Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36435)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36435)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Rolando Pena y Cayas, G.R. No. L-36435, December 20, 1977, the Supreme Court Second Division, Aquino, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the People of the Philippines and the accused-appellant was Rolando Pena y Cayas; the offended party and complaining witness was Esther Tayag.On June 9–11, 1971, according to the prosecution, Pena met Tayag in a jeepney bound for Blumentritt/Quiapo; he allegedly pointed a revolver at her, prevented her from alighting, caused two men to board at Baclaran, had her taken by boat to a hut near Lido Beach, Noveleta (Cavite), and there intimidated and raped her using a revolver and a balisong (knife). Tayag testified to forcible sexual intercourse involving threats, loss of consciousness, bleeding and subsequent confinement at Pena’s relatives’ house in Barrio Bagbag, Rosario, Cavite, until her mother and the police rescued her on June 11. A medico-legal examination on June 12, 1971 found healing lacerations of the hymen and spermatozoa in smears, consistent with recent loss of virginity.
Pena was arrested, investigated at Manila Precinct No. 5 (Balut, Tondo), and made an extrajudicial confession admitting he intimidated Tayag into intercourse (Exh. C). A complaint for forcible abduction with rape was filed on June 15, 1971 in the Court of First Instance (Criminal Case No. 5297, CFI Manila). At trial the CFI convicted Pena of rape (finding forcible abduction not proved), sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, but did not award civil indemnity. Pena appealed, contesting (1) the voluntariness/admissibility of his confession, (2) the credibility of Tayag’s testimony, (3) whether carnal knowledge was by threats, (4) whether a gun and knife were used, and (5) the sufficiency of proof to convict. The case was brought to the Supreme Court for review, which issued the decision summarized here.
Issues:
- Was Pena’s extrajudicial confession admissible, i.e., was it voluntary?
- Did the trial court (CFI Manila) have jurisdiction to try the charged complex crime of forcible abduction with rape?
- Was the evidence sufficient to convict Pena of rape (including whether the act was by intimidation/threats and whether deadly weapons were used)?
- Was forcible abduction proven as charged in the complaint?
- If conviction is sustained, what penalty and civil liabilities should be imposed?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)