Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Las Pinas, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 133444
Decision Date
Feb 20, 2002
A 12-year-old niece was raped by her uncle, who used force and intimidation. Despite his alibi, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, emphasizing the victim's credible testimony and awarding damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 133444)

Facts of the Case

The accused-appellant, IAEGO LAS PIAS, Jr., was convicted by the Court of Appeals for the crime of rape against his 12-year-old niece, AAA. The incident reportedly took place on August 19, 1994, when AAA was on her way to school. IAEGO called her into his house, locked the door, and forcefully engaged in sexual intercourse with her. After the assault, he gave her P50.00 and warned her not to disclose the incident. The victim eventually revealed the abuse to her family, leading to medical examinations that provided evidence for the prosecution.

Initial Trial and Conviction

During the initial trial, the Regional Trial Court did not find sufficient evidence to convict IAEGO of rape due to a perceived failure to establish force and intimidation. Instead, he was convicted of child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 and sentenced to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal. The trial court also imposed penalties, including moral damages to the victim.

Appeal and Ruling by the Court of Appeals

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision, citing substantial evidence that affirmed the use of force and intimidation. It concluded that IAEGO was guilty of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and awarding P50,000.00 in moral damages to the victim. The Court of Appeals emphasized the victim's credible testimony, which aligned with long-standing jurisprudence on the topic of child sexual abuse.

Issues Raised on Appeal

In the subsequent petition for review, the accused-appellant raised two main errors: the court's conviction after an initial ruling of not guilty regarding rape and the absence of factual basis for the crime of rape. The appellant argued that the appeal violated his right against double jeopardy due to the trial court’s prior ruling.

Court's Analysis of Appeal

The Supreme Court found that the previous ruling of the trial court, which indicated a lack of evidence for rape, did not amount to an acquittal as the appellate court's jurisdiction allowed for a complete review of the case upon appeal. The Supreme Court confirmed that appealing a conviction opens the case for reevaluation by the appellate court, allowing it to impose a different judgment based on the evidence presented. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the credibility of the victim's testimony, emphasizing that her consistent accounts during trial were compelling and indicative of a genuine experience of trauma.

Medical Evidence and Credibility of Witnesses

Contrary to the appellant's arguments, the medical findings, which indicated the victim's hymen was intact, did not negate the occurrence of rape, as medical evidence is not a prerequisite for a conviction in these cases. The Supreme Court noted that the testimony of the child victim should generally be given significant weight in the eyes of the law, particularly in sexual assault cases.

The Standard of Force and Intimidation

The Court reiterated that intimidation does not necessitate visible marks of struggle or physical injury. The victim’s fear of the accused, given his known abusive

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.