People vs, Rayon

G.R. No. 194236. Jan. 30, 2016

FACTS:
XYZ declared on the witness stand that she and the appellant got married on March 3, 1990; they
begot five (5) children, namely: AAA, XXX, YYY, Jr., BBB, and ZZZ. She stated that AAA is "mentally
deficient," but could play musical instruments.
XYZ recalled that when she was still pregnant with their fifth child, the appellant would bring
AAA in a videoke bar without her knowledge, and they would usually return home at 1:00 a.m. Upon
their return, AAA would complain of experiencing loose bowel movement, and of pain in her stomach.
One time, when XYZ arrived at their house after buying rice, she saw the appellant embracing AAA and
spreading her legs; the appellant then put his hand on AAA's breast, inserted his other hand inside her
underwear, and touched her vagina. When the appellant noticed XYZ's presence, he immediately stood
up and instructed her to prepare food. XYZ felt "bad and afraid," but did not confront the appellant. She
instead went to the kitchen to do her chores.
On December 16, 2005, BBB revealed to XYZ that the appellant had raped her. XYZ requested
assistance from a municipal social worker who, in turn, told her to file a case before the police.
BBB recalled that while she was in her room in December 2005, the appellant grabbed her and
removed her short pants and panty; the appellant then removed his short pants, mounted her, and inserted
his penis into her vagina. She felt pain, but could not shout because the appellant covered her mouth with
his hands. Afterwards, the appellant inserted his penis into her anus. BBB disclosed the incident to XYZ
who, in turn, accompanied her to the police.
Dr. Agnes Cagadas, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, stated that
she examined AAA on December 23, 2005, and found a healed hymenal laceration at 7 o'clock position.
She also examined BBB on the same day, and found her hymen to be intact. She, however, explained
that the hymen of 96% of sexually abused children remains intact. Dr. Cagadas also testified that there
could have been a penetration of BBB's inter-labia.
XXX, the sister of AAA and BBB, narrated that every time the appellant came home from work,
he would instruct AAA to sit on his lap; the appellant would also embrace AAA and touch her vagina.
XXX added that the appellant allowed AAA to watch him take a bath. 14 BBB also disclosed to her that
the appellant "sodomized" her, and inserted his penis into her vagina.
Dr. Marlou Bagacay Sustiguer, a psychiatrist at the Northern Mindanao Medical Center, testified
that she conducted a psychological test on AAA, and found her to be autistic. She declared that AAA
lacked motor coordination, and had a very low intelligence quotient. 16 Dr. Sustiguer also found AAA
to be incompetent to testify in court.
The appellant confirmed that XYZ is his wife, and that the alleged victims are their daughters.
He claimed that XYZ falsely accused him of raping AAA because he disallowed her to have an American
"pen pal." He further maintained that AAA was usually in their neighbor's house when he comes home
from work. The appellant also denied BBB's allegation that he sodomized her.
In its judgment of November 19, 2007, the RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Section 10 (a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. 2006-174, and
sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of five (5) years, four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days,
as minimum, to six (6) years, as maximum.
The CA likewise ruled that the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove that the
appellant sexually abused AAA. It held that XYZ, BBB and XXX all testified that they witnessed the
appellant's lustful caressing of AAA's breasts and vagina. TDSICH
Finally, the CA disregarded the appellant's defense of denial as this defense cannot be accorded
evidentiary weight greater than the declaration of credible witnesses testifying on affirmative matters.

ISSUE:
Whether or not should the alternative circumstance of relationship be appreciated.

HELD:
Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal
in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. We consider the alternative circumstance of relationship
under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code against the appellant, since it has been established that the
appellant is AAA's father. Since there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance,
the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period, that is, reclusion perpetua. Besides, Section 31 of
R.A. No. 7610 expressly provides that the penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum
period when the perpetrator is, among others, the parent of the victim. CIScaA
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, we order the appellant to pay AAA the following amounts:
P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, and P15,000.00 as exemplary damages;
and he is also ordered to pay a P15,000.00 fine
 People vs. Barcela
G.R. No. 208760. April 23, 2014

