Title
People vs. Caga y Fabre
Case
G.R. No. 206878
Decision Date
Aug 22, 2016
Intoxicated victim "AAA" raped while unconscious at accused’s house; immediate report, medical evidence, credible testimony led to conviction—guilty beyond doubt, sentenced perpetua, damages awarded.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206878)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Alleged offense: night of September 17–early morning of September 18, 2006. Trial court (RTC, Manila, Branch 26) decision convicting the accused: November 13, 2009. Court of Appeals (CA) affirmation: February 14, 2012; denial of motion for reconsideration by CA: August 23, 2012. Final appellate resolution by the Supreme Court: decision rendered in 2016 on appeal from the CA (appeal dismissed with modifications to awarded damages).

Factual Antecedents

After a drinking spree at the accused’s house, the victim (“AAA”) and her boyfriend Randy slept beside the accused, who was asleep on a foam cushion. The victim, heavily intoxicated and vomiting earlier, testified that while asleep she felt sexual acts performed upon her, initially believing them to be by her boyfriend. Upon partially opening her eyes she observed a glimmer of light and identified the attacker as the accused. She thereafter became hysterical, assaulted the accused and kicked Randy, reported the incident to the barangay and police, and submitted to a medical examination at PGH.

Charge and Information

The Information charged the accused with rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, alleging that on or about September 17, 2006 in Manila, with lewd design and by means of force, violence and intimidation, the accused placed himself on top of “AAA” while she was sleeping (“pumatong”) and inserted his penis into her vagina, thereby having carnal knowledge against her will and consent.

Prosecution’s Evidence

The prosecution presented the victim’s testimony identifying the accused as her attacker; Barangay Kagawad Aquino’s testimony recounting the victim’s immediate report at the barangay hall and corroborating that he accompanied her to the police station and confronted the accused, who allegedly admitted the act; SPO1 Josette Saturnino’s testimony regarding the filing of the complaint, the sworn statement, and the booking sheet; and the PGH medical examination report indicating physical injuries “indicative of a possible sexual assault.” The prosecution established the victim’s intoxicated and unconscious state during the incident.

Defense Evidence

The accused testified as sole defense witness. He admitted drinking and sleeping at his house, denied committing any sexual act upon “AAA,” and described his version that he woke up to a hysterical victim who immediately accused him. He recounted being told of the accusation during inquest proceedings and denied any sexual intercourse with the victim. The defense relied on denial and an implicit alibi of lack of opportunity to commit the act while claiming intoxication and prior sleep.

RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua, imposed accessory penalties, awarded moral damages of P50,000 to the private complainant, credited the accused for time under detention, and ordered costs de oficio. The trial court credited the victim’s testimony as straightforward, positive and convincing, found no ill motive to fabricate, and placed weight on the immediate reporting and medical examination.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals dismissed the accused’s appeal and affirmed the RTC conviction, adopting the trial court’s evaluation of the victim’s credibility, the evidence of intoxication and unconsciousness, and the attendant inferences. The CA held that the victim’s credible testimony and corroborating circumstances were sufficient to sustain conviction.

Assignment of Error on Appeal

The accused contended before the Supreme Court that the CA gravely erred in affirming conviction despite alleged failure of the prosecution to prove force, violence or intimidation, and argued that the victim did not resist because she thought her boyfriend was the one with her — i.e., questioning the existence of the requisite means of consummation as charged in the Information.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Elements of Rape Under Article 266‑A

The Court reviewed the statutory elements of rape under Article 266‑A, paragraphing the established modes by which rape may be committed: (1) by using force, threat, or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; (3) by fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under twelve or is demented. The Court found that the case fell squarely under the second paragraph — carnal knowledge of a woman “when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious” — because the victim was extremely intoxicated and asleep. Consequently, proof of physical force, threat or intimidation was immaterial to sustain conviction in the circumstances proved.

Credibility, Corroboration, and Evidentiary Weight

The Supreme Court emphasized deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations, noting the trial judge’s unique o

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms