PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
MELCHOR their children, the Court decided to withhold
CABALQUINTO
G.R. No. 167693, September 19,
2006 (Formerly G.R. Nos. 147678-87)
FACTS:
This is a rape case involving the conviction of
Melchor Cabalquinto on two (2) counts for the
rape of his eight-year old daughter, AAA, who,
being a minor, was sexually abused by her
father in many occasions. The CA and Supreme
Court affirmed the conviction of the trial court.
Additionally, this case included a response to a
mother of a child abuse victim addressing the
Chief Justice expressing anxiety over the
posting of full text decisions of the Supreme
Court on its Internet Web Page. The mother
submitted that confidentiality and the best
interest of the child must prevail over public
access to information and pleaded that her
daughter's case, as well as those of a similar
nature, be excluded from the Web Page.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court must refrain
from posting in its Internet Web Page the full
text decisions in cases involving child sexual
abuse?
RULING:
Yes. the Court has resolved to refrain from
posting in its Internet Web Page the full text of
decisions in cases involving child sexual abuse,
not only in response to the mother’s letter, but
in pursuance to Sec. 29 of RA 7610, Sec. 44 of
RA 9262 and Sec. 40 of Rule on Violence Against
Women and their Children, which are the
provisions on confidentiality, uniformly seek to
respect the dignity and protect the privacy of
women and their children. The Court took note
of the comment of the OSG that the posting of
the full text of decisions in cases involving child
abuse on the Supreme Court Web Page violates
the right to privacy of the aggrieved parties.
Thus, taking all opinions from the OSG, KBP and
NPC and in view of recent enactments which
unequivocally express the intention to
maintain the confidentiality of information in
cases involving violence against women and
the real name of the victim-survivor and shall
use fictitious initials instead to represent her.
Likewise, the personal circumstances of the
victims-survivors or any other information
tending to establish or compromise their
identities, as well those of their immediate
family or household members, shall not be
disclosed.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.ROMEO G.
JALOSJOS
[G.R. Nos. 132875-76. November 16, 2001]
FACTS:
Eleven-year-old minor, Rosilyn
Delantar, is the the victim of rape in this case.
As narrated by her, the details of the rape are
mesmerically sordid and repulsive. The victim
was peddled for commercial sex by her own
guardian whom she treated as a foster father,
Simplicio Delantar Because the complainant
was a willing victim, the acts of rape were
preceded by several acts of lasciviousness on
distinctly separate occasions. The accused,
Romeo G. Jalosjos is also a most unlikely rapist.
He is a member of Congress, being a
congressman. Inspite of his having been
charged and convicted by the trial court for
statutory rape, his constituents liked him so
much that they knowingly re-elected him to his
congressional office, the duties of which he
could not perform. Jalosjos appealed to the
Court contending that the trial court erred in
convicting him due to conflicting statements of
the complainant and failure to identify him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Jalosjos is guilty of
statutory rape?
RULING:
Yes. In statutory rape, mere sexual congress
with a woman below twelve years of age
consummates the crime of statutory rape
regardless of her consent to the act or lack of
it. The law presumes that a woman of tender
age does not possess discernment and is
incapable of giving intelligent consent to the
sexual act. Thus, it was held that carnal
knowledge of a child below twelve years old
even if she is engaged in prostitution is still
considered statutory rape. The application of
force and intimidation or the deprivation of
reason of the victim becomes irrelevant. The
absence of struggle or outcry of the victim or
even her passive submission to the sexual act
will not mitigate nor absolve the accused from
liability.
