FACTS ISSUE RULING

Pp v RTC found accused-appellant Leonardo Degay guilty beyond reasonable Did the Court of We uphold the rulings of the appellate court and the RTC.
doubt of three counts of statutory rape Appeals err in affirming
Degay the RTC decision absence of hymenal laceration does not preclude the finding of rape, especially when the victim is of tender age.
accused is a neighbour with only five houses separating them. convicting the accused
of three counts of Rape is consummated by the slightest penile penetration of the labia or pudendum of the female. The presence of
After satisfying himself, the accused gave AAA P5.00 and warned her not statutory rape? hyperemia in the vaginal opening is a clear indication that the penis of the accused indeed touched the labia or
to tell her mother about what happened. pudendum of the complainants.
On 17 May 2004, AAA and one BBB who would turn out to be another Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim
complainant, were examined at the Bontoc General Hospital by Dr. Alma T. was raped. To sustain a conviction for rape, full penetration of the female genital organ is not necessary. It is
Lusad (Dr. Lusad). enough that there is proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ.
Regarding her findings on AAA, Dr. Lusad explained that there was Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to
erythema or redness at the area of the labia majora and labia minora but constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape. As long as the attempt to insert the penis results
there were no hymenal lacerations. According to the doctor, the erythema in contact with the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, the rape is consummated.
or redness could have been caused by an erect penis that touched the
labia.

With regard to her findings on BBB, Dr. Lusad testified that there was
likewise no hymenal laceration but there was “erythema” of the
perihymenal area at the 3:00 o’clock and 9:00 o’clock positions. The
physician explained that the erythema could have been caused by a hard
object including an erect penis.

RTC - finding the accused guilty of three counts of statutory rape

CA - affirmed the decision of the RTC

Pp v appellant was charged with nine (9) counts of acts of lasciviousness and affirming appellant’s We sustain appellant’s conviction for seven (7) counts of acts of lasciviousness and one (1) count of rape.
one (1) count of rape conviction for nine (9)
Fragant counts of acts of As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, all the essential elements of rape are present in this case. The
e father- daughter lasciviousness and one evidence on record clearly proves that appellant had carnal knowledge of his own minor daughter AAA.
(1) count of rape. We reject appellant’s contention that AAA’s testimony was full of inconsistencies. On the contrary, AAA’s testimony
RTC - convicting appellant for the crimes charged that she was raped by appellant was very consistent and straightforward. Notably, appellant did not point out the
supposed inconsistencies, and proceeded in arguing that his moral ascendancy over his daughter was insufficient
The Court of Appeals found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for to intimidate
the crimes charged. In upholding appellant’s conviction, the Court of
Appeals gave credence to AAA’s testimony narrating how appellant
sexually abused her repeatedly. The Court of Appeals junked appellant’s DOCTRINE: actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor because
contentions that (1) AAA’s testimony lacked specific details such as the the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly
actual date of commission of the acts of lasciviousness, and was desires.14  When a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral
inconsistent with respect to the charge of rape; (2) AAA was ill motivated in ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.15  The absence of
filing the criminal complaints; (3) the charge of rape was unsubstantiated by violence or offer of resistance would not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and
medical findings; and (4) the delay in reporting the incidents to the proper overbearing moral influence of the father over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of
authorities renders the charges dubious resistance required in rape cases committed by an accused who did not have blood relationship with the
victim.

In this case, AAA’s testimony clearly showed how appellant took advantage of his relationship with and his
moral ascendancy over his minor daughter when he had carnal knowledge of her. As found by the Court of
 Appeals, appellant instilled fear on AAA’s mind every time he sexually molested her

could not tell her mother of her ordeal, mindful of the serious threats on her life and of the chaos it
would cause their family.
Delay could be attributed to the victim’s tender age and the appellant’s threats.20  A rape victim’s actions are
oftentimes influenced by fear, rather than reason.21  In incestuous rape, this fear is magnified because the victim
usually lives under the same roof as the perpetrator or is at any rate subject to his dominance because of their
blood relationship

Also in crimes against chastity and rape – relationship is an aggravating circumstance , but must be
expressly placed in the information
Pp v willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with [his] WON RTC Tarlac City, Criminal Law; Rape; Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.—Proof of hymenal laceration is
stepdaughter AAA, a minor, 13 years of age, against her will and consent. Branch 63 correctly not an element of rape. An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. Penetration of the
Pangilin convicted appellant of penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and
an On October 3, 2001, the prosecution filed two (2) Informations charging the crimes of rape even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.
appellant of the crimes of Rape and Child Sexual Abuse under Section 5 under Article 266-A of
(b) of RA No. 7610. the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, AAA testified in her redirect examination that appellant had inserted his organ into her vagina and that it was
no hymenal laceration. and sexual abuse painful when appellant did it. It was the penetration that caused the pain. We held that rape is committed on the
under Section 5 (b) of victim’s testimony that she felt pain.48 This, at least, could be nothing but the result of penile penetration sufficient
appellant denied the accusations that he raped or molested AAA. He Republic Act (RA) No. to constitute rape.49 Rape is committed even with the slightest penetration of the woman’s sex organ.
testified that on July 27, 2001, he was at his neighbor’s house dressing 7610 with modification
chickens. When he went home at around 10 p.m., AAA told him that CCC, as to the amount of
a cousin, molested her. damages awarded to no woman, much less a child of such tender age, would willingly submit herself to the rigors, the humiliation and
the offended party. the stigma attendant upon the prosecution of rape, if she were not motivated by an earnest desire to put the culprit
RTC hereby finds the accused Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt on both behind bars.
cases (Criminal Case No. 11768 and Criminal Case No. 11769) for Rape
and Sexual Abuse, Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.53 An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim
was raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is
CA affirmed RTC Decision enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.

