ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 123951 January 10, 2000 - ROMEO RANOLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1360 January 18, 2000 - ELISEO SOREÑO v. RHODERICK MAXINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114683 January 18, 2000 - JESUS C. OCAMPO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118441-42 January 18, 2000 - ARMANDO JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119594 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENZON ONG

  • G.R. No. 125994 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ANDALES

  • G.R. No. 127135 January 18, 2000 - EASTERN ASSURANCE AND SURETY CORP. (EASCO) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129846 January 18, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130944 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALIB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131675 January 18, 2000 - PEDRO C. LAMEYRA v. GEORGE S. PANGILINAN

  • G.R. No. 132378 January 18, 2000 - ROGELIO JUAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 132767 January 18, 2000 - PHIL. VETERANS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134854 January 18, 2000 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO, ET AL. v. EDUARDO F. FIGUERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139465 January 18, 2000 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. RALPH C. LANTION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245 January 19, 2000 - ANTONIO YU-ASENSI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-97-1129 January 19, 2000 - FLAVIANO B. CORTES v. FELINO BANGALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1513 January 19, 2000 - ALFREDO B. ENOJAS v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT

  • G.R. No. 107320 January 19, 2000 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113666-68 January 19, 2000 - GOLDEN DONUTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114761 January 19, 2000 - ALEMAR’S SIBAL & SONS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119217 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL S. LUCBAN

  • G.R. No. 122104 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO ORBITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122297-98 January 19, 2000 - CRESCENTE Y. LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122739 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. PANTORILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123655 January 19, 2000 - ANGEL BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123183 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN SISON

  • G.R. No. 126516 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SHIRLEY ALAO

  • G.R. No. 127572 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR VILLAR

  • G.R. No. 129072 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ABUBU

  • G.R. No. 130957 January 19, 2000 - VH MANUFACTURING v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132152 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132248 January 19, 2000 - ERLINDA C. PEFIANCO v. MARIA LUISA C. MORAL

  • G.R. No. 132657 January 19, 2000 - WILLIAM DIU, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR IBAJAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132779-82 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO BERNALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 134003 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERT NAGUM

  • G.R. No. 134329 January 19, 2000 - VERONA PADA-KILARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134535 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MAGNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137560 January 19, 2000 - MARIA G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4749 January 20, 2000 - SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-00-1241 January 20, 2000 - NAPOLEON S. VALENZUELA v. REYNALDO B. BELLOSILLO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1242 January 20, 2000 - DANIEL DUMO, ET AL. v. ROMEO V. PEREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1522 January 20, 2000 - ROMULO SJ TOLENTINO v. POLICARPIO S. CAMANO

  • G.R. No. 76371 January 20, 2000 - MARIANO TURQUESA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO VALERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87134 January 20, 2000 - PHIL. REGISTERED ELECTRICAL PRACTITIONERS, ET AL. v. JULIO FRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100718-19 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106282 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINCIANO RENDOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108067 January 20, 2000 - CYANAMID PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109376 January 20, 2000 - PANFILO O. DOMINGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110807 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALD T. NARVASA

  • G.R. No. 110929 January 20, 2000 - ABELARDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119652 & A.M. No. P-00-1358 January 20, 2000 - VENTURA O. DUCAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123860 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN NAAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125451 January 20, 2000 - MARCIANA MUÑOZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126151 January 20, 2000 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. SERGIO D. MABUNAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128887 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. EDGARDO AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 130713 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL FLORES

  • G.R. No. 130986 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR PAILANCO

  • G.R. No. 131512 January 20, 2000 - LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE [LTO] v. CITY OF BUTUAN

  • G.R. No. 132368 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACITO GARCES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 133775 January 20, 2000 - FIDEL DABUCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131894-98 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JESUS DOCENA

  • G.R. No. 134167 January 20, 2000 - NASSER IMMAM v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125965 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO GOZANO

  • G.R. No. 133477 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAFALES

  • G.R. No. 135904 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN TAN

  • G.R. Nos. 89591-96 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 100518 January 24, 2000 - ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU), ET AL. v. OSCAR N. ABELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101932 January 24, 2000 - FRANCISCO H. ESCAÑO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111285 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE VALLA

  • G.R. No. 116066 January 24, 2000 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124715 January 24, 2000 - RUFINA LUY LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125031 January 24, 2000 - PERMEX INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129693 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY CORTES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1525 January 25, 2000 - MARTIN D. PANTALEON v. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. 80129 January 25, 2000 - GERARDO RUPA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 102706 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON LUMILAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107427 January 25, 2000 - JAMES R. BRACEWELL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113518 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ARLEE

