People Vs Bisora
People Vs Bisora
People Vs Bisora
~~~~.
WI REDO V. iJ1T.iN
Div. ion Clerk of Co11 rt
Third Division
JUL 1 1 2011
THIRD DIVISION
CARPIO, J., *
- versus - VELASCO, JR., Chairperson,
BERSAMIN,
REYES, and
TIJAM, JJ.
~~-
x------------------------~-------------------------------------------------~-------x
DECISION
TIJAM, J.:
Accused-appellant Rolando Bisora y Lagonoy challenges in this
appeal the October 10, 2014 Decision 1 promulgated by the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06282, which affirmed the judgment2 of
conviction for Rape rendered against him on June 28, 2013 by Bran'?h 172
of the Valenzuela City Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case No.
552-V-12.
"
Decision 2 G.R. No. 218942
The Facts
That on or about May 23, 2012, in Valenzuela City and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd
design, by means of force and intimidation employed upon the person of
one AAA, 16 years old, DOB: August 17, 1995 (complainant), did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse
with the said minor complainant against her will and without her consent,
thereby subjecting the said minor complainant to sexual abuse which
debased, degraded and demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity as a
human being. 3
1
Id. at 12.
4
In line with the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006), citing Rule on
Violence Against Women and their Children, Sec. 40; Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act
No. 9262, Rule XI, Sec. 63, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children
Act," the real names of the rape victims will not be disclosed. The Court will instead use fictitious initials to r
represent them throughout the decision. The personal circumstances of the victims of any other information
tending to establish or compromise their identities will likewise be withheld. 't'
Decision 3 G.R. No. 218942
Seeing merit on the RTC ruling, the CA,· in its October 10, 2014
Decision, affirmed the RTC decision in its entirety. Accused-appellant then
comes before this. Court, maintaining that the prosecution failed to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable. doubt.
"{:
5
People of the Philippines v. Elmer Baldo y Santain, G.R. No. 175238, February 24, 2009.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 218942
(
6
Id.
7
See CArollo, p. 47.
8
Pe~ple of the Philippines v. Dandito Lastra/lo y Doe, G.R. No. 212631, November 7, 2016.
9
People of the Philippines v. Johnlie Lagangga y Dumpa, G.R. No. 207633, December 9, 2015.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 218942 ·
Finally, the level of healing of AAA's hymen does not cast any doubt
to the conclusion that she was raped. The essence of rape is the carnal
knowledge of a woman against her consent. A freshly broken hymen is not
one of its essential elements. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact,
the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. Penetration of the penis by entry
into the lips of th~ vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen,
is enough to justify a conviction for rape. To repeat, rupture of the hymen or
laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a
conviction for rape. 10
SO ORDERED.
~
{
NOEL G ~~ TIJAM
Asso Justice
10
People Of The Philippines and AAA v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015.
11
People OfThe Philippines v. lreneoJugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
12
People 0/The Philippines v. ~ivencio Ausa, G.R. No. 209032, August 3, 2016.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 218942
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
J. VELASCO, JR.
Assyciate Justice
hairperson
IENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of opinion of the
Court's Division.
J. VELASCO, JR.
ociate Justice
Chaireferson, Third Division
{
Decision 7 G.R. No. 218942
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.