People vs. Pangilinan G.R.

171020, March 14, 2007

FACTS:

Two charges of rape of his own daughter was filed to the accused.

1st, the testimony of the victim herself and 2nd, by the appellant's
admission that his daughter is below 12 y/o.

On May 1997, the accused was arrested and he then filed a petition for
bail.

In the hearings the prosecution presented the victim (AAA), BBB (Mother of
AAA), and Dr. Melinda Layug.

The testimony of the daughter was on the month of Sept. 1995, his father
thru force and intimidation, countlessly raped her while she was sleeping
with her siblings and while she was left at home washing the dishes. His
father warned her that if she report to the authorities she will kill them. It
stopped but continued on Jan. 1997, despite of the fact that her mother
already arrived from Singapore and was sleeping downstairs at the sala.
Before going back to Singapore, DDD, grandmother of AAA, advised BBB
not to leave her children because the appellant had been molesting AAA.
Shocked by it, she asked her daughter and the latter confessed everything.
BBB confronted the appellant but he denied the accusations. She brought
her daughter to Dinalupahan District Hospital, and examined by Dr.
Melinda Layug, the results revealed non-parous introitus with an old healed
laceration at 4'oclock position. Thus, the instant case was filed.

The appellant presented his defence as sole witness. Back when he left for
Saudi, his wife was having an affair and that the youngest daughter was
not his own, he lost interest on going to back to work and stayed at home.
He stated that his daughter was sweet to her, she hugs and kiss him and
she even became sweeter. While BBB was in Singapore, he claimed that
AAA approached him pointing finger at her palm. Now, he claimed that he
had no sexual relationship with her although she seduced him.

The trial court declared its decision in favour of the victim. It disregarded
the defence of the accused because it's unbelievable for a ten-year old girl
to be as malicious and that minor inconsistencies in private complainant's
testimony did not in any way affect her credibility. The charge was guilty
beyond reasonable doubt in both cases and sentencing him to suffer the
supreme penalty of death.

The trial court forwarded the case to the Supreme Court for review, but it
was forwarded to CA for appropriate actions.

The accused filed petition for errors in trial court's decision.

ISSUES:
1. WON the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused guilty of 2 counts of
rape, that he was not properly arraigned and was not informed by the nature of the
accusation against him?

2. WON the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable despite the insufficiency of the evidence?
HELD:
1. No.
2. No.
RATIO:
1. The accused claimed that he was arraigned only after the case was submitted,
he claimed it as a procedural error, against his constitutional right and prejudicial
to his part. Arraignment is manner of implementing a constitutional right to be
inform of the nature of a cause of accusation against him regarding his possible
loss of freedom and even life. The court answered that it was not prejudicial in his
part. First, that the procedural error was cured when he participated in the trial
without raising objection about his status of not being arraigned. Second, there
was no protest during the trial, only after the accused is convicted of two death
sentences. Thus, it is already too late to raise the procedural defect. In People v.
Cabale and People v. Atienza, under the same circumstances. Since appellant's
rights and interests were not prejudiced by lapse in procedure, it only follows that
his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him was not violated.
2. First, the alleged accusation regarding the impossibility of the rape wherein she
is sleeping with her siblings in invalid because it is been said that lust don't respect
time and place. There is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion.
Second, the court said that the failure of the victim to report the incident and the
delay of more than one year of the alleged accusation is particular in incestuous
rape, and due to death threats of victim. Thus, it does not necessarily mean of
discrepancies or non-credibility. Third, though the declaration of the victim's sworn
statement is contradictory to his testimony on how she reported the incident but
she fully explained to the court the said discrepancy due investigator who did not
change it, but her credibility was not impaired. Fourth, the alleged inconsistencies
in the victim's testimony refer to minor matters, The gravamen of the felony is the
carnal knowledge by the accused in Article 335, RPC. Where the inconsistency is
not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and
cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified. Fifth, regarding the
alleged accusation of the medical result that there were no signs of violence on the
victim's private part means she is not a victim of rape but the court states that it
was only after 2 years and 2 months that she had an examination and whatever
physical violence may healed at that time. The accused defense and allegations is
deemed to invalid and unsubstantial. With that, he is guilty beyond reasonable
death with 2 counts of rape. Under the RPC, sexual intercourse below 12 years old
is statutory rape, and is always rape and justified with death penalty under Art.
335 but with the effectivity of R.A. 9346, "an act prohibiting death penalty". it shall

People vs. Pangilinan G.R. 171020, March 14, 2007

reduced to reclusion perpetua. Thus, the court's decision declared the accused,
Pangilinan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape is
affirmed with the modification that each penalty of death imposed on appellant is

reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act
No. 9346. And payment for civil, moral and examplary damages to the victim.