PEOPLE v TEEHANKEE

Plaintiff: People of the Philippines

Accused: Claudio Teehankee
Citation: 249 SCRA 54
Date of Promulgation: October 6, 1995
Ponente: Puno, J
FACTS:

Claudio Teehankee, Jr: 3 Information were originally filed

against him:
1. Murder killing of Roland John Chapman
2. Two FM shooting and wounding of Jussi Leino
and Maureen Hultman

October 17, 1991: Haltman died during the course of trial,

FM was amended to MURDER

Accused: filed a Petition for Bail

Arraignment: Accused pleaded not guilty on 3 charges

STORY:
July 12, 1991: Jussi Olavi Leino invited Roland
Chapman, Maureen Hultman and other friends for
a party at his house in Forbes Park, Makati
The party started at 830pm and ended at past
midnight
They then proceeded to Roxys, a pub where
students of International School hang out. After an
hour, they transferred to Vintage, another pub in
Makati where they stayed until 3am
Thereafter, they returned to Roxys to pick up a
friend of Maureen, then went to Leinos house to
eat
After a while, Maureen requested Leino to take her
home at Campanilla St. Dasmarinas Village, Makati
City with Chapman
When they entered the village, Maureen asked
Leino to stop along Mahogany Street, about a
block away from her house in Campanilla Street,
for she wanted to walk the rest of the way for she
did not want her parents to know that she was
going home that late
Leino offered to walk wih her while Chapman
stayed in the car
Leino and Mauren started walking on the sidewalk,
and when they reached the corner of Caballero
and Mahogany Streets, a light colored Mitsubishi
box-type Lancer car, driven by Claudio Teehankee,
Jr came up from behind them and stopped on the
middle of the road
Claudio then alighted from his car, approached
them and asked, Who are you? (Show me your)
ID
Leino then took his wallet and handed to him his
ADB ID, but Claudio did not bother to look at his ID,
but instead grabbed Leinos wallet and pocketed it
Chapman saw the incident, and all of a sudden, he
manifested from behind Leino and inquired what
was going on. He stepped down and asked
Claudio, Why are you bothering us?
Claudio then pushed Chapman, dug into his shirt,
pulled out a gun and fired at him. Chapman
crumpled on the sidewalk
Leino knelt beside Chapman to assist him, but
Claudio ordered him to get up and leave Chapman
alone
Claudio then turned his ire on Leino and pointed
his gun unto him and asked: Do you want
trouble?. Leino said No. and took a step
backward
The shooting incident shocked Maureen. She got
hysterical, and screamed for help
All the while, Claudio was pointing his gun to and
from Leino to Maureen, warning her to shut up
Claudio ordered Leino to sit down on the sidewalk.
He obeyed and made no attempt to move away.
Claudio stood 2-3 meters away from him. He knew
he could not run far without being shot by Claudio
Maureen continued to be hysterical, and after a
short chase with Claudio, the latter asked him to sit
down beside Leino

