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
 

   
October-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137841 October 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 117512 October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN

  • G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001 - RUBY L. TSAI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS EVER TEXTILE MILLS

  • G.R. No. 124037 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 126592 October 2, 2001 - ROMEO G. DAVID v. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129900 October 2, 2001 - JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001 - PATRICIA NATCHER petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO-LETICIA DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001 - ZENAIDA M. SANTOS v. CALIXTO SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135522-23 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMORSOLO G. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 137777 October 2, 2001 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 - GRACE J. GARCIA v. REDERICK A. RECIO

  • G.R. No. 138929 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. 139050 October 2, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AGFHA

  • G.R. No. 142877 October 2, 2001 - JINKIE CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS v. THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON

  • G.R. No. 125081 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 - ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YULEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO LEONES

  • G.R. Nos. 142602-05 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

  • A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC October 5, 2001 - Request To Designate Another Judge To Try And Decide Criminal Case No. 3713

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1610 October 5, 2001 - ATTY. EDGAR H. TALINGDAN v. JUDGE HENEDINO P. EDUARTE

  • G.R. No. 124498 October 5, 2001 - EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO Presiding Judge

  • G.R. No. 127441 October 5, 2001 - DOROTEO TOBES @ DOTING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 130499 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ "NOEL QUIMSON

  • G.R. No. 130962 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE REAPOR y SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131040 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA

  • G.R. No. 132044 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY

  • G.R. No. 132718 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CASTILLON III and JOHN DOE

  • G.R. Nos. 135452-53 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO M. ALCOREZA

  • G.R. No. 139760 October 5, 2001 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 144189 October 5, 2001 - R & M GENERAL MERCHANDISE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121948 October 8, 2001 - PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO FABURADA

  • G.R. No. 123075 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN

  • G.R. No. 129926 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE

  • G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE

  • G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 141297 October 8, 2001 - DOMINGO R. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC October 9, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 138886 October 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SP01 WILFREDO LEAÑO SP01 FERDINAND MARZAN SPO1 RUBEN B. AGUSTIN SP02 RODEL T. MADERAL * SP02 ALEXANDER S. MICU and SP04 EMILIO M. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 141182 October 9, 2001 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CUETO Represented by ASUNCION CUETO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION) and CONSOLACION COMPUESTO

  • A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC October 10, 2001 - RE: INITIAL REPORTS ON THE GRENADE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT ABOUT 6:40 A.M. ON DECEMBER 6, 1999

  • G.R. No. 129313 October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge

  • G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 136258 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FELICIANO

  • A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001 - DOROTEO IGOY v. GILBERT SORIANO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485 October 11, 2001 - TEOFILO C. SANTOS v. JUDGE FELICIANO V. BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. 80796 & 132885 October 11, 2001 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001 - MARCELO LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION and HON. JAIME T. HAMOY

  • G.R. Nos. 123913-14 October 11,2001

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO CALLOS

  • G.R. No. 130415 October 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN YRAT y BUGAHOD and RAUL JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130562 October 11, 2001 - Brigida Conculada v. Hon. Court Of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 - STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 122710 October 12, 2001 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS and REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION

  • G.R. Nos. 134769-71 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BATION

  • G.R. No. 137843 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 139904 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 136470 October 16, 2001 - VENANCIO R. NAVA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO T. AGLIDAY

  • A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ October 17, 2001 - RE: RELEASE BY JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, RTC, BRANCH 54 MANILA, OF AN ACCUSED IN A NON-BAILABLE OFFENSE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1419 October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 & AM RTJ-98-1411 October 17, 2001 - ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS v. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

  • G.R. No. 124513 October 17, 2001 - ROBERTO ERQUIAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127540 October 17, 2001 - EUGENIO DOMINGO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127830 October 17, 2001 - MANOLET LAVIDES v. ERNESTO B. PRE

  • G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO R. RECTO

  • G.R. No. 129236 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 129389 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORICO UBALDO

  • G.R. Nos. 132673-75 October 17, 200

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR C. GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. 136291 October 17, 2001 - LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136869 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS MAZO

  • G.R. No. 141673 October 17, 2001 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY/AUGUSTO B. SUNICO v. NLRC (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142726 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 143190 October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

  • G.R. No. 143990 October 17, 2001 - MARIA L. ANIDO v. FILOMENO NEGADO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 October 18, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 132869 October 18, 2001 - GREGORIO DE VERA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143486 October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA

  • G.R. No. 144735 October 18, 2001 - YU BUN GUAN v. ELVIRA ONG

  • G.R. No. 116285 October 19, 2001 - ANTONIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and the .C.C.P

  • G.R. Nos. 121201-02 October 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee v. GIO CONCORCIO @ JUN

  • G.R. No. 129995 October 19, 2001 - THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN v. HON. PEDRO VILLAFUERTE

  • G.R. No. 130730 October 19, 2001 - HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 133002 October 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM

  • G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001 - PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)

  • A.M. No. 99-12-497-RTC October 23, 2001 - REQUEST OF JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • G.R. No. 121267 October 23, 2001 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124036 October 23, 2001 - FIDELINO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124295 October 23, 2001 - JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

  • G.R. No. 125193 October 23, 2001 - MANUEL BARTOCILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 130846 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO

  • G.R. No. 131841 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA

  • G.R. No. 132373 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIRSO ARCAY @ "TISOY" and TEODORO CLEMEN @ "BOY

  • G.R. No. 134740 October 23, 2001 - IRENE V. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 135481 October 23, 2001 - LIGAYA S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136105 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PAREDES y SAUQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 136337 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG

  • G.R. No. 139114 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

  • G.R. No. 139274 October 23, 2001 - QUEZON PROVINCE v. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE

  • G.R. No. 139329 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

  • G.R. Nos. 140934-35 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 October 25, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 102367 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABUNDIO ALBARIDO and BENEDICTO IGDOY

  • G.R. No. 126359 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 127465 October 25, 2001 - SPOUSES NICETAS DELOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133102 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DINDO AMOGIS y CRINCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 134449-50 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA

  • G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001 - FERNANDO SANTOS v. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES

  • G.R. No. 135822 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PIO DACARA y NACIONAL

  • G.R. Nos. 137494-95 October 25, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO REYES alias "TURING"

  • G.R. Nos. 142741-43 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MANAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-01-1474 October 26, 2001 - ANTONIO C. REYES v. JOSEFINA F. DELIM

  • G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA

  • G.R. Nos. 121492 & 124325 October 26, 2001 - BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K.H. UY

  • G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANICO NUEVO @ "SANY

  • G.R. No. 133741-42 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LINO VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO Z. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 135920 October 26, 2001 - ENCARNACION ET AL. v. SEVERINA REALTY CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 140719 October 26, 2001 - NICOLAS UY DE BARON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140912 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO DIAZ Y SEVILLETA

  • G.R. No. 141540 October 26, 2001 - EDUARDO TAN v. FLORITA MUECO and ROLANDO MUECO

  • G.R. No. 143231 October 26, 2001 - ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 144237 October 26, 2001 - WINSTON C. RACOMA v. MA. ANTONIA B. F. BOMA

  • G.R. Nos. 146319 & 146342 October 26, 2001 - BENJAMIN E. CAWALING v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 146593 October 26, 2001 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 132044   October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 132044. October 5, 2001.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    PUNO, J.:


    This is the story of another family wrecked by the insatiable lust of a man. Ten-year old JANE GARA charged her stepfather, Accused ANTONIO EVANGELISTA, with rape in an Information which reads: 1

    "That on or about the 20th day of April, 1996, at around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon and prior dates thereto, at Barangay Aninuan, Municipality of Puerto Galera, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, stepfather of the offended party JANE GARA, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the offended party JANE GARA, a ten-year old girl, against her will.

    "Contrary to Art. 335 RPC in relation to R.A. 7659 (Death Penalty Law)."cralaw virtua1aw library

    JANE is the daughter of EDNA GARA EVANGELISTA by her live-in partner Jose Bayta. Edna testified that after the death of Jose, she married accused ANTONIO EVANGELISTA on December 20, 1994. 2 After a year and four months, Edna witnessed an event that completely shattered their life.

    On April 20, 1996, at about 5:00 p.m., JANE was in their house with the accused when the latter directed his two sons, Melvin and Monico, to go out of the house. The accused then wasted no time in executing his evil design. He kissed Jane on the cheeks and lips. He lowered her shorts and panty down to her knees. He kissed and fingered her sex organ. Thereafter, he inserted his penis into her vagina but failed to completely penetrate it. Jane felt intense pain but she could not shout as the accused threatened to beat her up.

