Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > July 2001 Decisions > G.R. No. 138576-77 July 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY JACOB:



[G.R. No. 138576-77. July 13, 2001.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY JACOB Y LOPEZ, Accused-Appellant.



JIMMY JACOB Y LOPEZ was found guilty by the court a quo of two (2) counts of rape and sentenced to death for each count, and to pay the victim, his 14-year old daughter Celina A. Jacob, moral damages in the sum of P100,000.00 for both. 1

A week before 1 November 1995 Celina Jacob was fetched by her father, Accused Jimmy Jacob, from her grandmother’s house in Silang, Cavite, to stay with him in his "barracks" in Kaylaways Nasugbu, Batangas, to cook for him. At around 6:00 o’clock in the evening of 1 November 1995 she and her father were lying down and preparing to sleep on an improvised bed of wooden planks. Suddenly the accused went on top of her and lasciviously kissed her on the lips. She resisted and bit him on the lips. He forcibly removed her pajama and panty and rammed his penis into her exposed genitalia. She could not effectively repulse his vicious sexual incursion since he threatened to hit her with a hammer. After unleashing his lust in his sexual misadventure with Celina, she sat on the bed to ease the pain in her genitalia. She could not leave the "barracks," which was now "hell" to her, as she did not know how to go back to her grandmother in Silang.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Emboldened quite apparently by the helplessness of his daughter, his libido struck again the following evening. At around 7:00 o’clock, 2 November 1995, while Celina was lying in bed beside him, he mounted her once again and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. His overwhelming strength, coupled with his threats to smash her head with his hammer, virtually rendered inutile any form of resistance from her. It was only providential that an aunt of hers visited her the following morning. The visit gave her the opportunity for escape by going with her aunt home to Lalaan, Silang, Cavite, where she recounted her nightmarish ordeal to Rolando Amon, her uncle and her aunt’s husband, who then brought her to the police station to file her complaint.

Explaining the medico-legal certificate he issued to Celina, Dr. Jaime L. Butiong pointed out that she suffered lacerations of the hymen at 4:00, 6:00 and 8:00 o’clock positions most probably as a result of the entry of the male organ into her genitalia. But other than those lacerations, Dr. Butiong found no other physical injuries.

Jimmy Jacob denied the accusations against him. He said that on 1 November 1995 he was idly spending his time with his co-workers at the construction site in Batulao, Nasugbu, Batangas, as work was suspended because of a raging typhoon. At around 7:00 o’clock in the morning of the following day, 2 November, his daughter was with him at the construction site. He instructed her to proceed to their living quarters to prepare lunch. When he followed his daughter a little later, he was taken aback when he saw his brother-in-law on top of Celina and apparently having sexual intercourse with her. Equally stunned by the sudden appearance of the accused, Rolando and Celina immediately stood up and fled. He gave chase but the two (2) were able to run away. The accused then boarded in a vehicle bound for Lalaan where he thought the two (2) might have gone.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

As soon as Jimmy arrived at Rolando’s house around 11:00 o’clock in the morning, Rolando together with some bystanders accosted Jimmy and accused him of raping Celina. They brought Jimmy to the municipal jail where he was detained. The police did not believe his protestations of innocence and his insistence that it was in fact his brother-in-law who raped his daughter. Jimmy and Celina saw each other at the police station but apparently angry at her father, she avoided him like a plague. The accused could only theorize that his daughter was probably brainwashed by Rolando into hating him, and that Rolando even threatened to harm her if she talked to him. Jimmy also said that he was rebuffed by Rolando when he attempted to confront the latter about having abused his daughter.

Upon taking the witness stand again, a privilege which was granted him at this instance, the accused informed the court that his daughter became pregnant in 1997 although she was not married, but did not know who was responsible for her pregnancy although one thing was certain she was then living with his brother-in-law in Lalaan, Silang, Cavite.

Controverting the version of the accused, Rolando Amon denied that he had sexual intercourse with Celina inside the "barracks" of Jimmy in the morning of 2 November 1995. He asserted that on 1 November he was in fact in Alfonso, Cavite, selling ice cream, and on 2 November he was in Balayan, Batangas, also selling ice cream and stayed there until 3:00 o’clock in the morning of 3 November. The following day he learned from his niece Celina that she had been molested by her father thus prompting him to cause the arrest and detention of his brother-in-law Jimmy Jacob.

