Scribd
Upload
262 views1 page

Rellota Conviction Affirmed in Rape Case

The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of Alejandro Rellota for two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. [AAA], who was 12 years old at the time, testified that Rellota, her aunt's husband, had been kissing and touching her inappropriately since September 1993 and raped her multiple times from September 1993 to January 1994. The court found Rellota's claims of inconsistencies in AAA's testimony to be without merit. Minor inconsistencies are normal for rape victims and do not negate the fact that rape occurred. The court upheld Rellota's conviction.

Uploaded by

nadgb
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
262 views1 page

Rellota Conviction Affirmed in Rape Case

The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of Alejandro Rellota for two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. [AAA], who was 12 years old at the time, testified that Rellota, her aunt's husband, had been kissing and touching her inappropriately since September 1993 and raped her multiple times from September 1993 to January 1994. The court found Rellota's claims of inconsistencies in AAA's testimony to be without merit. Minor inconsistencies are normal for rape victims and do not negate the fact that rape occurred. The court upheld Rellota's conviction.

Uploaded by

nadgb
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Case Overview

PEOPLE V.

ALEJANDRO RELLOTA
GR NO. 168103
AUGUST 3, 2010

FACTS:

The CA affirmed with modifications the decision of the RTC Antipolo City Branch 73, finding
the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of consummated rape and one
count of attempted rape. The antecedent facts are the following:

AAA was born on July 16, 1981 in XXX, Eastern Samar and was a little over twelve (12) years
old when the incidents allegedly happened. Together with her siblings, BBB and CCC, AAA
lived with her aunt, DDD, and the latter's second husband, appellant. Also living with them
were two (2) of AAA's cousins. During that period, DDD and appellant were sending AAA, BBB
and CCC to school. At the time the incidents took place, DDD was working overseas. Based
on the testimony of AAA, appellant had been kissing her and touching her private parts since
September 1993. She claimed that appellant raped her several times between September
1993 and January 1994. She narrated that appellant would usually rape her at night when the
other members of the family were either out of the house or asleep. AAA stated that she
resisted the advances of appellant, but was not successful. Appellant would usually place a
bolo beside him whenever he would rape her. She added that appellant would threaten AAA
by telling her that he would kill her brother and sister and that he would stop sending her to
school. Around noon of December 20, 1993, appellant followed AAA to the bedroom after the
latter took a bath. Appellant tied her hands with a rope and forcibly inserted his penis.
Thereafter, appellant untied the hands and left. A few moments later, appellant returned and
raped her again. The same incident happened again on January 31, 1994. Afterwards, AAA
told her older sister about the repeated deeds of the appellant. Her sister accompanied AAA to
the police station.

In not imposing the penalty of death, the trial court reasoned out that AAA was already over 12
years old at the time the incidents happened and that although she was below 18 years old,
the relationship of AAA and the appellant had not been sufficiently established as the marriage
between AAA's aunt and the appellant was not supported by any documentary evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the conviction of the appellant by the trial court is correct due to the
inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA.

RULING:
The Court finds the appeal bereft of any merit. The claim of appellant that he could not have
raped AAA because his wife was still in the country during the alleged period when the rape
was committed is so flimsy that it does not deserve even the slightest consideration. It has
been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place. Neither the crampness of the room, nor
the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient
and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape. There have been too many instances
when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of
family members sleeping side by side. There is no rule that a woman can only be raped in
seclusion.

Nevertheless, the said inconsistencies pointed out by appellant are minor ones which do not
affect the credibility of AAA nor erase the fact that the latter was raped. The inconsistencies
are trivial and forgivable, since a victim of rape cannot possibly give an exacting detail for each
of the previous incidents, since these may just be but mere fragments of a prolonged and
continuing nightmare, a calvary she might even be struggling to forget.

PEOPLE V. ALEJANDRO RELLOTA GR NO. 168103 AUGUST 3, 2010 FACTS: The CA affirmed with modifications the decision of the RTC An

You might also like