Case Digest (G.R. No. 43436)
Facts:
The People of the Philippine Islands v. Jose Caballero, G.R. No. 43436, August 31, 1935, the Supreme Court, Avanceña, C.J., writing for the Court.
The appellant, Jose Caballero, was convicted of rape and sentenced by the lower court to a penalty with a minimum of eight years and one day of prision mayor and a maximum of fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal; he appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 43436).
On or about February 9, 1935, the offended party, Consorcia Gonzaga, attended a birthday celebration at the home of her aunt, Isabel Magbanua, at Hacienda Socorro, Bacolod, Occidental Negros. After the party ended around 1:00 a.m., the guests slept together in the single-room house. The sleeping arrangement had two mats: Consorcia, her aunt and two girls on one mat, and Consorcia’s husband, Francisco Vecinan, with the appellant on the other mat; the appellant and Consorcia were at opposite ends of the room.
Consorcia later awoke to find a man on top of her having carnal intercourse. Believing at first that the man was her husband she did not resist until she noticed differences (the man trembled and had long sleeves), touched him, and then called her husband. When her husband did not immediately wake, she struck a match and discovered the man to be the appellant. Her husband assaulted the appellant, and Isabel Magbanua reported the incident to the hacienda overseer, Manuel Cuison, who took the appellant to the municipal building and placed him at the disposal of the authorities.
At trial the appellant denied the prosecution’s version and claimed instead that he had been assaulted during a card game; this defense was unsupported by evidence and, according to the record, not accepted by his counsel. The offending party gave a sworn affidavit (admitted as Exhibit 1) and trial testimony stating that when she awoke the intercourse had already been ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction for rape?
- Does the offended party’s subsequent consent, given under the mistaken belief that the assailant was her husband, negate the crime of rape when the carnal act was consummated whil...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)