    It was this sordid scene that greeted Edna when she arrived from work. Unsuspectingly, Edna went to the kitchen and caught the accused naked and lying on top of Jane. Accused was forcing open Jane’s thighs and was inserting his organ into hers. Jane had her blouse on but her shorts were lowered to below her knees. Jane was trying to push away the accused. When Edna saw the revolting scene, her judgment became blurred. Her first reaction was to grab a bolo and hack the accused. Luck was still on the accused’s side. A bible fell off the cabinet while Edna was charging towards the accused. It distracted Edna. She momentarily stopped on her tracks to pick it up. This gave the accused a chance to jump out of the window and flee.

    Edna turned to her ten-year old Jane who was in tears. She asked Jane if it was the first time that the accused molested her. Jane revealed that the accused had been sexually abusing her since January, 1996 when Edna started working. Jane kept mum about her ordeal as the accused threatened her. A flashback of memories then flooded Edna’s thoughts. She recalled the admonition of her neighbor, Rosenie Anyayahan, after her marriage to the accused. Rosenie warned her to watch her husband closely as she had a bad vibration about him and he might molest Jane. Since then, she became wary of how the accused treated Jane. She recalled one particular night when she saw the accused kissing Jane. She confronted the accused but the latter rationalized that he just gave Jane a fatherly kiss. Edna nonetheless cautioned him not to do it again. 3

    Deeply shaken by what she witnessed that day, Edna and her four kids immediately left the house. They stayed in the nearby house of her brother. Edna then contemplated on what course of action to take. On May 7, 1996, she decided to report the matter to the police authorities. She brought Jane to the Oriental Mindoro Provincial Hospital where she was examined by Dr. Maria Christina L. Gonzales. Her findings revealed healed lacerations on Jane’s genitalia which admitted the smallest finger.

    In August, Edna and her kids transferred to Victoria, Oriental Mindoro, as they were afraid that the sons of the accused would kill them for reporting the incident to the police.

    The accused denied molesting Jane. He gave an entirely different account of what transpired that day. He testified that on said date and time, he was in the kitchen, setting up a fire in the stove as he was about to cook rice. The children were then playing in front of the house. Shortly, Edna arrived from work. He scolded her for coming home late, thus: "Galing ka na naman yata sa iyong lalaki," referring to one Martin Alfon. The statement angered Edna and an argument ensued. Their altercation ended with Edna leaving their house with her four children. Thus, the accused contended that Edna fabricated the rape charge against him so she could carry on with her illicit affair. He also declared that at the time of his testimony, Edna was already cohabiting with another man.

    The accused recalled that he and Edna started their relationship in 1989. Edna was then his househelp. Before the year was over, they were cohabiting in the same house. They lived together for five years. They already had two children, Dina and Lenlen, before they decided to get married in 1994. The accused admitted that their marriage was sometimes marred by jealousy. When Edna would arrive home late from the office, he would get jealous and suspect her of carrying on an affair with Pedro and Ruben Noche. During their five-year cohabitation, the accused charged that Edna had affairs with brothers Pedro and Ruben Noche. These men would either eat with Edna or sleep in their house when he was not around. Despite her loose ways, he married Edna as he loved her and she promised to mend her ways once they were married. He also wanted to legitimize the status of his two kids with Edna.

    The accused insisted that even after their marriage, Edna carried on with her illicit affair with Pedro. After his incarceration and during his testimony, Edna was already cohabiting with one Martin Alfon and was bearing his child. 4

    Two witnesses corroborated the accused’s story.

    MARIO CEPILLO and NICANOR LALONG-ISIP recounted that on April 20, 1996, at about 4:30 p.m., they were in the house of accused’s brother, Estanislao Evangelista. Estanislao’s house was about ten (10) meters away from that of the accused. They visited Estanislao to find out if the cockfight scheduled the next day would push through. They were inspecting the cocks and conversing with Estanislao when they overheard the accused and Edna having an argument. The accused was jealous and he suspected Edna of having an affair with another man. They overheard the accused exclaim in a furious tone: "Gabi ka na naman dumating. Galing ka naman sa yong panlalalaki." Edna did not reply and immediately left the house with their children. Later on, they learned that the accused was charged with rape. Months later, they learned from the townsfolk that Edna was cohabiting with another man in Macatoc. 5

