Analyses/Findings and Recommendations

Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended specifically
state as follows:
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:
"1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
"a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
"b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
"c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
"d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be
present. (please use italics and bold with right margin)
Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
"Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two
or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become
insane, the penalty shall become reclusion perpetua to death.
"When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on
the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
"When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide is committed, the
penalty shall be death.
"The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
"l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim;
"2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities
or any law enforcement or penal institution;
"3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the
children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity;
"4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or
calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the
time of the commission of the crime;
"5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
"6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the Human ImmunoDeficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any
other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to
the victim;
"7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law
enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage
of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;

"8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered
permanent physical mutilation or disability;
"9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the
time of the commission of the crime; and
"10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder
and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission
of the crime. (please use italics and bold with right margin and please cut the
unnecessary)
In the case of People vs. Tubat1 (please put footnote of the G.R. No. [G.R. No.
183093]), the Supreme Court held that no woman would want to go through the
process, the trouble and the humiliation of trial for such a debasing offense unless
she actually has been a victim of abuse and her motive is but a response to the
compelling need to seek and obtain justice.
The facts of the case before us squarely fall under the crime of Rape by Sexual
Intercourse. In this case, Anna M. Santos, a minor seeks to obtain justice, to prevent
such nefarious acts of her grandfather be repeated, and to avoid such despicable
actions be committed to her little sister, Joy.
On the part of the defense of the respondent it is settled rule that in rape cases,
while denial and alibi are legitimate defenses, bare assertions thereof cannot
overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. In particular, the defense of alibi
is weak if wanting in material corroboration, as in this case. 2 [People v. Cachapero,
May 20, 2004)
In order to merit credibility, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of nonculpability which herein accused-appellant failed to show. And in order for alibi to
prosper, the accused-appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place
at the time of the commission of the crime but also that it was physically impossible
for him to be at the locus delicti or its immediate vicinity. In the present case,
accused-appellant failed to demonstrate this fact. 3 [People v. Arevalo February 3, 2004]
In the case of Dela Cruz vs CA and People of the Philippines 4 G.R. No. 139150
July
20, 2001
To the mind of the Court, the distance between Sangandaan, Quezon City and Tondo, Manila does
not preclude the possibility that petitioner could have been physically present at the place of the
crime or its vicinity at or about the time of its commission. Thus, Arnulfo Santos failed to demonstrate
that it was physically impossible for him to commit the crime based on his alibi that he is at the Sto.
Domingo Church in Quezon City when the crime of rape was committed in their house in Tondo,
Manila. In the case of People vs. Bello G.R. No. L-18792
February 28, 1964 Indeed, alibi is
a defense invariably viewed by the Court as weak. It is treated with disfavor simply because it is
easily fabricated on the part of the accused, his friends, relatives and supporters. 5

With regard to the issue of Erectile Dysfunction, the court in its

decision held that, as a defense, impotence is both a physical and
medical question that should be satisfactorily established with the
aid of an expert and competent testimony. 6 People v. Alcartado, G.R. Nos.

Impotency as a defense in rape cases must

likewise be proved with certainty to overcome the presumption in
favor of potency7 People v. De Villa G.R. No. 124639, February 1, 2001
132379-82, June 29, 2000,

In the case at bar, Arnulfo Santos failed to discount the possibility

that his erection may be cured by drugs like Viagra or Ciales.
Furthermore, we find the testimony of Arnulfo Santos wife Alberta
more harmful than helpful to the theory of the defense. It can be
recalled that in Exhibit B of the counter-affidavit the wife stated as
to having infrequent sexual intercourse with her husband because
he had become impotent. This contradicts Arnulfos claim that it
was impossible for him to have raped Anna because of his
medical condition.
Erectile dysfunction or ED can be a total inability to achieve
erection, an inconsistent ability to do so, or a tendency to sustain
only brief erections. These variations make defining ED and
estimating its incidence difficult.8 People v. Cruz G.R. No. 186129
August 4, 2009. Furthermore, Dr. Nicolex Alfred Quinto did not
specify what kind of Erectile Dysfunction Santos was suffering
from. Santos impotency cannot, therefore, be considered as
completely eliminating the possibility of sexual intercourse.
In People v. Bahuyan (G.R. No. 105842, 24 November 1994, 238
SCRA 330), we convicted an octogenarian of rape as we brushed
aside his claim of impotency. There we said that assuming arguendo
that this was the truth, his advanced age did not mean that sexual
intercourse for him was no longer possible, as age taken alone could
not be a criterion in determining sexual interest and capability of
middle-aged and older people.
In light of this, the Investigating Officer is convinced that the crime of rape was
committed by Arnulfo Santos against Anna Santos on September 10, 2016 and
October 8, 2016 and that Arnulfo Santos failed to persuade the Investigating
Prosecutor that he is physically impossible to commit the crime because of his alibi
nor physically incapable of committing the crime because of his Erectile
Dysfunction.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully

recommended that an information for the crime of Rape be filed against the
respondent ARNULFO SANTOS.

Manila City, November 21, 2016.

MATT MURDOCK
Assistant City Prosecutor
APPROVED BY:
EDWARD TOGONON
Chief City Prosecutor