People V Saylan

G.R. No.
L-36941 June 29, 1984

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RAFAEL SAYLAN alias PAEL, accused-appellant
FACTS:
Rafael Saylan was accused of rape in the sworn complaint of Eutropia Agno but
entered a plea of not guilty after the trial court rendered judgment.
One afternoon, Eutropia (the victim) went to a public market in Gingoog City to buy
foodstuffs for her family and to fetch her 5-year old daughter. On their way home
they boarded a jeepney along with other passengers including the accused. The
jeepney arrived at the Malinas citrus farm, the end destination and every passenger
alighted and had to walk all the way to barrio Malinao. The passengers separate into
2 groups and the accused joined the victims group and walked up until they reach a
trail for carabaos. The accused, while walking side-by-side with the victim suddenly
pulled out a dagger pointing to the victim threatening her. At this point, the accused
grabbed the victim while still pointing the dagger and dragged her to a creek near a
coconut tree. The accused then ordered the victim to remove her panty but at first
the victim resisted, but accused threatened to kill her, so she removed her panty
after which the accused ordered her to lie down. Subsequently, accused placed
himself on top of the victim and succeeded on doing the sexual intercourse. After
the first intercourse, accused ordered the victim to stand up and did the intercourse
again. Unsatisfied with the second, the victim ordered the accused to stand up and
then he bent her body downwards with her hands and knees resting on the ground.
At this point, accused put himself behind the victim and executed the sexual
intercourse the way dogs do. The intercourse went further up to a fifth instance. The
accused only let go of the victim when the victim promised to accused not to tell
her husband what he did to her.
ISSUE:
1. WON the accuseds offense of rape was attended by aggravating
circumstances of: abuse of superior strength, nighttime, uninhabited place,
ignominy and reiteracion.
HELD:
The trial court disregarded superiority because it "is inherent in the crime of rape or
is absorbed in the element of force." It also did not consider nocturnity "there being
no evidence that the accused purposely sought it to facilitate the commission of the
rape.
Despoblado was present according to the trial court because: "The accused dragged
the offended party, at the point of a dagger, to the carabao trail, about 10 meters
from the junction, but 40 to 50 meters below to better attain his purpose without
interference, and to better secure himself from detection and punishment . Even the
junction where the two children were left is already 400 meters from the nearest
house. While there maybe occasional passersby, this does not destroy its being an
uninhabited place. We hold that the trial court for the reasons stated correctly held
that the crime was committed in an uninhabited place.
The trial court held that there was ignominy because the appellant used not only
the missionary position, i.e. male superior female inferior, but also "The same
position as dogs do" i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there was no
ignominy because "The studies of many experts in the matter have shown that this
'position' is not novel and has repeatedly and often been resorted to by couples in
the act of copulation. This may well be if the sexual act is performed by consenting
partners but not otherwise.
The trial court also held that "there is no reiteracion because one of the offenses,
namely Robbery in Band, for which the accused has been penal was committed
after the commission of this rape case, and the penalty imposed on the other
offense of Frustrated Homicide, is lighter than the penalty for rape.
COURT RULING:
The judgment under review is modified in the sense that the appellant shall suffer
the penalty ofreclusion perpetua instead of death and the indemnity to be paid to
the offended party is increased to P20,000.00. Costs against the appellant.

People V Saylan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Saylan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Saylan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-36941 June 29, 1984

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.