PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

(PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE)
VS.
HEINRICH S. RITTER (ACCUSED-APPELLANT)
GR NO. 88582 MARCH 5, 1991
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.
Case in a large Nutshell: Rosario, a child, worked as a prostitute, one of her customers was Ritter, who
allegedly placed the vibrator inside her vagina which later caused her death due to infection. The court
held in this case that there werent enough evidence to point that Ritter was indeed the one who placed
the particular vibrator inside her. His earlier conviction was merely based on circumstantial evidence which
is not enough to convict him of rape (also there were other testimonies that made it unlikely that Ritters
vibrator was the one that caused her death including that of Rosario herself who said to a doctor GINAMIT
AKO NG NEGRO AT SIYA ANG NAGLAGAY NITO). BUT despite his acquittal, he is not free from being civilly
liable to Rosarios family, there was enough evidence to prove that he had sex with her and placed a
vibrator inside of her.

1. The evidence of the prosecution show that on Oct. 10, 1986 about Ritter brought a boy
and girl, namely: Jessie Ramirez and Rosario Baluyot inside his hotel room. The children
were asked to take a bath. The boy went first, after he was finished and while Rosario was
inside the bathroom, Ritter showed pictures of dressed up young boys to Jessie. Aside from
these, Ritter also placed an object which resembled a vicks inhaler and another object
which turned out to be the foreign object which was inserted inside the vagina of Rosario
Baluyot.
2. Ritter asked the boy to lay down on the bed and started masturbating the boy. He guided
the boys hand for him to be masturbated. So they masturbated each other. When Rosario
came out of the bathroom, she was told to remove her clothes and get on the bed. Ritter
then continued to masturbate the boy while fingering Rosario.
3. Ramirez was already sleepy when Rosario called his attention. The boy saw Ritter placing
his penis against the vagina of Rosario and he was trying to penetrate him but it wouldnt
fit. Thereafter the boy fell asleep
4. The following morning, Ritter paid the boy P200 while Rosario was given P300. When
Ritter left, Rosario told him that the American inserted something inside her vagina. The
next day he asked her if it was already removed and she said yes but that night Ramirez
saw her complaining of pain and Rosario said that the foreign object was not yet removed.
After that he didnt see her anymore
5. FF to May 1987: Gaspar Alcantara (defense witness) saw Rosario being ogled by people
because her skirt was bloodied, she was unconscious and foul-smelling. He took pity of her
and brought her to the hospital, he was the one who gave the personal circumstances of
Rosario and even signed as her guardian while Rosario was already in the emergency
room.
6. While she was at the hospital, nobody attended to her since she is a street child. 3 good
Samaritans helped her and one of them Fe Israel was able to get the name and age of
Rosario Baluyot from Baluyot herself. She needed to ask this because their program only
assisted indigent patients up to 13 yrs old.
7. Her initial ailment was loose bowel movement and vomiting but later turned out to be
more serious as she was diagnosed to have peritonitis due to a massive infection in the
abdominal activity. It was later found out that there was a foreign object lodged inside her
body, she had vaginal discharge tinged with blood and foul smelling odor emanating from
her body.
8. One of the doctors tried to extract it by means of forceps but failed, she eventually
underwent an operation to extract the object which turned out to be a vibrator which was
coated with tissues, pus and blood. She was alive and well after the operation but the
following day she died.
9. They traced her relatives and were able to locate Maria Burgos Turla. She later filed a case
against Ritter. She was informed that Ritter was willing to settle, she was paid P15,000 and
she was made to sign a statement and was asked to change the age of her granddaughter.

