People vs. Oropesa, GR 229084, Oct. 2, 2019 Case Digest
People vs. Oropesa, GR 229084, Oct. 2, 2019 Case Digest
2, 2019
FACTS:
AAA left her parent’s house without their knowledge to avoid her brother-in-law, Oropesa, the
accused-appelant, who already took sexual advantage of her before. AAA left with friends but
along the way, she met the accused and his “compadre” Latonero. AAA’s friends left her alone.
Oropesa held AAA by the arm and together with Latonero, led her to an empty kubo and
proceeded to rape her there along with Latonero. Accused appellant threaten her parent’s lives
with scissors poked at her side to not tell anyone about the incident. She was then brought to his
parent’s house where her brother fetched her. AAA told her parents what happened and a
medical examination indicated that she had sexual intercourse but the date of which could not be
ascertained.
Oropesa denied the charges of rape. Oropesa claimed to be with his family living in another
barangay at the time of the incident. Oropesa claimed that AAA’s mother, BBB, is using the
charges because she did not like Oropese as a brother-in-law. He stated that he was asked money
from AAA’s family to drop the charges. He did not comply because he was innocent.
Latonero was originally charged the same rape but those charges were dropped. He said that his
parents gave the money that AAA’s family asked for to drop the charges despite knowing that he
was innocent.
RTC found Oropesa to be guilty of rape. CA confirmed.
ISSUE:
WON Oropesa is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
HELD:
NO. He is acquitted.
Under Article 266-A (1) (a), rape requires the following elements: (1) the offender had carnal
knowledge of a woman; and (2) the offender accomplished such act through force, threat, or
intimidation.
In this case, There is no evidence to prove that appellant used force, threat, or intimidation
during his sexual congress with AAA.
The Trial court noted that on the time and date of the incident, she left her home without her
parent’s knowledge and run away due to appellant’s alleged threats. Yet, despite these supposed
threats, “AAA went with accused voluntarily in going to the hut where the incident complained
of happened.” AAA’s alleged reason was that “she thought accused would not do it to her again”
In fact, AAA testified that she did not ask appellant where they were going that faithful night
because she trusted him.
The Testimony of AAA is incredible, unconvincing, and inconsistent with human nature and the
normal course of things. If indeed AAA planned to leave home and run away due to appellant’s
alleged threats, it is inexplicable why AAA went voluntarily with appellant. At the time of the
incident, AAA was with her friends, whom she could have asked for help or whom she could
have simply continued to accompany, and she could have easily evaded appellant and Latonero.
Instead, when AAA and her friends were allegedly about to go to the railroad track and saw
appellant and Latonero, she and her friends separated ways and AAA went with appellant and
Latonero. Further, during cross-examination, AAA had no answer when asked that despite the
fact that she had previous sexual contact with appellant, she went with him voluntary because
she trusted him.
AAA’s voluntary act of separating from her friends and going with appellant because she trusted
him negate the presence of force, threat, or intimidation in the commission of the alleged rape.