PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

TORTILLANO NAMAYAN
246 SCRA 646| July 18, 1995
Francisco, J.

Doctrine: Even if it was proven that there were three acts of rape, there can be prosecution
for only one since the information filed charges one offense only.

FACTS
The accused-appellant in this case was convicted for the crime of rape for having carnal
knowledge with complainant who is a woman deprived of reason and mentally retarded, against
the latter’s will and by employing violence and intimidation. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and to compulsorily acknowledge the child when born as a result of his
disdainful act. According to the prosecution, the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of the
complainant against her will on three separate occasion. The first one was when the complainant
was fetching water and then suddenly the former threatened the latter with a knife and raped her.
The second one involved almost the same factual scenario as the first one while the third one
happened when complainant’s mother asked her to buy a bottle of beer. As a result of such
disdainful acts, complainant became pregnant.
This was vehemently denied by the accused-appellant. According to him, it was impossible
for him to commit the said crime because during its commission, he was detained in jail. He
presented the jailer whose duty was to record the detention prisoners as well as those facing
criminal charges. Accused-appellant also faults the trial court for convicting him of the crime of
rape under Art 335 of the Code despite alleged insufficiency of evidence.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape under Ar.
335 of the Revised Penal Code? – NO.
This appeal is buttress on the contention made by accused-appellant that he cannot be
held liable of the crime charged because at the time of the alleged commission of the crime,
he was detained in jail. He presented the testimony of the jailer to corroborate this
contention. However, the jailer who testified admitted that it is not his duty to guard the
detainers. The accused-appellant also failed to present someone who could testify that he
was not allowed to leave the said confinement jail during the commission of the crime.
And since the witnesses presented by the prosecution was able to positively identify him
his alibi should be out rightly rejected. Moreover, it is important to take note that he raped
a woman who was mentally retarded by means of fear and intimidation, so it is incredible
to believe that she could have fabricated the charges against him.
However, the accused-appellant should only be prosecuted for only one act of rape
despite the evidence showing that he committed three acts of rape. This is because only
one act was alleged in the information filed against him. But without a doubt, whether
under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of Art. 335 of the Code, the guilt of the accused-appellant
is already established.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, modified only as far as the
award of damages is concerned, which is increased to FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40,000) in
line with current jurisprudence.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1