people vs guillen full text

7/25/2019 People vs Guillen Full Text

1/5

G.R. No. 191756 November 25, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee,vs.JONAS GILLEN ! ATIEN"A,Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

#EL $ASTILLO, J.:

On appeal is the November !, ""# Decision $of the Court of Appeals CA% in CA-&.'. C'-(.C. No.")*+! hich affirmed the une $", "" Decisionof the 'e/ional 0rial Court '0C% of 1anila,2ranch * %&'(&') *++e*'- Jo'* G/&e' ! A-&e'* )/&-! be!o'( re*o'*be (o/b- o% -er&me o% r*+e.

On 1a3 )$, "", an Information)as filed char/in/ appellant ith the crime of rape, the accusator3portion of hich reads as follos4

0hat on or about 1a3 ", "", in the Cit3 of 1anila, Philippines, the said accused, b3 means offorce, violence and intimidation, b3 enterin/ the room of 5AAA5, *po6in/ a balison/ at her nec6,forcin/ her to lie don on the floor, pressin/ her ith his thi/hs and removin/ her duster and pant3and thereafter pullin/ don his brief and shorts, did then and there ilfull3, unlafull3 and feloniousl37insert8 his penis into her va/ina and succeeded in havin/ carnal 6noled/e of 5AAA5 a/ainst thelatter9s ill and consent, thereb3 /ravel3 endan/erin/ her /roth and development to the dama/eand pre:udice of the said 5AAA5.

Contrar3 to la.

;hen arrai/ned on ul3 $$, "", appellant pleaded not /uilt3.OS&% are asfollos4

On 1a3 ", "", around $ midni/ht, ? ? ? 5AAA5 as inside her room on the second floor of a to-store3 house located at ? ? ? Sampaloc, 1anila. At that time 5AAA5 as pla3in/ cards ? ? ? hileaitin/ for her common-la husband to arrive. 1omentaril3, someone 6noc6ed at the door. ;hen5AAA5 opened the door, appellant onas &uillen 3 Atien=a, ho as her nei/hbor, entered the roomand suddenl3 po6ed a balison/ on her nec6. Appellant then turned off the li/hts, removed hisclothes, placed himself on top of 5AAA,5 and inserted his penis inside her private parts. After the rapeas consummated, appellant stood up and casuall3 left the room.

? ? ? 5AAA5 immediatel3 ent out and ? ? ? sou/ht assistance from her sister-in-la. After bein/ toldof the incident, 5AAA9s5 sister-in-la contacted the police. ;hen the respondin/ police officersarrived, appellant, ho as readil3 identified b3 5AAA5 since he as her nei/hbor, as immediatel3arrested.

Per re@uest for a medico le/al e?amination prepared b3 PSr. Supt. Amador Serrano Pabustan of the;estern Police District, 5AAA5 as brou/ht to the National 2ureau of Investi/ation >N2I% for ph3sicale?amination. Dra. Annabelle Soliman, N2I medico-le/al officer, conducted medical and /enital
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt5


2/5

e?aminations on 5AAA5. 0he Preliminar3 'eport dated 1a3 ", "" issued b3 Dra. Soliman shosthe folloin/ findin/s4 $% ;ith e?tra/enital ph3sical in:ur3 notedB % (ealed h3menal lacerationpresentB and )% Pendin/ laborator3 e?amination result.

0he 1edico-e/al 'eport Number 1&-"-)!! issued b3 Dra. Soliman shos that privatecomplainant9s h3men had 5deep healed laceration at + o9cloc6 positionB5 positive for spermato=oaB

and that there as 5evident si/n of e?tra/enital ph3sical in:ur3 noted on the bod3 of the sub:ect atthe time of the e?amination.!

Appellant denied the char/e a/ainst him. (e claimed that he had a drin6in/ spree at &alas, ue=onCit3 and ent home to Sampaloc, 1anila at around $4"" o9cloc6 in the mornin/ of 1a3 ", "". (esurmised that 5AAA5 filed the char/e a/ainst him because of his prior altercation ith 5AAA9s5husband.