  • G.R. No. 113684 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GALLARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116332 January 25, 2000 - BAYNE ADJUSTERS AND SURVEYORS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119595 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO BARONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120267 January 25, 2000 - CLARA ESPIRITU BORLONGAN, ET AL. v. CONSUELO MADRIDEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121439 January 25, 2000 - AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (AKELCO) v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129246 January 25, 2000 - GREENFIELD REALTY CORP., ET AL. v. LORETO CARDAMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131633-34 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO ENOLVA

  • G.R. No. 133132 January 25, 2000 - ALEXIS C. CANONIZADO, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER P. AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135874 January 25, 2000 - SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-12-192-MTC January 26, 2000 - HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ISSUED BY ACTING JUDGE ANICETO L. MADRONIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1524 January 26, 2000 - LUCIA F. LAYOLA v. BASILIO R. GABO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 107395 January 26, 2000 - TOURIST DUTY FREE SHOPS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126115 January 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BALGOS

  • G.R. No. 131374 January 26, 2000 - ABBOTT LABORATORIES PHIL. v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133842 January 26, 2000 - FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133969 January 26, 2000 - NEMESIO GARCIA v. NICOLAS JOMOUAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102961-62, 107625 & 108759 January 27, 2000 - JESUS P. LIAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117040 January 27, 2000 - RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130843 January 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOILO BORROMEO

  • Adm. Case No. 1474 January 28, 2000 - CRISTINO G. CALUB v. ABRAHAM SULLER

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1246 January 28, 2000 - HEIRS OF JUAN and NATIVIDAD GERMINANDA v. RICARDO SALVANERA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211 January 28, 2000 - ZENAIDA S. BESO v. JUAN DAGUMAN

  • A.M. No. P-93-985 January 28, 2000 - MARTA BUCATCAT v. EDGAR BUCATCAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112177 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO ZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112329 January 28, 2000 - VIRGINIA A. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115824 January 28, 2000 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125279 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS TANAIL

  • G.R. No. 124129 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BRIGILDO

  • G.R. Nos. 124384-86 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMENCIANO "OMENG" RICAFRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125671 January 28, 2000 - CONDO SUITE CLUB TRAVEL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000 - JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG) v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 126802 January 28, 2000 - ROBERTO G. ALARCON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127568 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO BACULE

  • G.R. Nos. 129756-58 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN DEEN ESCAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131520 January 28, 2000 - ESTELITA AGUIRRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131778 January 28, 2000 - HERMAN TIU LAUREL v. PRESIDING JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132138 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROMEO LLAMO

  • G.R. No. 133486 January 28, 2000 - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 133987 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. 136805 January 28, 2000 - DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. v. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORP.

  • G.R. No. 137537 January 28, 2000 - SMI DEVT. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137718 January 28, 2000 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139545 January 28, 2000 - MAIMONA H. N. M. S. DIANGKA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226 January 31, 2000 - GLORIA LUCAS v. AMELIA A. FABROS

  • G.R. Nos. 88521-22 & 89366-67 January 31, 2000 - HEIRS OF EULALIO RAGUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105827 January 31, 2000 - J.L. BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112139 January 31, 2000 - LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL DEVT. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115045 January 31, 2000 - UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116729 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON LERIO

  • G.R. No. 120706 January 31, 2000 - RODRIGO CONCEPCION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123094 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO PAGLINAWAN

  • G.R. No. 125440 January 31, 2000 - GENERAL BANK AND TRUST CO., ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127797 January 31, 2000 - ALEJANDRO MILLENA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128536 January 31, 2000 - ROQUE G. GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128607 January 31, 2000 - ALFREDO MALLARI SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129071 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MILLIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129505 & 133359 January 31, 2000 - OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II v. PACITA DE LOS REYES PHILLIPS

  • G.R. No. 130104 January 31, 2000 - ELIZABETH SUBLAY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130666 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO JOSE

  • G.R. No. 134437 January 31, 2000 - NATIONAL STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139758 January 31, 2000 - LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGHIA v. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 119217   January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL S. LUCBAN

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 119217. January 19, 2000.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIGUEL LUCBAN y SERVO, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    PARDO, J.:


    Rape is a savage and bestial attack that violates a woman’s person in the most grievous and revolting way imaginable. Perpetrators of this outrage are slaves of their lust, devoid of human dignity and reduced to lower than beasts in category. They must suffer the severest of penalty provided by law. In the present appeal, the offender repeatedly ravished and violated his stepdaughter of tender years. He deserves no mercy.chanrobles.com : law library

    Before the Court on appeal is a decision of the Regional Trial Court, Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, finding accused-appellant Miguel Lucban y Servo guilty of rape of his fifteen year old stepdaughter, Nenita G. Bentabal.

