People vs. Bentayo (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HENRY BENTAYO

G.R. No. 216938, June 5, 2017 

PERALTA, J.:

Facts: In the evening of November 6, 2007, appellant raped AAA again at their kubo in the farm. While AAA was sleeping, she felt appellant, who was armed with a bolo, touch her face, her breast and then her vagina. Appellant proceeded to undress her, kissed her private parts, and then threatened to kill her if she shouted. Appellant then mounted on top of AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. Thereafter, appellant further threatened AAA that he will kill her, her mother and her siblings if she told anyone what happened. Cordero, a neighbor of AAA, on November 29, 2007, heard the latter crying, thus, she immediately went to AAA's house to peep inside and saw appellant beating AAA.

Appellant denied the charge against him and insisted that during the time of the alleged incidents, he was in Barangay Lagao, Lambayong, Sultan Kudarat making charcoal; and that he was alone at that time.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of rape.

Ruling: Yes. Under paragraph 1 (a) of Art. 266-A of the RPC, the elements of rape are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.

In this case, the clear and straightforward testimony of AAA, as corroborated by the medical findings show beyond reasonable doubt that AAA was raped. When the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.

Anent appellant's defense of denial and alibi, bare assertions thereof cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. For alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for appellant to be present at the place where the crime was committed at the time of commission

Ratio Decidendi: When the offender is the victim's father, there need not be actual force, threat or intimidation because when a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, who was also a minor at the time of the commission of the offenses, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.

Gist: This is an appeal of the Decision CA affirming the Judgment of the RTC, convicting the same appellant of the crime of incestuous rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.