21 People Vs Hangdaan Digest
21 People Vs Hangdaan Digest
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.