Claudio stood beside the two, 2 meters away. For a

moment, Claudio turned his back and when he
faced them again, he shot Leino.
Leino was hit on the upper kaw, fell backwards on
the sidewalk but did not lose consciousness. He
heard another shot, and saw Maureen fall beside
him
Claudio thereafter return to his car and drove away
Leino called for help, and there were 3 people who
helped them namely: Domingo Florence (Security
Guard) , Vincente Mangubat (Driver) and Agripino
Cadenas (Security Guard)
The 3 witnesses heard the gunshot while at their
post, and upon hearing such they went out to
Caballero Street to see what was happening, and
they saw a man shoot Leino and Hultman who
thereafter flee
Investigation: There were two village owner who
has a 566 on their plate. Such plate was the
number saw by the witnesses
1st: Jose Montano negative
2nd: Claudio Teehankee Jr
Search warrant from Makati RTC authorizing the
NBI to search and seize the silver metallic gray
1983 Mitsubishi Lancer owned by Claudio, bearing
PDW 566
Claudios House: Mrs. Pilar Teehankee informed
the NBI that her son was in the house, but then
again, Ranin and his men slipped to their garage
and secured the car. They asked for the keys, but
according to Mrs. Pilar, the keys were with Claudio,
so she contacted her
Ranin conversed with Claudio and invited him to
report at NBI. They thereafter towed the car
9pm: Raul Teehankee (brother of Claudio) arrived
at NBI Office and waited for Claudio to come
Claudios statements at NBI:
His car at the time of the shooting was no
longer functioning as it got involved in an
accident. It had been parked in his mothers
house
Claudio was identified by Cadenas as the gunman
among the 7 lineup of men presented to him by
NBI
Leino also confirmed that Claudio was the gunman
upon getting out from the hospital, also from the
same lineup of men
Mangubat, on a separate day, also pointed to
Claudio as the accused
DEFENSES OF THE ACCUSED
He was not anywhere near the scene at the time of
the commission of the crime. He alleged that he
was in his house at San Juan, Barrio Kapitolyo,
Pasig City. He slept at around 1am and woke up at
at 8-9am. He avowed his 2 maids to attest to his
presence on that day
He only came to know the 3 victims in the
Dasmarinas shooting when he saw it in the
newspapers
He denied knowing the witnesses of the
prosecution
He admitted ownership over the Lance, but says
that it is no longer in a good running condition
Paraffin results: negative
Claudio Teehankee III: testified that he had been
using said Lancer from May 1989 to February
1991, and that he on Feb 1991 he accidentally hit a
bicycle driver and 2 trucks which resulted to the
death of the driver and damages unto the car
Accused imputed the commission of the crime to
Anders Hultman, maureens adoptive father, for
allegedly an eye witness overheard her pleadings,
Huwag, Daddy. Huwag Daddy.
There were irregularities committed in the off-court
identification
Hearing on October 29, 1992: Defense counsels did
not appear, and the case was submitted for decision in
view of their absence
RTC: Claudio was found guilty of the crimes charged
Roland Chapman : Murder qualified by
treachery

Maureen Hultman : Murder qualified by

treachery
Olavi Leino : Frustrated Murder qualified
by treachery
Accused hired a new counsel, and filed a Motion for
New Trial. Reason: Claudios right to adduce further
evidence was violated. Motion Denied

ISSUES: W/N the lower court erred in finding that the killing of
Chapman and Hultman, and the shooting of Leino was attended
by treachery?
HELD:
The accused claims that treachery was not present in the killing
of Hultman and Chapman, and the wounding of Leino for it was
not shown that the gunman consciously and deliberately adopted
particular means, methods and forms in the execution of the
crime. The accused asserts that mere suddenness of attack
does not prove treachery.
The 3 Informations charged the accused with having committed
the crimes with treachery and evident premeditation. Evident
premeditation was correctly ruled out by the trial court for,
admittedly, the shooting incident was merely a casual encounter
or a chance meeting on the street since the victims were
unknown to the accused and vice-versa. It, however, appreciated
the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
On the other hand, the prosecution failed to prove treachery in
the killing of Chapman. Prosecution witness Leino established
the sequence of events leading to the shooting. He testified that
for no apparent reason, the accused suddenly alighted from his
car and accosted him and Maureen Hultman who were then
walking along the sidewalk.
Appellant questioned who they were and demanded for an I.D.
After Leino handed him his I.D., Chapman appeared from behind
Leino and asked what was going on. Chapman then stepped
down on the sidewalk and inquired from appellant what was
wrong. There and then, the accused pushed Chapman, pulled a
gun from inside his shirt, and shot him. The gun attack was
unexpected. Why did you shoot me? was all Chapman could
utter. Concededly, the shooting of Chapman was carried out
swiftly and left him with no chance to defend himself. Even then,
there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused
consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of attack to
insure the accomplishment of his criminal design without risk to
himself. The accused acted on the spur of the moment. Their
meeting was by chance. They were strangers to each other. The
time between the initial encounter and the shooting was short
and unbroken. The shooting of Chapman was thus the result of a
rash and impetuous impulse on the part of the accused rather
than a deliberate act of will. Mere suddenness of the attack on
the victim would not, by itself, constitute treachery. Hence,
absent any qualifying circumstance, the accused should only be
held liable for Homicide for the shooting and killing of Chapman.
As to the wounding of Leino and the killing of Hultman, treachery
clearly attended the commission of the crimes. The evidence
shows that after shooting Chapman in cold blood, the accused
ordered Leino to sit on the pavement. Maureen became
hysterical and wandered to the side of appellants car. When the
accused went after her, Maureen moved around his car and tried
to put some distance between them. After a minute or two, the
accused got to Maureen and ordered her to sit beside Leino on
the pavement. While seated, unarmed and begging for mercy,
the two were gunned down by the accused . Clearly, the accused
purposely placed his two victims in a completely defenseless
position before shooting them. There was an appreciable lapse

of time between the killing of Chapman and the shooting of Leino

and Hultman a period which the accused used to prepare for a
mode of attack which ensured the execution of the crime without
risk to himself.

