Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 People Vs Hangdaan Digest

    Uploaded by

    Harold Q. Gardon
    524 views2 pages
    Jocelyn Binoy, a 15-year old student, was raped by Romel Ballogan and Amadeo Hangdaan after attending a school program. Ballogan succeeded in raping Jocelyn by inserting his penis, while Hangdaan tried but could not penetrate Jocelyn with his larger penis. Hangdaan was arrested and identified by the victim, while Ballogan remained at large. The court found Hangdaan guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, Hangdaan argued he was innocent because unlike Ballogan, he did not flee. However, the court upheld the conviction, finding non-flight does not prove innocence, and the victim positively identified Hang

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    21-People-vs-Hangdaan-digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Jocelyn Binoy, a 15-year old student, was raped by Romel Ballogan and Amadeo Hangdaan after attending a school program. Ballogan succeeded in raping Jocelyn by inserting his penis, while Hangdaan tried but could not penetrate Jocelyn with his larger penis. Hangdaan was arrested and identified by the victim, while Ballogan remained at large. The court found Hangdaan guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, Hangdaan argued he was innocent because unlike Ballogan, he did not flee. However, the court upheld the conviction, finding non-flight does not prove innocence, and the victim positively identified Hang

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    524 views2 pages

    21 People Vs Hangdaan Digest

    Uploaded by

    Harold Q. Gardon
    Jocelyn Binoy, a 15-year old student, was raped by Romel Ballogan and Amadeo Hangdaan after attending a school program. Ballogan succeeded in raping Jocelyn by inserting his penis, while Hangdaan tried but could not penetrate Jocelyn with his larger penis. Hangdaan was arrested and identified by the victim, while Ballogan remained at large. The court found Hangdaan guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, Hangdaan argued he was innocent because unlike Ballogan, he did not flee. However, the court upheld the conviction, finding non-flight does not prove innocence, and the victim positively identified Hang

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People vs Hangdaan

    FACTS: That in the evening of November 12,1986. Jocelyn Binoy. a 15 years old student of the ISCAF,
    Nayon, Ifugao, went to attend a school program.

    After the program, said Jocelyn Binoy went to the girls’ dormitory where she boards. However, before
    entering the dorm, she went to the toilet for necessity. As she sat to defecate, two boys, who were later
    identified as Romel Ballogan and Amadeo Hangdaan, entered the comfort room and both grabbed
    Jocelyn and pushed her to the wall with Ballogan poking a knife at her side. Jocelyn shouted but her
    mouth was covered and was threatened if she does not keep quiet. They had difficulty trying to rape her
    inside the toilet room, so the two boys dragged Jocelyn to a hut across the river some 150 meters away
    and where she was undressed and pushed down on the floor.

    Ballogan went on top of Jocelyn and succeeded in raping her. Jocelyn tried to resist but was weak and
    the knife was constantly poked at her side. After Ballogan finished having sexual intercourse with
    Jocelyn, Hangdaan also went on top of Jocelyn and tried to insert his penis but could not penetrate her
    as his penis was too big. They raped her thrice alternatively but only Ballogan was successful in inserting
    his penis.

    The police went after the accused but only Hangdaan was arrested and identified by the victim while
    Ballogan, remained at large. The defense, on the other hand, denied participation by the accused
    Hangdaan in the crime charged and gave Hangdaan’s own exculpatory version of the incident.

    The trial court however, gave credence to the prosecution’s evidence and convicted the accused
    Hangdaan for the crime of rape. Whereupon, the accused interposed the present appeal, with denial as
    his only defense. After a careful review of the records and the evidence, the Court find no cogent reason
    to disturb the judgment of the trial court which found the guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

    He attempts to bolster such denial by pointing out that unlike his co-accused Ballogan, who fled and
    remains at large, he did not hide, thereby showing that he is innocent of the crime charged. Appellant’s
    pretended innocence is clearly non-sequitur to his decision not to flee. Apart from the fact that there is
    no case law holding that non-flight is conclusive proof of innocence, the argument does not hold weight
    in the light of the positive identification of the appellant by the victim

    ISUUE: WON there was consummated rape even if the huge penis was not able to fully penetrate the
    vagina.

    Held: Yes there is consummated rape in this case. The fact that the accused repeatedly tried, but in vain,
    to introduce his big penis into the victim’s vagina leaves no doubt whatever as to the consummation of
    the crime. For it is settled rule that for rape to be consummated, it is not essential that there be perfect,
    complete and full penetration of the vagina. Mere entry of the labia or lips of the female organ without
    rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction for consummated
    rape.

    It must be pointed out that in the crime of rape, the important consideration is penetration and not
    emission. The absence of spermatozoa in the victim’s vagina or thereabouts does not necessarily negate
    the commission of rape. In fact, with or without the medical findings, a conviction would still be proper
    in the case at bar given the positive identification of the accused-appellant by the victim, while medical
    examination is not an indispensable element in rape cases.

    You might also like