Rape laws and jurisprudence

Rape; when absence of physical resistance unavailing as a defense. Physical resistance need not be
established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her
attacker because of fear. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the
victims submission to the perpetrators lust. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to
determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused; it is not an essential
element of rape. Rape victims react differently. Some may offer strong resistance while others may
be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly suggestive
of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife, much more poking it at her, as
in this case, is sufficient to bring her into submission. Thus, the law does not impose upon the private
complainant the burden of proving resistance. People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Penilla y
Francia, G.R. No. 189324, March 20, 2013.
Rape; when the delay of the victim in reporting the commission of rape unavailing as a
defense.Relying on a tired defense, Penilla insists that AAA belatedly reported to the barangay
authorities that she had been raped. For Penilla, this delay belies her cry of rape. The Supreme
Court disagreed. Indeed, jurisprudence is replete with holdings that delay in revealing the
commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief.
This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the cruelty
of public scrutiny. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the
complainant. People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Penilla y Francia, G.R. No. 189324, March 20,
2013.
Rape; principles in deciding rape cases. Antonio Baraoil was found guilty by the lower courts for two
crimes of rape defined and penalized under RA 8353 and the Revised Penal Code. Courts use the
following principles in deciding rape cases: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is
difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) due to the
nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense. Due to the nature of this crime, conviction for rape may be solely based on
the complainants testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things. The Supreme Court (SC) held in the instant case that the
totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. The SC finds no cogent reason to disturb the trial courts appreciation of the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses testimony. People of the Philippines v. Antonio Baraoil, G.R.
No. 194608, July 9, 2012.

People of the Philippines Vs. Conrado Diocado

G.R. No. 170567 November 14, 2008

Ruling:
She remained steadfast in this narration and her identification of Diocado as the
perpetrator despite the rigorous cross-examination she underwent. Her credibility
was strengthened when she cried at certain points of her testimony as she related
the details of the rape. It was further reinforced by its marked compatibility with the
physical evidence reflected in Dr. Capellan's findings. These findings were
consistent with her testimony that she was made to bend down while Diocado held
her by the waist as she was raped.
we cannot avoid considering that this is a case where AAA is pitted against the
testimonies of her stepfather and her own mother. What is involved, however, is not
a straight line weighing of statements against statements, with two statements
being always better than one. In a court of law, we look at the totality of the
evidence adduced and we weigh these using the scales of reason, experience and
credibility based on insights into the human character, all made within the
parameters of the law. All these now tell us that, under the circumstances of this
case, the mother's word cannot prevail against the word of her wronged daughter.
The testimonial evidence of rape, supported by convincing physical evidence,
cannot be defeated by a mother's contrary testimony. That CCC was in fact at home
in the afternoon of February 7, 1998 does not negate the commission of the rape.
Time and again, we have declared that lust is no respecter of time and
place. It is a master that does not recognize decency or morality but cares
only for the fulfillment of its selfish desires. CCC's changing testimonies also
tell us that at some point she might have chosen the practical option of siding with
the husband who provides for her and her family. Thus, we cannot give credit to
what CCC, as mother, said with respect to her daughter's charge of sexual abuse in
the hands of her stepfather.
People of the Philippines Vs. Ramon Arivan
G.R. No. 176065 April 22, 2008

Ruling:
This Court is in conformity with the findings of both the trial court and the appellate
court that, indeed, the appellant and the private complainant were not sweethearts.
The "sweetheart defense" is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the
intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience. Being an affirmative defense,
the allegation of a love affair must be supported by convincing proof. In the present
case, other than the appellants self-serving assertions, there was no support of his
claim that he and AAA were lovers. His "sweetheart defense" cannot be given
credence in the absence of corroborative proof like love notes, mementos,
pictures or tokens, that such romantic relationship really existed. More so,
as the appellate court stated in its Decision, the following circumstances
or actuations of the private complainant immediately after the alleged
raped incident belies appellants claim of such a relationship, to wit: (1)