SISON v PEOPLE
Case Title:
G.R. Nos. 108280-83 November 16, 1995
ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR, JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE
LOS SANTOS, and JOSELITO TAMAYO, petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.
G.R. Nos. 114931-33 November 16, 1995
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANNIE FERRER, accused, ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR,
JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE LOS SANTOS, and JOSELITO
TAMAYO, accused-appellants.
Citation: 250 SCRA 58
Date of Promulgation: November 16, 1995
Ponente: Puno, J
FACTS:

Time Frame: Aftermath of 1986 EDSA Revolution

There was tension and animosity between the Marcos

Loyalists and Corys supporters

July 27, 1986: two groups broke into violence. It resulted to

the murder of Stephen Salcedo, a known Corysista

August to October 1986: Several Informations were filed in

court against 11 persons identified as Marcos loyalists
charging them with the Murder of Salcedo

All of the accused pleaded not guilty

Prosecutions Version:
July 27, 1986: a rally was scheduled at Luneta by the
Marcos loyalists. Their permit was denied by
authorities, however, 3000 of them still gathered at
230pm on that day
Benjamin Nuega and Oliver Loyano, both members of
IBP, led the event, which started with an impromptu
singing contests, recital of prayers and delivery of
speeches in between
Col. Edgar Dula Torres asked the leaders for the pemit,
but nothing was produced, so he ordered them to
disperse within 10 mins
Marcos loyalists leaders asked for 30 minutes, but this
was refused
Atty. Lozano: turned towards his group and said,
Gulpihin niyo ang lahat ng mga Cory infitrators
Atty. Nuega: added, Sige, sige gulpihin niyo
The police then pushed the crown, and used tear gas
and truncheons to disperse them. The loyalists
scampered away but some fought back
The crowd then fled towards Maria Orosa Street and
the situation stabilized later
4pm: A small group of loyalists converged at Chinese
Garden, Phase III of Luneta where they saw Annie
Ferrer, a popular movie starlet and supported of
Marcos, jogging around the fountaion. They

approached her of their dispersal, and she angrily

ordered them, Gulpihin ninyo ang mga Cory hecklers
Annie continued jogging while chanting, Marcos pa rin.
Marcos pa rin. Pabalikin si Marcos. Pabalikin si Marcos.
Bugbigin ang mga nakadilaw, to which the loyalists
replied with, Bugbugin
Minutes later, Annie was arrested, and somebody
shouted, Kailangang gumanti tayo ngayon.
A commotion ensued and Renato Banculo, a cigarette
vendor, saw the loyalists attacking persons in yellow, so
he took of his yellow shirt, and saw a man wearing a
yellow shirt being chased by the loyalists
The man in yellow was Salcedo. He was boxed, kicked
and mauled. He tried to extricate himself from the group
but they again pounced on him and pummeled him with
fist blows and kicks hitting him on various parts of his
body
Banculo saw Ranulfo Sumilang rushed to Salcedos aid,
but the maulers continued to box Salcedo with stones in
their fists. Somebody then gave Sumilang a loyalist tag
which he showed to the attackers so they backed off for
a while. But then, Accused Raul Billosos emerged from
behind SUmilang as another man boxed Salcedo on
the head. Accused Richard delos Santos also boxed
Salcedo twice on the head and kicked him even if he
has already fallen
Salcedo tried to stand, but Accused Joel Tan boxed him
on the left side of his hear and ear
Accused Nilo Pacadar punched him on his nape, saying
Iyan, Cory yan. Patayin!
Sumilang tried to pacify Pacadar but he lunged unto the
victim again
Accused Joselito Tamayo boxed Salcedo on the left jaw
and him as he once more fell
Banculo saw Acused Romeo Sison tripped Salcedo and
kicked him on the head when he tried to stand. Sison
repeatedly boxed him
Sumilang saw Accused Gerry Neri approached the
victim but did not notice what he did
Salcedo was able to get away and tried to flee towards
Roxas Blvd, but Accused Joel Tan and Nilo Pacadar
pursued him, mauling Sumilang in the process
Salcedo pleaded for his life, but the mauling resumed
until Salcedo collapsed and lost consciousness
Sumilang brought Salcedo to Medical Center in Manila,
but he was refused admission, so they took him to PGH
where he died upon arrival
Salcedos cause of death: hemorrhage, various
contusions, abrasions, lacerated wounds and skull
fractures
This incident was witnessed by bystanders, and media
President Aquino: order the Capital Regional
Command and Western Police District to investigate;
offered 10k reward for the arrest of the killers
Sumilang and Banculo cooperated with the police which
led to the apprehension of the accused
DEFENSES OF THE ACCUSED:
1. Principal Accused denied participation
2. Tamayo Alibi; he was in QC
3. Nery claimed that he was at Luneta Theater
4. Sison he was at his office near Luneta,
waiting for pictures to develop; afflicted with
hernia, impairing his mobility
5. De los Santos denies hitting Salcedo; he just
watched the mauling
6. Pacadar watcher lang din daw; tried to pacify
maulers
7. Tan tried to pacify the maulers
8. Atty. Lozano did not testify
9. Atty. Nuega - same
10. Annie Ferrer same
RTC
1. Guilty as principals in the crime of Murder
qualified by treachery Sison, Pacadar, Tan,
delos Santos, Tamayo
2. Accomplice Ferrer
3. Acquitted for failure of prosecution to establish
their guilt Billosos, Nery, Fernandez, Lozano,
Nuega
CA
1. Acquitted Annie Ferrer