FACTS:
Private complainants BBB and AAA were living, along with the appellant, their mother,
grandmother and sister in a two-storey house where all of the family members sleep together in one room
in San Pedro, Laguna, because the other rooms [were] being rented to other people. AAA was seven (7)
years old when her stepfather, appellant Barcela, committed the despicable by sexually abusing her. She
was lying on the floor sleeping one early morning in 2002, when she was awakened and noticed that her
stepfather lifted her clothes and removed her shorts. Appellant then placed his hand on his organ as AAA
lay still with her hands on the floor shocked by what was happening. Appellant successfully inserted his
penis inside complainant AAA's vagina. While committing the bestial act, appellant threatened her not
to tell anyone what he was doing to her, otherwise he would kill her.
Her elder sister BBB also suffered the same horrible fate. On 12 November 2004 at around 3:00
o'clock in the morning, appellant Barcela made a similar sexual assault upon BBB who was only fourteen
(14) years at that time. It happened while BBB was sleeping in one room with her stepfather, mother and
other sister. Appellant was lying at her right side. Suddenly, appellant lifted her skirt, removed her
underwear and inserted his finger inside her vagina. After accomplishing the atrocious act, appellant
threatened to kill her if she [would] disclose to anyone what happened to her. BBB was very afraid
because of the threat that she pretended to be asleep after being raped. On that same night, BBB also saw
her stepfather molesting her sister AAA. BBB also testified that prior to being raped in 2004, appellant
had been regularly touching her private organ.
AAA informed her mother, grandmother and her sister BBB of what happened to her. Sadly, her
mother did not believe her but her grandmother and sister BBB (who also suffered the same fate) believed
her. BBB then informed her classmate, teacher and school principal of the grim experience she and her
sister underwent in the hands of her stepfather. Her grandmother was summoned by the principal and,
together, they reported to the police the rape incidents. In order to protect herself, AAA stayed at the
"Kanlungan" shelter. As a result of the loathsome episode in their lives, AAA and BBB both felt afraid,
ashamed and aggrieved.
Private complainants were eventually examined by Dr. Roy Camarillo, a medico- legal officer of
the Philippine National Police. In his medico-legal report, he concluded that BBB sustained a shallow
healing laceration in her hymen caused by the insertion of a hard object which may be a penis, finger or
a flat hard object. As regards the examination conducted on AAA, he concluded that there was no evident
injury at the time of the examination but testified that the injury that AAA incurred may have totally
healed as the rape occurred two (2) years from the time of the examination
Accused Floro B. Barcela is the common law husband of the private complainants' mother, CCC.
They all resided at the two-storey house of CCC's mother in San Vicente, San Pedro, Laguna. On
November 12, 2004, the private complainants were sleeping beside their mother CCC and their half-
sister DDD, herein accused-appellant's daughter with CCC. He did not rape AAA. Neither did he insert
his finger inside BBB's vagina, nor threatened either of the two (2) private complainants. He knew of no
reason why the private complainants would accuse him of such crimes charged against him.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the alternative circumstance of relationship should have bearing.

HELD:
The circumstance of relationship, Barcela being the common-law husband of BBB's mother,
cannot be considered as an ordinary aggravating circumstance to increase the imposable penalty. While
it is true that the alternative circumstance of relationship is always aggravating in crimes against
chastity32 (such as Acts of Lasciviousness), regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a higher
or lower degree of the offended party, it is only taken into consideration under Article 15 of the Revised
Penal Code "when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted
brother or sister, or relative by af nity in the same degree of the offender." The relationship between
Barcela and BBB is not covered by any of the relationships mentioned. cDSaEH
Considering that no aggravating or mitigating circumstance is present, the penalty should be imposed in
its medium period.33 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Barcela should be sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty the minimum of which is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal
in its minimum period (8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months) and the maximum of which is within
the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, in its medium period (17
years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years). Thus, the CA is correct in imposing the penalty of 8 years and 1
day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Likewise, the award of P20,000 as civil indemnity; P15,000.00 as moral damages; P15,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and the fine of P15,000.00, are proper.
 People vs. Rolando Baraga y Arcilla
G.R. No. 208761. June 4, 2014

