Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil

v.

Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera

Facts:

On September 7, 1979, petitioner, a Filipino citizen and private respondent, a German National were
married before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler in the Federal Republic of
Germany. After three and a half years of marriage, private respondent initiated a divorce proceeding
against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January 1983. On the other hand,
petitioner filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the RTC of
Manila, Branch 32.

On January 15, 1986, Division 20 of the Schoneberg Local Court, Federal Republic of Germany
promulgated a divorce decree on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses.

On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila
alleging that respondent had an affair with a certain William Chia and Jesus Chua. Assistant Fiscal Jacinto
A. de los Reyes, Jr. recommended the dismissal of the cases on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
Upon review, the city fiscal approved the filing of two complaints for adultery against the petitioner.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner can be charged under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code

Ruling:

No. Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes
against chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended
spouse. The compliance with this rule is a jurisdictional and not merely a formal requirement. The law
specifically provides that in prosecutions for adultery and concubinage the person who can legally file
the complaint should be the offended spouse, and nobody else. There is no provision in law that
provides that the prosecution of the crimes of adultery and concubinage can be commenced by the
parents, grandparents or guardian of the offended party. In other words, only the offended spouse and
no other is authorized by law to initiate the action therefor.

Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to institute the action, it necessarily
follows that such initiator must have the status, capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of
the filing of the criminal action. Article 344 of the RPC thus presupposes that the marital relationship is
still subsisting at the time of the institution of the criminal action. It is necessary in the commencement
of a criminal action for adultery that the marital bonds between the complainant and the accused be
unsevered and existing at the time of the institution of the action. Therefore, after a divorce decree has
been decreed, the innocent spouse no longer has the right to institute proceedings against the offenders
where the statute provides that the innocent spouse shall have the exclusive right to institute a
prosecution for adultery.
Eduardo Arroyo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines

203 SCRA 750 (G.R. Nos. 96602, 96715) November 19, 1991

Feliciano, J.:

Facts:

Dr. Jorge Neri (Dr. Neri) filed a criminal complaint for adultery to his wife, Ruby Vera Neri (Ruby)
and to Eduardo Arroyo Jr. (Arroyo) by which the Regional Trial Court favored and convicted the two
under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code; that petitioner Arroyo filed a motion for reconsideration
while petitioner moved for reconsideration or new trial contending that a pardon had been extended by
her husband but were both denied; Dr. Neri then filed a manifestation praying that the case against
petitioners be dismissed as he had “tacitly consented” to his wife’s infidelity; and that the petitioners
filed motions praying for the dismissal or for the granting of new trial of the case claiming basis for the
motions Dr. Neri’s manifestations.

Issue:

Whether or not the act of pardon of Dr. Neri to his wife can stop the prosecution in the case of
Adultery ?

Ruling:

No. Art. 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 344. …--The crime of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint
filed by the offended spouse.

The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both parties, if they are both
alive, nor in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.

For either consent or pardon to benefit the accused, it must be given prior to the filing of a
criminal complaint. In the present case, the affidavit of desistance was executed only on November 23,
1988 while the compromise agreement was executed only on February 16, 1989, after the trial court
had already rendered its decision dated December 17, 1987. Additionally, while Article 344 of the
Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted without the offended
spouse’s complaint, once the complaint has been filed, the control of the cases passes to the public
prosecutor. Enforcement of our law on adultery is not exclusively, nor even principally, a matter of
vindication of the private honor of the offended spouse; much less is it a matter merely of personal or
social hypocrisy. Such enforcement relates, more importantly, to protection of the basic social
institutions of marriage and the family in the preservation of which the State has the strongest interest.

