Witnesses people v rodriguez 2016 facts appellant

witnesses.
People v. Rodriguez (2016)
FACTS : Appellant Rodriguez and AAA were neighbors.
AAA, who was then 27 years old but mentally retarded,
was making rugs at their house when appellant called
her to look after his one-year-old son as his wife was
doing laundry work at an employer's house. AAA obliged
and went to appellant's house. As soon as she entered
the house, appellant closed the door, kissed her, and
removed her clothes and his pants. He then inserted his
penis into her vagina and it was painful. After satisfying
his lust, appellant wiped the "white thing" that came out
of his penis. He then dressed AAA and warned her not to
tell anyone about the incident. Appellant just left and
played cards with his friends while AAA looked after his
son until appellant's wife came back. AAA told her
mother, BBB, that appellant molested "ginalaw" her.
BBB confronted appellant who just denied the
accusation.
HELD : The Information alleged that AAA was a 27 year
old mentally-retarded woman at the time of the
commission of the crime which was duly proved during
the trial. As we have held, carnal knowledge of a female
mental retardate with the mental age below 12 years of
age is rape of a woman deprived of reason, thus, AAA's
rape fall under paragraph (b) of Article 266-A.
Considering that the prosecution had satisfactorily
proved appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, his
conviction stands. The RTC as affirmed by the CA
correctly imposed on appellant the penalty of reclusion
perpetua .

CRIMINAL LAW 2 UP College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
Page 145
People v. Lagbo (2016)
FACTS : AAA was washing dishes inside their house. She
was alone with her father, as her mother was at the
marketplace selling vegetables while her siblings were
playing outside the house. All of a sudden, accused-
appellant grabbed her and forcibly removed her short
pants and her panty. After removing his short pants,
accused appellant pushed AAA and made her lie down
on their "papag". Thereafter, he boxed AAA's face twice
and threatened to kill her mother and siblings. He then
placed himself on top of AAA and made pumping
motions while covering her mouth and pulling her hair.
AAA felt pain and cried as accused-appellant's sex organ
penetrated hers. After gratifying himself, accused-
appellant put on his clothes, sat beside AAA and told her
to stop crying. AAA did not relate this incident to her
mother for fear that accused-appellant would make good
his threat to harm her mother and siblings.
The rape incident happened thrice on three different
occasions.
HELD : Accused is guilty of Rape. Inconsistencies on
minor details are in fact badges of truth, candidness and
the fact that the witness is unrehearsed. These
discrepancies as to minor matters, irrelevant to the
elements of the crime, cannot, thus, be considered a
ground for acquittal. In this case, the alleged
inconsistency in AAA's testimony regarding the exact
place of the commission of rape does not make her
otherwise straightforward and coherent testimony, on
material points, less worthy of belief.