Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1935 > August 1935 Decisions > G.R. No. 43436 August 31, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CABALLERO

061 Phil 900:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 43436. August 31, 1935.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE CABALLERO, Defendant-Appellant.

Alberto Barretto for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, NOT PROVED. — When the offended party awoke, the crime of rape committed by the appellant was already consummated, having had carnal knowledge with the offended party while she was unconscious for being asleep. The offended party’s consent to the act was subsequent thereto and it was given on the belief that the man lying with her was her own husband. It is evident that the offended party would not have consented to the act, had she known that the man with her was not her husband, as she in fact expressed her unwillingness to said act as soon as she discovered that the man whom she thought to be her husband was the appellant.


D E C I S I O N


AVANCEÑA, C.J. :


The appealed judgment sentences the appellant for the crime of rape to the penalty of from eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

About the 9th of February, 1935, Isabel Magbanua celebrated her birthday in her house within the Hacienda Socorro in the municipality of Bacolod, Occidental Negros. Her niece, Consorcia Gonzaga, and the latter’s husband, Francisco Vecinan, were present to help her attend to the party. When the party was over at about 1 o’clock in the morning, and the guests were already retiring, the appellant who was one of them asked permission of Vecinan to sleep in the house, stating that it was already too late for him to return to his. As the house had only one room, everybody slept therein, Consorcia, her aunt and two girls on one mat, and Vecinan and the appellant on another. The two girls were between Consorcia and her aunt, and the appellant on Vecinan’s side towards the wall, so that Consorcia and the appellant were on the opposite ends of the room. When all were already asleep, Consorcia awoke and noticed that a man was on top of her, having carnal intercourse with her. Thinking that this man was her husband, Consorcia did nothing to oppose the act until it was consummated. Having noticed, however, that the man trembled, a thing which her husband never did, she thought that he might be another and she touched his body. Having observed that the shirtsleeves of the man on top of her were long while those of her husband were short, and convinced that the man who had carnal intercourse with her was another, she called her husband. As the latter would not wake up, she arose, struck a match and caught hold of the man with her, who proved to be the appellant. When she had succeeded in waking up her husband, she informed him of what had happened and her husband assaulted with his fists the appellant who was asking to be excused for what he had done. When Consorcia’s aunt awoke, she also insulted the appellant and later wen to report the outrage to the person in charge of the hacienda, named Manuel Cuison. When Manuel Cuison arrived at the house, he asked the appellant what had happened but the latter refused to answer him, whereupon he took the appellant to the municipal building and placed him at the disposal of the authorities.

The appellant, testifying in his favor, denied the facts stated by the witnesses for the prosecution and alleged in his defense that on the night in question he and Consorcia’s husband had been playing monte and as he had won in the game and later refused to continue playing, he was manhandled, Consorcia’s husband assaulting him with his fists. This defense of the appellant has not been supported by any evidence and his own attorney in this instance does not consider it as having been established.

It appears from the evidence that when Consorcia, the offended party, awoke, the appellant had already introduced his organ into her genitals and in fact he was already having sexual intercourse with her. We mention this fact on account of a certain doubt arising from the offended party’s testimony during the direct examination relative to this detail, but in the attempt of the attorney for the defense to clarify this point during his cross-examination, the offended party categorically affirmed that she had been unaware when the appellant introduced his organ into hers. Furthermore, it so appears affirmatively in the affidavit (Exhibit 1) made by the offended party before the justice of the peace of Bacolod, which is attached to the record as evidence for the defense. According to said document, when the offended party awoke, the crime of rape committed by the appellant was already consummated, having had carnal knowledge with the offended party while she was unconscious for being asleep. The offended party’s consent to the act was subsequent thereto and it was given on the belief that the man lying with her was her own husband. It is evident that the offended party would not have consented to the act, had she known that the man with her was not her husband, as she in fact expressed her unwillingness to said act as soon as she discovered that the man whom she thought to be her husband was the Appellant.

In view of these considerations, the appealed judgment is affirmed, with costs to the appellant. So ordered.

Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers and Recto, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





August-1935 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 43099 August 1, 1935 - NG TIONG SUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    061 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 43210 August 2, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. RAMON PULMONES

    061 Phil 680

  • G.R. No. 41573 August 3, 1935 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. MARGARITA TORRALBA VIUDA DE SANTOS

    061 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. 43292 August 3, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO DELFINADO

    061 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 43530 August 3, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO LAMAHANG

    061 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 40411 August 7, 1935 - DAVAO SAW MILL CO. v. APRONIANO G. CASTILLO, ET AL.

    061 Phil 709

  • G.R. No. 41715 August 7, 1935 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO CONDE

    061 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. 41825 August 7, 1935 - MALABON SUGAR COMPANY v. MUNICIPALITY OF MALABON

    061 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 43968 August 7, 1935 - E. MACIAS COMMISSION IMPEX COMPANY v. PEDRO DUHART, ET AL.

    061 Phil 720

  • G.R. No. 42992 August 8, 1935 - FELIPE SALCEDO v. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ

    061 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. 41701 August 9, 1935 - ANTONIO DE LA RIVA v. MARCELIANO REYNOSO

    061 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. 41917 August 9, 1935 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. DOLORESC. LIM

    061 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. 42630 August 9, 1935 - B. A. BATTERTON v. CONSUELO CABRATALA VIUDA DE VELOSO

    061 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 43618 August 9, 1935 - SO SEE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    061 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 43794 August 9, 1935 - LUIS FRANCISCO v. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA

    061 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. 41901 August 15, 1935 - MATIAS N. SALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    061 Phil 759

  • Per Rec. No. 3633 August 17, 1935 - MAXIMA T. VIUDA DE VELOSO v. CASIMIRO V. MADARANG

    061 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. 43918 August 17, 1935 - JOSEFA BAJACAN v. EMILIO PEÑA

    061 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. 41925 August 21, 1935 - PRESENTACION TECSON v. SILVINO TECSON, ET AL.

    061 Phil 781

  • G.R. No. 43469 August 21, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BEATRIZ YUMAN

    061 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 42757 August 22, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO ZAPATA ET AL.

    061 Phil 792

  • G.R. Nos. 43250 & 43251 August 22, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL VALDES VACANI

    061 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 43252 August 22, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL VALDES VACANI

    061 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. 43370 August 22, 1935 - SY SAM v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    061 Phil 816

  • Per Rec. Nos. 3527 & 3408 August 23, 1935 - JUSTA MONTEREY v. EUSTAQUIO V. ARAYATA, ET AL.

    061 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. 43195 August 23, 1935 - FELIPE GONZALES v. FLORENTINO C. VIOLA, ET AL.

    061 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. 43936 August 23, 1935 - IN RE: JOSE AVILA v. JOSE G. DE OCAMPO, ET AL.

    061 Phil 826

  • G.R. No. 44104 August 23, 1935 - TRINIDAD AQUINO v. CRISTINA TONGCO

    061 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 42050 August 26, 1935 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIA S. ZAPANTA, ET AL.

    061 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. 43916 August 27, 1935 - A. LEVETT v. JOSE SY QUIA, ET AL.

    061 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. 44042 August 27, 1935 - REMEDIOS BONGON VIUDA DE MANZANERO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS

    061 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. 41700 August 30, 1935 - ISABEL CABRERA, ET AL. v. MANUEL QUIOGUE

    061 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. 41747 August 30, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO R. CASTRO

    061 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. 41794 August 30, 1935 - SEGUNDINA MUSÑGI, ET AL. v. WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO.

    061 Phil 864

  • G.R. No. 41795 August 30, 1935 - J. W. SHANNON, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE LUMBER & TRANSPORTATION CO.

    061 Phil 872

  • G.R. No. 42277 August 30, 1935 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. MATEO JIMENES, ET AL.

    061 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. 43382 August 30, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL GALLEMOS

    061 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. 42798 August 31, 1935 - GUILLERMO DE LOS REYES v. MOISES T. SOLIDUM

    061 Phil 893

  • G.R. No. 43436 August 31, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CABALLERO

    061 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. 43935 August 31, 1935 - SIMEON CABAÑERO, ET AL. v. RAMON TORRES, ET AL.

    061 Phil 903