G.R. No. 133444 - People vs. Las Pinas, Jr.

On August 19, 1994, at around 7:00 a.m. in Tabogon, Cebu, the victim—a 12-year-old girl and niece of the accused—was en route to school when the accused called her to his house.
Upon entering the house, the accused locked the door, removed the victim’s shorts and panties, and made her sit on a sofa.
The accused then proceeded with the sexual assault by first licking her vagina, then exposing himself by unzipping his maong shorts and inserting his penis, causing the victim pain.
During the assault, when the victim resisted by kicking him, he fell on his back; afterward, he remarked that she was menstruating and used his finger to touch her vagina in a circular motion.
He further touched her left shoulder, smearing blood on her white school uniform, and then proceeded to give her P50.00 while warning her not to disclose the incident.

On August 20, 1994, Dr. Rose Carla Simbajon conducted an examination and reported that the victim’s hymen was intact.
A subsequent examination by Medico-Legal Officer Nestor S. Sator detailed:

The presence of full, convex labia majora and pinkish brown labia minora with a superficial laceration on the hymen at the 9 o’clock position.
Negative findings for physical trauma and evidence that the victim remained in a virgin state aside from the noted laceration and minor bleeding.

Despite these medical findings, the Court held that the lack of severe physical evidence did not preclude the commission of rape.

The victim provided a detailed testimony in court, describing each step of the assault—from being enticed into the house and having her clothing removed to the actual act of rape and subsequent actions taken by the accused.
The accused, who is related to the victim by affinity (being the husband of the victim’s paternal aunt), denied the allegations and claimed that the rape charge was fabricated by the victim’s parents.
The accused presented an alibi claiming he was in Maslog, Tabogon, Cebu, after borrowing money and traveling by jeepney, which was later rebutted by his neighbor’s testimony that placed him in a drinking session on the morning in question.

At trial, the initial decision was affected by the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the element of force and intimidation required for the rape charge; as a result, the accused was convicted only of child abuse under R.A. No. 7610.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and found that sufficient evidence existed to convict the accused of rape through intimidation under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 7659).
The appellate decision sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua, imposing moral damages of P50,000.00, with the case being further certified to the Supreme Court for immediate review.

That the trial court’s pronouncement of his non-guilt for rape effectively amounted to an acquittal, thereby invoking double jeopardy when the appellate court convicted him on the rape charge.
That the conviction for rape on appeal lacked a factual basis, as the evidence did not substantiate the element of force and intimidation originally required for rape.

The Supreme Court noted that by appealing, the accused waived any constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and that he was sufficiently informed of the specific charge of rape in the information.

Whether the conviction for rape on appeal violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, given the trial court’s earlier ruling implying non-guilt for rape.

The accused argued that the trial court’s decision amounted to an acquittal of rape, thereby barring a later conviction on the same charge.
The issue also questioned whether his subsequent conviction on appeal, after being initially convicted only of child abuse, was procedurally and substantively proper.

Whether there exists sufficient evidence to convict the accused of rape committed through force and intimidation, despite conflicting medical findings and the accused’s assertion of an alibi.

The credibility of the victim’s testimony, given her age and the detailed factual account provided in court, was central to this inquiry.
The validity and rejection of the accused’s alibi, as well as the impact of the victim’s fear and prior knowledge of the accused’s temperamental behavior, were also at issue.