The trial court did not sustain the defense of alibi and denial. According to the court, the affirmative testimony of the complaining witness was much stronger than the denial of the accused. It found the defense too weak and far from convincing as against the positive testimony of Celina that her father, the accused, Jimmy Jacob y Lopez, raped her on 1 and 2 November 1995 in his "barracks" in Kaylaway, Nasugbu, Batangas, as it found Celina’s testimony, straightforward, candid and "free from tergiversation."cralaw virtua1aw library

Accused-appellant now insists that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily pass the test of moral certainty and/or standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt required for his conviction. He claims that the testimony of the complaining witness is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies as to effectively cast serious doubt on her credibility. He also notes that Celina had the tendency not to respond to questions propounded to her at the trial which underscores the improbability of the rape in the "barracks" with so many co-workers of accused-appellant present. 2

We find the arguments without merit. The alleged inconsistencies and contradictions are so minor and inconsequential to warrant a reversal of accused-appellant’s conviction. The triviality of the supposed inconsistencies can hardly affect the substance or veracity and weight of complaining witness’ testimony which, on the contrary, only serves to reinforce than weaken her credibility. 3

Accused-appellant belabors to impress the Court that it was highly improbable for him to have perpetrated the crime of rape as the "barracks" was occupied by many individuals. But, contrary to this claim, complaining witness categorically asserted that only the two (2) of them, referring to herself and her father, were occupying her father’s "barracks" on the two (2) occasions that she was abused by him. It has been shown time and again that rape can be committed even in the most unlikely places, such as parks, schools, and other areas frequented by people.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Accused-appellant insists that it was his brother-in-law who ravished his daughter, and not he. But we are not convinced. It is not easy to persuade a young girl to have herself physically examined and thereafter undergo the rigors of a public trial for rape brought against the very man who sired her if she was not motivated by a genuine desire to bring the perpetrator to the bar of justice. Moreover, Accused-appellant himself admitted that Celina was mad at him and even went to the extent of avoiding him altogether, an attitude she never exhibited before 1 November 1995.

Accused-appellant questions the imposition on him of the death sentence, two (2) death sentences in fact, in view of what he describes as the failure of the prosecution to establish that his daughter was below eighteen (18) at the time of the rape. While it is true that the Information alleged that Celina was fourteen (14) years old, having been born on 23 September 1980, hence was fifteen (15) years, one (1) month and nine (9) days on 1 November 1995, this does not sufficiently prove that she was under eighteen (18) years of age to justify the imposition of the death penalty. According to him, such defect cannot be cured by the presentation of the victim’s baptismal certificate which does not suffice to prove her exact age.

Invariably this Court has ruled that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with certainty that the victim was below eighteen (18) when the rape was committed to justify the imposition of the death penalty. In People v. Tipay 4 the presentation of certificate of live birth or other equally acceptable official document concerning date of birth is vital and essential to ascertain the age of the victim. Such independent proof can only be dispensed with in cases where the court can take judicial notice of the victim’s tender age in view of the manifest minority of the victim who may be below ten (10) years old. The crucial years, according to Tipay, pertain to the ages of fifteen (15) to seventeen (17) where minority may seem doubtful due to one’s physical appearance. In that situation, the prosecution has the burden of proving with certitude that the victim was under eighteen (18) years of age when the rape case was committed to justify the imposition of the death penalty.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that the victim is a minor, who was born on 23 September 1980, or fifteen [15] years, one [1] month and nine [9] days on 1 November 1995, which accused-appellant, her own father, never denied; aside from the fact that it is amply supported by a baptismal certificate 5 showing that indeed Celina was born on 23 September 1980 in Silang, Cavite, and was christened three (3) months later on 25 December 1980.

Relative to the acceptability of a baptismal certificate as an independent proof to establish the minority of the victim, we refer to People v. Contreras, 6 where minority as a qualifying circumstance was disallowed for failure of the prosecution to present a birth certificate or at least a baptismal certificate to support the bare testimony of the victim as to her exact age.

