G.R. No. 26867 , August 10, 1927
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. JOSE DE LEON

FACTS

The accused, Jose de Leon, was charged with the crime of rape. The complaint alleged that on July 6, 1926, in Malabon, Rizal, the accused, being the stepfather of the victim Cecilia Galang, a minor under 15 years of age, through grave abuse of confidence, deceit, and false representations, brought her to a house called “Country Home.” There, by means of force, violence, and intimidation, he had carnal knowledge of her against her will. The victim is deaf and mute. During the trial, the court conducted an ocular inspection at the crime scene, where the victim’s testimony was received through an interpreter from the School for the Deaf and Mute. She demonstrated through signs, gestures, and actions how the accused forcibly brought her into a room, overcame her physical resistance, and raped her. The accused denied the charges, claiming the complaint was fabricated out of vengeance. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of *reclusion temporal*, with accessory penalties, and ordered him to support any child born from the act.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of the crime of rape based on the evidence presented.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, with a modification to the civil liability.
The Court found that the evidence, after a careful examination, sustained the trial court’s findings beyond reasonable doubt. The detailed and consistent demonstration of the victim, a deaf and mute minor, vividly described the force, violence, and intimidation employed by her stepfather to consummate the act. The Court rejected the accused’s claim of fabrication, finding no evidence to support it.
The Court noted the presence of aggravating circumstances: (1) the accused employed fraud and deceit in inducing the victim to accompany him (citing *U.S. vs. Iglesia*), and (2) the relationship of stepfather-stepdaughter constituted the aggravating circumstance of kinship.
The penalty imposed by the trial court was within the range prescribed by law, considering the aggravating circumstances. However, the Supreme Court modified the civil aspect of the judgment. In addition to the order for support, the Court, applying Article 449 of the Penal Code, ordered the accused to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P500. With this modification, the judgment was affirmed.