2.
3.

Increased the penalty for the rest of the accused,

except Tamayo. They were found guilty of Murder
qualified by abuse of superior strength
Tamayo Homicide because the Information filed
against him did not mention a qualifying
circumstance

ISSUES:
1. W/N CA erred in finding that there exists
conspiracy among the principal accused
2. W/N CA erred in finding that the crime committed is
murder and not death (homicide) in tumultuous
affray
HELD:
1. NO. We find however the existence of a conspiracy
among appellants. At the time they were
committing the crime, their actions impliedly
showed a unity of purpose among them, a
concerted effort to bring about the death of
Salcedo. Where a conspiracy existed and is
proved, a showing as to who among the
conspirators inflicted the fatal wound is not required
to sustain a conviction. 67 Each of the conspirators
is liable for all acts of the others regardless of the
intent and character of their participation, because
the act of one is the act of all.

2.

Death in a tumultuous affray is defined in Article

251 of the Revised Penal code as follows:
Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. When,
while several persons, not composing groups organized
for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking
each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other
in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the
course of the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be
ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the
person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries
can be identified, such person or persons shall be
punished by prison mayor.
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious
physical injuries on the deceased, the penalty ofprision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall
be imposed upon all those who shall have used
violence upon the person of the victim.
For this article to apply, it must be established that: (1)
there be several persons; (2) that they did not compose
groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting
and attacking each other reciprocally; (3) these several
persons quarrelled and assaulted one another in a
confused and tumultuous manner; (4) someone was
killed in the course of the affray; (5) it cannot be
ascertained who actually killed the deceased; and (6)
that the person or persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries or who used violence can be identified
A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between
several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous
affray, in the course of which some person is killed or wounded
and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. 63
The quarrel in the instant case, if it can be called a quarrel, was
between one distinct group and one individual. Confusion may
have occurred because of the police dispersal of the rallyists, but
this confusion subsided eventually after the loyalists fled to Maria
Orosa Street. It was only a while later after said dispersal that
one distinct group identified as loyalists picked on one
defenseless individual and attacked him repeatedly, taking turns
in inflicting punches, kicks and blows on him. There was no
confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a
reciprocal aggression at this stage of the incident. 64
As the lower courts found, the victim's assailants were numerous
by as much as fifty in number 65 and were armed with stones with
which they hit the victim. They took advantage of their superior
strength and excessive force and frustrated any attempt by
Salcedo to escape and free himself. They followed Salcedo from
the Chinese Garden to the Rizal Monument several meters away
and hit him mercilessly even when he was already fallen on the
ground. There was a time when Salcedo was able to get up,
prop himself against the pavement and wipe off the blood from

his face. But his attackers continued to pursue him relentlessly.

