PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

CRISPIN PAYOPAY
GR No. 141140
2003/07/2001

FACTS:

Allegedly, at noontime of August 16, 1999, as the victim stepped out of her school,
appellant, with gun tucked on his waist, grabbed her hands and forcibly dragged her into a tricycle
where two male companions were waiting. It was unthinkable how the victim would be overcome
by fear to forcefully resist appellant at this stage. The victim then yelled for help, but no one
responded even if there were plenty of people who saw her. This runs counter to human experience
as it mocks human sensibility. And given the victim's claim that appellant had previously raped
her on three occasions, it was incomprehensible why she did not cry out in protest when they
passed through the guarded barrier gate to the Virgen Milagrosa University (VMU). The lame
excuse that appellant might stab her was too puerile to merit consideration. Neither did the victim
shout for help at the house where she was brought when it was in fact clustered with other houses.
There was a medical examination. Dr. Araceli Callao, who on the day of the incident examined
the more than 16-year old victim the result of which examination is reflected in the medico-legal
certificate 16 she issued reading:

PE : PERINIUM HYMEN:

--

No signs of external injuries noted.

: No signs of external injuries noted.

With old, incomplete lacerations at 7 & 8 o'clock positions;

With old complete laceration at 5 o'clock position

With fresh abrasion at the lateral side near the base of hymen at

around 4 & 8 o'clock positions POSTERIOR FOURCHETTE: Rounded

VAGINA : Admits 2 fingers with ease

IE : Cervix — close with dark red bleeding

UTERUS : Small

LABORATORY RESULTS : The 2 slides are both negative for the presence of sperm cell with
menstruation at the time of examination (Emphasis and italics supplied), testified on the cause of
the "fresh abrasion" or gasgas which was noted "at the lateral side near the base of [the victim's]
hymen at around 4 and 8 o'clock positions"

According to the appellant, he purposely brought the victim and Joan to be end his extra-marital
relationship with the two when his wife had found out. Also, he claims that after what had
happened, he was even able to go to the plaza with the victim and Joan to eat at an eatery and later
on said goodbye.

However, the appellant questioned the case against him.

ISSUE:

Is Crispin Payopay guilty of rape and/or child abuse?

HELD:

In fact, even gratuitously crediting the victim's account that appellant "abused" her, this Court does
not appreciate the commission of rape. Thus, she claimed that she was "abused" or "sexually
abused" as her counsel suggested. "Sexual abuse" cannot, however, be equated with rape, absent
any showing, any claim, that appellant's organ entered or penetrated the victim's pudendum.

“At all events, since "sexual abuse," as defined by inclusion in Section 2 (g) of the Rules and
Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases, issued pursuant to Section
32 of Republic Act 7610, otherwise known as The Special Protection of Children Against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, to wit:

Sexual abuse includes 1) the employment, use, persuasion, enticement, or coercion of a child
to engage in, or assist another person to engage in sexual intercourse or lasciviousness
conduct or 2) the molestation, 3) prostitution, or 4) incest with children has the following
elements:

1. The accused commits the acts of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.

2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age,

appellant cannot just the same be faulted therefor.”

At first the court finds Crispin guilty. However, the case has been filed and it was appealed by
Crispin and later on, the court found that he was not proven of guilt of rape, and was acquitted. He
is free to go except on proving that there was a child abuse case that may be filed against him. The
Court reversed and set aside the decision and is acquitted of rape.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DEOLITO OPTANA

GR No. 133922

February 12, 2001

FACTS:

Maria Rizalina Onciano was born in 1981 to Nida A. Onciano and Raul Gomez. However, Raul
left Nida even before the latter gave to Maria. In 1986, Nida became the common-law wife of
Deolito Optana with whom she had seven children. Maria was twelve (12) years old when her
stepfather started raping her in their own house. It was only revealed that something bad happened
to Maria when her mother noticed that her tummy was quite protruding. At first Maria refused to
answer her mother's inquisition, but finally she was able to reveal that her stepfather raped her.
Maria, accompanied by her Aunt Evelyn, went to the doctor for examination. She revealed to the
doctor that her father repeatedly raped her. Thereafter, Maria's statement was taken at the police
station and a formal complaint was filed against Deolito, herein accused-appellant. Accused-
appellant was charged with four information's for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610,
also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse and four Informations for
Rape. Maria was committed to DSWD for protective custody until she delivered her baby boy.
After her delivery, Maria manifested signs of depression and violence to the extent of killing
herself. This caused her to be committed to the National Center for Mental Health for treatment
and rehabilitation. The accused denied raping her and told the court that his stepdaughter was
always out with her barkadas, which caused her mother to complain that she had to spent so much
time looking for her. Maria's mother corroborated the accused appellant's testimony. The trial court
rendered its decision convicting the accused-appellant with rape and violation of Sec. 5 (b), R.A.
7610, where he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and an indeterminate prison term,
respectively. The accused appealed his case before the Supreme Court.
Given all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court ruled with moral certainty
that the accused appellant was indeed guilty of the crimes charged. According to the Supreme
Court the trial court correctly convicted the accused for the rape on that fateful day of September
1993 for it was proven that the accused had carnal knowledge with the victim through force and
intimidation. Also the Court affirmed the conviction of the accused appellant for violation of
the Child Abuse Law for sexually abusing his stepdaughter, using his moral ascendancy in
intimidating the victim to engage in sexual intercourse with him. The decision of the trial court
was affirmed with modification on the civil indemnity and moral damages.
\
ISSUE:
Is Deolito Optana guilty of rape and child abuse?

HELD:
YES. Even if the appellant claims that he was not guilty because it was impossible to rape his
stepdaughter in a small house, in broad daylight, with open windows, the court finds it really
possible to commit such crime on the victim considering the circumstances. And besides the fact
that he is guilty of rape, he is also guilty for violating the Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse.

“The trial court convicted the accused under Criminal Case No. 487-95 for violation of Sec. 5(b)
of R.A. 7610 or the Child Abuse Law. In the case of People v. Larin, the Court has explained that
the elements of the offense penalized under this provision are as follows; 1. The accused commits
the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. 2. The said act is
performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. 3.
The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. A child is deemed exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion
or influence of any adult, syndicate or group. Under RA 7610, children are "persons below
eighteen years of age or those unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of their age or mental disability or
condition." It must be noted that the law covers not only a situation in which a child is abused for
profit, but also one in which a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in any lascivious
conduct. Hence, the foregoing provision penalizes not only child prostitution, the essence of which
is profit, but also other forms of sexual abuse of children. This is clear from the deliberations of
the Senate. From the above disquisition, the accused is certainly guilty of sexual abuse committed
on his stepdaughter, using his moral ascendancy in intimidating the victim to engage in sexual
intercourse with him.”