CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ PEOPLE V. SALOME, AUGUST 31, 2006
PEOPLE V. SALOME,
AUGUST 31, 2006
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Settled that the non-presentation of the weapon used
in the commission of rape is not essential to the conviction of the accused.
FACTS
Salome entered into the house where 13-year-old
Sally Idanan was sleeping. He poked a knife against her neck and then raped
her. He threatened Idanan so that she may not report the incident to
authorities. When she found out that she’s pregnant, she reported the incident.
Salome offered the defense of alibi in court claiming that he went fishing at
the time of the incident. Trial court convicted Salome of rape qualified by the
use of a bladed weapon, committed inside the dwelling of Sally, as defined and
penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659.
ISSUE
Is presentation
of the weapon used in the commission of rape essential to the conviction of the
accused?
Is the crime aggravated
by dwelling?
RULING
No.
The court held
that it is settled that the non-presentation of the weapon
used in the commission of rape is not essential to the conviction of the
accused. The testimony of the rape victim that appellant was armed with a
deadly weapon when he committed the crime is sufficient to establish the fact
for so long as the victim is credible. It must be stressed that in rape, it is
usually only the victim who can attest to its occurrence and that is why courts
subject the testimony of the alleged victims to strict scrutiny before relying
on it for the conviction of the accused.
As to the second
issue, yes.
The crime of rape
is aggravated by dwelling. As the Court of Appeals noted: There is no question
that the amended information sufficiently alleged “that the commission of the
crime was aggravated by dwelling the fact that the crime was committed inside
the house of the offended party.” Accused-appellant does not dispute that the
crime was committed inside the victim’s house. However, he posits that the
prosecution must prove the absence of provocation by Sally. It suffices to
state that private complainant categorically testified that she was sleeping
inside her house when appellant came and perpetrated the crime. This is proof
enough of the absence of provocation on the part of private complainant. For a
sleeping thirteen (13)-year old barrio girl cannot possibly give any kind of
provocation to appellant under the circumstances.