Got the case of Siao from last sem..

8(>,<)8

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENE SIAO, accused-appellant.

[G.R. No. 126021. March 3, 2000]

THIRD DIVISION, GONZAGA_REYES, J.

Facts:

Accused-appellant Rene Siao together with Reylan Gimena were charged before the Regional Trial Court of the City of
Cebu with the crime of raping Estrella Raymundo, a minor, 14 years old, against the latter’s will. Regional Trial Court of
the City of Cebu convicted accused-appellant Rene Siao of the crime of rape as principal by induction punished by
reclusion perpetua and acquitted Reylan Gimena.

To sum up, Ester Raymundo and Reylan Gimena were forced and intimidated at gunpoint by accused-appellant Rene
Siao to have carnal knowledge of each other. Both Reylan and Ester performed the sexual act because they were afraid
they will be killed and Siao even threatened to kill their families. He basically commanded Reylan to rape Ester in three
(3) different positions, pointing the handgun at them the whole time.

Issue:

Could the aggravating circumstance of ignominy be applied in this case?

Ruling:

Yes. Ignominy is an aggravating circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the
material injury caused in the crime. In the case at bar, it has been held that where the accused in committing the rape
used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior, female inferior but also the dog position as dogs do, i.e. entry
from behind (hehehehe…), as was proven like the crime itself in the instant case, the aggravating circumstance of
ignominy (as punished by Art 14 Sec 17) attended the commission. Thereby, the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 13, Cebu City, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS.

===========================================

I carefully read the case pero ala talagang topic tungkol sa DNA Results na nakalagay sa syllabus, I even checked the GR
No and date kung mali, pero tama talaga tong case na binabasa ko.. anyway, here it is,,, hahahha,,, kung maka-english!!!

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY,Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 185716. September 29, 2010

FIRST DIVISION, PEREZ, J.

Facts:

There are two witnesses presented by the prosectution: private complainant AAA and the physician who did the
Medico-Legal examination on her. First, from the testimony of the private complainant, it was elicited that she was 12
years old. Identifying herein accused as her father, private complainant had two other brothers and four sisters. At the
time the alleged incidents took place in June 2000 and 10 December 2000, private complainant’s family were all living in
a 6 x 6 meter rented room which served as their place of residence and sleeping quarters. There were no divisions in
the 6 x 6 meter room. She further testified that the first rape incident happened at around 6:00 o’clock in the morning
sometime in June 2000 in their living cum sleeping room. Private complainant, who was sleeping, was awakened by the
act of her father who was then undressing her and who went on top of her, mashed her breast, and inserted his penis
inside her vagina. The bestial act was committed by her father while her mother was not around. Accused-appellant had
threatened her not to report the matter to her mother. The second incident happened on 10 December 2000 at around
6:00 o’clock in the morning. At the time, private complainant’s mother was at the market to buy fish ball supplies.
Except for the date, the first and second incidents were perpetrated in the same manner. On said date and time, private
complainant was sleeping with her 6-year-old sister, when she was awakened when she felt something heavy on top of
her. Upon awaking, she saw her father was already on top of her. He removed her clothes, kissed her breast and
inserted his penis inside her vagina. She cried because her father threatened her while holding held her neck, and
warned her not to report the matter to anybody. Also as testified by the medico-legal examination conducted by Dr.
Ivan Richard Viray on 14 December 2000, it was found that subject is in non-virgin state physically but with no external
signs of application of any form of trauma. According to him, a deep healed laceration may be considered permanent.
Once the hymen is lacerated, it is permanently lacerated. When asked what could have caused such a laceration on the
hymen, he explained that the probable cause of a laceration is the insertion of a hard object, such as a penis.

The defense presented accused-appellant Miguelito Malana y Lardisabay as its sole witness. Accused-appellant admitted
that private complainant is his daughter but denied ever raping her. At the time the incident was supposed to have
occurred in June 2000, he was busy selling fish ball, kikiam, cigarettes, and beverages along the Baliuag bus terminal. He
would start selling the same before 8:00 o’clock in the morning everyday and would arrive home at about 8:00 o’clock in
the evening. Accused-appellant was a good father in that he treated his daughter well. He admitted, however, to
physically hurting his children on several instances while he was drunk, allegedly because of their wrongdoings.
Accused-appellant said private complainant is not a hard-headed child. When asked if he knows how his daughter AAA
lost her virginity, accused-appellant replied in the negative. Neither did his wife say anything to him about it. Private
complainant only filed the case against him due to her personal grudge against him, as he hurt his family whenever he
was under the influence of alcohol.

Issue:

Was there rape in this case?

Ruling:

Yes. First, the prosecution correctly established the following essential elements under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, namely: (a) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) that the same was
committed by using force and intimidation. Second, denial and alibi are viewed by this Court with disfavor, considering
these are inherently weak defenses, especially in light of private complainant’s positive and straightforward declarations
identifying accused-appellant. Third, the Court has ruled that a small living quarter has not been considered to be a safe
refuge from a sexual assault. Rape can be committed in the same room with the rapist's spouse or where other
members of the family are also sleeping. Lust, it has been said before, is apparently no respecter of time and place.
Fourth, it was shown that accused-appellant had threatened her not to tell anybody about the incident. Fifth, accused-
appellant’s defense that private complainant and her mother were harboring a personal grudge against him, fails in light
of the positive and straightforward testimony of private complainant identifying accused-appellant as the one who had
raped and ravished her. This is bolstered by the fact that it is unnatural for a parent to use his offspring as an engine of
malice.

Also the Court has consistently ruled that the twin circumstances of minority and relationship are in the nature of
qualifying circumstances which must be alleged in the information and proved during trial beyond reasonable doubt,
otherwise, the accused should only be held liable for the crime of simple rape. Thus, MIGUELITO MALANA y
LARDISABAY is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of SIMPLE RAPE.