Salcedo could not defend himself nor could he find means to
defend himself. Sumilang tried to save him from his assailants
but they continued beating him, hitting Sumilang in the process.
Salcedo pleaded for mercy but they ignored his pleas until he
finally lost consciousness. The deliberate and prolonged use of
superior strength on a defenseless victim qualifies the killing to
murder.
Treachery as a qualifying circumstance cannot be appreciated in
the instant case. There is no proof that the attack on Salcedo
was deliberately and consciously chosen to ensure the
assailants' safety from any defense the victim could have made.
True, the attack on Salcedo was sudden and unexpected but it
was apparently because of the fact that he was wearing a yellow
t-shirt or because he allegedly flashed the "Laban" sign against
the rallyists, taunting them into mauling him. As the appellate
court well found, Salcedo had the opportunity to sense the
temper of the rallyists and run away from them but he,
unfortunately, was overtaken by them. The essence of treachery
is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest
provocation on the part of the person being attacked. 66
The qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was
alleged in the information against Joselito Tamayo. Evident
premeditation cannot be appreciated in this case because the
attack against Salcedo was sudden and spontaneous, spurred
by the raging animosity against the so-called "Coryistas." It was
not preceded by cool thought and reflection.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
N VIEW WHEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed and modified as follows:
1. Accused-appellants Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel
Tan and Richard de los Santos are found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of Murder without any
aggravating or mitigating circumstance and are each
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua;
2. Accused-appellant Joselito Tamayo is found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide with
the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength and, as a consequence, he is
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12)
YEARS of prision mayoras minimum to TWENTY (20)
YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum;
3. All accused-appellants are hereby ordered to pay
jointly and severally the heirs of Stephen Salcedo the
following amounts:
(a) P74,000.00 as actual damages;
(b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; and
(c) P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of
the victim.

Abridged method of lovemaking, physically painful

for her so she would resist his sexual ambush, but
he would threaten into submission

1998 sps started quarrelling upon his rant about KKK not
attending to Jumawans sexual needs

Oct 16, 1998, 9PM inside the sps room, KKK changed
into a daster and fixed their bed but did not lie thereon, and
instead rested separately on a cot near their bed.

While on the bed, Jumawan expressed his desire to have

sex with his wife, but KKK declined saying that she was not
feeling well. KKK tried to hold on to her panties but
Jumawan pulled them down forcefully until they tore on the
sides Still, KKK resisted by refusing to bend her legs.

Jumawan then raised KKKs daster and stretched her legs

apart and rested his own legs on them. He then succeeded
in penetrating her, while KKK was continuously protesting.
Their daughter, MMM, was able to rescue her mother from
Jumawan and let her rest in the girls (magkakapatid)
bedroom.

Jumawans aggression recurred the ff night. Accused raised

the defense of denial and alleged that KKK merely
fabricated the rape charges as her revenge because he took
over the control and management of their businesses, and
to cover up her extra-marital affairs.

RTC: guilty of 2 separate charges of rape against Edgar

Jumawan. R.Perpetua for each.

CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:

WON there can be a marital rape

o

PEOPLE V JUMAWAN
COMPLAINANT:
RESPONDENT:
CITATION:
PROMUL. DATE:
PONENTE:

PP
Edgar Jumawan
G.R. No. 187495
Apr. 21, 2014
Reyes, J.

FACTS

Jumawan and KKK (wife), married on Oct 18, 1975. 4

children, and put up several businesses together.

Feb 19, 1999 KKK filed a Com-Aff against Jumawan,

alleging that
o he raped her at 3AM of Dec 3, 1998 @ their
residence, Phase 2, Villa Ernesto, Gusa, CDO.
o Dec 12, 1998 he boxed her shoulder for refusing
to have sex w him

June 11, 1999 OCP of CDO issued a Joint Reso, finding

probable cause for grave threats, less serious physical
injuries, and rape.

Jul 16, 1999 2 Infos of Rape filed before RTC against

Jumawan
o Crim Case 99-668 and Crim Case 99-669 Both
10:30PM, on Oct 9, 1998 and Oct 10, 1998
(respectively for each Crim case) both at, Gusa,
CDO. BOTH RAPE CASES. Contrary to RA 8353
(Anti-Rape Law 1997)

July 21 1999 warrant issued upon Jumawan

Aug 18 1999 Jumawan filed an MR. denied in an Order

dtd Aug 19, 1999 same date, Jumawan plead NOT
GUILTY for BOTH RAPE CHARGES

Jan 10, 2000 prosec filed a Motion to Admit Amended Info

o averring that the name of the priv complainant was
omitted in the orig infos for rape.
o Stated also that KKK attested thru a Supplemental
Aff dtd Nov 15, 1999 that the TRUE DATES are Oct
16 and 17, 1998. Granted motion.
VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

KKK met Jumawan at the farm of her parents where his

father was one of the laborers. Married after a year of
courtship.

