PEOPLE v.

PAREJA

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE: This case is about the appeal filed by the accused appellant Pareja assailing the
decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed his conviction of the crime of Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness.

FACTS:

1. AAA, 13 years of age narrated that on two separate occasions, Pareja who was the common law spouse
of her mother molested her. She claims that on the first occasion (Dec 2003), she was asleep when
Pareja who was already naked, placed himself on top of her, undressed her and started to suck her
breasts. He likewise inserted his penis into AAA’s anus. Despite such, AAA never told anyone about it
due to fear that Pareja might kill her. On the second occasion (Feb 2004), AAA claimed that Pareja took
advantage of the fact that her mother was not around and that her half-siblings were asleep to do the same
act as before, But this time, [Pareja] caressed [her] and held her vagina and inserted his finger [i]n it.
2. Sometime later, it was claimed that AAA’s mother saw Peraja lifting the skirt of AAA while the latter was
asleep which caused the mother to bring AAA to the barangay officers to make a report.
3. Pareja was then charged with two counts of rape and one attempted rape committed through force,
threat and intimidation. (summarized the contents of info: take note of the Dec 2003 because it was the
one material to this case)
a. FOR RAPE:
i. FEB 2004 INCIDENT: Mashed the victim’s breast and inserted his finger inside her
vagina against her will.
ii. DECEMBER 2003 INCIDENT: He had carnal knowledge with the victim against
her will.
b. FOR ATTEMPTED RAPE
i. Crawled toward the direction of the victim while the latter was sleeping, put off her skirt
but was not able to perform all acts of execution which would have produced the crime of
rape by reason that the victim’s mother saw the act and confronted the accused. The
mother then brought the accused
4. ARRAIGNMENT: Pareja pleaded NOT GUILTY. Hence trial ensued.
5. TRIAL PROPER:
a. After discovering the act of the accused, the victim (AAA), together with her mother went to the
Child Protection Unit of the PGH for a medico-legal which confirmed that the victim was
indeed raped.
b. PERAJA’s DEFENSE:
i. It is impossible for him to perform such acts of assault and in support of this, he
presented a lay-out of their house. He alleges that since the house is made of wood and
was so small, it was hard to imagine how he could possibly still go about with the
alleged acts without AAA’s siblings nor their neighbors noticing the same.
ii. AAA is just mad at him because he was the reason why her parents separated.
c. RTC: ACQUITTED HIM OF ATTEMPTED RAPE BUT CONVICTED HIM OF THE
CRIMES OF RAPE (DEC 2003) AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS.(FEB. 2004)
i. The reason for the acquittal of the accused of attempted rape is the failure of the
prosecution to present AAA’s mother to testify about what she had witnessed in that day
and that since AAA was sleeping at that time, the Court did not gave any credence to her
testimony it being hearsay.
d. CA: Affirmed in toto.
e. Hence this appeal wherein Pareja is contending that the lower courts erred in giving credence
to the testimony of AAA in convicting him for rape and acts of lasciviousness. Simply put,
 Pareja is attacking the credibility of AAA for being inconsistent. Moreover, he claimed, AAA
acted as if nothing happened after the alleged sexual abuse.

ISSUES:

1. W/N Pareja can be held guilty for rape regarding the Dec 2003 incident? -NO. Only acts of lasciviousness.
[MAIN ISSUE]
2. W/N the lower court erred in convicting Pareja based solely on the prosecution witness’ testimony- NO.

COURT:

Pareja was charged and convicted of the crime of rape by sexual assault pertaining to the Dec. 2003 incident.
However, the enactment of RA 8353 (Sept 1997) must be considered. In the said law the concept of rape was
revolutionized and can be committed in two ways: rape through sexual intercourse (importance of carnal
knowledge) and rape by sexual assault (committed through force, intimidation, threat; victim is deprived of
reason/unconscious; by means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority and the victim is under 12 y/o
or is demented.)

AAA positively and consistently stated that Pareja, in December 2003, inserted his penis into her anus. While she
may not have been certain about the details of the February 2004 incident, she was positive that Pareja had anal
sex with her in December 2003, thus, clearly establishing the occurrence of rape by sexual assault. However,
since the charge in the Information for the December 2003 incident is rape through carnal knowledge, Pareja
cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it was proven during trial. This is due to the
material differences and substantial distinctions between the two modes of rape; thus, the first mode is not
necessarily included in the second, and vice–versa. Consequently, to convict Pareja of rape by sexual assault when
what he was charged with was rape through carnal knowledge, would be to violate his constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Nevertheless, Pareja may be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness under the variance doctrine
embodied in Section 4, in relation to Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:

SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. – When there is a variance between the offense charged in the
complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the
accused shall 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.

SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. – An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some
of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an
offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of
those constituting the latter.

Since the elements mentioned in Art. 336 are present in this case (offender commits acts of lasciviousness/lewdness
and that it is committed by using force/intimidation; offender is deprived of reason/unconscious; victim is under 12
y/o and offender is either sex) and are duly proven in trial, Pareja may be convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness
under Rule 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
OTHER ISSUES:

ON THE FINDING OF GUILT BASED ON LONE TESTIMONY OF AAA AND DESPITE ALLEGED INCONSISTENCIES : The
Court, in dismissing the contention of Pareja that AAA’s testimony cannot be the lone basis of his conviction has emphasized that “settled is the
rule that the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction, if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable.
If credible and convincing, that alone would be sufficient to convict the accused. No law or rule requires the corroboration of the
testimony of a single witness in a rape case.”

When the issue of credibility of the witness is assailed, the Court generally follows certain principles enumerated in People v. Sanchez:

1. The Court gives the highest respect to the RTC’s evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in
directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to
determine the truthfulness of witnesses.
2. Absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTC’s assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court
is generally bound by the lower court’s findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of
the case, are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded
3. The rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC

Furthermore, the Court held that inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony are generally expected. The reason for this
was explained in People v. Saludo where the court held that “Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail[…] it is
something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and
subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the
traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone.”

Since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard
in testing the credibility of a witness. Moreover, the inaccuracies (pertaining to date and time but no express mention in the case as to the
particulars) mentioned by Pareja are trivial and non–consequential matters that merely caused AAA confusion when she was being questioned.
It must be remembered that the date and time of the commission of the crime of rape becomes important only when it creates serious
doubt as to the commission of the rape itself or the sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of conviction.

In connection with this, Pareja’s reliance on People v. Ladrillo is misplaced. In the said case, the main factor for Ladrillo’s acquittal in that case
was because his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated when the Information
against him only stated that the crime was committed “on or about the year 1992.” In that case, the Court held that the phrase “on or about the
year 1992” encompasses not only the twelve (12 ) months of 1992 but includes the years prior and subsequent to 1992, e.g., 1991 and 1993, for
which accused–appellant has to virtually account for his whereabouts. Such constitutes a violation of Sec. 11, Rule 110, of the Rules Court which
requires that the time of the commission of the offense must be alleged as near to the actual date as the information or complaint will
permit. Also, Ladrillo was able to prove that he had only moved in the house where the rape supposedly happened, in 1993, therefore negating
the allegation that he raped the victim in that house in 1992. In totality, all these circumstances led to the acquittal of Ladrillo.

Meanwhile in the present case, although the dates of the December 2003 and February 2004 incidents were not specified, the period of time
Pareja had to account for was fairly short. Furthermore, he did not do anything to help his cause but simply denied the charge against him and
even imputed ill-motive on AAA.

IMPROBABILITY OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE DUE TO NATURE OF HOUSE: Pareja’s living conditions could have prevented him from
acting out on his beastly desires, but they did not. The Court held that many of the rape cases appealed to them were not always committed in
seclusion. Lust is no respecter of time or place, and rape defies constraints of time and space.
DEMEANOR OF AAA AFTER THE ABUSE: No clear–cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has been raped. It is a settled
rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not negate rape. Even lack of resistance will not imply that the victim has consented
to the sexual act, especially when that person was intimidated into submission by the accused. In cases where the rape is committed by a
relative such as a father, stepfather, uncle, or common law spouse, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence. In this case, AAA’s
lack of resistance was brought about by her fear that Pareja would make good on his threat to kill her if she ever spoke of the incident.
Furthermore, AAA’s conduct, i.e., acting like nothing happened, after being sexually abused by Pareja is also not enough to discredit
her. Victims of a crime as heinous as rape, cannot be expected to act within reason or in accordance with society’s expectations. It is
unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience, especially from a young victim. Likewise, AAA’s delay in
reporting the incidents to her mother or the proper authorities is insignificant and does not affect the veracity of her charges. It should be
remembered that Pareja threatened to kill her if she told anyone of the incidents. Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a
fabricated charge.

MEDICO-LEGAL NOT INDISPENSIBLE: Pareja avers that the Medico–Legal Report indicating that there is evidence of blunt force or
penetrating trauma upon examination of AAA’s hymen, “cannot be given any significance, as it failed to indicate how and when the said signs of
physical trauma were inflicted. However, it was held time and again that an accused can be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole
testimony of the victim. As stated in People v. Colorado, “[A] medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape, as even a
medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and
not essential to conviction.”