Title
People vs. Pancho
Case
G.R. No. 136592-93
Decision Date
Nov 27, 2003
Manolito Pancho convicted of statutory rape of 11-year-old stepdaughter; acquitted of attempted rape due to insufficient evidence. Supreme Court affirmed credibility of victim’s testimony, emphasizing intact hymen does not negate rape.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 136592-93)

Applicable Law

The relevant legal provisions governing the case include Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, addressing the crime of rape and its qualifying factors.

Background

The appeal originates from a Joint Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan, which convicted Manolito Pancho of rape and attempted rape against his stepdaughter, AAA. The court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for the rape and imposed imprisonment of 10 years and 1 day to 12 years for attempted rape. The charges against Pancho were based on incidents that occurred in August 1994 and December 1995 under circumstances involving force and intimidation against an 11-year-old girl.

Incident Details

In the first incident, AAA returned from her aunt's house and was attacked by Pancho. He forced her to lie down, removed her clothing, and proceeded to engage in sexual intercourse with her, causing her pain and injury. In the second incident, Pancho attempted to repeat his actions, but was interrupted by the arrival of AAA's uncle, Tito Onio, preventing the act from being consummated.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution presented AAA’s testimony, detailing the traumatic events, alongside testimonies from medico-legal officers who reported the examination findings. Notably, they stated that AAA's hymen was intact, which Pancho's defense later used to argue the impossibility of the crime occurring.

Appellant's Defense

Pancho refuted the allegations, asserting that he could not have committed the acts as his wife and her other sons were home during the incidents. He relied on the findings from the medico-legal examination that indicated the absence of lacerations or other physical evidence of rape.

Ruling on Rape Charge

The court established that under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, statutory rape does not require proof of violence or physical resistance when the victim is under twelve years old. Since AAA was ten years old at the time of the rape, the requirement of force or intimidation was deemed unnecessary for the conviction of simple rape. AAA’s credible testimony, along with supporting evidence, led the court to affirm the finding of guilt for rape.

Ruling on Attempted Rape Charge

Conversely, the court found insufficient evidence to uphold the conviction for attempted rape. The appellant's actions did not include initiating any acts typical of attempting to commit rape, as there was no evidence to indicate that Pancho commenced any overt acts necessary to support a charge of attempted rape. Thus, the appellate court reversed the ruling on this charge, ac

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.