    With the assistance of her mother, Corazon G. Bentabal, on February 14, 1990, Nenita G. Bentabal, filed a complaint for rape against accused with the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That on or about the 3rd day of February 3, 1990, in the Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of threats, force, and intimidation, did, then, and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant, Nenita G. Bentabal y Giray, a minor (15) fifteen years of age, against her will and consent." 1

    On arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty 2 and trial ensued. On December 9, 1990, the trial court rendered decision, the dispositive portion of which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Miguel Lucban y Servo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of rape as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences the accused to RECLUSION PERPETUA." 3

    The trial court believed the testimony of Nenita G. Bentabal, saying that "The court is strongly inclined to believe the version of the prosecution. The rule is that the lone testimony of the victim in the prosecution for rape, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction, the rationale being that owing to the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be adduced to establish the guilt of the accused is the offended party’s testimony." 4

    The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On the night of February 3, 1990, fifteen (15) year old Nenita G. Bentabal was left at home with her younger sister, Girlie, who was seven (7) years old. Their mother, Corazon Bentabal had gone to Manila to work and would not be coming back until the next day. That evening their stepfather Miguel Lucban y Servo arrived late, it was Nenita who opened the door for her stepfather.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

    When Nenita opened the door, Accused, Miguel Lucban immediately pulled her and took her to bed. She was threatened by a one-foot butcher knife and was forced to lie down and her hands were tied to the bed. After which, Accused-appellant started kissing and undressing her. Accused-appellant removed her panty and went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. Girlie, the sister of the victim who was at that time asleep, was awakened. She looked at her sister and stepfather then went back to sleep. After the sexual act, Accused threatened Nenita that if she told anyone, she and her mother would be killed.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

    The next day, Nenita’s mother came home and Nenita told her what happened. That same afternoon, Nenita and her mother rushed to the police headquarters and filed a complaint against the accused for rape. In the investigation, Nenita revealed that she was also raped by the accused twice on the same occasion in January of that year when her mother was away in Manila on business. 5

    The accused on the other hand, gave a different version of the events. He testified that on the night in question he arrived at around 6:00 in the evening from Angono, Rizal, selling chicken and found his wife, Corazon at home. Corazon asked him to look for the children who were outside. He only found Girlie near the faucet. When Corazon asked for Nenita, Girlie said that Nenita was walking with a man. After a while, Nenita came home. Corazon set the table for supper. After supper, Corazon told him that the children wanted to see a movie but he told them that they need to save money. Corazon was angry and said that if he would not listen to them, he would be sorry.

    That night, they all slept. He and Corazon slept on the floor, while Nenita and her sister Girlie slept on the bed. He woke up at around 3:00 in the morning, and was ready to prepare the chicken he would sell in Angono, but Corazon told him to go back to bed. He woke up again at around 7:00 in the morning and went to the house of his friend but his friend was not around, so he went home.

    At around 8:00 in the morning, he was informed by Willie Absena about their meeting at 12:00 noon. Earlier than the designated time, he went to the meeting, but since no one was around he went back home and after a while went back to the place of the meeting. Nenita then arrived with four (4) men who invited him to the police headquarters for questioning. They boarded a jeepney. On the way to the headquarters, he was cursed, slapped, then hit with a gun. He fell unconscious and regained his senses inside a room. Then, he was investigated by a person named Ibañez. 6

    The prosecution presented Dr. Emmanuel Aranas, the medico legal officer who examined Nenita Bentabal. In his testimony, he stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Public Pros.: Mr. Witness, during that time that you examined the victim, was the rape of the victim possibly happened only very recent? (sic)

    "A: With regards to my findings ma’am, I cannot find any basis to determine that the rape occurred only recently.

    "Court: Did the court understand that you (sic) cannot able to determine as to when the alleged rape of the victim was committed?

    "A: As to the alleged alteration of the anatomy of the victim sir, I could say that several weeks prior to my examination, in other words, the alteration of the laceration of the peri-urethral organ of the victim has been committed several weeks.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    "Court: When you say several weeks, is the court to understand 3 or 4 weeks?

    "A: Yes, your honor, several days or weeks prior to my examination."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The defense submitted that if the victim was raped earlier by the accused, why did the victim wait for a long time to report the incident? However, the trial court did not give any merit to this argument and stated that "It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for sometime the assaults on their virtue because of the rapist’s threat on their lives (People v. Natan, G.R. No. 86640, January 25, 1991)." 7

    After several hearings, on December 9, 1990, the trial court rendered decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

    Hence, this appeal.

