People vs.

Jonie Dominguez
Facts: The accused Jonie Dominguez was charged with 2 counts of rape of a 9-year
old girl and 7 counts of rape of a 13-year old, both grandnieces of the accused. The
rape were allegedly committed through force, intimidation, violence, and moral
ascendancy. AAA and BBB chose to stay silent until their mother accidentally
discovered the commission of the crimes from the accused himself. During the trial,
AAA and BBB testified against the accused by narrating the lascivious acts he had
done to them. According to their testimonies, the accused had employed trickery so
that either AAA or BBB would be left alone with him and thereafter raped, with
threats of harm to their person and family.
Issue: WON the accused is guilty of rape
Ruling: Yes, the accused is guilty of the crime of rape. Article 266-A defines rape as
committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman a) through force, threat
or intimidation; b) when victim is deprived of reason or unconscious; c) by means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or d) when victim is under 12
years old or demented, even though the other circumstances are not present.
Before and after the violations, the intimidation took the form of threats and the
accused employed trickery and took advantage of his authority over his
grandnieces. Moreover, the rape of AAA happened before she reached the age of
12. Thus, the accused was found guilty as charged.
People vs. Pedro Nogpo
Facts: Pedro Nogpo was accused of the rape of AAA, a housewife suffering from
defective hearing, in the residence of said victim at about 4 a.m., through the use of
force and threats that he would kill AAA and her family. On the same day, AAA,
together with her husband, reported the incident to the police station and submitted
herself to medical examination.
Issue: WON the accused is guilty of rape
Ruling: Under Article 266-A, the accused committed the rape through the use of
force, threat and intimidation. The accused also failed to produce evidence that he
and AAA were sweethearts. Finally, the fact that he took flight after the incident
shows that he was guilty and conscious that he has no tenable defense against the
charge of rape. The accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
People vs. Ignacio Poras
Facts: Ignacio Poras was accused of the rape of a 13-year old by rendering her
unconscious with a sleeping substance. When she woke up and saw the accused on
top of her, he threatened to kill her if she discloses the incident to anyone. A week
after the incident, AAA, together with her aunt, filed a report to the police station
and submitted herself for medical examination.
Issue: WON the accused is guilty of rape
Ruling: As AAA was unconscious at the time of the incident, the SC ruled on the
basis of circumstantial evidence as allowed on Rule 133 Section 4 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence which states that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if: a) there is more than one circumstance, b) the facts from which the

inferences are derived are proven, and c) the combination of all circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the
circumstantial evidence failed to establish a consistent chain of events to conclude
that the accused raped AAA. 1) Specific proof of penile contact at the time of
alleged rape is missing; 2) AAAs panty lowered only to the knees makes penile
penetration highly unlikely; 3) As an unmarried 13-year old, she would have been in
an unusually deep sleep in order not to feel pain from the penetration of her vagina;
4) pain in private parts cannot be equated with rape; 5) testimonies of the other
prosecution witnesses did not establish moral certainty; 6) AAA merely came to the
conclusion that she was raped after being told by the physician that something
happened to her. Instead, the evidence confirmed that accused committed lewd
acts against the victim by touching her private parts. The accused is found guilty of
acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
People vs. Daniel Ortega
Facts: The accused Daniel Ortega was charged with 2 counts of rape of her own
daughter, first when the latter was 11 years old and second when she was 16 years
old. As a result of the second rape, AAA got pregnant but had a miscarriage. She ran
away from home and reported the incidents to the police. She also submitted
herself to medical examination.
Issue: WON the accused is guilty of rape
Ruling: Under Article 335 of the RPC, the accused took advantage of his physical
and moral ascendancy over the victim in the commission of the crime. Moreover,
the nature of the relationship of the accused with the victim is a special qualifying
circumstance and therefore must be alleged and proven in the trial. The accused
being the father of AAA was indicated in the allegation and proven over the course
of the trial. The accused is therefor found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.