prision correional in its
maximum period is imposed

Held

Appealed decision is modified in that accused-appellant is found GUILTY of the crime of ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS
Prepared by: Eunice V. Guadalope [Evidence]