AAA immediately disclosed to her uncle that she was raped; (2) AAA
immediately sought the help of the police authorities in apprehending the
appellant; (3) AAA subjected herself to physical examination; (4) AAA
outrightly filed the criminal complaint against the appellant; and (5) AAA
never knew the name of the appellant until after the appellants
statement was taken at Police Station 6. In addition, the corroborative
testimony of Rizaldy that the private complainant and the appellant were
sweethearts cannot be given any credit because of his relationship with
the appellant. This Court notes that Rizaldy is the brother of the appellant and it is
well settled that the testimonies of close relatives and friends are necessarily
suspect and cannot prevail over the unequivocal declaration of the complaining
witness.
The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance,
particularly when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits
herself to the appellants advances out of fear for her life or personal safety. The
test remains to be whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in
the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of her
attacker, the threat would be carried out. It is thus not necessary for the victim to
have resisted unto death or to have sustained physical injuries in the hands of the
accused. So long as the intercourse takes place against the victims will and she
submits because of genuine apprehension of harm to her and her family, rape is
committed.
It is well-settled that the rupture of the hymen or vaginal lacerations are not
necessary for rape to be consummated. A medical examination is not indispensable
in the prosecution of a rape victim. Insofar as the evidentiary weight of the medical
examination is concerned, we have already ruled that a medical examination of the
victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is
not an indispensable element for conviction in rape. What is important is that the
testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and
credible, and this we find here to be the case. Further, well-settled is the rule that
prior sexual intercourse which could have resulted in hymenal laceration is not
necessary in rape cases for virginity is not an element of rape. Hence, it is of no
moment that there is a finding that AAAs hymen was remnant.
Similarly, it must be stressed that the absence of spermatozoa in the private
complainants sex organ does not disprove rape. It could be that the victim washed
or urinated prior to her examination, which may well explain the absence of
spermatozoa.

In determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in rape cases, the courts
are guided by three will-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can
be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even
more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering
that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the
crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with
great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of
the evidence for the defense. People vs. Salidaga, 513 SCRA 306; People vs.

Batiancila, 513 SCRA 434; People vs. Suyat, 518 SCRA 582; People vs.
Fernandez, 522 SCRA 189; People vs. Noveras, 522 SCRA 777; People vs.
Cornelio, 523 SCRA 419; People vs. Abellano, 524 SCRA 388; People vs.
Astrologo, 524 SCRA 477; People vs. Ubia, 527 SCRA 307; People vs.
Mangubat, 529 SCRA 377; People vs. Ortoa, 529 SCRA 536; People vs. San
Antonio, Jr., 532 SCRA 411; People vs Balanzo, 533 SCRA 760; People vs. Ela,
541 SCRA 508.

The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not

only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship
with each other. Id.; People vs. Ubia, 527 SCRA 307.

Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks,

along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house or where there are
other occupants, and even in the same room where there are other members
of the family who are sleeping. People vs. Diunsay-Jalandoni, 515 SCRA 227.

An accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone, uncorroborated

testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, convincing
and otherwise consistent, with human nature. Id.; People vs. Fernandez, 522
SCRA 189; People vs. Aguilar; 540 SCRA 509.

For defense of sweetheart theory to prosper, it should be substantiated by

some documentary or other evidence of the relationshiplike mementos,
love letters, notes, pictures and the like. People vs. Oliquino, 517 SCRA 579.

In rape cases specifically, the credibility of the complaint is of paramount

importance as oftentimes her testimony, when it satisfies the test of
credibility, may be the sole basis for an accuseds conviction. People vs.
Suyat, 518 SCRA 582

The rule is that when a rape victims testimony is straightforward and candid,
unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or
contradictions in its vital points, the same must be given full faith and credit.
Id.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

G. R. No. 191065
June 13, 2011

- versus -JONIE DOMINGUEZ,

To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place
at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically
impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.Physical impossibility "refers to
the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired
and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the
two places."
People of the Philippines Vs. Nido Garte
G.R. No. 176152 November 25, 2008

