SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
139609
November 24, 2003
-versus-
EXEQUIEL MAHINAY,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
Leny Riovaldez was
born on April 13, 1986 to the couple Eliseo and Norma Riovaldez,
residents
of San Diego Street, Canumay, Valenzuela.[1]
The couple had another daughter, Ellen. Norma's first cousin, then
29-year-old
Exequiel Mahinay ("Kuya Ese"), lived near their house.[2]
During the school year 1997-1998, Leny was already in Grade
V. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At about 7:00 p.m. on
August 24, 1997, Leny was playing near their house with Nonoy, Jay-R
and
Inday.[3]
Leny's father was at work. Momentarily, Exequiel arrived and told Leny
to fetch water from the house of her Ate Nena, about twenty to thirty
meters
away. Leny did as she was told.[4]
Exequiel then ordered Leny to look for his common-law wife, Rowena
Guillero,
at the house of her Ate Nena. Leny returned and told Exequiel that
Rowena
was not there.[5]
Exequiel ordered Leny and Nonoy to go with him to look for Rowena at
the
house of one Ilon. Leny and Nonoy agreed. Exequiel, Leny and Nonoy went
to the said house but failed to find Rowena there. Exequiel and the two
children decided to go home. Exequiel told Nonoy to go ahead.[6]
As they neared Ate Nena's house, Exequiel suddenly held Leny by the
hand
and dragged her to a grassy area. Leny tried to run away but Exequiel
pulled
her down to the ground. She pushed him and shouted for help, but
Exequiel
covered her mouth with his hand.[7]
He then removed Leny's T-shirt, bra, shorts and panties, and kissed her
on her lips. He himself removed his shirt, shorts and brief, and laid
on
top of her. Leny tried to shout, but Exequiel choked her. He then
inserted
his penis, which was already hard, into her vagina. Leny felt pain in
her
vagina, and felt something hot afterwards.[8]
She felt dizzy and weak. Satiated, Exequiel then removed his penis,
licked
Leny's vagina and spat on it.[9]
He warned Leny not to tell anyone what he had done to her. Exequiel
initially
put P900 in her pocket, but took back P600. Before leaving, Exequiel
threatened
to kill her and her family if she reported the incident.[10]
Leny then put her clothes back on and went back home with Exequiel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Leny was in the province
when she received a letter from her sister Ellen that Exequiel had
raped
her.[11]
When her aunt Vilma arrived, Leny revealed that Exequiel had also raped
her in Valenzuela.[12]
On March 8, 1998, Leny finally told her mother Norma that she was raped
by Exequiel on August 24, 1997. Norma was furious at her daughter for
not
telling her about the incident much earlier.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 27, 1998, Norma
brought Leny to Dr. Jose Arnel Marquez, Medico-Legal Officer of the
Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory, who forthwith subjected Leny to a
genital
examination and prepared a report containing the following findings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FINDINGS:
GENERAL AND
EXTRAGENITAL:
Fairly developed,
fairly
nourished and coherent female subject. Breasts are conical with light
brown
areola and nipples from which no secretions could be pressed out.
Abdomen
is flat and soft.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
GENITAL:
There is moderate
growth
of pubic hair. Labia majora are slightly gaping with pinkish brown
labia
minora presenting in between. On separating the same disclosed an
elastic,
fleshy-type hymen with deep healed laceration at 5 o'clock and shallow
healed at 3 and 9 o'clock positions. External vaginal orifice offers
moderate
resistance to the introduction of the examining index finger. Vaginal
canal
is narrow with prominent rugosities. Cervix is firm and closed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONCLUSION:
Subject is in
non-virgin
state physically.
There are no
external
signs of recent application of any form of violence.
REMARKS:
Vaginal and
peri-urethral
smears are NEGATIVE for gram-negative diplococci and for spermatozoa.[14]
On May 28, 1998, Norma
gave her sworn statement to SPO1 Jesus Sagisi.[15]
Leny gave a separate sworn statement to the policeman on the same date.[16]
On December 22, 1998,
Exequiel was charged with rape in an Information filed with the RTC of
Valenzuela City, Branch 171, the accusatory portion of which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or
about the 24th day of August 1997 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila and
within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
lewd design, by means of force and intimidation employed upon the
person
of one LENNY (sic) RIOVALDEZ y POSADA, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the said LENNY RIOVALDEZ y
POSADA, against her will and without her consent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.[17]
Exequiel, now the
accused,
was arraigned, assisted by counsel, and entered a plea of not guilty.
The accused denied raping
Leny. He testified that the charge against him was instigated by his
cousin
Virgilio delos Santos and Vilma Posadas. Vilma, Leny's aunt, wanted her
son to replace Exequiel as a salesman in an electrical store. Vilma's
plan
was made known to him by his own employer, Raemay Co Ching.cralaw:red
The accused testified
that on August 24, 1990, he was in his house at Vitas, Tondo, Manila,
with
his live-in partner Rowena Guillero and his younger sister Merly
Mahinay.[18]
On September 3, 1997, he moved to No. 63 G. San Diego Street, Canumay,
Valenzuela City, about twenty meters from the house of his cousin
Virgilio.[19]
On October 5, 1997, at 5:30 p.m., he was with Virgilio at the latter's
house playing tong-its with Roy Moreno. Leny was outside playing with
Virgilio's
children. The accused ordered Leny and the other children to look for
his
wife Rowena at No. 21-A G. San Diego Street, Canumay, Valenzuela City.
The children returned at 6:00 p.m. and told the accused that they were
not able to find Rowena.[20]
Leny and her companions asked for money to buy candy. Since the accused
had no loose change, he gave Leny and her companions a P100 bill to buy
tocino. As they were unable to buy any, the accused ordered them to buy
eggs instead. The children did as they were told, and the accused gave
Leny P20 afterwards. Leny and her companions then asked permission to
watch
television in his house. The accused agreed.[21]
By 6:30 p.m., when the accused went back home to have dinner, Leny and
her companions were no longer there. He went back to Virgilio's house,
and resumed playing tong-its. By then, there were already many players.
Virgilio's wife, Florida, was accepting bets for the "ending" in a
basketball
game and it was agreed that the winner would buy beer. The accused and
the other players then had a drinking spree in front of Virgilio's
house.
By midnight, the accused had consumed five glasses of beer and went
back
home.[22]
When he woke up at 6:30 a.m., he took a bath. Florida then arrived and
asked him if he had given Leny some money the night before. When he
asked
what the problem was, she replied that while she was looking for her
own
money, she discovered that Leny had P300 with her. When she asked where
the money had come from, Leny replied that it was given to her by the
accused.
The accused explained that he gave Leny P20 because she and her
playmates
asked for money so that they could buy candy. Florida forthwith looked
for Leny and scolded her for receiving money from the accused.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 11, 1998,
the accused was arrested without any warrant therefor and was also
charged
with the rape of Ellen.[24]
After due trial, the
trial court rendered judgment on July 9, 1999, finding the accused
guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape, the decretal portion of
which
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
finding accused Exequiel Mahinay Guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
charged,
he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with
the accessory penalties prescribed by the law and to pay the costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
He is likewise
ordered
to indemnify the child victim the amount of P50,000.00 plus P50,000.00
moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[25]
The accused, now the
appellant,
assails the decision of the trial court contending that:
THE TRIAL
COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE
FAILURE
OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellant avers
that
the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt his guilt for
the
crime charged. He asserts that in the crime of rape, the testimony of
the
offended party is ordinarily most vital and must be received with
greatest
caution. The victim's testimony must be credible and must bear the
stamp
of truth and candor. He contends that in this case, the testimony of
the
private complainant is incredible, besides being inconsistent. He
argues
that it is incredible that the private complainant was able to narrate
before the trial court the lurid details of her deflowerization despite
her testimony on cross-examination that she lost consciousness when the
appellant raped her. He insists that the claim of the private
complainant,
that she shouted for thirty minutes without anybody hearing her and
rushing
to her succor is, likewise, incredible. Another concoction is her claim
that she was raped by the appellant for four hours. Leny could not have
known that she was raped for four hours since, as testified to by her,
she regained consciousness only when she was already in their house.
Moreover,
on direct examination, she testified that the appellant gave her P300
after
she was raped, only to contradict herself, on cross-examination, when
she
testified that she was given the amount before she was raped. Because
she
was unconscious at the time, she could not have known that the
appellant
gave her P300. The appellant contends that the trial court should have
acquitted him instead of finding him guilty of the crime charged.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For its part, the Office
of the Solicitor General contends that the trial court found the
testimony
of Leny worthy of belief. High respect is given to the factual findings
of the trial court unless it is shown that certain facts of value have
been plainly overlooked which, if considered, would affect the result
of
the case; no such facts were shown to have been overlooked in this
case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appeal lacks merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We note from the evidence
of the prosecution that Leny was below 12 years old when the appellant
had carnal knowledge of her. Born on April 13, 1986, Leny was only
eleven
years and four months old at the time of the alleged rape on August 24,
1997. Carnal knowledge of a girl under 12 years of age is statutory
rape
under Article 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised
Penal Code. Such offense is established upon proof that the accused
sexually violated the offended party who was under 12 years of age at
the
time of the sexual assault. Consent of the offended party is immaterial.[27]
Being of tender age, she is presumed not to have any will of her own.[28]
The use of force or intimidation is not an element of statutory rape.[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The fact that the offended
party was under 12 years old at the time of the commission of the crime
is an essential element of the crime and must be proved beyond
reasonable
doubt. It must also be alleged in the Information/criminal complaint as
mandated by the Rules
of Criminal Procedure which reads:
Sec. 6.