People v. Liban 7 was more categorical. It said that." . . the Court has consistently adhered to the idea that the victim’s minority must not only be specifically alleged in the information but must likewise be established beyond reasonable doubt during trial . . . . The birth certificate of the victim or, in lieu thereof, any other documentary evidence, like a baptismal certificate, school records and documents of similar nature, or credible testimonial evidence that can help establish the age of the victim should be presented" (Emphasis supplied).chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Article 335 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

To repeat, the two (2) Informations charging accused-appellant with rape clearly alleged that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of his daughter, Celina Jacob, then fourteen (14) years of age. Celina testified that she was born on 23 September 1980 which was corroborated by her baptismal certificate, thus undeniably showing that she was fifteen (15) years old when she was raped on 1 and 2 November 1995.

The concurrence of minority of the private complainant and her relationship to the offender having been alleged in the two (2) Informations and duly established by the prosecution during the trial constrains the Court to affirm the conviction of accused-appellant of qualified rape on two (2) counts and the imposition of the death penalty in each case.

Four (4) members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People v. Echegaray, 8 that RA 7659, insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death is unconstitutional, nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should be imposed.

As to the civil indemnity, Accused-appellant should be made to pay the amount of P150,000.00 or P75,000.00 for each of the two (2) counts of rape in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. We affirm the award of P100,000.00 for moral damages for both cases, or P50,000.00 for each count of rape.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo finding accused appellant JIMMY JACOB Y LOPEZ guilty of two (2) counts of incestuous rape and imposing on him the DEATH penalty in each case and ordering him to pay his victim, his own daughter Celina A. Jacob, the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages for both cases is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he is further ordered to pay her the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity in each case, or P150,000.00 for both cases.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Upon finality of this Decision, let the records of this case be forwarded to Her Excellency the President for the possible exercise of her pardoning power.


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

Quisumbing, J., on official leave.

Gonzaga-Reyes, J., is on leave.


1. Decision penned by Judge Antonio A. De Sagun, RTC-Br. 14, Nasugbu, Batangas.

2. Ibid.

3. People v. Pacistol, G.R. Nos. 119074-75, 22 January 1998; 284 SCRA 520.

4. G.R. No. 131472, 28 March 2000.

5. Original Records, p. 23.

6. G.R. Nos. 137123-24, 23 August 2000.

7. G.R. Nos. 136247 and 138330, 22 November 2000.

8. G.R. No. 117472, 7 February 1997, 267 SCRA 682.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

July-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1188 July 2, 2001 - JOSE E. GURAY v. FABIAN M. BAUTISTA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1481 July 5, 2001 - RCBC v. NOEL V. QUILANTANG

  • G.R. No. 135199 July 5, 2001 - CRISOSTOMO MAGAT, ET AL. v. ALBERT M. DELIZO, ET AL.


  • G.R. No. 141947 July 5, 2001 - ISMAEL V. SANTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


  • A.M. No. 97-2-53-RTC July 6, 2001 - RE: FERDINAND J. MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 132318 July 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO F. MUERONG

  • G.R. No. 134114 July 6, 2001 - NESTLE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134779 July 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERSON FLORAGUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137608-09 July 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO TAGANNA

  • G.R. No. 143375 July 6, 2001 - RUTH D. BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131856-57 July 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM MONTINOLA

  • G.R. Nos. 85494, 85496 & 195071 July 10, 2001 - CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126166 July 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ALLAN TEJADA

  • G.R. No. 133928 July 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECESARIO HIJAPON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136267 July 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL ABRENICA CUBCUBIN, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 142801-802 July 10, 2001 - BUKLOD NG KAWANING EIIB, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1253 July 11, 2001 - KIAT REAPORT, ET AL. v. EFREN S. MARIANO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1452 July 11, 2001 - FERMA C. PORTIC v. MARIO B. LOPEZ, ET AL.