FACTS:
In five separate Informations, accused-appellant Rolando Baraga y Arcilla (Baraga) was charged
with three (3) counts of acts of lasciviousness under Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act, and two (2) counts of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
as amended, committed upon the person of his daughter, AAA, 3 who was then still a minor. Upon
arraignment, Baraga pled not guilty to the crimes charged. After pre-trial conference, a joint trial on the
merits ensued.
The prosecution alleged that Baraga committed his initial lascivious conduct towards AAA on
April 2, 2007, 11 days before her 12th birthday. It appears that Baraga and AAA's mother are no longer
living together. On said date, AAA was at their house when Baraga sat beside her and touched her vagina.
AAA relayed her ordeal to her grandmother who then confronted Baraga about the incident.
On the night of August 8, 2007, while AAA and her siblings were sleeping, Baraga approached
AAA, held her thigh, and touched her vagina. He then told her not to make any noise. He then brought
her to a corner of the room where he removed AAA's shorts and made her sit on his lap. Baraga then
inserted his penis into AAA's vagina.
On August 15, 2007, at around 9:00 p.m., Baraga went on top of AAA who was then already
sleeping with her other siblings. Baraga then removed AAA's shorts and underwear, removed his clothes,
and inserted his penis into AAA's vagina.
On August 19, 2007, while AAA was at home, Baraga again touched AAA's vagina. At that time,
AAA's siblings were out playing. Thereafter, AAA had the opportunity to visit her uncle's place. She
then relayed to her uncle what her father did to her. Thereupon, AAA's uncle forbade her to return to
their house. The matter was subsequently reported to the Women and Children Protection Desk of the
Las Piñas City Police Station. Upon medical examination by the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory, it was discovered that AAA's hymen had a "shallow healed laceration," which evidences a
blunt force penetrating trauma on AAA's hymen.
Baraga denied the allegations against him, asserting that he never touched AAA's vagina nor had
carnal knowledge of her. He claimed that he could not have committed the charges against him during
the said dates as he was then busy with his work. He alleged that it was a certain Veronica Cruz (Cruz)
who influenced AAA to concoct the charges against him. That Cruz wanted to get back at him since he
filed a suit against her for demolishing his house.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the alternative circumstance of relationship would aggravate the offense.

HELD:
In Criminal Case No. 07-0864, since AAA was only 11 years old when the lascivious conduct
alleged therein was committed by Baraga, the imposable penalty, as aptly pointed out by the CA, is
reclusion temporal in its medium period, that is from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1)
day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and taking
the alternative circumstance of relationship as an aggravating circumstance, the CA did not err in
imposing upon Baraga the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from thirteen (13) years, nine
(9) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months
and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. DHESca
In Criminal Case No. 07-0685, the Court finds that the CA erred in applying the provisions of Article
336 of the RPC. The CA applied Article 336 of the RPC on the sole ground that AAA was already 12
years old at the time the lascivious conduct alleged therein w as perpetrated by Baraga. I t bears stressing
that the I n f o r m a t i o n i n C r i m i n a l C a s e N o . 0 7 - 0 6 8 5 s p e ci fi ca l l y ch a r g e d B a r
a g a f o r violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. Thus, the CA should have applied the
provisions of Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, and imposed upon Baraga the prescribed penalty
therein for sexual abuse.
The penalty for sexual abuse performed on a child under 18 years old but over 12 years old under Section
5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 isreclusion temporal in its medium period toreclusion perpetua. The Court
likewise considers the alternative circumstance of relationship against Baraga as an aggravating
circumstance. Since there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty
shall be applied in its maximum period, i.e., reclusion perpetua. Besides, Section 31 of R.A. No. 7610
expressly provides that the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is, inter
alia, the parent of the victim.
 People vs. Carlos Alhambra y Masing
G.R. No. 207774. June 30, 2014