When MMM (1st child) was born, sps put up a sari-sari store.
Several other businesses: trucking, rice mill, and hardware.

1994 sps bought a lot and built a house in Villa Ernesto,

Gusa, CDO.

Conjugal intimacy did not really cause marital problems

between KKK and the accused-appellant. It was, in fact,
both frequent and fulfilling. He treated her well and she, of
course, responded with equal degree of enthusiasm.

1997 Jumawan started to be brutal in bed.

o Immediately remove her panties, w/o foreplay,
proceed to insert his p to her vag

HELD

YES. SC stated that husbands are reminded that marriage

is not a license to forcibly rape their wives. But marital rape
should not be distinguished from non-marital rape.

According to the Court, it is now acknowledged that rape, as

a form of sexual violence, exists within marriage. A man who
penetrates her wife without her consent or against her will
commits sexual violence upon her, and the Philippines, as a
State Party to the United Nations Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(UN-CEDAW) and its accompanying Declaration, defines
and penalizes the act as rape under R.A. No. 8353.

Affirmed CAs decision. 2 counts of rape, rec-perpatua for

each count, w/o eligibility for parole.

PEOPLE V BONAAGUA
COMPLAINANT:
RESPONDENT:
CITATION:
PROMUL. DATE:
PONENTE:

PP
Ireno Bonaagua y Berce
G.R. No. 188897
June 6, 2011
Peralta, J.

FACTS

1998 AAA (victim, 10 y/o) and her mother left house in

Candelaria, Quezon to spend Christmas w Bonaagua in Las
Pias City.

AAA was inside a room lying in bed one afternoon; younger

brothers were playing outside the house and her mother
was not home. Bonaagua entered the room, approached
her, rolled her shirt upward, and removed her shorts and

panty AAA tried to resist by putting her clothes back on,

but her fathers strength prevailed. Bonaagua touched
and caressed her breasts. then he licked her vagina then
inserted his finger into it.

Evening same day Bonaagua raped AAA again in the

same manner under the same circumstances. AAA did not
make sumbong to her mom because Bonaagua threatened
to kill her mother by placing the latters body in a drum and
have it cemented if she would report the incidents.

Dec 1999 AAA raped for the 3rd time by Bon.

Dec 2000 AAA and mom spent Christmas at LPC with

Bon, and there he again raped her for the 4th and 5th time.
While at the car-wash station of her father, Bon removed
AAAs shorts and panty touched and inserted his finger
into her vagina. Bonaagua repeated the same sexual
assault shortly thereafter.

Jan 26 2001 AAA complained about abdominal pains.

From Gregg Hospital in Sariaya, Quezon to Memorial
Hospital in Lucena City.
o Dr. Melissa De Leon performed on her a phy exam.
o Results: there was a healed superficial laceration
at the 9 oclock position on the hymen of AAA. This
medical finding forced AAA to reveal to her mother
all the incidents of rape committed by accusedappellant.

RTC: Bonaagua guilty of 4 counts of rape under par. 2 of Art

266-A of the RPC in rel. to RA 7610

CA: Reduced to 3 counts of rape, and 1 crime of acts of

lasciviousness
ISSUES:
1. WON the accused-appellant was guilty of the crime of rape
2. WON the accused-appellant was guilty of acts of
lasciviousness
HELD:
1. YES. The fact that AAA has only one healed laceration on
her hymen does not prove that rape did not happen. Medical
findings show that only one laceration may be inflicted altho
a finger is inserted into the vagina on separate instances.
2. YES. Ireno committed Acts of Lasciviousness against AAA
by touching her breasts, licking her vagina, and the
lascivious acts were committed against AAA who were 8 y/o
at the time of the commission of the crime. [IMPORTANT:
Check Art 366 of RPC in relation to Art 3, Sec 5 of RA 7610]

3 counts of rape through sexual assault and 1 count of Acts

of Lasciviousness