People vs. Fernandez

Sexual intercourse with a woman who is asleep constitutes rape under Article 335(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as she is considered unconscious and deprived of her free will; furthermore, the relationship of first cousins does not qualify as an aggravating circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.

The case involves a prosecution for rape committed by a 20-year-old man against his 13-year-old first cousin, who was found to be mentally slow and shy. The incident occurred while the victim was sleeping in her family home, raising issues regarding the credibility of the victim's testimony, the validity of the "sweetheart defense," and the proper application of aggravating circumstances in the determination of penalty.

• Appellant Arnulfo Fernandez (20 years old) was charged with raping AAA (13 years old), his first degree cousin, who was described as mentally slow and shy.
• On the night of 7 July 1997, appellant was drinking wine with AAA's father at the latter's house.
• Appellant gave money to AAA's father to buy more wine; when the father left, appellant went upstairs where AAA and her younger siblings were sleeping.
• Appellant covered AAA's mouth and raped her while she was asleep; AAA woke up and noticed appellant lying on top of her and felt pain in her vagina, but could not overpower him due to his superior size and strength.
• After the act, appellant went downstairs and had another drinking bout with AAA's father; when appellant left, the father went upstairs and noticed AAA's panty on her knees and bloodstains on her blanket.
• AAA told her father that appellant raped her; the father reported the incident to the Barangay Captain and the police the following morning.
• AAA's blanket with bloodstains and male discharge was submitted to the police as evidence; the Barangay Captain summoned appellant but he could not be located until he surrendered to Kagawad Putian one week later.
• Medical examination by a practicing physician revealed fresh laceration of AAA's hymen, suggesting that the incident on 7 July 1997 was probably AAA's first sexual experience.
• Appellant claimed that AAA was his girlfriend since 1997 and that they had sexual relations from 1995 until 1997; he alleged that AAA initiated their sexual intercourse and claimed she was a "sex maniac."
• Appellant admitted that on the night of 7 July 1997, he went upstairs and had sexual intercourse with AAA, but claimed it was consensual and that AAA enticed him and removed her panty down to her knees.

• The prosecution failed to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• The sexual encounter was consensual, not rape, as AAA was appellant's girlfriend.
• AAA initiated the sexual act and was a willing participant, removing her own panty and enticing appellant.
• AAA was a "sex maniac" who initiated all their sexual encounters since 1995 (when she was allegedly 11 years old).

• The prosecution established rape beyond reasonable doubt through AAA's positive, straightforward, and credible testimony.
• The trial court correctly relied on the victim's testimony rather than appellant's bare denial of the charge.
• The "sweetheart theory" is incredible and contradicted by the fact that AAA was asleep when appellant approached her, and by medical evidence showing fresh hymenal laceration consistent with a first sexual experience.
• Factual findings of the trial court regarding witness credibility are accorded the highest respect absent any clearly overlooked important facts.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the prosecution proved appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape under Article 335(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
  • Whether sexual intercourse with a sleeping victim constitutes rape where the victim is deprived of reason or unconscious.
  • Whether the appellant's "sweetheart theory" and claim of consensual sex are credible.
  • Whether the relationship of first cousins qualifies as an aggravating circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of AAA's testimony was upheld as it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, and the appellant's bare denial and "sweetheart theory" were rejected as incredible.
  • The Court held that sexual intercourse with a woman who is asleep constitutes rape under Article 335(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as she is considered unconscious and deprived of her free will, citing established jurisprudence that there is rape where the woman was unconscious as when she was asleep when the carnal act was accomplished.
  • The Court found appellant's version unbelievable because he admitted going upstairs knowing AAA was sleeping with her siblings, making it impossible for her to have initiated the sexual act as he claimed.
  • The Court ruled that the relationship between first cousins does not qualify as an aggravating circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, which is limited to specific relationships (spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate/natural/adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree).
  • Despite the deletion of the aggravating circumstance, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was maintained because it is a single indivisible penalty under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, which shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

• Credibility of Witnesses — The trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is accorded great respect and even finality by appellate courts, absent any showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued substantial facts that might affect the case outcome.
• Rape of Unconscious Victim — Under Article 335(2) of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman who is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, including when she is asleep, as she is deprived of her free will.
• Single Indivisible Penalty Rule — Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, when the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty (such as reclusion perpetua), courts must apply it regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime.
• Relationship as Aggravating Circumstance — Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, relationship is an alternative aggravating circumstance only when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate/natural/adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender; first cousins are not included in this enumeration.

• "The trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies."
• "Thus, there is rape where the woman was unconscious as when she was asleep when the carnal act was accomplished."
• "Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, in cases where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance."

• People v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613 — Cited by the trial court for the proposition that relationship is aggravating in crimes against chastity, though the Supreme Court corrected the application of this doctrine to first cousins.
• People v. Oliquino, G.R. No. 171314, 6 March 2007; People v. Diunsay-Jalandoni, G.R. No. 174277, 8 February 2007, 515 SCRA 227; Navarrete v. People, G.R. No. 147913, 31 January 2007, 513 SCRA 509 — Cited for the doctrine that factual findings of the trial court are accorded great respect.
• Nobrefia v. People, G.R. No. 157919, 30 January 2007, 513 SCRA 369; People v. Arnaiz, G.R. No. 171447, 29 November 2006, 508 SCRA 630 — Cited for the rule regarding deference to trial court assessments of credibility.
• People v. Caballero, 61 Phil. 900 (1935); People v. Corcino, 53 Phil. 234 (1929) — Cited for the established rule that there is rape where the woman was unconscious or asleep when the carnal act was accomplished.

• Article 335(2) of the Revised Penal Code — Defines rape committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman who is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; the specific provision under which the appellant was convicted.
• Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code — Defines the alternative circumstance of relationship and limits it to specific familial relationships; the Court held that first cousins are not covered by this provision.
• Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code — Provides that single indivisible penalties shall be applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances; basis for maintaining reclusion perpetua despite the deletion of the aggravating circumstance.
• Republic Act No. 7659 — The Heinous Crimes Law amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code; mentioned in the trial court decision as the applicable law.

• Quisumbing, Carpio-Morales, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr. — The decision indicates that these Justices concurred with the majority opinion penned by Carpio, J., but no separate concurring opinions were recorded in the text.