10.The police investigated on the matter and was able to find Ramirez who said that he and
Baluyot were brought to the hotel by Ritter sometime around Christmas time. He was then
brought to a cartographer to produce a composite drawing to locate Ritter.
11.They then went to Ermita, Manila to try and find Ritter; they brought Ramirez and another
child with them. On the 3rd day of their investigation they chanced upon a male Caucasian
who looked like a homo-sexual admiring the 2 juveniles they brought with them. Ramirez
reported that this Caucasian was the one they were looking for. He was arrested; they got
his name, Heinrich Stefan Ritter, an Austrian national. He was brought to Olongapo the
next day where a case for Rape with Homicide was filed against him.
12.The defense tried to dislodge the case by saying that the suspect described was an
American while he is an Austrian. Mistaken identity. Also that Baluyot was at the time 13
yrs old based on her baptismal certificate. They also alleged that he cannot be liable for
homicide because a vibrator is not a weapon of death but a tool for sexual pleasure. That
the death of Baluyot was caused by the incompetence of the physician who operated on
her.
13.Lower court held that he is guilty of Rape with homicide beyond reasonable doubt and was
sentenced to RP. Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
1) Is Ritter Guilty of Rape with homicide?
2) if not, can he still be civilly liable?
1. NO. evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that it was Ritter who caused Baluyots death. (short version, the court discussed in
length the importance of determining her age in the end he was acquitted of rape with
homicide)
- First ground: her age.
It was held by this court through the evidence presented by both parties that
Baluyot was not 12 years old at the time of the incident. The baptismal
certificate, though ordinarily not used as basis for determining the age of a
person, but the fact that she was baptized way before she was born as
claimed by her relatives shows that she was indeed older than what her
relatives were claiming to be her age was.
- Second ground: finding that shes not 12 yrs old. There was no rape because she
consented to it.
Based on the environmental circumstance coupled with the testimonies and
evidence presented in court, Rosario was clearly a poor street child, was a
prostitute inspite of her tender age. There was no force or intimidation
needed to convict for rape.
- Third: not liable for homicide.
The principal witness Ramirez did not actually see the objected inserted in
Baluyots vagina.
Ramirez also testified that Rosario herself said that she was able to remove
the object placed inside by Ritter.
Also if it was true that just after one day of the object being inside her body,
she was already writing in pain, it was inconceivable how she was able to
endure the pain until May 1987 when she was found by Gaspar, a total of 7
months from her encounter with Ritter. The evidence must be credible in
itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can
approve as probable under the circumstances
Dr. Pedro Solis (the super medico-legal based on the description given by
the court which was able to fill up a whole page on my nook) gave his expert
testimony wherein he said that it would take only about 2 weeks for the
symptoms displayed by Baluyot to kick in after the insertion of a foreign
object. Though he also testified that the time frame for the infection to set in

was 10 mos. The court cannot base its judgment based on mere probabilities
considering that the accused is facing reclusion perpetua.
The doctor who was able to examine Baluyot in May 1987, testified that
Rosario herself said that GINAMIT AKO NG NEGRO AT SIYA ANG NAGLAGAY
NITO referring to the foreign object inside of her. Baluyot also said to her
that it was already 3 months since she met this African American man.
The circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution should constitute
an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing
to the defendant, to the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime. In
this case, the circumstantial evidence presented doesnt conclusively point to
the liability of Ritter
2. YES.
-

The court was convinced that Ritter does not come to the country to look at
historical sights, enrich his intellect or indulge in legitimate pleasures but in order to
satisfy the urgings of a sick mind.
With the positive identification and testimony by Raimirez, it was Ritter who picked
the children up and brought them to his hotel. He masturbated Ramirez and such
actuations clearly show that the appellant is a pedophile (the super medico-legals
definition of pedophile was used by the court)
In this case there is reasonable ground to believe that Ritter committed acts
injurious not only to Baluyot but also to the public good and domestic tranquility to
the people. Children should be protected from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development. He should be
expelled from our country.
He is not free from civil liability either. The well-settled doctrine is that a
person while not criminally liable, may still be civilly liable.
Urbano v. IAC: while the guilt of the accused in a criminal prosecution must be
established beyond reasonable doubt, only a preponderance of evidence is
required in a civil action for damages. The acquittal extinguishes the civil
liability of the accused only when it includes a declaration that the facts from which
the civil liability might arise did not exist.
The reason for this was explained by the code commission. The two liabilities are
separate (criminal and civil). One affects the social order and the other private
rights. One is for the punishment or correction of the offender while the other is for
the reparation of damages suffered by the aggrieved party. For the purpose of
indemnifying the complaining party, why should the offense also be proved beyond
reasonable doubt? Is the right of the aggrieved person any less private because the
wrongful act is also punishable by Criminal law?
Rosario Baluyot was forced by circumstances to succumb and enter this unfortunate
profession. She has left behind heirs who have certainly suffered mental anguish,
anxiety and moral shock by her suddent death. Though Ritter is acquitted for the
crime of rape with homicide, the court emphasized that they are not ruling that he
is innocent or blameless. The presumption of innocence and the failure of the
prosecution to build an airtight case that saved him. Civil liability does not require
proof beyond reasonable doubt, the court can order the payment of indemnity
based on the facts found in this case.
Ritter ordered to pay P30,000 to the heirs of Baluyot.

Held: Appealed judgment is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Ritter is ACQUITTED. Ritter ordered to pay
P30,000 by way of moral and exemplary damages to the heirs of Baluyot. Commissioner of
Immigration and Deportation is hereby directed to institute proper deportation proceedings
against Ritter.