The Motion for Reconsideration and The Petition for Review are DENIED.
People vs. Alcoreza

Facts:

Ireneo Alcoreza (stepfather) was charged with rape by Estrella Manila (14 yrs. old) and 2 counts of
statutory rape by Mary Joy Manila (11 yrs. old). September 21, 1997 – the accused had carnal
knowledge of Mary Joy. He kissed and embraced her and inserted his penis into her organ. September
27, 1997 – the accused again tried to have carnal knowledge of Mary Joy. When the accused mounted
her, his penis touched her organ but he failed to insert it as he heard her 8-year old brother, Benito,
arrive. The accused immediately pushed her away and put on his clothing. Benito, however, still saw
Mary Joy naked on the bed. September 28, 1997 – Mary Joy sought the assistance of her sister and
revealed her sexual ordeal. With the aid of their grandfather they reported the incident to the
authorities. Her grandfather also discovered that the accused was also molesting his other
granddaughter, Estrella. October 18, 1996 – the accused tried to have carnal knowledge of her but he
failed because he sensed that he might get caught by the mother. Medico-legal examination revealed
that both Mary Joy and Estrella were in a non-virgin state. Mary Joy had a healed laceration and
abrasion on her hymen while Estrella's hymen sustained 4 healed lacerations.

Issues:

WON the accused is guilty of statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness?

Ruling:

Yes. The alleged inconsistency in the testimony of Mary Joy regarding the September 21, 1997 rape
incident is too flimsy and trivial to merit serious consideration. Indeed, it is not unnatural to find minor
discrepancies in the testimony of a rape victim, especially that of a child. She cannot be expected to
remember every minute detail of her ordeal His alibi is vague, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated.

Second count of statutory rape – attempted only and not consummated Her account of what transpired
reveals that the appellant failed to insert his penis in her organ. Accused failed to consummate the crime
of rape as his penis merely touched her organ. Mere touching of the private organ of the victim should
be understood as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labias of the female organ and not
mere touching alone of the mons pubis or pudendum Thus, touching when applied to rape cases does
not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the
penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons pubis There must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ and not merely
stroked the external surface thereof for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. As the labias
are required to be "touched" by the penis, which are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons
pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the
surface, hence the conclusion that touching the labia majora or minora of the pudendum constitutes
consummated rape. He failed to perform all acts of the execution which should produce the crime of
rape by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance.

Estrella's account of the incident showed that there was no real and immediate threat to her
womanhood up to the time the appellant desisted from consummating the rape, he could not be found
guilty of attempted rape. the prosecution evidence failed to prove that rape, at whatever stage, was
committed. The acts described by Estrella are insufficient to prove that the appellant intended to have
carnal knowledge of Estrella. He did not lie on top of Estrella or even made the motion of removing his
underwear. In fact, he kept his clothes on during the entire time that he was in the bedroom. Neither
does it appear that he tried to insert his finger or any object into the genital or anal orifice of Estrella. All
that the appellant was able to do was touch her "private parts". The appellant can only be convicted of
acts of lasciviousness.
G.R. No. 218575

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

Facts: AAA was born on January 16, 1992 and is accused-appellant Ursua's biological daughter. Together
with her father and elder brother, BBB, she lived in a small house with one room, but without kitchen
and living room (sala).

Around 12:00 midnight on January 17, 2006, Ursua, who was drunk, woke up AAA and instructed her to
buy a porridge (lugaw). After eating, he told her to turn off the light and close the door. As they were
sleeping in one bed, he undressed her, touched her vagina, and held her breast. He then removed his
short pants and brief, moved on top of her, pulled his penis, and inserted it into her vagina. He told her
not to make any noise. Consequently, she merely cried and did not shout, resist, or ask her father to
stop. After the acts were done, they went to sleep.

Early dawn the next day, Ursua repeated the dastardly acts on AAA. He held her vagina and breast and
inserted his penis into her vagina. Again, she did not ask for any help. She did not shout because her
father almost hit her .He told her not to make any noise; hence, she just cried. Later in the evening,
around 10 p.m., Ursua once more held AAA's breasts and vagina and placed himself on top of her.

From January 17 to 18, 2006, BBB was in the street, selling in the market. On January 19, 2006, AAA left
their house and went to her godfather (ninong), CCC. She told him what happened between her and
Ursua. She did not return to their house and stayed with her ninong and cousins in a place under the
Pasig City Hall.