In the case at bar, the prosecution
established beyond reasonable doubt that
Jalosjos had carnal knowledge of Rosilyn and
successfully proved that Rosilyn was only
eleven years of age at the time she was sexually
abused. As such, the absence of proof of any
struggle, or for that matter of consent or
passive submission to the sexual advances of
accused-appellant, was of no moment. The fact
that accused-appellant had sexual congress
with eleven-year-old Rosilyn is sufficient to
hold him liable for statutory rape, and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RENE SIAO
[G.R. No. 126021. March 3, 2000]
FACTS:
Rene Siao together with Reylan
Gimena were charged before the RTC with the
crime of rape, where it was alleged that on May
27, 1994, at 3 PM, had carnal knowledge with
Estrella Raymundo, a minor of 14 years and
working as a housemaid of Siao’s family,
against her will. The fact, however, is that Ester
Raymundo and Reylan Gimena were forced
and intimidated at gunpoint by Rene Siao to
have carnal knowledge of each other. Siao
called Reylan inside the women’s quarter. After
Rene Siao closed the door, he told Reylan, to
rape Ester. Since Reylan was at a loss as to
what to do, Rene Siao commanded Ester at
gunpoint to "suck (um-um) the penis" of
Reylan Gimena. Both Reylan and Ester
performed the sexual act because they were
afraid they will be killed. Then, Siao
commanded Reylan to rape Ester in three (3)
different positions, pointing the handgun at
them the whole time. The RTC convicted Rene
Siao of the crime of rape as principal by
induction and acquitted Gimena.
ISSUE: Whether or not Siao should be
convicted of the crime of rape?
RULING:
Yes. The accused-appellant is guilty of rape
aggravated by ignominy as 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, as
was proven like the crime itself in the instant
case, the aggravating circumstance of
ignominy attended the commission thereof.
Further, the use of a weapon, in this case the
gun, shall increase the penalty as prescribed
under Article 355, as amended by R.A. 7659. It
was held that the non-presentation of the
weapon used in the commission of the rape is
not essential to the conviction of the accused.
It suffices that the testimony of the rape victim
is credible because the established rule is that
the sole testimony of the offended party is
sufficient to sustain the accused’s conviction if
it rings the truth or is otherwise credible.
As to the point that the prosecution
witnesses’ testimonies do not conform with
common experiences the court ruled that the
important consideration in rape is not the
emission of semen but the penetration of the
female genitalia by the male organ. Well-
settled is the rule that penetration, however
slight, and not ejaculation, is what constitutes
rape. Second, that it is impossible to commit a
rape in house where there are many occupants
is untenable, it has been held that is no
respecter of time and place.Third, Ester and
Reylan could not be expected to flee or even to
attempt to flee under the circumstances.
Undoubtedly, considering that Ester was only
fourteen-years old and a newly employed
housemaid, while Reylan Gimena a seventeen-
year old houseboy, they were easily
intimidated and cowed into submission by
Siao, who aside from being their "amo" or
employer, was menacingly threatening to kill
them or their family with a gun if they did not
do as he commanded them to do. Thus, it was
not improbable for them not to attempt to
escape when as accused-appellant perceived
they had an opportunity to do so. Moreover,
while most victims will immediately flee from
their aggressors, others become virtually
catatatonic because of the mental shock they
experience. It was also not improbable for
them to report the incident to an old man they
met on the road as there was no on else to turn
to.
People of the Philippines vs Miguelito Malana
G.R. No. 185716, September 29, 2010
FACTS:
Miguelito Malana was charged with 2 counts of
qualified rape for the rape of his own daughter,
AAA, 12 years of age, on two separate
occasions. 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. The
incidents were committed during the absence
of AAA’s mother, and while AAA was sleeping.
The RTC, however, only convicted Malana of
simple rape in both cases.
ISSUE: Whether or not Malana is guilty of
simple rape and not qualified rape?
RULING:
Yes, Manala is guilty only of simple rape. Simple
rape is punished under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code which mandates that the
death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of
rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:(1) When
the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age
and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim.
The Court of Appeals and RTC correctly
disregarded the circumstances of minority and
relationship as 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. These qualifying circumstances
cannot be considered in fixing the penalty
because minority, though alleged in the
information was not proved. As regards
relationship, the same was alleged and proved.
The twin circumstances of minority of the
victim and her relationship to the offender
must concur to qualify the crime of rape. In the
instant case, only relationship was duly alleged
and proved. Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure now
provide that aggravating as well as qualifying
circumstances must be alleged in the
information and proven during trial, otherwise
they cannot be considered against the
accused. Thus, the same cannot be used to
impose the higher penalty of capital
punishment on accused-appellant. Accused-
appellant should be convicted of simple rape
only and sentenced accordingly to reclusion
perpetua in each case.
Jurisprudence dictates that, upon a finding
of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity
ex delicto is mandatory.