  • G.R. No. 104802 July 11, 2001 - AURELIA S. LLANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108301 & 132539 July 11, 2001 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108346 July 11, 2001 - MARIANO Z. VELARDE, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


  • G.R. No. 137050 July 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE CORTES

  • G.R. No. 137891 July 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS PATRIARCA

  • G.R. No. 140365 July 11, 2001 - CESAR P. UY, ET AL v. VICTORINO P. EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140974 July 11, 2001 - RAMON ORO v. GERARDO D. DIAZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1349 July 12, 2001 - BERNADETTE MONDEJAR v. MARINO S. BUBAN

  • G.R. No. 101974 July 12, 2001 - VICTORIA P. CABRAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102313 July 12, 2001 - R. F. NAVARRO & CO. v. FORTUNATO A. VAILOCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102696, 102716, 108257 & 120954 July 12, 2001 - ALBERTO LOOYUKO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104223 July 12, 2001 - TIBURCIO SAMONTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104383 July 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIANO AMESTUZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112590 July 12, 2001 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131638-39 July 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO D. MEDENILLA

  • G.R. No. 138737 July 12, 2001 - FINMAN GEN. ASSURANCE CORP., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138576-77 July 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY JACOB

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1322 July 17, 2001 - RENATO H. SANCHEZ v. GEMINIANO A. EDUARDO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1484 July 17, 2001 - JOSE R. ASTORGA v. NICOLASITO S. SOLAS

  • G.R. Nos. 103550 & 103551 July 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ROMERICO PORRAS

  • G.R. No. 133814 July 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES ORTIZ

  • G.R. Nos. 134540-41 July 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. DIONISIO BATALLER

  • G.R. Nos. 109559 & 109581 July 19, 2001 - BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111535 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CAMPOS

  • G.R. Nos. 113255-56 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO S. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 125698 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO E. HAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128153-56 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. BUISON

  • G.R. No. 131216 July 19, 2001 - LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132177 July 19, 2001 - JOSE F. CAOIBES v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133190 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS LOR

  • G.R. No. 135145 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMOND G. MAXION

  • G.R. No. 137545 July 19, 2001 - TERESITA D. GAITE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


  • G.R. No. 139967 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL TALAVERA

  • G.R. Nos. 141011 & 141028 July 19, 2001 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORP. v. ISAGANI C. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 144179 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMSHAND C. THAMSEY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1350 July 20, 2001 - LORENZO PASCUAL, ET AL. v. CESAR M. DUMLAO


  • G.R. No. 117187 July 20, 2001 - UNION MOTOR CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120176 July 20, 2001 - MA. VALENTINA SANTANA-CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124442 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO S. COMPACION

  • G.R. No. 132926 July 20, 2001 - ELVIRA AGULLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133580 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO GENEBLAZO

  • G.R. Nos. 135030-33 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MERCY LOGAN

  • G.R. No. 135666 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR B. GARCIA


  • G.R. No. 138501 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. LAXA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139150 July 20, 2001 - PABLO DELA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142024 July 20, 2001 - GUILLERMO SARABIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.



  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1564 July 26, 2001 - MARISSA M. GORDON, ET AL. v. FRISCO T. LILAGAN

  • G.R. Nos. 132325-26 July 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO ESPINA

  • G.R. No. 133225 July 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN CONCEPCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113176 & 113342 July 30, 2001 - HANIL DEVELOPMENT CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. Nos. P-00-1381 & A.M. No. P-00-1382 July 31, 2001 - EFREN B. MALLARE v. RONALD ALLAN A. FERRY

  • G.R. No. 105647 July 31, 2001 - ERNESTO BIONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121298 & 122123 July 31, 2001 - GENARO RUIZ, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129329 July 31, 2001 - ESTER M. ASUNCION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130707 July 31, 2001 - VERONICA ROBLE, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR ARBASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134634 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAZARO CLARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134831-32 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON N. LOGMAO

  • G.R. Nos. 136827 & 136799 July 31, 2001 - SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ET AL. v. TROPICAL HOMES

  • G.R. No. 136847 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODULFO P. VILLARIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138289 July 31, 2001 - GRACIANO PALELE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139180 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 139529 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO BRACERO

  • G.R. No. 139622 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO PERRERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142616 July 31, 2001 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. RITRATTO GROUP INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143687 July 31, 2001 - RAMON ESTANISLAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


  • G.R. No. 145389 July 31, 2001 - ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL. v. RONNIE C. SILVESTRE