#crimpro

A man appeals his conviction of three counts of rape, claiming consensual encounters, but the Supreme Court affirms the decision, emphasizing that the absence of physical injuries does not negate rape and that the victim's credibility and explanation for delay are sufficient evidence.

Facts:

Accused: Bernabe Gutierrez y Gutierrez

Victim: Gina V. Alcantara, his niece

Incidents: Occurred on July 24, 1999, July 30, 1999, and August 12, 1999

Location: Barangay Salaan, Mangaldan, Pangasinan

Circumstances: Gina and her sister Matet were living in Bernabe's house to care for their bedridden grandmother.

Allegations: Bernabe threatened Gina with a knife, forced her to undress, and raped her on three occasions.

Delay in Reporting: Gina did not report immediately due to fear for her life and her family's safety.

Disclosure: Gina confided in her uncle Boyet, who took her to her sister's house in Pasay City.

Formal Complaint: Filed on August 23, 1999; medical examination revealed hymenal lacerations.

Defense: Bernabe claimed the sexual encounters were consensual.

Trial Court: Found Gina's testimony credible, convicted Bernabe of three counts of rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

Appeal: Bernabe argued his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and cited several trial court errors.

Issue:

Jurisdiction: Did the trial court err in assuming jurisdiction over the three counts of rape despite alleged defects in the Informations?

Decision Clarity: Did the trial court fail to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which its decision was based?

Threat and Intimidation: Was the degree of threat, force, or intimidation sufficient to compel Gina to submit to Bernabe's advances?

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Did the prosecution fail to prove Bernabe's guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

Victim's Credibility: Did Gina's behavior after the alleged rapes undermine her credibility?

Medical Evidence: Was the trial court correct in concluding that the hymenal lacerations were consistent with Gina's allegations of rape?

Counsel's Diligence: Did Bernabe's counsel fail to exercise the required diligence in defending his client?

Ruling:

Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that the Informations were sufficient and that the trial court had jurisdiction.

Decision Clarity: The Court found that the trial court's decision clearly and distinctly stated the facts and the law on which it was based.

Threat and Intimidation: The Court ruled that the degree of threat, force, or intimidation was sufficient to compel Gina to submit to Bernabe's advances.

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Court affirmed that the prosecution proved Bernabe's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Victim's Credibility: The Court held that Gina's behavior after the alleged rapes did not undermine her credibility.

Medical Evidence: The Court agreed with the trial court's conclusion that the hymenal lacerations were consistent with Gina's allegations of rape.

Counsel's Diligence: The Court found that Bernabe was bound by his counsel's conduct and that any alleged negligence did not warrant a different outcome.

Ratio:

Sufficiency of Information: The information was deemed sufficient as it contained necessary details, including the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of the offense.

Decision Foundation: The trial court's decision was well-founded, clearly stating the facts and the applicable law.

Intimidation and Moral Ascendancy: The Court explained that intimidation and moral ascendancy, especially by a close kin, could compel submission without physical resistance.

Victim's Testimony: Gina's consistent and emotional testimony, despite rigorous cross-examination, was deemed credible.

Delay in Reporting: The Court noted that it is not uncommon for rape victims to delay reporting the crime due to fear and threats from the perpetrator.

Counsel's Conduct: The Court reiterated the principle that a client is bound by his counsel's conduct.

Sentencing: The Court upheld the trial court's imposition of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, in accordance with Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

criminal procedure; jurisdiction of sandiganbayan; offenses committed in relation to office

FACTS: Two Informations for violation of RA 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995) and two other Informations for acts of lasciviousness were filed against Judge Rogelio Esteban before the Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that Judge Esteban has been soliciting sexual demands upon his casual employee, Ana Mae Simbajon, such as demanding her to be his girlfriend and to enter his room daily for a kiss as a condition for her permanent appointment. It was also alleged that he once embraced her, kissed her all over her face, and touched her right breast which prompted Simbajon to file a complaint against him. It was expressly stated in the Informations that these acts were done in relation to his office or position.

Petitioner filed a motion to quash on the ground that Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crimes charged considering that they were not committed in relation to his office as a judge.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction in this case

RULING: Yes, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction in this case because the crimes committed were intimately connected to his office.

Section 4 of PD 1606, as amended by RA 8249, provides:

SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. – The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crime committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office.

In People v. Montejo, the Supreme Court ruled that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if the offense is "intimately connected" with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions. This intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the Information. This is in accordance with the rule that the factor that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information. Hence, where the information is wanting in specific factual averments to show the intimate relationship/connection between the offense charged and the discharge of official functions, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the case.

In this case, it was alleged in the Information that Simbajon was constrained to approach Judge Esteban as she needed his recommendation. But he imposed a condition before extending such recommendation — she should be his girlfriend and must report daily to his office for a kiss. There can be no doubt, therefore, that petitioner used his official position in committing the acts complained of. While it is true that public office is not an element of the crime of acts of lasciviousness, nonetheless, he could not have committed the crimes charged were it not for the fact that as the Presiding Judge of the MTCC of Cabanatuan City, he has the authority to recommend the appointment of Ana May as bookbinder. In other words, the crimes allegedly committed are intimately connected with his office.

The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. The Informations contain allegations showing that the acts of lasciviousness were committed by petitioner in relation to his official function.