    The accused-appellant argues that the trial court erred in considering the uncorroborated, incredible and improbable testimony of the victim Nenita Bentabal and in finding that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

    According to accused-appellant, the delay in reporting the incident to the authorities for several weeks is sufficient to create a reasonable doubt in favor of the accused. Also the fact that the rape took place in several occasions lasting for more or less thirty minutes each without a struggle on the part of the victim implies consent. Also, the victim in her testimony stated that she was "wetting" and "experienced orgasm."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Accused-appellant submits that the prosecution failed miserably in establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and must not draw its strength from the weakness of the defense. 8

    After careful consideration of the evidence presented by both parties, we accept the version of the victim Nenita Bentabal. It is difficult to believe that mother and daughter will make up a story of the rape to spite accused-appellant for his refusal to let them watch a movie. It is totally incredible that they will put themselves to shame and public dishonor, not to mention the stigma that is almost always attached to victims of rape and other sexual abuse for such slight inconvenience.chanrobles.com : chanrobles.com.ph

    Also, a review of the testimony of Nenita reveals that when she was asked by the lawyer for the defense whether she experienced orgasm, the term was not explained to her. Thus, she could not really give an accurate and positive answer.

    To further emphasize this point, we quote the testimony of complainant Nenita Bentabal:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Q. Did he insert his penis to your vagina?

    "A. Yes, sir.

    "Q. And while inside your vagina, did you wet on your vagina?

    "A. Yes, sir.

    "Q. Did you experience lubricant coming out of your vagina?

    "A. No, I did not feel.

    "Q. From February 1990 how many times did he insert his penis in your vagina?

    "A. 3 times sir.

    "Q. So it is 3 times he inserted?

    "A. Yes, sir.

    "Q. And in those three times did you experience orgasm?

    "A. Yes, sir. 9

    The questions were not clarified or properly explained to the young girl Nenita Bentabal. Being a girl of fifteen years and having only reached grade six, the Court is not convinced that she understood the meaning of "orgasm" which is not a physical manifestation but an emotional state of enjoying sexual intercourse.chanrobles.com.ph : red

    The defense also harped on the issue of lack of any physical sign of abuse on the complainant. There has been a long line of decisions that "It is not necessary to show proof of physical injuries sustained by reason of resistance to the sexual attacker. It is common doctrine that it is enough to show that the accused did succeed in having sexual intercourse with the offended party against her will." 10

    We must consider that the accused-appellant is the stepfather of Nenita, thus, he exercised moral ascendancy over her, coupled with the fact that during the sexual assault, Accused-appellant pointed a knife at Nenita and threatened to kill her if she made a sound.

    As to the fact that Nenita waited for several weeks before going to her mother to tell her about the ordeal, we are not persuaded that this was a sign that there was really no rape. There is no standard human reaction when one is faced with an experience that is so traumatic as to make a person suffer in silence the onslaught on her honor rather than reveal her story. In the case at bar, the accused-appellant threatened Nenita that if she would tell her mother, she would be killed. For a girl of tender age, a threat like that coming from her own stepfather is enough to silence her cry for justice and mum her to submit to the brute and animal lust of her stepfather.

    IN VIEW WHEREOF, we AFFIRM the decision appealed from sentencing accused-appellant Miguel Lucban y Servo to reclusion perpetua, with modification by requiring accused-appellant to pay complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.chanrobles.com.ph:red

    Costs against Accused-Appellant.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Original Record, Complaint, p. 1.

    2. Ibid., Certificate of Arraignment, p. 8.

    3. Ibid., Decision, Regional Trial Court, Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, Criminal Case No. 90-5382, penned by Judge Pablito M. Roxas, pp. 151-154, at p. 154.

    4. Original Record, Decision, p. 152.

    5. Ibid., TSN, August 8, 1990, pp. 112-177.

    6. Rollo, Brief for Accused-appellant, pp. 30-31.

    7. Decision, Original Record, p. 153.

    8. Ibid., p. 42.

    9. TSN, August 8, 1990, pp. 123-124.

    10. People v. Ronquillo, 184 SCRA 236, 243 (1990), citing People v. Pimentel, 147 SCRA 25 (1987), People v. Pilapil, 147 SCRA 528 (1987) and People v. Delavin 148 SCRA 257 (1987).

    G.R. No. 119217   January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL S. LUCBAN


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED