Title
People vs. Dimapilis
Case
G.R. No. 129573
Decision Date
Oct 18, 2000
A 10-year-old girl accused her stepfather of repeated sexual abuse in 1993. The Supreme Court ruled it as attempted rape, not consummated, due to lack of full penetration, sentencing him to 4-10 years and awarding damages.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 129573)

Facts:

People of the Philippines v. Eleuterio Dimapilis, G.R. No. 129573, October 18, 2000, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. The prosecution was the People of the Philippines and the accused-appellant was Eleuterio Dimapilis (also known as Jun, Dakila or Daky).

In June 1993 ten-year-old Sharon Degala Salas (born 13 February 1983) — the daughter of Linda Degala, who had begun a common-law relationship with Eleuterio Dimapilis — accused Eleuterio of sexually abusing her in their one-room dwelling in Sta. Ana, Manila. Sharon later reported additional abusive incidents alleged to have occurred at FTI, Bicutan, Taguig; in Batute, Makati; and in February 1996 at PNR, San Antonio Village, Makati. Sharon first disclosed the abuse in May 1996 to her maternal grandaunt, Violeta Benjamin, who brought her to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI); a sworn statement was taken and a medico-legal examination by Dr. Aurea P. Villena followed.

Dr. Villena's report described the hymen as having a "superficial old healed laceration" at the 3 o’clock position, which she opined could have been sustained not more than three months before the May 1996 examination and that slight contact could produce such injury; she concluded there was no conclusive proof of full penetration at the June 1993 occurrence but that there had been sexual abuse and an evident attempt to enter. Eleuterio denied the charges, alleging that Sharon was influenced by Violeta (who opposed his relationship with Linda) and advancing a defense disputing their residence in Sta. Ana in June 1993.

The case was tried before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Manila, Judge Manuel T. Muro presiding (Crim. Case No. 96-153220). On 21 April 1997 the trial court convicted E...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Did the prosecution prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Was the crime consummated rape or attempted rape?
  • Could the death penalty under RA 7659 be imposed where the alleged offense occurred in June 1993 before RA 7659 took effect?
  • What penalty and civil damages are appropriate gi...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.