'ulin/ of the 'e/ional 0rial Court

In a Decision dated une $", "", the trial court found appellant /uilt3 as char/ed. 0he dispositiveportion of the Decision reads4

;(E'EO'E, the Court finds accused ONAS &FIEN G A0IENHA /uilt3 be3ond reasonabledoubt for the felon3 of 'APE and pursuant to la, he is sentenced to suffer a prison term of reclusionperpetua and to pa3 victim the folloin/4

P


3/5

THE TRIAL $ORT GRAEL4 ERRE# IN $ONI$TING THE A$$SE#APPELLANT OF RAPE #ESPITE THE PROSE$TIONS FAILRE TOOERTHRO THE $ONSTITTIONAL PRES8PTION OF INNO$EN$E IN HISFAOR.11

Appellant claims that the trial court /ravel3 erred hen it deemed his silence at the police stationimmediatel3 after his arrest as an implied admission of /uilt. (e also ar/ues that aside from bein/incredible, 5AAA9s5 testimon3 is insufficient to establish his /uilt be3ond reasonable doubt. 1oreover,he insists that 5AAA9s5 healed lacerations do not prove that he indeed raped 5AAA.5

OF' 'FIN&

0he appeal lac6s merit.

Indeed, records sho that appellant remained silent and passive despite bein/ confronted b3 5AAA5ith the rape char/e at the police station immediatel3 after his arrest. In ta6in/ appellant9s silence asan implied admission of /uilt, the '0C ratiocinated that4

Oin/ to the complaint of the victim, the accused as apprehended b3 respondin/ police officer7s8of the Sampaloc Police Station. At the police precinct, the accused as presented to the victim and7he8 as positivel3 identified as the person ho raped her. At this :uncture, the accused after he aspositivel3 identified as the malefactor ho se?uall3 molested and raped the victim ? ? ? :ust7remained8 SIEN0. In other ords, he did not DENG the accusation lod/ed a/ainst him b3 the victimmuch less re/ister an3 vehement P'O0ES0 at the station.

0he aforesaid blatant AIF'E of the accused to den3 victim9s complaint a/ainst him is e@uivalentto an I1PIED AD1ISSION of /uilt. Assumin/ ar/uendo that he is innocent of the accusation fileda/ainst him, he should have stood firm in his contention that he didn9t rapeabuse the victim andshould have stressed at the police station that on the date and time of the incident he as havin/ adrin6in/ spree ith his friends.

A person ho is accused of a felon3offense hich he did not commit should be as 2OD andE'OCIOFS as a ION in protectin/ the trampled ri/hts as an innocent person.$

Appellant claims that his silence should not be used a/ainst him as he as :ust e?ercisin/ hisconstitutional ri/ht to remain silent.

;e a/ree ith the appellant.

It should be borne in mind that hen appellant as brou/ht to the police station, he as alread3 asuspect to the crime of rape. As such, he as alread3 under custodial investi/ation. Section $,

Article III of the Constitution e?plicitl3 provides, vi=4

An3 person under investi/ation for the commission of an offense shall have the ri/ht to be informedof his ri/ht to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferabl3 of his onchoice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided ith one. 0heseri/hts cannot be aived e?cept in ritin/ and in the presence of counsel.

Clearl3, hen appellant remained silent hen confronted b3 the accusation of 5AAA5 at the policestation, he as e?ercisin/ his basic and fundamental ri/ht to remain silent. At that sta/e, his silenceshould not be ta6en a/ainst him. 0hus, it as error on the part of the trial court to state that
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt12


4/5

appellant9s silence should be deemed as implied admission of /uilt. In fact, this ri/ht cannot beaived e?cept in ritin/ and in the presence of counsel and an3 admission obtained in violation ofthis rule shall be inadmissible in evidence.$)

In an3 case, e a/ree ith the Decision of the trial court, as affirmed b3 the CA, findin/ appellant/uilt3 of the crime of rape. 0he trial court9s Decision convictin/ appellant of rape as anchored not

solel3 on his silence and so-called implied admission. 1ore importantl3, it as based on thetestimon3 of 5AAA5 hich, standin/ alone, is sufficient to establish his /uilt be3ond reasonabledoubt.