FACTS:
AAA is the daughter of accused-appellant Alhambra. AAA testified that, on October 6, 2004,
while she was changing her clothes inside her room, Alhambra suddenly entered her room, pushed her,
removed her undergarments, and kissed her on the neck, breasts, and vagina. At that time, AAA's mother
was not around as she was then working. AAA tried to resist her father's advances, but the latter
overpowered her. AAA did not dare make any noise as she was afraid that her father would harm her
siblings, who at that time were just in the living room. Alhambra then inserted his penis into AAA's
vagina, while kissing her on the breast and undressing her. AAA alleged that something sticky came out
of his father's penis and spilled on her mouth. Thereafter, Alhambra put on his clothes and left AAA
crying. Initially, AAA did not divulge to anyone what her father did to her.
In the afternoon of October 21, 2004, AAA, still in her undergarments with a towel wrapped
around her body, after having taken a bath, entered her bedroom to put on clothes. To her surprise, her
father immediately followed her to her bedroom. Alhambra then removed the towel covering AAA's
body and her bra. He then started to kiss AAA on the neck. AAA cried and tried to push her father away;
she pleaded her father to stop, but her father ignored her plea. Thereupon, her father removed her
underwear, pushed her onto the bed, and kissed her on other parts of her body. Her father's lascivious
design was interrupted when AAA's siblings suddenly returned to their house. Alhambra then instructed
AAA to get dressed, and immediately went out of the room.
AAA then got dressed and asked permission from her father to visit a nearby friend. As she got
out of their house, AAA chanced upon Senior Police Officer 2 Jesus Ubaldo (SPO2 Ubaldo) who,
together with SPO1 Roland Costales (SPO1 Costales) and two civilian agents, was in the area to conduct
a buy-bust operation. AAA then reported to them that her father was molesting her. Thereupon, SPO2
Ubaldo and SPO1 Costales went to AAA's house and, after having informed him of his constitutional
rights, arrested Alhambra. They then went to the place of work of AAA's mother to inform her of
Alhambra's arrest.
Consequently, AAA told her mother what her father had done to her. AAA told her that her father
raped her when she was 12 years old; that it happened again on October 6, 2004. That on October 21,
2004, her father sexually abused her. AAA's mother then asked her why she did not immediately divulge
her ordeal. AAA replied that she was afraid that her father would harm her and her siblings.
Upon medical examination, AAA's hymen showed deep healed lacerations, which evinces the
conclusion that "an erect penis, a finger, or a blunt instrument" had caused the lacerations, "although it
cannot be determined how many times the vagina was penetrated."
For his part, Alhambra denied the allegations against him, claiming that AAA only fabricated the
allegations against him since he wanted her to be separated from her boyfriend. He denied having
molested AAA in the summer of 1999; he claimed that he was then working at a poultry store and, after
work, he was home all of the time with his wife and children. He likewise denied having raped AAA on
October 6, 2004, claiming that he was then at home taking care of AAA's siblings. That AAA arrived at
their house on said date at around 10:00 a.m. and immediately left an hour later.
Alhambra also denied having sexually abused AAA on October 21, 2004. He claimed that he was
then resting in their house as he was sick. That he was surprised when police officers arrested him for
having molested AAA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in providing for the proper imposable penalties.

HELD:
As regards Criminal Case No. 220-05, the Court finds the same to be consistent with Article 266-
B of the RPC, which pertinently provides that the death penalty shall be imposed "[w]hen the victim is
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent . . . ." In view of the foregoing, the lower
courts correctly imposed upon Alhambra the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the eligibility of
parole, in lieu of the death penalty, pursuant to R.A. No. 9346.
In conformity with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court affirms the award of PhP75,000.00 as
moral damages and PhP75,000.00 as civil indemnity. Further, the presence of the aggravating
circumstance of relationship entitles the offended party to exemplary damages. Thus, the Court also
affirms the award for exemplary damages, but, pursuant to established jurisprudence, in the amount of
PhP30,000.00 up from the PhP25,000.00 fixed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.
Likewise, the Court deems it proper to modify the penalty imposed upon Alhambra in Criminal
Case No. 347-04. Under Section 5 (b), Article III, of R.A. No. 7610, the penalty for sexual abuse
performed on a child under 18 years old but over 12 years old under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 is
reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. The lower courts failed to consider the
alternative circumstance of relationship against Alhambra as an aggravating circumstance; that Alhambra
is the father of AAA was sufficiently established. Since there is an aggravating circumstance and no
mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period, i.e., reclusion perpetua.
Alhambra shall likewise not be eligible for parole. Besides, Section 31 of R.A. No. 7610 expressly
provides that the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is, inter alia, the
parent of the victim.
The Court finds no error in the accessory penalties imposed by the CA upon Alhambra in Criminal
Case No. 347-04. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, Alhambra is liable to pay AAA the amounts of
PhP15,000.00 as fine, PhP20,000.00 as civil indemnity, and PhP15,000.00 as moral damages. In view of
the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the amount of PhP15,000.00 as exemplary
damages is also appropriate.