People vs. Hatani

Rape can be consummated by rendering the victim unconscious, and a conviction can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and the victim's credible partial recollection; illegal practice of medicine is punishable whether or not performed for a fee.

A 16-year-old girl suffering from fever and loose bowel movement was introduced to a neighbor who claimed to be a doctor. After administering sedative injections that rendered her unconscious, he sexually assaulted her. He also attempted to treat her sister using the same sedation methods before being interrupted.

• Original Filing: RTC, Branch 105, Quezon City (Criminal Cases No. Q-11867 and No. Q-11868)
• Lower Court Decision: RTC convicted appellant of illegal practice of medicine (sentenced to P10,000 fine and 5 years imprisonment) and rape (sentenced to reclusion perpetua and P50,000 indemnity).
• Appeal: Direct appeal to the SC.
• SC Action: The case reached the SC via direct appeal from the RTC decision.

• The Illness and the "Doctor": On July 6, 1979, Agustina Borja sought medication for her 16-year-old daughter, Precila, who had high fever and loose bowel movement. A neighbor, Marita, introduced Agustina to her husband, appellant Farhad Hatani, claiming he was a medical doctor. Agustina agreed to let him treat Precila.
• The Sedation: Appellant examined Precila, gave her tablets, and administered two injections (morning and noon). After each injection, Precila felt dizzy and fell asleep. Appellant diagnosed Precila as a drug addict requiring further observation and offered to treat her at his house. Agustina agreed.
• The Assault: That evening, appellant and his wife brought Precila to their house. Appellant gave her another injection, causing her to sleep. She awoke naked, with appellant fondling her private parts. When she tried to get up, he punched her, pressed a pillow on her face, and injected her again. She awoke a second time naked in bed with appellant, feeling pain all over her body and seeing blood on her private parts. Appellant injected her a third time, rendering her unconscious.
• The Discovery: The following morning, Agustina fetched Precila and found her and appellant asleep in the same bed, both naked. She dressed Precila and took her home. Precila remained dizzy, incoherent, and in pain.
• The Intervention: That evening, Precila's older sister Josefina, a nurse, arrived. She found appellant about to inject another sister, Wilma, whom he also diagnosed as a drug addict. Josefina saw appellant's open bag containing empty capsules of dalmane and vials of valium. She stopped the injection under threat of calling the police.
• The Investigation: The next day, the family went to Camp Crame. A medico-legal exam of Precila showed deep, healing lacerations on her hymen (non-virgin state physically) and multiple needle puncture marks on her arms and buttocks. Wilma also had a needle puncture mark.
• The Raid and Evidence: On July 15, 1979, a raid on appellant's house yielded assorted drugs (mogadon, dalmane, valium), prescription pads in the name of Dr. Jesus Yap, and medical instruments. A PRC certification confirmed appellant was not a registered physician. A handwriting report confirmed appellant wrote the prescriptions.
• Defense Version: Appellant claimed Precila merely stayed over to chat with his wife about her personal problems and vices. He claimed he slept on the floor in pajama pants. He also claimed the drugs found during the raid were planted and that the room was left in disarray.

• Appellant questioned the credibility of prosecution witnesses, pointing out that Precila recounted her ordeal only after four years and that there were inconsistencies in testimonies.
• Appellant argued there was insufficient evidence for rape, claiming the prosecution failed to prove his guilt and that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defense.
• Appellant argued there was no proof of payment or fee for the medical treatment, which he claimed was necessary for illegal practice of medicine.
• Appellant claimed Precila admitted being in school the whole day of July 6, 1979, making treatment impossible.
• Appellant argued the RTC decision was invalid because the ponente was not the trial judge who heard the evidence, depriving him of the opportunity to assess witness credibility.

• The Solicitor General argued that Precila's delay in reporting and failure to inform her family immediately were due to her dizzy, groggy, and incoherent state from the injections.
• The prosecution maintained that the absence of physical injuries does not negate rape when the victim is sedated, and that circumstantial evidence sufficiently proved the rape.
• The prosecution argued that the trial court's statement on burden shifting merely meant the circumstantial evidence was sufficient unless rebutted.
• The prosecution asserted that illegal practice of medicine is punishable whether or not done for a fee.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the RTC judgment is invalid because the deciding judge was not the one who heard the evidence and observed the witnesses' demeanor.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the prosecution's evidence is sufficient to convict appellant of rape despite alleged inconsistencies and the victim's lack of continuous consciousness.
  • Whether the prosecution's evidence is sufficient to convict appellant of illegal practice of medicine despite the alleged lack of proof of payment.

• Procedural: The SC held that a judgment is not erroneous merely because the deciding judge did not hear the evidence or observe witness demeanor, especially where the evidence on record sufficiently supports the conclusion. The judge who wrote the decision relied on the records, which was adequate.
• Substantive:
  • Rape: The SC ruled that the conviction was proper. Rape can be committed by rendering a woman unconscious (Art. 335, RPC). The victim's partial recollection during brief moments of consciousness is credible and consistent. The absence of external injuries does not negate rape when the victim is under sedation. The unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence—medico-legal findings of fresh lacerations, needle marks, the victim and appellant found naked together by the mother—proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Young victims are unlikely to fabricate defloration stories due to the inherent shame and public exposure.
  • Illegal Practice of Medicine: The SC ruled that the conviction was proper. The law (R.A. 2382) specifically punishes illegal practice of medicine whether or not done for a fee. The overwhelming evidence—testimonies of treatment, medico-legal reports of needle marks, appellant's handwriting on prescription pads, and seized medical equipment—proved his guilt. Appellant's inconsistent defenses (drugs were planted vs. illegal search) further weakened his credibility.

• Rape of an unconscious victim — Rape can be committed when the offender has sexual intercourse with a woman who is deprived of reason or unconscious after being drugged. The victim's testimony of what she remembers during intermittent consciousness, corroborated by medico-legal findings, is sufficient for conviction.
• Circumstantial evidence in rape — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict for rape if it forms an unbroken chain leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion of guilt, even without direct evidence.
• Illegal practice of medicine — The act of diagnosing, treating, and administering injections without a valid certificate of registration is punishable under R.A. 2382, regardless of whether it was done for a fee or compensation.
• Judgment by a non-ponente judge — A judgment is not invalid merely because the deciding judge did not hear the witnesses, provided the evidence on record sufficiently supports the conclusion.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code — Defines rape committed when the victim is deprived of reason or unconscious. Applied to affirm that appellant's act of injecting the victim to render her unconscious before sexual intercourse constitutes rape.
• Sections 8, 10, and 28, Republic Act No. 2382 (Medical Act of 1959) — Prohibits practicing medicine without a certificate of registration and prescribes penalties. Applied to convict appellant for examining, diagnosing, and injecting the victims without being a registered physician, emphasizing that the act is punishable whether or not done for a fee.