People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Soria
G.R. No. 179031 ; 14 November 2012
PONENTE: Del Castillo
SUBJECT:Rape
FACTS:
Version of the Prosecution:
The victim, AAA, is the daughter of the accused. On February 26, 2000, AAA and her siblings enjoyed the spaghetti their father brought home for merienda. After eating, AAA went to the bedroom to rest. Thereafter, appellant also entered the room and positioned himself on top of AAA, took off her clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA felt intense pain from her breast down to her vagina and thus told her father that it was painful. At that point, appellant apologized to his daughter, stood up, and left the room. The whole incident was witnessed by AAA’s brother, BBB. The pain persisted until AAA’s vagina started to bleed. She thus told her aunt about it and they proceeded to a hospital for treatment. Her mother was also immediately informed of her ordeal. AAA was taken into the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
Version of the Defense:
Appellant admitted that he was at home on the day and time of AAA’s alleged rape but denied committing the same. Instead, he claimed that the filing of the rape case against him was instigated by his wife, whom he confronted about her illicit affair with a man residing in their community. According to appellant, he could not have molested AAA because he treated her well. In fact, he was the only one sending his children to school since his wife already neglected them and seldom comes home.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the allegations of the accused is credible to cast a reasonable doubt which would warrant his acquittal
HELD:
Rape can now be committed either through sexual intercourse or by sexual assault. Rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A is referred to as rape through sexual intercourse. Carnal knowledge is the central element and it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A is commonly known as rape by sexual assault. The perpetrator commits this kind of rape by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
The RTC and the CA found the accused guilty of rape through sexual intercourse but It is evident from the testimony of AAA that she was unsure whether it was indeed appellant’s penis which touched her labia and entered her organ. AAA stated that she only knew that it was the “bird” of her father which was inserted into her vagina after being told by her brother BBB. Clearly, AAA has no personal knowledge that it was appellant’s penis which touched her labia and inserted into her vagina. Hence, it would be erroneous to conclude that there was penile contact based solely on the declaration of AAA’s brother, BBB, which declaration was hearsay due to BBB’s failure to testify.
The court however found it inconsequential that AAA could not specifically identify the particular instrument or object that was inserted into her genital. What is important and relevant is that indeed something was inserted into her vagina. Moreover, the prosecution satisfactorily established that appellant accomplished the act of sexual assault through his moral ascendancy and influence over “AAA” which substituted for violence and intimidation. Thus, there is no doubt that appellant raped AAA by sexual assault.
It is also improbable for appellant’s wife to have dared encourage their daughter AAA to file the charges publicly expose the dishonor of the family unless the rape was indeed committed.
Accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape by sexual assault and is also ordered to pay AAA civil indemnity and damages.
