Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Vs.

ANTONIO BARAOIL
G.R. No. 194608, July 09, 2012.
Facts:
Antonio Baraoil was charged with two counts of rape. Both rapes happened on the 8th of July
2004 in the comfort room adjacent to the Apo Rice Mill in Natividad, Pangasinan. The first was
committed at 2pm through insertion of the penis and the finger into the vagina of AAA (Statutory Rape),
a 5 year old minor, while the second happened at 2:30pm by sucking the vagina of AAA (Sexuall Assault).
Baraoil pleaded not guilty during arraignment for both charges.
During the trial, AAA narrated the facts that (1) while walking near the house of Baraoil, who
was a honorary uncle for her family, the latter invited her to ride with him in his bicycle (2) Baraoil
drove her towards the rice mill and was seen by her elder sister (3) after parking his bicycle on the wall
of the mill, accused pulled AAA into the comfort room, sat on the toilet, pulled her pants off as she has
no underpants, unzipped his pants and lifted the girl to insert his penis into her vagina and later inserted
a finger into her vagina.
The three sisters of the victim heard thumping sounds coming from the comfort room then the
accused went out and was followed by AAA. AAAs sister told the accused that she will take AAA home
but he replied that he will bring her home after buying slippers. The accused and AAA took off and after
30 minutes went back to the same comfort room where the accused undressed AAA again and sucked
her vagina.
The next day, AAAs sister asked her about what happened and she did not answer but after it
she cried to her mom and told everything that transpired.
Baraoil, told the court that he was out at the fish pond with his friend during 7:30-10am and
drank gin at 3pm and went home at 4pm. He also added that the accusations against him were due to
revenge for the disconnection of AAAs familys jumper.
The trial court sentenced Baraoil to:
6 years indeterminate (PC max) sentence to 10 years (PM max) as maximum for the charge of sexual
assault and
Reclusion perpetua for statutory rape [with aggravating circumstance less than 7 yo]
The court of appeals modified the sentence of the direct assault to Acts of lasciviousness for
imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen 15 years, 6 months
and 20 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. (based on RA 7610 and Revised Penal Code)
Issue:
In the case for rape, is the testimony of the child sufficient to overturn the accuseds right to be
presumed innocent?
Held:
The CA sustained the conviction of the accused-appellant after finding that the testimony of
AAA was credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of
things. There was no reason to overturn the accused-appellants conviction under Criminal Case No. T-
3682 for the crime of statutory rape considering that AAA was undeniably under 12 years old and that
the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with her.
The law presumes that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent until the contrary is
proven. This basic constitutional principle is fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the
prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left to the trial courts to
determine.
Courts use the following principles in deciding rape cases: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with
facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2)
due to the nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of
the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution
must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense. Due to the nature of this crime, conviction for rape may be solely based on the
complainants testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature
and the normal course of things.
A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her
honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and
inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped
and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice
for the wicked acts committed against her.
NOTE:
Due to the fact that the act of sucking the vagina is in no way considered as insertion of an
object or instrument in the female organ, the SC upheld the CAs decision to modify the penalty for
Sexual Assault and changed it to Acts of Lasciviousness (Art. 336 of RPC + RA 7610 - increases the
penalty imposed by RPC by one degree) which became more burdensome than the original sexual
assault charge.
(LOL.. Nadehado pa sya sa appeal kahit hindi naman tama yung information sakanya.. Pinalitan
ng CA yung kaso nya ng walang paa-paalam)