    According to Nicanor, Edna has a loose reputation in their town. She was known as having had numerous relationships with various men which was the reason for her frequent fights with the accused. Rumor had it that Edna had affairs with Pedro and Ruben Noche. She had another live-in partner in Naujan where she and her children transferred residence. 6

    On November 12, 1997, the trial court found the accused guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to death. The dispositive portion reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ACCORDINGLY, the court finds accused Antonio Evangelista, alias Tony, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of rape, defined and penalized in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as Amended by Section 11 of R.A. 7659 which took effect on December 31, 1993 (People v. Martin Simon, G.R. No. 93026, dated July 29, 1994) by death when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a step-parent of the victim and hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of death, together with the accessory penalties provided (for) by law, to indemnify the victim, Jane, the amount of P50,000.00 as damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

    x       x       x


    "SO ORDERED." 7

    On automatic appeal, the appellant assigns the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I


    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PRESENCE OF ILL MOTIVE ON THE PART OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM’S MOTHER AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

    II


    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY DESPITE THE INCREDIBLE AND IMPROBABLE TESTIMONIES OF THE PRINCIPAL PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

    III


    GRANTING THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE ITS VALIDITY.

    We shall discuss the first two issues jointly.

    Appellant attempts to discredit the testimony of Edna, the victim’s mother, by claiming that she maliciously initiated the rape charge against him so she could live with another man. This was allegedly proven by subsequent events, viz: (1) there was a delay of seventeen (17) days in the filing of the complaint; and (2) Edna admitted that she was carrying the child of her new live-in partner.

    We are not persuaded. We have carefully gone over the records of this case and we are convinced of the appellant’s guilt.

    Edna’s credibility remains unaffected by her delay in reporting the incident to the police authorities as it was sufficiently explained at the trial. 8 The delay does not detract from her credibility. Edna clarified that she had to carefully mull over her course of action against the appellant who, after all, was still her husband. She was also apprehensive about their safety due to the possible retaliation by the accused and his relatives should the crime be reported to the police authorities. Her fear was not baseless considering the proximity of the house of Edna’s brother where they transferred after the incident to that of the appellant’s. Moreover, Jane revealed to her that she kept mum about the numerous abuses she suffered in the hands of the appellant as the latter threatened to beat her up. Undoubtedly, these are considerations that would naturally come to the mind of a mother in cases of this nature. Thus, we find that Edna’s delay of seventeen (17) days in reporting the crime was neither unreasonable nor unjustified under the circumstances.

    Edna’s alleged liaison with other men during her marriage to appellant was not satisfactorily established. While the appellant insisted that Edna had illicit affairs with brothers Ruben and Pedro Noche during their marriage, he offered nothing to prove his suspicion except his flimsy and unsubstantiated allegation that Pedro and Ruben would dine in his house when he was not around. Edna’s admission that, at the time of her testimony, she was cohabiting with one Martin Alfon and was bearing his child does not, by itself, detract from her credibility. The records show that her affair with Martin started only after the appellant was incarcerated. In fact, right after Jane was sexually abused by the appellant in April, 1996, Edna and her kids did not go to the residence of Martin and live with him. They stayed with Edna’s brother as they had nowhere else to go. Moreover, it is worthy to stress that it goes against the grain of human nature for a mother to expose the indecencies committed by her husband against her daughter if it were not to seek justice for the wrong committed against her. 9 No mother would subject her daughter to suffer the indignity of police investigation and gynecological examination, not to mention the perpetual stigma attached to the crime, were it not true. 10 In the case at bar, Edna’s credibility is bolstered by the fact that her testimony corroborated in detail Jane’s account of the sexual abuse that transpired that fateful day. We found no material discrepancies in their testimonies.

    More than anything else, it was the credible and unfaltering testimony of ten-year old Jane that clinched the case against the appellant. Her testimony was brief, clear and straightforward. In a long line of cases, the Court has recognized that the testimony of a rape victim, especially a child victim, is accorded full weight and credit. 11 A young, innocent girl, unexposed to the ways of the world, would not publicly disclose the degrading experience of being sexually abused by another member of her family if it were not true. 12

    Neither are we persuaded that it was improbable for the appellant to have committed the alleged rape in the kitchen when there were two rooms in the house which would have concealed his lecherous attack. Time and again, we held that rape is not a respecter of place or time. There is absolutely nothing improbable with the fact that the appellant sexually abused Jane in the kitchen, which was a semi-open portion of the house. In countless cases, rape has been committed in places where people congregate — in parks, within school premises or even in the same room where other family members are sleeping. 13 In the case at bar, the appellant ensured that he was alone with Jane as he directed his sons to go out of the house. He would have succeeded in consummating his evil designs were it not for the timely arrival of Edna.

