Case Digest (G.R. No. 187495) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, decided on April 21, 2014 under the 1987 Constitution, the accused-appellant Edgar Jumawan and his wife KKK were married on October 18, 1975 and had four children. They lived alternately in Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City, and Dangcagan, Bukidnon, and operated family businesses. On October 16 and 17, 1998, KKK alleged that Edgar forcefully had carnal knowledge of her against her will within their conjugal quarters. She executed a Complaint-Affidavit on February 19, 1999, prompting the City Prosecutor to find probable cause and file two Informations for rape under R.A. No. 8353 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City (Criminal Case Nos. 99-668 and 99-669). After arraignment on August 19, 1999, the RTC conducted a joint trial, ultimately convicting Edgar on April 1, 2002 and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua for each count. He was also ordered to pay moral, exemplary, indemnity damages and co Case Digest (G.R. No. 187495) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background and Marriage
- Accused-appellant Edgar Jumawan married KKK on October 18, 1975; they had four children (MMM, OOO, and two sons). Over the years they established a sari-sari store, trucking business, rice mill and hardware; built a house in Villa Ernesto, Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City in 1994; family resided alternately there and in Dangcagan, Bukidnon.
- Marital relations were once harmonious, but from 1997 onward Edgar grew abrupt and physically rough during conjugal relations, causing pain to KKK; by 1998 frequent quarrels arose over KKK’s business preoccupations versus Edgar’s insistence she remain at home and serve his needs.
- Rape Allegations and Procedural History
- KKK executed a Complaint-Affidavit on February 19, 1999, alleging Edgar raped her on December 3, 1998 at ~3:00 a.m. and slapped her shoulder on December 12 for refusing sex.
- June 11, 1999: Prosecutor found probable cause for grave threats, physical injuries and rape. July 16, 1999: Two informations for rape filed as Criminal Case Nos. 99-668 (Oct 9, 1998 incident) and 99-669 (Oct 10, 1998 incident). January 2000: Informations amended to identify KKK and correct dates to October 16 and 17, 1998; accused re-arraigned, pleaded not guilty; joint trial ensued.
- Prosecution’s version:
- October 16, 1998 – Edgar ordered KKK to the conjugal bedroom, threw her cot aside, forcibly knelt, tore her panties, flexed and spread her legs, held her hands and penetrated her despite her repeated protests and cries. MMM heard her mother shouting “Eddie, don’t do that to me,” tried to intervene but was rebuked. KKK escaped with MMM’s help to the children’s bedroom.
- October 17, 1998 – Edgar pursued KKK in the children’s bedroom, tore her shorts and panties, again flexed her legs, held her hands and raped her; OOO and MMM heard KKK’s pleas through the locked door, forced it open and found her distraught.
- Defense’s version: Edgar was in Dangcagan, Bukidnon on work duty (corn loading, towing broken truck) with driver Equia; alleged KKK fabricated charges out of revenge for marital business disputes, unaccounted bank funds, extra-marital affairs and legal separation proceedings.
- RTC Branch 19, Cagayan de Oro (April 1, 2002) convicted Edgar of two counts of rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua each count, awarded damages. Court of Appeals (July 9, 2008) affirmed. Supreme Court granted automatic review (G.R. No. 187495).
Issues:
- Whether under R.A. No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997), a husband can be prosecuted for raping his wife despite the reciprocal right to conjugal relations.
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the absence of KKK’s consent and the use of force or intimidation to effect carnal knowledge on October 16 and 17, 1998.
- Whether the defense’s alibi, absence of medical certificate or blood traces, delayed filing and alleged motives to fabricate negate the rape elements or undermine the victim’s credibility.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)