Sufficiency
of complaint or information.- A complaint or information is sufficient
if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense by
the statute; the acts of omissions complained of as constituting the
offense;
the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission
of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When an offense is
committed
by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint
or information.[30]
Even if the prosecution
proved beyond cavil that the victim was below 12 years old when the
appellant
raped her, he cannot be convicted of statutory rape if the age of the
victim
was not alleged in the Information because he would thereby be deprived
of his right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him.[31]
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove by presenting Leny's
birth
certificate, that she was only 11 years and 4 months old when the
appellant
had carnal knowledge of her. As this was not alleged in the
Information,
the appellant cannot be convicted of statutory rape. However, he may
still
be found guilty of rape under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code[32]
since it was alleged in the Information that, by means of force and
intimidation
employed upon the person of Leny, the appellant succeeded in having
sexual
intercourse with her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the prosecution
did muster the requisite quantum of evidence that the appellant
succeeded
in raping Leny by using force and intimidation, thus:
Q After
that,
what happened?
A After that, he
suddenly
told me to go with him to look for Ate Rowena.
Q What about
Nonoy,
was (sic) he go with you?
A No, sir, he
instructed
Nonoy to go ahead.
Q What happened
when
you were with him looking for Ate Rowena?
A Then he brought
me
outside of the place fronting the house of Ate Rowena.
Q What was the
condition
of the place, was it grassy or cemented or what?
A Grassy (sic)
place,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q When you reached
that
grassy portion of the place in front of Aling Nena's house, what did he
do, if any?
A He pulled me.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After that what
did
he do?
A I did not go
with
him and I attempted to run.
Q What happened
when
you attempted to run, were you able to run?
A No, sir.
Q Why?
A He suddenly held
my
hands.
Q And after he
held
you by your hands, what did he do?
A Then he
undressed
me.
Q After removing
your
t-shirt, what was the next part of your clothing did he remove?
A My bra, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After removing
your
bra, what was the next part of your clothe (sic) was removed?
A My short, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After your
short,
what did he remove next?
A My panty.
Q After you were
totally
naked, what did he do next?
A Then lie
undressed
himself.
Q What was the
first
part of his clothing that he removed?
A His shirt.
Q After his shirt,
what
come (sic) next?
A Short.
Q After the short?
A His brief, sir.
Q After he removed
the
brief, what did you see if any?
A His penis.
Q What was the
condition
of the penis when you saw it?
A It's hard, sir.
Q After you saw
his
hard penis, what did he do next?
A Then put himself
on
top of me.
Q What did you do,
did
you shout?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened
when
you shouted?
A When I shouted
he
suddenly choked me.
Q After choking
you,
what other things did he do, if any, aside from choking you?
A When he choked
me,
he suddenly inserted his penis to my vagina.
Q What did you
feel
when he inserted his penis to your vagina?
A It was painful,
sir.
Q After feeling
pain,
what happened next?
A I felt something
hot
inside my vagina.
Q What were you
doing
when he was inserting his penis into your vagina?
A It was very
painful
and he suddenly pulls (sic) it.
Q Did you not ask
help
from anybody?
A I asked for help
I
shouted but nobody heard me.
Q What did he tell
you?
A That if I
reported
this matter he will kill my family.
Q After he pulled
his
penis from your vagina, what happened next?
A Then he dressed.[33]
The testimony of Leny
was
corroborated by Dr. Jose Marquez's report that when the victim was
subjected
to a genital examination, he found a fleshy-type hymen with a
deep-healed
laceration at 5 o'clock and a shallow-healed one at 3 and 9 o'clock
positions.
We have held that when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent
with
the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to warrant a conclusion
that
the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been
established.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court found
the testimony of Leny positive, straightforward and credible, and
deserving
of full probative weight. The legal aphorism is that the findings of
the
trial court, its calibration and assessment of the testimonial evidence
of the witnesses, and its conclusion based on its findings are accorded
by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect. This is
because of the trial court's unique advantage of observing at close
range
the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they testify.
