7/21/2019 People vs. Sendong g.r. Nos. 141773-76 January 22, 2003

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-vs-sendong-gr-nos-141773-76-january-22-2003 1/2

CASE No. 64 (Rape)

G.R. Nos. 141773-76 January 22, 2003 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.

ROSENDO LAYOSO @ SENDONG, accused-appellant.

-------- ======== // ========--------

FACTS:

Rosendo “Sendong” Layoso was charged with four counts of rape for sexually assaulting Marlene B.Nitoya, who was 14 years old when the first three incidents of rape happened and just turned 15when that last incident happened.

***This paragraph may be excluded. (The first sexual assault happened in October 22, 1998 whenMarlene was about to by kerosene on a store about 15 meters away from their house. Sendong,

who was drunk, grabbed, kissed and threatened to kill her if she shouts. The accused dragged herinto a bamboo grove at the back of the store and raped her. The same happened on the next monthat the same time and place. The third incident happened on the 14

th  of December 1998, when

Marlene was washing her face by the water pump at her grandmother’s house.  Sendong camesuddenly, threatened to kill her, and forcibly kissed her. She was compelled to lie at the base of thepump and take off her clothes then Sendong raped her once more. The last incident occurred onFebruary 23 the following year, when Marlene was again about to buy kerosene from the samestore, Sendong grabbed her towards a secluded place in front of the store, threatened to kill her witha bamboo stick, took off her clothes and had carnal knowledge with her. When her parents camehome that night, she told them that Sendong had raped her four times. They went to the Police toreport the incident and had her examined in the hospital.)

During the trial, Marlene’s parents and uncle corroborated her accusations against Sendong.  Theresults of the physical examination and the statements of the attending physician was alsopresented as evidence in court. The accused presented alibis that he was not at the crime scenewhen the rape incidents happened and that Marlene’s family accused him of the rape to avenge anincedent that happened between him and Marlene’s cousin. The trial court, however, found Sendongguilty on all four counts of rape charged against him. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetua and to pay indemnity and exemplary damages. 

On appeal, the defense questioned the inconsistencies on the time and dates of the rape incidents

stated by the victim and those stated by other witnesses including conflict on the date and time of

the last rape incident and the time when the report was made to the Police. Accused also makes

issue on the victim’s failure to make adequate resistance considering that the incidents happened

near inhabited places.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the failure of the victim to exert adequate resistance and the inconsistencies as to

the place, date and time of incident on the statements of the victim and other witnesses are material

in a rape case.

7/21/2019 People vs. Sendong g.r. Nos. 141773-76 January 22, 2003

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-vs-sendong-gr-nos-141773-76-january-22-2003 2/2

RULING:

The Court held that Marlene’s failure to shout or offer adequate resistance against accused-

appellant is of no moment. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is

exercised upon the victim and she submits herself against her will to the rapist’s lust out of fear for

her life and personal safety.

Furthermore, the alleged inconsistencies of prosecution witnesses do not in any way detract from

the fact that Marlene was raped by accused-appellant. These alleged inconsistencies are diminimis

in nature and in no way destroy their credibility. What is important is that the prosecution witnesses

were consistent in relating the significant and indispensable components of the principal occurrence

of rape.

Rape, by its very nature, is committed with the least possibility of being seen by the public. Moreoften than not, this crime is committed in the presence of only the victim and her defiler. Thecommission of the four acts of rape were established by the testimony of Marlene Nitoya herself. Inthe face of his positive identification by Marlene, accused-appellant’s self -serving denial and alibicannot prevail. The testimony of the victim, who is a minor, deserve full credence and should not beso easily dismissed as a mere fabrication   especially that she has absolutely no motive to testifyagainst the accused.

Thus, the Court does not hesitate to uphold the conviction of the accused on the basis of the lone

testimony of the private complainant who testifies in no uncertain terms that Sendong was the author

of the acts of rape committed upon her person.

Sendong was nevertheless found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on four counts of rape and is also

sentenced to pay Civil Indemnity and Moral Damages for each count. Exemplary Damages is

deleted for lack of factual and legal basis.