Medical examination shown there were deep healed laceration at 7 o'clock position and shallow healed
lacerations at 2, 3 and 9 o'clock positions, she concluded that there is a clear evidence of remote history
of blunt force or penetrating trauma to AAA's hymen. She interviewed AAA, who disclosed that it was
caused by her father who inserted his organ into her vagina.

Issue: Whether or not the appellant is guilty of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No.
7610.

Ruling. Yes. The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 are as
follows:

1. The accused commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.

2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse.

3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

First, accused-appellant's touching of AAA's breasts and vagina with lewd designs constitute lascivious
conduct defined in Section 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610, to
wit: Second, appellant, as a father having moral ascendancy over his daughter, coerced AAA to engage in
lascivious conduct, which is within the purview of sexual abuse.
Third, AAA is below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, based on her testimony
which was corroborated by her Birth Certificate presented during trial. x x

Accordingly, Ursua should be convicted of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610,
and not just acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to the same provision of R.A.
No. 7610.
G.R. No. 175924 March 14, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Facts: On March 12, 2002 (noon).AAA (16 y/o domestic helper) was on her way to pick up her
employer's son from school. Suddenly, a man (Sabadlab) grabbed her and ordered her to go with him.
She refused but Sabadlab poked a gun at her throat. She recognized him to be the man who had
persistently greeted her every time she had bought pandesal at 5 AM Two other men joined Sabadlab at
that point. They forced her into a car, and blindfolded her. After 20 min of travel, she was brought out of
the car, still blindfolded, undressed, had her hands tied and was raped. Although blindfolded, she knew
that it was Sabadlab who raped her first because his cohorts were calling out his name as he was kissing
her body. The others took their turns in raping her after Sabadlab. She could not remember how many
times they raped her. Around 3PM: AAA was released after she was warned that they would kill her if
she told anyone. AAA lied about the incident but was forced (slapped and boxed) by her employer to
disclose what had happened. Her employer took her to the police station and a medico-legal
examination was conducted. AAA and the police went to where AAA bought pandesal and Sabadlab was
arrested. The City Prosecutor filed an information charging Sabadlab and two John Does with forcible
abduction with rape. RTC convicted Sabadlab based on AAA's positive identification, observing that her
physical injuries and fresh hymenal lacerations were consistent with her account of the rapes. CA
sustained the conviction.

Issue: Whether or not the crime was forcible Abduction with Rape

Ruling: NO. The principal objective of Sabadlab and his two cohorts in abducting AAA from Dapitan
Street and in bringing her to another place was to rape and ravish her. Although forcible abduction was
seemingly committed, we cannot hold him guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape
when the objective of the abduction was to commit the rape.Under the circumstances, the rape
absorbed the forcible abduction.
TITLE 11 CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY

6) RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT ON A MINOR

PP v GO-CAOILI

GR No. 196848 Aug. 8, 2017

En Banc Tijam, J

FACTS

On Oct. 23, 2005 at around 7:00 pm, according to AAA, her father Caoili sexually molested her at their
house. According to her, her father inserted his finger into her vagina and played with it for around 30
minutes. Afterwards, Caoili prevented her from going out of the house. AAA proceeded to the house of
her uncle, but when the father learned about it, she was fetched and dragged back home wherein she
was beaten and hit with a piece of wood.

On October 26, 2005, AAA disclosed to Emelia Loayon (Loayon), the guidance counselor at AAA's school,
the sexual molestation and physical violence committed against her by her own father. Loayon
accompanied AAA to the police station to report the sexual and physical abuse. AAA also executed a
sworn statement regarding the incident before the Municipal Mayor.

AAA underwent a medical examination showing that she had suffered lacerations in her vagina.

ISSUE

Whether or not Caoili is guilty of Rape

RULING

Yes. Rape is committed by any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in Par 1, shall
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth, or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

The circumstances present were:

1. Through force, threat or intimidation;

2. When the offended party is deprived of reason;

3. By means of grave abuse of authority