An exception to this rule is when the trial court overlooked,
misunderstood
or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if
considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[35]
We have minutiosely reviewed the records and found no basis to deviate
from the findings of the trial court, that the appellant in fact raped
Leny.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As an aftermath of the
appellant's threats, Leny feared for her life and those of her family
and
thus kept the devastating incident to herself. She even had to stop her
schooling. However, when Leny learned that the appellant had also raped
her younger sister Ellen, she found courage to reveal her ordeal to her
Aunt Vilma, that the appellant had earlier raped her on August 24,
1997:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Do you
know
of a certain person by the name of Ellen?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why do you know
her?
A She is my
sister,
sir.
Q Is she your
younger
sister or older sister of you (sic)?
A She is younger
than
me, sir.
Q Of your personal
knowledge,
do you know what happened to her?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is that
thing
that you know about your sister?
A I was in the
province
when I received a letter reporting that she was raped.
Q Who raped her?
A Exequiel, sir.
(pointing
to the accused)
Q After that, did
you
not report the matter to your mother?
A When my auntie
arrived,
I was forced to reveal what happened.
Q What did you
tell
her?
A I told her that
I
was raped.
Q Who was your
auntie?
A Vilma, Sir.
Q When was that
that
you reveal (sic) the matter to your auntie?
A March 27, 1998,
sir.[36]
Leny later told her
mother
that the appellant had raped her. Leny explained to her mother that she
was afraid to reveal the matter earlier because the appellant had
threatened
to kill her and all the members of her family:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Where did
you talk to her?
A In Valenzuela.
Q Where in
Valenzuela
did you talk [with] your daughter?
A At the house of
my
nephew.
Q Where is that?
A San Diego,
Valenzuela,
Metro Manila.
Q Madam Witness,
what
was the conversation about?
A That she was
raped
by her Kuya Ese.
Q If you stated
"Ese,"
do you refer to the accused in this case?
A Yes, Sir.
Q If he is inside
the
courtroom, could (sic) you be able to point to him?
A Yes, Sir.
(Witness
pointing
to a person inside the courtroom, who when asked his name answered
Exequiel
Mahinay)
FISCAL RAZON: (To
the
witness)
Q Now, Madam
Witness,
aside from telling you that she was raped, did she also tell the date
and
place where she was raped?
A August 24, 1997.
Q And where?
A In front of the
store
of Nena.
Q Upon being
informed
that your daughter Leny Riovaldez was raped by the accused in this
case,
what step did you take, if any?
A I got mad
because
she did not tell me at once.
Q After that, what
did
you do?
A I pulled her
hair
and I asked her why did she not tell me at once and she tell (sic) me
that
if she will tell it to me, the accused will kill all of us.
Q After that, what
did
you do, did you bring her to any hospital for examination?
A Yes, sir.[37]
There are lapses and
inconsistencies
in Leny's testimony, but such lapses or inconsistencies do not weaken
her
credibility and derail her testimony. It is a hornbook doctrine that
the
testimony of a witness must be considered in its entirety and not by
truncated
portions or isolated passages thereof.[38]
Besides, it is an accepted rule that the credibility of a rape victim
is
not impaired by mere inconsistencies, if there are any, in her
testimony.
Inconsistencies are to be expected of young victims of heinous crimes,
such as Leny, who was barely 11 years old when the appellant raped her.
Protracted and grueling cross-examination of a young girl, not
accustomed
to public trial, may produce contradictions that may not necessarily
destroy
her credibility.[39]
Error-free testimonies cannot be expected of a young witness who is
recounting
details of a harrowing, traumatic, humiliating, and painful experience
such as rape, one which even an adult would like to bury into the
deepest
recesses of oblivion.[40]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For a discrepancy or
inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as basis for
acquittal,
such must refer to the significant facts vital to the guilt or
innocence
of the accused for the crime charged. An inconsistency which has
nothing
to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the
acquittal
of the accused.[41]
Even if the offended party may have erred in some aspects of her
testimony,
the same does not necessarily impair her testimony nor corrode her
credibility.
The modern trend of jurisprudence is that the testimony of a witness
may
be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the
corroborative
evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. The
doctrine
of FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS deals only with the weight of
evidence
and is not a positive rule of law, and the same is not an inflexible
one
of universal application.[42]
What is vital is that the act of copulation be proven under any of the
conditions enumerated in Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659.[43]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Leny erred when she
testified that she was raped for four hours, lost consciousness after
the
appellant raped her and regained consciousness when she was already in
the house. Her testimony that the appellant put P900 in her pocket
after
raping her but took back P600 is inconsistent with her testimony that
the
appellant placed P900 in her pocket before she was raped. This is
further
inconsistent with her sworn statement that the appellant placed the
money
in her pocket after the rape. Such errors or inconsistencies, however,
pertain only to peripheral and collateral matters and not to the
essential
elements of the crime charged.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court is convinced,
as the trial court was, that the appellant is guilty of the crime
charged.
