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.


 

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459