View full case

PEOPLE v. BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ

FACTS:

Bernabe Pareja was charged with two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape by the private complainant, AAA. AAA stated that the incidents occurred in December 2003, February 2004, and March 27, 2004. AAA did not immediately report the incidents out of fear for her life. She eventually disclosed the abuse to her mother after Pareja was caught lifting her skirt while she was asleep. AAA underwent a medical examination that confirmed signs of sexual trauma. Pareja denied the allegations but admitted to knowing AAA as the daughter of his live-in partner.

The trial court convicted Pareja of rape and acts of lasciviousness and acquitted him of attempted rape due to lack of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Pareja raised concerns regarding the credibility of AAA's testimony, inconsistencies, and AAA's behavior after the incidents. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the trial court's assessment of witness credibility and the deference to lower court findings.

The Supreme Court addressed Pareja's arguments, stating that inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony are normal due to the traumatic nature of the experience. The Court clarified that details such as the date and time of the incidents become relevant only if they create serious doubts or affect the sufficiency of the evidence for conviction. The Court distinguished the present case from a previous case that resulted in acquittal due to the violation of the accused's right to be informed. The Court concluded that the inconsistencies in AAA's testimony were not sufficient to overturn Pareja's conviction.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the specific date of the rape offense as alleged in the Information is fatal to the case.

  2. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim and her delay in reporting the incidents affect the credibility of the victim.

  3. Whether the lack of resistance by the rape victim and her delayed reporting of the incidents affect the veracity of her charges.

  4. Whether the absence of a medical examination or testimony on the state of the victim's anus is significant in proving the accused's guilt.

  5. Whether the accused can be convicted of rape by sexual assault when he was charged with rape through carnal knowledge.

  6. Whether Pareja can be convicted of the charge of attempted rape and a second count of rape in the February 2004 incident, based on AAA's testimony.

  7. Whether Pareja's acts of placing himself on top of AAA and sucking her breasts fall under the crime of acts of lasciviousness.

RULING:

  1. The failure of the prosecution to prove the specific date of the rape offense as alleged in the Information does not necessarily result in the acquittal of the accused. However, it casts doubt on the credibility of the victim and weakens the prosecution's case. A conviction based solely on speculation and conjecture cannot satisfy the quantum of evidence required for a pronouncement of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim and her delay in reporting the incidents may affect the credibility of the victim. While these factors alone may not be enough to overturn the trial court's judgment of conviction, when considered in totality with other evidence and testimonies, they can exert a powerful compulsion towards the reversal of the judgment.

  3. The lack of resistance by the rape victim and her delayed reporting of the incidents do not affect the veracity of her charges. The failure of the victim to shout or seek help, as well as her delay in reporting the crime, are not indications of a fabricated charge. In cases where the rape is committed by a relative or someone with moral influence, the victim's lack of resistance or delayed reporting may be attributed to fear or intimidation. It is unreasonable to demand a standard reaction or behavior from rape victims as each of them had to cope with different circumstances. (People v. Ogarte)

  4. The absence of testimony or a medical certificate on the state of the victim's anus is of no consequence. The testimony and medical examination of a victim are not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. An accused can be convicted of rape based on the sole testimony of the victim. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction. The medical examination in this case, which indicated evidence of physical trauma to the victim's hymen, supported the victim's claim of rape, although the prosecution failed to prove the specific manner of carnal knowledge. (People v. Colorado)

  5. The accused cannot be convicted of rape by sexual assault when he was charged with rape through carnal knowledge. However, he can be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness, which is included in the crime of rape.

  6. No, Pareja cannot be convicted of the charge of attempted rape and a second count of rape in the February 2004 incident based on AAA's testimony. There were material omissions and inconsistencies in AAA's testimony, particularly regarding the insertion of a finger in her vagina. Thus, Pareja is not guilty of rape in the February 2004 incident.

  7. Yes, Pareja's acts of placing himself on top of AAA and sucking her breasts fall under the crime of acts of lasciviousness. Pareja is correctly convicted of this crime.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A conviction must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, including the date and place of the commission of the offense as alleged in the Information.

  • The testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction if it appears trustworthy and reliable, and no law or rule requires the corroboration of a single witness testimony in a rape case.

  • Improbability of sexual abuse in a small house or in the presence of others is not a valid defense. Lust is not constrained by time or place, and rape can occur even in the presence of family members or in cramped living conditions.

  • The demeanor and conduct of a rape victim cannot be generalized. No clear-cut behavior can be expected from a person being raped or who has been raped. Delay in reporting incidents and failure to manifest resistance do not invalidate a victim's credibility.

  • Lack of resistance or delay in reporting does not negate rape, especially in cases involving relatives or persons with moral influence. (People v. Ogarte)

  • Each rape victim may react differently to the trauma and there is no standard behavior or reaction to be expected. (People v. Ogarte)

  • An accused can be convicted of rape based on the sole testimony of the victim, and a medical examination or certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape. (People v. Colorado)

  • Testimonies of young and immature rape victims deserve full credence, considering their vulnerability and the risks they face in pursuing justice. (People v. Perez)

  • The absence of testimony or medical evidence on a specific mode of carnal knowledge does not affect the accused's conviction for rape, as long as the victim's testimony is credible. (People v. Colorado)

  • Rape through sexual intercourse (organ rape) and rape by sexual assault (instrument or object rape) are two distinct modes of committing rape.

  • Rape through sexual intercourse is committed through penile penetration of the vagina, while rape by sexual assault is committed by inserting the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

  • Rape through sexual intercourse is committed by a man against a woman, while rape by sexual assault can be committed by a man or a woman against a man or a woman.

  • The penalty for rape through sexual intercourse is higher than that for rape by sexual assault.

  • Rape by sexual assault requires the presence of circumstances enumerated in Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, the accused may be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

  • Acts of lasciviousness is included in the crime of rape.

  • The testimony of a minor rape victim is given full weight and credit, as no woman, especially a child, would falsely accuse someone of rape unless it truly happened.

  • The penalty for acts of lasciviousness is prisión correccional. The indeterminate sentence shall be taken from the full range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is arresto mayor. The maximum penalty shall be based on the medium period of prisión correccional.