People of the Philippines v.

Rustico Bartolini

GR 179498, August 3, 2010

Facts:

The Regional Trial Court of Bislig City, Surigao del Sur charged appellant Rustico Bartolini with three
counts of rape for raping his two daughters.

Criminal Case No.99-1-2083-H: On or about 7:00 in the morning sometime in the month of March 1995,
appellant Bartolini with lewd and unchaste designs, willfuly, unlawfully and feloniously rape his
daughter,[AAA], by means of force and intimidation, against his daughter’s will, to the damage and
prejudice of the said [AAA], who was then 14 years old. Criminal Case No.99-1-2084-H: On or about
March 2,1998 at 8:00 in the morning, Bartolini with lewd and unchaste designs and by means of force
and intimidation, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge or rape his own
daughter,[BBB], against the latter’s will, to the damage and prejudice of [BBB]. Criminal Case No.99-1-
2085-H: On or about 3:00 in the afternoon sometime in the month of March 1994, Bartolini with lewd
andunchaste designs and by means of force and intimidation, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously rape
his daughter [BBB],16 years old against the latter’s will, to the damage and prejudice of the said [BBB].

Upon arraignment, appellant Bartolini pleaded not guilty to the three charges filed against him.
According to him, he could not have raped BBB because that day he had been out to deliver shrimps,
prawns and crabs to a certain Benjamin Castanas. He claimed that he arrived there at 4:20 am and
stayed there for breakfast and left for home at 10:00 am.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime committed was incestuous rape

Ruling:

No. The court held that the qualifying circumstance of relationship of BBB to appellant was specifically
alleged and proven during the trial but the specific averment of the victim’s age at the time the offense
against her was committed is absent in the information. Such an omission committed by the
prosecutor is fatal in the imposition of death penalty against the offender. Thus, even if the victim is
below 18 years old and the accused is her parent, but these facts are not alleged in the information, or
if only one is so alleged as in the instant case, their proof as such by evidence offered during trial cannot
imposed death penalty.
 Pp. vs. Orillosa

GR No. 148716-18, July 7, 2004

Facts:

Sometime in December 1997, at around 10:00 in the morning, while Andrelyn Orillosa was on the
ground floor of their house, her father, the appellant, called her upstairs. Appellant told her not to
tell anybody and undressed her and tried to force his penis into her genitalia but despite his efforts
appellant failed to fully penetrate organ to Andrelyn. She ran away and stayed with a relative and when
she returned, she told her mother about her harrowing experience, but the latter chided her instead
for making up stories. On July 7, 1999, her parents had quarrel, which caused her mother to leave,
thereater appellant straddled Andrelyn and kissed her repeatedly on the neck. After undressing
himself, he forced his penis into her vagina, but only a portion thereto penetrated Andrelyn’s organ.
Sometime in August 1999, Andrelyn told her lola Iging which she did not believe with no one to turn
to, she personally reported the matter to the barangay captain who accompanied her to the police
where she gave a written statement. The defense of the appellant is that Andrelyn filed the instant
complaint because she could no longer take up the beatings from his father.

Issues:

Whether or not the crime was charged on the basis of Revenge Theory and thus Victim’s assertion
lacks credibility

Ruling:

No. verily, It takes an extreme sense of moral depravity for a daughter to accuse her very own father
of a heinous crime , such as rape, and expose him to the perils attendant to a criminal conviction if only
to exact revenge on her father who allegedly maltreated her. As earlier held by the Court, a true Filipina
would not go around in public unravelling facts and circumstances of her defloration for no reason, if
such were not true. We find that there exists no convincing reason to disturb the trial court’s
assessment of the witnesses’’ credibility.