PEOPLE v.

BERANA
July 29, 1999

FACTS:
On June 2, 1994, at around 2 am, 14-y.o Maria Elena Jarcia was sleeping with her 4-
y.o niece when she was awakened by Raul Berana, her brother-in-law. Berana
pointed a “buntot page” at her enck and warned her not to make any noise,
otherwise she would be killed, and proceeded to rape her. The accused then raped
her for a second time. At around 2:30 am, the accused left her after warning her not
to tell anyone else.
After Berana left, Maria Elena then went to the adjacent room to tell her sister Ma.
Ana about what happened. Ana then hurried to tell their parents who are at
Camaligan, CamSur. Their mother fetched Elena and accompanied her to the
Provincial Hospital for a medical exam. They then went to the Sabang Police station
in Naga city to report the incident.
According to Berena:
It was Elena who initiated the intercourse. She asked him to stay for the night in the
room to watch over her and his daughter. He then started to make moves after
reminding Berena the money that she was asking for for some time. He also said he
asked permission for the second intercourse, to which Maria Elena agreed.
Prior to the incident, on December 1993, he was alone in the same room reading an
adult magazine when Elena arrived. She then approached him and talked about the
same magazine. Elena then embraced Berana. Kissing and touching of the breasts
then ensued, but was cut when somebody arrived and interrupted them.
The TC did not give credence to the testimony of the accuded, and found the accused
guilty of rape, as defned under Art 335 of the RPC, as amended by RA 7659.

ISSUE:
1. WoN the TC erred when it convicted the accused despite the absence of any
clear and convincing evidence demonstrating the alleged use of force – NO
2. WoN the TC erred in convicting the accused depsite the prosection’s failure
to adduce clear proof of all the attendant qualifying circumstances – NO
3. WoN the TC erred when in convicted theaccused based on a misplace
conclusion that the appellant allegedly admitted the crime – NO

RATIO:
1. Accused contends that the TC’s finding that he had forcible sexual
intercourse was based only on the medical examination. The TC’s findings
was not based solely on the medical findings showing hymenal laceration
and the presence of sperm in the victim’s organ. The TC mereley considered
the medical findigs as corroborative evidence for the complainant’s
testimony – that she was threatened to be killed if she makes any noise.
2. The complainant was able to present the underwear which bore traces of
blood was admitted as evidence. Morevover, the absence of any sign of
physical bleeding does not necessarily mean there was no forcible sexual
intercourse. Proof of external injuries inflicted on the compainant is not
dispensible in a prosecution for rape committed with force or violence. The
law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.
Physical resistance need not be established in rape cased when intimidation
is exercised pon her and she submits herself against her will to the rapist’s
lust because of fear for life or personal safety.
However, the prosecution failed to adduce clear and positive qualifying
circumstance of relationship between the accused and the complainant.
Relationship qualifies the cirme of rape punsihable by reclusion perpetua to
rape punishable by death under RA 7659 – consanguinity or affinity w/In the
third civil degree. Affinity is defined as “the relation which one spise because
of marrage bewtween each of the married persons and the kindred of the
other… Husband and wife becomes one…”
To effectively prosecute for the crime of rape by a relative of affinity, it must
be established that a) he is legally married to the complainant’s sister and b)
complainant and accused-appellant’s wife are full or half blood siblings.
Prosecution merely relied on ttestimonies and did not present any further
proof.

3. The letters the accused sent to the parents of the victim can be viewed as a
plea of mercy.