Title 11 Digests

TITLE XI:
Crimes against Chastity
PEOPLE vs. ROSENDO AMARO

G.R. No. 199100 July 18, 2014 PEREZ, J.:
Facts
On 26 May 1998, appellant was charged with the crime of forcible abduction with rape. AAA,
who was then only 7 years old,testified that she was walking on her way home from school when
she passed by Boots & Maya store. She met a man, whom she later identified in court as the
appellant, who asked her to buy cigarettes. After buying the cigarettes and handing it to
appellant, the latter gave her bread and banana cue. After eating them, she suddenly became
dizzy and passed out. AAA was brought to the house of appellant. When she regained
consciousness, she saw appellant naked. Appellant then undressed her, kissed her on the lips and
neck, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her to feel pain. AAA cried but appellant
covered her mouth with his hand. AAA was detained for six (6) days and was raped five (5)
times by appellant. AAA clarified that appellant’s penis touched the outer portion of her vagina.
During the cross-examination, AAA admitted that she voluntarily went with appellant because
the latter promised to bring her home. On the last day of her detention, AAA and appellant went
out of the house. On their way to San Jose, a certain Aunt Ruthie saw AAA walking and
immediately picked her up and brought her to the police station. Appellant noticed AAA being
taken away but he did nothing. The prosecution also presented AAA’s mother, BBB, to
corroborate her daughter’s testimony. BBB narrated that on 26 March 1998, she was in the house
when AAA came home at around noon time to eat. Thereafter, AAA told BBB that she had to go
backto school. At around 5:00 p.m. when AAA had not come home, BBB went to the school to
look for her. When the teacher told BBB that that school children had already been sent home,
she proceeded to the police station to report her missing daughter. After six (6) days, AAA was
found by BBB’s former employer who brought her to the police. Upon receiving a call from the
police, BBB immediately went to the police station and saw her daughter. BBB observed that
AAA was still in shock and could not walk properly so she was brought to the doctor on the
following day. She only learned that her daughter was raped after the medical examination.
Appellant testified on his behalf. He denied abducting and raping AAA but admitted that he
brought the latter to his house when AAA approached him asking for bread first, before begging
him to take her with him because she was always being scolded by her parents. Upon reaching
his house, appellant entrusted AAA to the care of Florante Magay’s sister. Appellant then went
back to town to attend to his work as a mason. He only decided to go back home when he heard
his name on the radio in connection with the disappearance of a girl. He picked up the child in
Barangay Tagburos and brought her to her house in Buncag. AAA walked alone towards her
house.
On 26 February 2007, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. The trial court found AAA’s
testimony as credible and straightforward and supported by medical findings. On appeal, the CA,
on 30 March 2011, promulgated a Decision affirming the ruling of the RTC. Both parties opted
not to file their Supplemental Briefs and instead adopted their Briefs filed before the appellate
court.
Issue
Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish from the testimony of the complainant the
guilt of the accused for the crime offorcible abduction with rape beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court’s Ruling

YES. The elements of the crime of forcible abduction, as defined in Article 342 of the Revised
Penal Code, are: (1) that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or
reputation; (2) that she is taken against her will; and (3) that the abduction is with lewd designs.
On the other hand, rape under Article 266-A is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman by: (1) force or intimidation, or(2) when the woman is deprived of reason or is
unconscious, or (3) when she is under twelve years of age. The prosecution was able to prove all
these elements in this case. The victim, AAA was a seven (7) year-old girl who was taken against
her will by appellant who told her thathe knew her mother and that he would bring her home. At
her tender age, AAA could have easily been deceived by appellant. The employment of
deception suffices to constitute the forcible taking, especially since the victim is an unsuspecting
young girl. It is the taking advantage of their innocence that makes them easy culprits of
deceiving minds. The presence of lewd designs in forcible abduction is established by the actual
rape of the victim. The fact of sexual intercourse is corroborated by the medical findings that the
victim suffered from laceration on the upper and lower part of the introitus. Appellant was
properly charged of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. AAA’s abduction was a
necessary means to commit rape. Sexual intercourse with AAA was facilitated and ensured by
her abduction.
Significantly, findings of fact of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal since
conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses in rape cases lie heavily on the sound judgment of
the trial court which is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying. Testimonies of child-victims are normally
given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has
been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show thatrape has in fact been committed.
Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. In this case, AAA testified in a
straightforward manner.
On the other hand, appellant set-up the defense of denial and alibi. It is jurisprudential that denial
and alibi are intrinsically weak defenses which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-
culpability to merit credibility. Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can
scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the child-victim of the identity of the appellant and
his involvement in the crime attributed to him.18 Alibi is evidence negative in nature and self-
serving and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who
testify on clear and positive evidence.
PEOPLE vs. MARVIN CAYANAN
G.R. No. 200080 September 18, 2013 REYES, J.:
Facts
Marvin Cayanan was charged in an Information of the crimes of Qualified Rape and Forcible
Abduction with Qualified Rape. The prosecution established that Cayanan took advantage of 15-
year old AAA on February 1, 2001 while the victim was alone inside her house in Bulacan.
Cayanan is the victim’s brother-in-law, being married to her older sister, and the couple lived in a
nearby house. AAA was asleep when she felt someone caressing her. It turned out to be Cayanan.
He then started kissing her and told her to remove her shorts. When she refused, Cayanan
forcibly took it off and after the latter took off his own under garment, he inserted his organ into
her genitalia. Cayanan, who had a knife with him, threatened to kill AAA if she resisted and
informed anybody of the incident. On February 26, 2001, AAA was about to enter the school
campus with her friend Armina Adriano (Adriano) when Cayanan arrived on a tricycle driven by
his uncle, Boy Manalastas. Cayanan then pulled AAA towards the tricycle. She tried shouting but
he covered her mouth. They alighted somewhere and boarded a jeep. He brought her to a dress
shop where he asked someone to give her a change of clothes as she was in her school uniform
and later to a Jollibee outlet. He then brought her to his sister’s house where he raped her inside a
bedroom. Afterwards, a certain couple Putay and Tessie talked to Cayanan and she was brought
to the barangay office where she was asked to execute a document stating that she voluntarily
went with Cayanan. It was the latter’s mother and sister-in-law who brought her home later that
evening. She told her mother and brother of the incidents only after her classmate Adriano
informed her family of what happened in school and of the rape incidents. AAA testified that she
did not immediately tell her family because she was still in a state of shock. Adriano and the
victim’s mother corroborated her testimony.
The RTC convicted Cayanan of the crimes charged. Cayanan interposed the sweetheart defense,
but the RTC did not give credit to his defense, ruling that it is a weak defense and does not rule
out the use of force given the prosecution’s evidence. He also failed to establish the genuineness
and authenticity of the love letters allegedly written by AAA. On appeal, the CA sustained the
ruling of the RTC. It ruled that Cayanan forced AAA to have sex with him on February 1, 2001
and threatened her and her family with physical harm.
Issue
Whether or not Cayanan is guilty as charged
The Court’s Ruling

NO. The Court found that Cayanan should be convicted only of Qualified Rape in Criminal
Case No. 1498-M-2001. Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective
of the accused is to rape the victim. In this case, circumstances show that the victim’s abduction
was with the purpose of raping her. Thus, after Cayanan dragged her into the tricycle, he took her
to several places until they reached his sister’s house where he raped her inside the bedroom.
Under these circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible abduction.

Title 11 Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 11 Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 11 Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TITLE XI:

Crimes against Chastity

PEOPLE vs. ROSENDO AMARO

The Court’s Ruling

The Court’s Ruling

You might also like