PEOPLE V.

ALEJANDRO RELLOTA
GR NO. 168103
AUGUST 3, 2010

FACTS:

The CA affirmed with modifications the decision of the RTC Antipolo City Branch 73, finding
the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of consummated rape and one
count of attempted rape. The antecedent facts are the following:

AAA was born on July 16, 1981 in XXX, Eastern Samar and was a little over twelve (12) years
old when the incidents allegedly happened. Together with her siblings, BBB and CCC, AAA
lived with her aunt, DDD, and the latter's second husband, appellant. Also living with them
were two (2) of AAA's cousins. During that period, DDD and appellant were sending AAA, BBB
and CCC to school. At the time the incidents took place, DDD was working overseas. Based
on the testimony of AAA, appellant had been kissing her and touching her private parts since
September 1993. She claimed that appellant raped her several times between September
1993 and January 1994. She narrated that appellant would usually rape her at night when the
other members of the family were either out of the house or asleep. AAA stated that she
resisted the advances of appellant, but was not successful. Appellant would usually place a
bolo beside him whenever he would rape her. She added that appellant would threaten AAA
by telling her that he would kill her brother and sister and that he would stop sending her to
school. Around noon of December 20, 1993, appellant followed AAA to the bedroom after the
latter took a bath. Appellant tied her hands with a rope and forcibly inserted his penis.
Thereafter, appellant untied the hands and left. A few moments later, appellant returned and
raped her again. The same incident happened again on January 31, 1994. Afterwards, AAA
told her older sister about the repeated deeds of the appellant. Her sister accompanied AAA to
the police station.

In not imposing the penalty of death, the trial court reasoned out that AAA was already over 12
years old at the time the incidents happened and that although she was below 18 years old,
the relationship of AAA and the appellant had not been sufficiently established as the marriage
between AAA's aunt and the appellant was not supported by any documentary evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the conviction of the appellant by the trial court is correct due to the
inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA.

RULING:
The Court finds the appeal bereft of any merit. The claim of appellant that he could not have
raped AAA because his wife was still in the country during the alleged period when the rape
was committed is so flimsy that it does not deserve even the slightest consideration. It has
been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place. Neither the crampness of the room, nor
the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient
and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape. There have been too many instances
when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of
family members sleeping side by side. There is no rule that a woman can only be raped in
seclusion.

Nevertheless, the said inconsistencies pointed out by appellant are minor ones which do not
affect the credibility of AAA nor erase the fact that the latter was raped. The inconsistencies
are trivial and forgivable, since a victim of rape cannot possibly give an exacting detail for each
of the previous incidents, since these may just be but mere fragments of a prolonged and
continuing nightmare, a calvary she might even be struggling to forget.

PEOPLE V. HIPOLITO PASCUA

FACTS:

The RTC of Pangasinan Branch 38 found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four
counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case. .

Private complainants Liza and Anna, both surnamed Paragas, are twins. The appellant
was their neighbor in Calvo, Mangatarem, Pangasinan. Liza and Anna considered
appellant as their grandfather although he was not related to them. On August 6, 1995,
private complainants were playing near the house of the appellant when the latter called
Liza and instructed her to buy juice at the store. Liza obeyed. After she returned from the
store, the appellant ordered Liza to go inside his house and lie down on the floor.
Appellant then removed Liza’s clothes, went on top of her, inserted his penis into her
vagina. Liza tried to scream but appellant threatened to kill her. Afterwards, the appellant
gave Liza P10 and warned her not to reveal the incident to her mother. The same thing
happened on January 27, 1996 when Liza was called by the appellant as she was passing
by his house.

Liza’s twin sister, Anna, suffered the same fate at the hands of the appellant. Sometime in
August 1995, while Anna was playing with her cousins, the appellant called her and asked
her to go inside his house. As soon as Anna entered his house, the appellant closed the
door, removed Anna’s clothes, and made her lie down on the floor. Thereafter, the
appellant inserted his penis into Anna’s vagina and ravished her. Anna felt pain but could
not shout as appellant threatened to kill her. The appellant also warned her not to tell her
mother about the incident. The same thing happened again on January 20, 1996.

At the trial, appellant and his granddaughter, Joy Javier, testified for the defense. The
appellant admitted having sexual intercourse with private complainants but insisted that
Liza and Anna freely consented to the repeated sexual acts in exchange for money
ranging from P5 to P10.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the conviction of the appellant is correct.

RULING:

The Court finds no merit in the appellant’s reasoning. His defense that the victims consented
to his desires is preposterous to be considered. The same is not only revolting but goes
against established norms. No young child in her right mind will consent to have sexual
intercourse with a 65-year-old man, specially one whom she considers her grandfather. The
appellant desperately tries to portray private complainants as sex-starved maniacs who, at the
tender age of 12, persistently demanded sex with him. Indeed, after admitting that he had
carnal knowledge of private complainants on several occasions, the appellant assumed the
burden of proving his defense by substantial evidence. The record shows that, other than his
self-serving assertions, the appellant had nothing to support his claim that private
complainants were teenagers of loose morals and that the repeated acts of sexual intercourse
were consensual.

When the offended parties are young and immature girls from 12 to 16, as in this case, courts
are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their
relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which they would be exposed by court
trial if their accusation were not true.The Court entertain no doubt that Liza and Anna told the
truth. Their testimony was clear that they never consented to the rape. Their declarations
during the trial were simple, straightforward and unflawed by any inconsistency or
contradiction. A candid and honest narration by the victim of how she was abused must be
given full faith and credit for they contain earmarks of credibility.