Ruling:
Accused-appellant's reliance on the alleged discrepancies between [AAA]'s
Sinumpaang Salaysay and handwritten sworn affidavit on the number of times she
was raped is untenable. We take note of the steadfast doctrine prevailing in our
criminal justice system that inconsistencies found in the ex parte affidavits do not
necessarily downgrade the credibility of a witness. Almost always, ex parte
affidavits are considered incomplete and often inaccurate. They are products
sometimes of partial suggestions and at other times of want of suggestions and
inquiries, without the aid of which witnesses may be unable to recall the connected
circumstances necessary for accurate recollection.
In the same manner, we rule that the alleged inconsistency with respect to the
weapons used in the commission of the rapes is likewise unavailing as we find the
same as a mere extraneous matter and does not remove the fact that the crime of
rape was repeatedly committed by the accused-appellant against the victim
through the use of force and intimidation
More specifically on the kind of weapon used by appellant to threaten AAA, AAA's
claims bearing thereon are not necessarily conflicting. AAA corrected herself by
pointing out that aside from the knife, appellant also threatened her with a gun. If
the defense wanted to impeach AAA, it should have followed the procedure laid
down by Rules of Court by laying the predicate. No such effort was done, however.
It bears emphasizing that in a rape committed by a father against his own daughter,
the former's moral ascendancy and influence sufficiently takes the place of violence
or intimidation. Under the same circumstances, proof of force and violence is not
even essential, because the moral and physical ascendancy of the father over his
daughter is sufficient to cow her into submission to his bestial desires.
People of the Philippines Vs. Michael Muro
G.R. No. 176263 December 24, 2008

Ruling: (ACQUITTED)

It is settled that the absence of external signs of injuries on the private

complainants body does not negate the commission of rape nor does it signify lack
of resistance by private complainant to the sexual act, proof of injury not being an
essential element of the crime of rape.
The uncorroborated testimony of the victim in a rape case may, under certain
circumstances, be adequate to warrant conviction. The testimony must, however,
be clear, impeccable and ring true throughout or bear the stamp of absolute candor,
free from any serious contradictions.
Such inexplicable discrepancies on important details vis a vis the result of her
physical examination which bears no indication of the commission of sexual
intercourse committed hours earlier nag the Court to entertain serious doubts on
whether appellant committed the crime charged. The Courts doubts are reinforced
by prosecution witness Bermes following observation, viz:
ATTY. JAO: Mr. witness, when you saw the victim, [AAA], how [did] she looks [sic]?
A:

Very tired, sir.

Q:

Was she crying?

A:

No, sir.

Q:

How about her clothes?

A:

A bit alright, sir. (Underscoring supplied.),

which do not indicate the commission of rape in a watery area.

That appellant even fetched BBB and accompanied her to the barangay hall where
AAA was, a fact attested even by the prosecution witnesses, seals the doubts on
whether he had hours earlier raped AAA.
People of the Philippines Vs. John Montinola
G.R. No. 178061 January 31, 2008

Ruling:
The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA's testimony is not
credible because it contains an inconsistency. Montinola pointed out that, on direct
examination, AAA stated that she was not sure whether Montinola was able to insert
his penis in her vagina during the 28 March 2000, 29 March 2000, and 4 November
2000 incidents. Then, on cross examination, she stated that Montinola was able to
insert his penis during those instances. The Court of Appeals held that this minor
inconsistency was expected and did not destroy AAA's credibility:

[M]inor lapses should be expected when a person is made to recall minor details of
an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape. After all, the credibility of a
rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her testimony. Moreover,
testimonies of child victims are given full faith and credit.
Rape victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the
manner in which they were sexually violated. Thus, errorless recollection of a
harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is
recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape. In
addition, rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the
way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.
In the instant case, a minor inconsistency is expected especially because (1) AAA
was a child witness, (2) she was made to testify on painful and humiliating
incidents, (3) she was sexually abused several times, and (4) she was made to
recount details and events that happened several years before she testified.
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. Rape is not rendered impossible simply because the siblings
of the victim who were with her in that small room were not awakened during its
commission.