People v. Abay,however, is enlightening and instructional on this issue. It was stated in that case that if the victim
is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610
or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1 [d] of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be
accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced . A
person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act.
Under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below
12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article
266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. 

On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual
abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised
Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right
against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a
single criminal act.

Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of
the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape)
cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
 In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old when the crime was committed against her.
The Information against appellant stated that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the incident. Therefore,
appellant may be prosecuted either for violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article
266-A (except paragraph 1 [d]) of the Revised Penal Code. While the Information may have alleged the
elements of both crimes, the prosecution’s evidence only established that appellant sexually violated the
person of AAA through force and intimidation by threatening her with a bladed instrument and forcing her to
submit to his bestial designs. Thus, rape was established.

Accordingly, the accused can indeed be charged with either Rape or Child Abuse and be convicted therefor.
Considering, however, that the information correctly charged the accused with rape in violation of Article 266-A
par. 1 in relation to Article 266-B, 1st par. of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, and that he
was convicted therefor, the CA should have merely affirmed the conviction.”
Acuzar Aproniano Jorolan filed Administrative Case against petitioner before whether or not the CA petitioner opted to file a petition for certiorari before the trial court on the pretext that the PLEB had no jurisdiction
the PLEB charging the latter of Grave Misconduct for allegedly having an erred in ruling that to hear the administrative case until petitioner is convicted before the regular court.
v illicit relationship with respondent’s minor daughter. petitioner’s resort
Jorolan to certiorari was not According to petitioner, although the case filed before the PLEB was captioned as “Grave Misconduct,” the offense
respondent also instituted a criminal case against petitioner before the warranted as the charged was actually for “Violation of Law,” which requires prior conviction before a hearing on the administrative
MTC New Corella, for Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act remedy of appeal from case can proceed. Thus, petitioner insists that the PLEB should have awaited the resolution of the criminal case
No. 7610, otherwise known as the Child Abuse Act. the decision of the before conducting a hearing on the administrative charge against him.
PLEB was available to
him The contention however is untenable. A careful perusal of respondent’s affidavit-complaint against petitioner
Jorolan denied all accusations before PLEB ( PEOPLE’S LAW would show that petitioner was charged with grave misconduct for engaging in an illicit affair with
ENFORCEMENT BOARD). respondent Board acted without jurisdiction in respondent’s minor daughter, he being a married man, and not for violation of law, as petitioner would like
proceeding with the case without the petitioner having been first convicted to convince this Court. Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct, motivated by
in the criminal case before the regular court. Petitioner pointed out that premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.10 It usually refers to transgression of some established and definite
under the PLEB Rules of Procedure, prior conviction was required before rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand;
the Board may act on the administrative case considering that the charge
was actually for violation of law, although denominated as one (1) for grave settled rule is that criminal and administrative cases are separate and distinct from each other. 13 
misconduct. Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts
of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded,
there is no denial of due process.
PLEB – acuzar guilty of grave misconduct
RTC - annulling the Decision of the PLEB
CA found merit in respondent’s argument that the petition for certiorari filed
by petitioner before the RTC was not the proper remedy because (1)
appeal was available and (2) the issues raised were not pure questions of
law but both questions of law and fact.

Pp v Dahilig was accused of rape Criminal Law; Rape; Sweetheart Theory; For the sweetheart defense to prosper, the existence of the
supposed relationship must be proven by convincing substantial evidence.—The sweetheart defense
Dahilig proffered by the accused likewise deserves scant consideration. For the said theory to prosper, the existence of
the above named accused, by means of force and intimidation, and taking the supposed relationship must be proven by convincing substantial evidence. Failure to adduce such evidence
advantage of night time and in the dwelling of complainant, did, then and renders his claim to be self-serving and of no probative value. For the satisfaction of the Court, there should be a
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one corroboration by their common friends or, if none, a substantiation by tokens of such a relationship such as love
AAA,3 sixteen (16) year old minor at the time of the commission of the letters, gifts, pictures and the like.
offense, against her will and consent.
Same; Same; Sexual Abuse; If the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with
Accused and AAA were both employed as house helpers by a certain either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph
Karen Gomez. AAA was only sixteen (16) years old at the time of the 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code.—The case of People v. Abay, 580 SCRA 235 (2009), however, is enlightening
commission of the act, having been born on August 17, 1984. and instructional on this issue. It was stated in that case that if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should
 be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except
medico-legal examination disclosed that there was a healing laceration paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same
in her hymen although no spermatozoa was found. It was also stated in the act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal
medico-legal report that AAA could have lost her virginity on or about liability for a single criminal act.
December 17, 2000.
the existence of the supposed relationship must be proven by convincing substantial evidence
RTC – convicted the accused. As to his “sweetheart defense,” the accused
failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence. What he laid before the
court for its consideration was a mere self-serving claim of their the victim was more than 12 years old when the crime was committed against her. The Information against
relationship. It fell short of the rule that a sweetheart defense cannot be appellant stated that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the incident. Therefore, appellant may be prosecuted
given credence in the absence of corroborative proof like love notes, either for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised
mementos, and pictures, to name a few. Bolstering AAA’s story was the Penal Code. While the Information may have alleged the elements of both crimes, the prosecution’s evidence only
medico-legal finding that there was a deep-healing laceration which was established that appellant sexually violated the person of AAA through force and intimidation by threatening her
consistent with the charge that she had been raped. with a bladed instrument and forcing her to submit to his bestial designs. Thus, rape was established.”

CA - CA affirmed the findings of fact of the RTC but clarified that the crime
charged should have been “Child Abuse” as defined and penalized in Sec.
5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610. based on the fact that the complainant was a minor,
being 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense and, as
such, was a child subject of sexual abuse. R.A