PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

DANILO CATUBIG y HORIO FACTS: Danilo Catubig was charged with the crime of rape before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78 of Malolos, Bulacan. Prosecution evidence showed that on November 27, 1997, at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, 12-year old Dannilyn Catubig and her four younger siblings were watching television in the sala of their house. When Dannilyn's father, Danilo Catubig, arrived, the latter told Dannilyn's sibling to go to her aunt's house which is just located nearby. Thereafter, Danilo told Dannilyn to go inside the room and to lie down on the bed. After Dannilyn had complied, Danilo removed Dannilyn's shorts and panty. Danilo, after removing his brief and t-shirt, laid on top of Dannilyn and succeeded in inserting his penis to her vagina. Dannilyn did not resist because she is afraid her father who beat and raped her in the past. However, Dannilyn's aunt who got suspicious of what Danilo was doing to Dannilyn, informed the latter's mother. Thus, when confronted by her mother, Dannilyn was forced to reveal that she was indeed raped by her father. Contrarily, Danilo denied the accusation against him. He claimed that the rape charge was brought about because of the ill will between him and his wife and daughter Dannilyn, following a quarrel. Thus, the trial court convicted Danilo of the crime charged and the penalty of death was imposed upon him. Hence, this automatic review. ISSUE: WON testimony of the victim is acceptable as evidence HELD: The Court ruled that Dannilyn had given her testimony in a plain, categorical, spontaneous and frank manner, remaining consistent throughout, and there was hardly anything on record that can cast doubt on her sincerity. The revelations of an innocent child whose chastity had been abused, coupled with her willingness to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial, should merit credence unless strong justifications dictate otherwise. Indeed, it would take a most senseless kind of depravity for a young daughter to just make up a story which could put her own father to an undeserved indictment and even to possibly face death in the hands of the law. However, the information failed to state the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender, both special qualifying circumstances under Republic Act No. 7659, and for want of such allegations, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on the accused. Appellant could only thus be convicted under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, of simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUANITO BALOLOY FACTS: Appellant was convicted of rape with homicide in connection with the rape-slay of 11year old Genelyn. His conviction was based on his extrajudicial confessions to Barangay Captain Ceniza and to Judge Dicon as well as the several circumstantial evidence against him. Ceniza testified that before the arrest of appellant, he admitted that he raped Genelyn and then threw her body into the ravine, while according to Judge Dicon, he asked appellant whether the

charge against him was true and appellant replied that "he was demonized" and narrated how he struck the victim's head with a stone and dropped her into the precipice. He asked appellant these questions after the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution were taken. Appellant interposed denial and alibi. He was sentenced to suffer the death penalty. He assailed the admissibility of his confessions and the sufficiency of evidence against him. ISSSUE: WON there was a violation of right on the part of the defendant. HELD: here is merit in JUANITO's claim that his constitutional rights during custodial investigation were violated by Judge Dicon when the latter propounded to him incriminating questions without informing him of his constitutional rights. It is settled that at the moment the accused voluntarily surrenders to, or is arrested by the police officers, the custodial investigation is deemed to have started. So, he could not thenceforth be asked about his complicity in the offense without the assistance of counsel. Judge Dicon's claim that no complaint has yet been filed and that neither was he conducting a preliminary investigation deserves scant consideration. The fact remains that at that time JUANITO was already under the custody of the police authorities, who had already taken the statement of the witnesses who were then before Judge Dicon for the administration of their oaths on their statements.