Article !!-A of the 'evised Penal Code specificall3 provides that rape ma3 be committed b3 a manho shall have carnal 6noled/e of a oman throu/h force, threats or intimidation. In this case,5AAA5 cate/oricall3 testified that appellant forcibl3 undressed her, po6ed a 6nife at her nec6, andinserted his penis into her va/ina ithout her consent and a/ainst her ill. 0hus, all elements of thecrime of rape ere dul3 established from the testimon3 of 5AAA5. 1oreover, 5AAA5 positivel3identified appellant as her assailant.

Appellant could onl3 offer alibi and denial as his defenses. (oever, alibi and denial are ea6

defenses especiall3 hen measured up a/ainst the positive identification made b3 the victimpointin/ to appellant as the malefactor. 2esides, appellant failed to prove that it as ph3sicall3impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission. Aside from claimin/ that heas at &alas, ue=on Cit3 hen the rape incident happened, he failed to submit an3 proof to shothat it is ph3sicall3 impossible for him to be at Sampaloc, 1anila here and hen the rapehappened. 2esides, appellant9s alibi crumbles in the face of his apprehension near the scene of thecrime immediatel3 after 5AAA5 reported the incident to the police authorities.

;e are not persuaded b3 appellant9s contention that he could not have raped 5AAA5 inside her roomas the discover3 of the crime ould have been more li6el3 considerin/ its pro?imit3 to the room of5AAA9s5 sister-in-la. urisprudence teaches us that rape ma3 be committed even in places herepeople con/re/ate. 0hus, it is not impossible or unli6el3 that rape is perpetrated inside a roomad:acent to a room occupied b3 other persons, as in this case.

i6eise, the failure of 5AAA5 to shout for help should not be ta6en a/ainst her. 1wphi1People reactdifferentl3 hen confronted ith a shoc6in/ or startlin/ situation. Some ma3 sho a//ressiveresistance hile others ma3 opt to remain passive. 0he failure of 5AAA5 to shout for help and see6assistance should not be construed as consent, or as voluntaril3 en/a/in/ in an illicit relationshipith the appellant, as implied b3 the defense. It ould be recalled that appellant po6ed a 6nife at5AAA9s5 nec6. Such threat of immediate dan/er to her life coed 5AAA5 to submit to the carnaldesires of the appellant. (oever, immediatel3 after appellant left, 5AAA5 lost no time in see6in/ thehelp of her sister-in-la and in reportin/ the incident to the police authorities. In fact, the policeauthorities ere able to apprehend appellant because 5AAA5 immediatel3 reported the incident tothem.

Anent appellant9s contention that 5AAA9s5 healed h3menal laceration does not prove rape, e findthe same irrelevant and immaterial. (3menal laceration, hether fresh or healed, is not an elementof the crime of rape. Even a medical e?amination is not necessar3 as it is merel3 corroborative. Ase mentioned before, -e %*- o% r*+e &' -& *e * *-&%*-or&! e-*b&e( b! -e-e-&mo'! o% :AAA: *o'e.

All the elements of rape havin/ been established be3ond reasonable doubt, both the trial court andthe CA properl3 found appellant /uilt3 as char/ed and correctl3 imposed on him the penalt3 ofreclusion perpetua.$*
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_191756_2013.html#fnt14


5/5

0he '0C, as affirmed b3 the CA, aarded 5AAA5 moral dama/es of P

people vs guillen full text

Documents