First.
Leny shouted for help at the top of her voice but the appellant covered
her mouth with his hand.[44]
Second.
On the initial cross-examination by the appellant's counsel, Leny
testified
that she lost consciousness after the appellant had raped her,[45]
and on redirect examination, Leny testified that she merely felt dizzy
but did not lose consciousness.[46]
Thus, she was still conscious when the appellant undressed her and
inserted
his penis into her vagina. She felt pain and even felt the appellant
licking
her vagina with his tongue and saw him spit on her private parts.[47]
It was only after the appellant had consummated his sexual assault on
Leny
that the latter felt dizzy on account of the pain she was feeling and
her
persistent struggling. It bears stressing that the appellant was 29
years
old while Leny was only an 11-year-old wisp of a girl.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third.
Whether the appellant gave P300 before or after the rape is immaterial.
The evidence on record inscrutably shows that the appellant intimidated
Leny and forced her to submit to his lustful desires.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fourth.
Whether Leny lost consciousness or became dizzy before or after the
appellant
gave her P300 is, likewise, irrelevant because by then, she had already
been raped by the appellant, and the crime had already been
consummated.
Significantly, even the appellant admitted that he gave money to Leny,
although he claimed that he gave her P20 with which to buy
candies. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fifth.
Leny was merely 11 years old when she was raped by no less than her
uncle.
It is inconceivable for a young girl, inexperienced with the ways of
the
world, to fabricate a charge of defloration, undergo a medical
examination
of her private parts, subject herself to public ridicule and tarnish
her
family's honor and reputation unless she was motivated by a potent
desire
to seek justice for the outrageous wrong committed against her.[48]
It is highly absurd that Leny would concoct a reprehensible story of
rape,
undergo the scandal of a public trial, recount the ugly details of her
harrowing experience, and be subjected to harassment, embarrassment and
humiliation during grueling cross-examination unless she was indeed
raped.[49]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court awarded
to Leny P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages, but
failed
to award exemplary damages. Leny is entitled to exemplary damages to
deter
uncles with perverse tendencies and aberrant behaviors from sexually
abusing
their nieces.[50]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City,
Branch 171, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The appellant Exequiel
Mahinay
is found guilty of simple rape defined in and penalized by Article 335,
paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua
with all the accessory penalties prescribed by law; and to pay to the
victim
Leny Riovaldez P50,000 as civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages;
and
P25,000 as exemplary damages; and costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Exhibit "F," Records, p. 42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
TSN, 23 April 1999, pp. 2–3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
TSN, 11 May 1999, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 4–5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 6–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, 4 June 1999, pp. 9–10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
TSN, 11 May 1999, pp. 8–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Exhibit "H."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
TSN, 11 May 1999, pp. 12–13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 13–14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
TSN, 23 April 1999, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Exhibit "E."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Exhibit "G."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Exhibit "H".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Records, p 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
TSN, 16 June 1999, pp. 5–6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN, 11 June 1999, pp. 5–6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN, 16 June 1999, pp. 7–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id. at 8–10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id. at 11–12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id. at 12–13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id. at 19–20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id. at 69.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Rollo, p. 42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
People v. Oliva, 282 SCRA 470 (1997); People v. Andres, 253 SCRA 751
(1996).
[28]
People v. Magbanua, 359 SCRA 180 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
People v. Oliva, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
The crime was committed before the effectivity of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure on December 1, 2000.
[31]
People v. Moreno, 294 SCRA 728 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
ART. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances.
1.
By using force or intimidation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
TSN, 11 May 1999, pp. 7–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
People v. Munta, 371 SCRA 208 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
People v. Belga, 349 SCRA 678 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
TSN, 11 May 1999, pp. 13–14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
TSN, 23 April 1999, p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
People v. Butron, 272 SCRA 352 (1997).
[39]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
People v. Callos, 367 SCRA 141 (2001); People v. Calayca, 301 SCRA 192
(1999).
[41]
People v. Balmoja, 364 SCRA 125 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
People v. Julian, 270 SCRA 733 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
People v. Balmoja, supra.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[44]
TSN, 4 June 1999, pp. 9–10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
Id. at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
Id. at 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
Exhibit "H."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[48]
People v. Marabillas, 303 SCRA 352 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
People v. Pardillo, Jr., 282 SCRA 286 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
People v. Remudo, 364 SCRA 61 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |