PP Vs Salome

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

THE PEOPLE OF THE 

PHILIPPINES
Versus NICANOR SALOME
G.R. No. 169077    
August 31, 2006
 
AZCUNA, J.:

Facts:
On or about or within the period comprised between July 1, 1997 to July 31, 1997 in the
morning, in [B]arangay Lourdes, [M]unicipality of Pandan, [P]rovince of Catanduanes,
Philippines, the accused NICANOR SALOME, by means of force and intimidation, and with the
use of a bladed weapon, feloniously did lie and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of
SALLY IDANAN, a minor who was then 13 years old at the time of the commission of the
offense. The commission of the crime was aggravated by dwelling the fact that the crime was
committed inside the house of the offended party. On April 3, 2001, the trial court rendered its
decision convicting appellant of the crime of rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction
of appellant.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating dwelling as an aggravating circumstance.

Held:
In the commission of rape, it is usually only the rape victim who can attest to its
occurrence, and if the lone testimony of the victim is credible, convincing and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things, it is competent to establish the guilt of the
accused. The victim’s failure to shout for help or resist the sexual advances of the rapist does not
negate the commission of rape.
It suffices to state that private complainant categorically testified that she was sleeping
inside her house when appellant came and perpetrated the crime. This is proof enough of the
absence of provocation on the part of private complainant. For a sleeping thirteen (13) – year old
barrio girl cannot possibly give any kind of provocation to appellant under the circumstances.
Since the crime of rape was committed by appellant with the use of a deadly weapon,
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, the presence of the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling, without the presence of any mitigating circumstance, justified the trial court’s
imposition of the death penalty.

You might also like