Case Digest (G.R. No. 116740)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Gerry Gumahob, G.R. No. 116740, November 28, 1996, the Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant, Gerry Gumahob (also spelled Gumahub/Jerry Gumahub in the records), was charged by the offended party, Marijun (Marijon) Montalba, in a sworn complaint dated October 21, 1993, with rape alleged to have occurred on October 18, 1993, at Hubangon, Mahinog, Camiguin. The complaint narrated that the accused entered the victim’s uncle’s house at about 6:30 p.m., used force (including blows) during nighttime, tore the victim’s clothing, made threats, and succeeded in having sexual intercourse against her will; a medical certificate was attached to the complaint. Preliminary investigation was waived by the accused and an information adopting the complaint’s allegations was filed.
At arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty and trial ensued before the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 28, Mambajao, Camiguin (presided by Executive Judge Sinforoso V. Tabamo, Jr.). The trial court summarized the prosecution’s case: the 14‑year‑old complainant lived in her uncle’s house, was allegedly surprised by the accused who was naked at the veranda, forcibly assaulted, lost consciousness, and later found her clothing torn and her genitalia “wet”; she gave a sworn statement, sought medical examination, and a doctor found a hymenal tear at four points. The accused testified he and the complainant were sweethearts, that she invited him that evening, that their sexual contact was consensual, and that he left after she resisted and said she was afraid of pregnancy. No other witnesses corroborated the accused’s claimed relationship.
On May 25, 1994, the trial court convicted the accused of rape beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in finding that the sexual act was without consent and convicting the accused of rape, or was there implied consent by the vi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)