    Appellant also insists that it was incredible for the sexual attack to have been consummated with Jane’s underwear merely lowered to below her knees. In this position, the appellant argues that it was impossible for his penis to have touched, much less penetrated, the labia of Jane’s sex organ. The appellant points out that his claim is supported by the medical finding stating that Jane’s organ admitted only the smallest finger.

    Appellant’s theory does not hold. The prosecution established through the testimony of Edna that it would be customary for the appellant to merely lower Edna’s underwear when they engage in sexual intercourse. The fact that Jane’s genitalia admitted only the smallest finger does not disprove rape. To be sure, full penetration of the vagina is not necessary to consummate the rape. Mere introduction of the penis into the labia is sufficient. 14 In the case at bar, the testimonies of both Jane and Edna categorically established that the appellant was able to insert his organ into the labia of Jane’s pudendum which caused Jane intense pain. The timely arrival of Edna foiled the appellant’s attempt to fully insert his penis into Jane’s organ. This same act was witnessed by Edna. 15 The categorical and consistent testimonies of Jane and Edna, coupled with the medical findings showing that Jane’s genitalia sustained healed lacerations, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant’s penis touched the labia of Jane’s organ and rape was consummated. As the labia is located beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, if the penis touched the labia, there is already some degree of penetration beneath the surface which leads to a finding of consummated rape. 16

    While the appellant’s guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court’s imposition of the death penalty against him is unwarranted. The qualifying circumstance of relationship was not established beyond moral certainty. The Information alleged that the appellant is the stepfather of Jane. A stepfather is the husband of one’s mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is the offspring. 17 In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove the subsequent marriage of Edna and the appellant as their marriage contract was not adduced in evidence. Although Jane’s birth certificate was presented to prove her minority and her relationship to Edna, Jane’s relationship with the appellant as his stepdaughter was not established with the same degree of proof. Relationship, as a qualifying circumstance of rape, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, just as the crime itself. The testimony of Edna and even the admission of the appellant regarding their marriage are insufficient to prove the fact. 18 The best evidence is the marriage certificate itself absent any showing that it was lost or destroyed. Accordingly, the appellant can be convicted only of simple statutory rape and the penalty of death imposed against him should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

    IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appellant ANTONIO EVANGELISTA is convicted of simple statutory rape. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of, reclusion perpetua and to indemnify Jane Gara the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, an additional sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

    Kapunan, J., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, p. 1.

    2. September 27, 1996 TSN, Edna Evangelista, p. 26.

    3. Id., pp. 28-32.

    4. September 22, 1997 TSN, Antonio Evangelista, pp. 22-29.

    5. September 22, P997 TSN, Mario Cepillo, pp. 3-14; May 20, 1997 TSN, Nicanor Lalong-Isip, pp. 4-5, 7.

    6. Ibid., pp. 7-10.

    7. Penned by Judge Marciano T. Virola, Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 39, Oriental Mindoro; Original Records, pp. 111-114.

    8. People v. Dequito, 332 SCRA 117 (2000).

    9. People v. Aliviano, 335 SCRA 371 (2000); People v. Yparraguire, 335 SCRA 69 (2000).

    10. People v. Tumala, 284 SCRA 436 (1998).

    11. People v. Diasanta, 335 SCRA 218 (2000); People v. Fraga, 330 SCRA 669 (2000).

    12. People v. Alicante, 334 SCRA 440 (2000); People v. Ramos, 330 SCRA 453 (2000).

    13. People v. Baid, 336 SCRA 656 (2000); People v. Balacano, 336 SCRA 615 (2000); Tabanggay, 334 SCRA 575 (2000).

    14. People v. Ulgasan, 335 SCRA 441 (2000); People v. Castillo, 335 SCRA 100 (2000).

    15. October 30, 1996 TSN, Jane Gara, pp. 18-20; September 27, 1996 TSN, Edna Evangelista, pp. 21-23.

    16. People v. Campuhan, 329 SCRA 270 (2000), citing People v. De la Peña, 233 SCRA 573 (1994).

    17. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, p. 1584.

    18. People v. Tabanggay, 334 SCRA 575 (2000).

    G.R. No. 132044   October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY


    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