People vs Buban G.R. No.

166895 Facts: The appellant was charge with 5 counts of rape made against her 12 year old daughter, committed on June 1,3 and 5 and on July 5 and 6. During the night of June 1 in their sala appellant rape her by inserting his finger and then his penis. During the night of June 3 and 5 appellant again rape her. On July 5 appellant rape her in their bedroom where appellant told his daughters brother to go to their neighbor while her other siblings were sleeping. On the Fifth occasion of the rape on July 6 the incident happened during the day where appellant told the siblings of the victim to go fishing while her younger brother was sleeping then appellant rape her again. Appellant denied the charges against him and contended that when her wife died on May 27 and buried the next day prayers were made in their house until July 6 and that he usually fetch the persons who lead the prayers and after they pray then he would prepare supper for the children then go to work in the fishpond. Appellant also added that he works as a watchman in their place until four a. m. . But trial court convicted appellant for the crime of rape but only to the incident of rape that happened in July 6 since the other compliant were not support by the required complaints in accordance with Section 5, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration but they filed it one day late thus was not granted. Now appellant appeals the said judgment against him of the crime of rape finding him guilty beyond reasonable grounds despite insufficiency of evidence and the inconsistency of victims testimony. Appellant contends the inconsistency of the information and testimony given by the victim in the 3rd and 4th occasion of rape as it happened with an interval of one day as in fact it happened after one month. And that during direct examination the victim said there was a successful penetration of the penis but on cross examination the victim said only the finger penetrated her organ. Appellant further noted that based on the Information, the fourth rape happened at nighttime, but the victim later testified that it happened at daytime; and that she also testified that her siblings were asleep when all the five rapes were committed, as opposed to their being sent away from the house. Moreover, since the house was not lighted during the alleged rapes, appellant argues that the private complainant could not have recognized the appellant. Lastly, appellant claims that private complainant bore grudges against him for the corporal punishment she received from the latter, and theorizes that the victim may have wanted to be free from his cruelty so she filed a case against him. January 24, 2007

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of rape.

Ruling: Yes, the SC said all the required elements of rape were the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim were satisfactorily proven. The first element, that the offender is a manthe accused-appellant Romeo Buban. On the second element, the prosecution was able to establish the fact that the appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim. Evince in the testimony that on five occasions, appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. The medico-legal officer supports this fact with her testimony and undisputed findings of multiple and deep lacerations in victims vagina; thus, he concluded that she was no longer a virgin. With regard to the third element, on the circumstances in which rape was committed, we have held that the element of force or intimidation is not essential in case of rape committed by a father against his own daughter, since the formers superior moral ascendancy or influence substitutes for violence and intimidation. The court was not impress by the allegation of appellant that the testimony of the victim is tainted with inconsistency thus is unreliable or not credible. The court said that the supposed inconsistency in the information and in the testimony given by the victim during the trial are trivial discrepancy which do not debunk the commission of rape. The fact that the act of rape was committed by appellant still remains. The victim categorically stated that she was raped by the appellant five times. Through threats and force, appellant was able to have carnal knowledge of his own daughter. On the issue of whether the 4th rape happened in the day or nighttime is not of the moment as the precise time and date of the rape is not an essential element. Also on the issue of whether the finger of penis penetrated the organ of the victim, the inconsistency was due to the confusing question given to her, which was unfair to her considering her status. And on the inconsistency of how the appellant rape the victim was to be expected from a minor who has no knowledge of sexual intercourse. And with regards to lack of illumination the victim testified that it was not all throughout dark and she knew that it was her father that rape her also the positive identification of the victim of her assailant bellied such defense that the victim could not have known if the assailant was really his father. The court stated that an inconsistency which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused, what is vital is that the act of copulation be proven under any of the conditions enumerated in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.