Scribd
Upload
467 views2 pages

Rape Case: People vs. Paul Alipio

Paul Alipio was convicted of raping AAA, a 41-year old mentally retarded woman. AAA had an IQ of 60, well below the average of 90, indicating mental retardation. Paul called AAA to his house under the pretense of giving her money for her errand. He then sexually assaulted her, threatening her not to tell anyone. Months later, AAA's mother noticed she was pregnant and AAA disclosed what Paul had done. Medical examinations confirmed the pregnancy. Both the trial court and appellate court found AAA's testimony to be credible and consistent. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution had proven Paul's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Uploaded by

Russell John Hipolito
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
467 views2 pages

Rape Case: People vs. Paul Alipio

Paul Alipio was convicted of raping AAA, a 41-year old mentally retarded woman. AAA had an IQ of 60, well below the average of 90, indicating mental retardation. Paul called AAA to his house under the pretense of giving her money for her errand. He then sexually assaulted her, threatening her not to tell anyone. Months later, AAA's mother noticed she was pregnant and AAA disclosed what Paul had done. Medical examinations confirmed the pregnancy. Both the trial court and appellate court found AAA's testimony to be credible and consistent. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution had proven Paul's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Uploaded by

Russell John Hipolito
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Case Details
  • Case Analysis and Ruling

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAUL ALIPIO, accused-appellant.

G.R. No. 185285


October 5, 2009
VELASCO, JR., J.

FACTS:

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

Sometime in June 2000, Marilou Gipit Alipio sent AAA (AAA is a 41-year old mentally retarded
woman whom Marilou often hired to watch over her children) to Sitio Liman, San Francisco, Bulan,
Sorsogon to borrow money from Marilou’s father, Saul. At the copra kiln in Sitio Laman near his house,
Saul told AAA that he would give the necessary amount to Marilou directly. While about to head for
home, AAA heard Paul (Marilou’s borther) calling her from his house. Suddenly, Paul held her hand,
pushed her inside and, while covering AAA’s mouth, brought her to his bedroom. He then removed her
shorts and panty and likewise, undressed himself. Paul then went on top of her, kissed her, and fondled
her breasts. Eventually, he entered her, first using his finger, then his penis. Before finally letting the
crying AAA go, however, Paul threatened her with death should she disclose to anybody what had just
happened between them.

Several months later, BBB, AAA’s mother, noticed that the latter had missed her monthly
period. With some coaxing, AAA told her mother what Paul had done to her.Thereupon, AAA’s mother
went to see Marilou and her father to apprise them about AAA’s pregnancy. The Alipios promised
financial help, albeit Paul would later disown responsibility for AAA’s condition. When brought to a
doctor for medical examination, AAA was found to be seven(7) months pregnant. AAA eventually gave
birth to a baby girl.
Psychiatric evaluation done by Dr. Escuadra revealed that AAA, although 42 years old at that time, had
the mental capacity and disposition of a nine or 10 year-old child. Her intelligence quotient (I.Q.) of 60
was way below the average I.Q. of 90, clearly indicating a mental retardation case.

After trial, the RTC convicted Paul of rape beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to suffer the
indivisible penalty of RECLUSIONPERPETUA , to indemnify the victim AAA in the amount ofP50,000.00 as
civil indemnity and another [P50,000.00] as moral damages, and to pay the costs. Paul filed a notice of
appeal to the CA who affirmed the RTC decision. The petition for review was raised to the SC.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is credible?


2. Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape?
RULING:

1. YES, the trial court found AAA’s testimony clear,convincing, and credible. The trial court wrote:
“The very CANDID, STRAIGHTFORWARD, and CONSISTENT testimony of the RAPE victim, [AAA], narrates
with definiteness that she was sexually abused by accused, Paul Alipio y Ayona, in the latter’s house in
Sitio Liman, Bgy. San Francisco,Bulan, Sorsogon, sometime in June of 2000; when she was sent by the
accused’s sister Marilou Gipit Alipio to borrow money from their father, Saul Alipio. A comparative
analysis of the declarations given by the victim before the police as well as, the declaration sshe made in
open court in the course of the trial REVEAL—SUBSTANTIAL similarities and CONSISTENCY of her claim.
AAA, BBB, and Dr. Ma. Belen Gordola statements were sufficient.
2. YES, The SC found the prosecution to have discharged its burden of proving the guilt of accused-
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. And needless to stress, guilt beyond reasonable doubt only denotes
moral certainty, not absolute certainty. Moral certainty is that degree of proof which, to an
unprejudiced mind, produces conviction. The SC affirmed the CA decision and added 30,000 pesos
exemplary damages to be payed to the victim.

You might also like