9-11.docx

People vs Calongui G.R. No. 170566 March 3, 2006 FACTS: 2:00 AM of January 1, 1998, Marinel, who was 13 years old at that time, slept in the same room as the appellant, Calongui and her three siblings. She was awaken and found that her shorts and panties were already removed by Calongui. He threatened Marinel that he would kill her and her siblings if she would resist his sexual advances. Marinel, however, tried to repel his sexual assault by moving her body and kicking Calongui’s thighs but he still succeeded in having sexual congress with her. The next morning, Marinel learned that her brother, Noel, who was 12 years old at that time, saw the incident but pretended to be asleep out of fear that Calongui would harm him. Marinel told her brother not to tell anyone what he saw and she also did not say anything to her parents out of fear that Calongui would make good his threats. On September 26, 1998 at 3:00AM, Calongui again raped Marinel which was witnessed by Noel. She was undressed from waist down and threatened that she and her siblings be killed if she resisted. Shortly after the second rape incident, Calongui worked as a laborer at B-Meg and stayed at B-Meg barracks. Encouraged by his absence, Marinel told her mother what happened which led to the filing of the instant criminal cases. Noel testified that he saw her sister being raped by Calongui and on both occasions he pretended to be asleep out of fear and that he did not report the incident to his parents upon Marinel’s instructions and also because of Calongui’s threats. Dr. Salvacion Pantorgo, Medical Officer at the Bicol Medical Center in Naga City also testified that she physically examined Marinel on November 18, 1998 and found some superficial laceration on Marinel’s organ. Dr. Pantorgo also found Marinel to be in a non-virgin state. Calongui denied that he had sexual intercourse with Marinel on January 1, 1998. He also claimed that the September 26, 1998 incident was consensual since he and Marinel were sweethearts at that time. In its December 23, 2002 decision, the RTC of Camarines Sur convicted Calongui for two counts of rape; sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and was ordered to indemnify the victim P 50, 000.00 as civil liability, P 50, 00.00 as moral damages and P 30, 000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification as to the payment of exemplary damages. Hence, this appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not the sexual intercourse was consensual because they are sweethearts, if not, does the victim’s failure to offer tenacious resistance makes the act consensual. RULING: No. The SC stated that it is already a well-settled rule that the sweethearts defense must be proven by compelling evidence, specifically, that the accused and the victim were lovers and that the victim consented to the alleged sexual relations. The appellant’s claim that he and Marinel were lovers remained uncorroborated and unsubstantiated for there are no momentos, notes, pictures, and love letters presented. Marinel also denied the alleged love relationship on direct cross-examination. Besides, the sweethearts defense cannot also rule out rape and even if it were true, the relationship does not, by itself, establish consent for love is not a license for lust. The appellant’s claim that Marinel has bigger physique than him and could have resited and overcome his advances or could have shouted for help since her siblings and parents were nearby is also untenable. The time the rape incidents occurred, Marinel was still 13 years old thus she cannot be expected to put up a resistance as would be expected from a mature woman. Marinel also testified that she was not of bigger built than the appellant at the time of the incident although she looked bigger than the appellant at the time she testified after the incidents two years ago. Moreover, Marinel’s failure to offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary her submission to the criminal acts. The presence of force, threats and intimidation during the two rape incidents was also clearly established by the testimony of Marinel during the cross-examination. The SC therefore denied the appeal and affirmed CA’s decision dated October 26, 2005 modifying the December 23, 2002 Judgment of the RTC of Camarines Sur. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BALDO G.R. No. 175238, February 24, 2009 FACTS: Three information for rape were filed against appellant Baldo. AAA, appellant, and Norman Echani were housemates in a small oneroom house. As AAA recently resigned from her job and appellant worked during the night shift in a factory, the two were always left during daytime when Echani was at work. On February 10, 2000 at 1:00 p.m., appellant professed his love for AAA in their living room. She, however, admonished him against his protestation for they are relatives. He then told her that if she ignores him, he would rape her. She pleaded to him not to do anything against her will if he really liked her. Appellant then held her left hand and poked a balisong (fan knife) at her, and then removed her pants and panty while she was seated at a bench. Then he dragged her and laid her on the floor, removed his shorts and brief, and placed himself on top of her. AAA tried to resist by kicking him but he was stronger. Thereafter he placed the knife aside, then held and pressed her thighs. He then fingered her vagina with his right hand and inserted his penis into it. After two minutes, appellant stood up but threatened to kill her if she reported the incident to their relatives. According to AAA, appellant repeated his beastly act the following day, February 11 and on the next day, February 12, 2000. In the evening of February 12, 2000, AAA decided to tell Echani what appellant had done to her. Echani and his brother, Abraham, then accompanied her to the barangay hall to file complaints against appellant. The medico-legal police officer who examined AAA on February 13, 2000 found “deep healing laceration” in her hymen,

“compatible with recent loss of virginity” but negative for spermatozoa. Dr. James Belgira testified that the laceration could have been caused by a penetration of a hard object like an erect penis. He also found contusions on AAA’s left arm and thighs. Appellant, in his own defense, denied the charges against him. He claimed that he and AAA were lovers since November 1999, and that she had consented to have sex with him even prior to February 2000. He likewise denied poking a knife at her when they “made love.” To prove they are lovers, appellant presented two witnesses, Benjamin Eubra, Purok Maligaya Chairman and Simeon de los Santos, appellant’s uncle and neighbor. The trial court found appellant guilty in one of the charges and acquitted him with the other two charges. The CA affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court. ISSUE: Is the element of force and intimidation in the crime of rape proven sufficiently? RULING: YES. For conviction in the crime of rape, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. In this case, the presence of the first element is undisputed since appellant admits his sexual congress with complainant. While making such admission however, he contends that there is no force or intimidation to speak of as it was consensual. Appellant alleges that AAA willingly participated in the sexual act because they are lovers. The “sweetheart theory” or “sweetheart defense” is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience. For the Court to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required -- such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. There is none presented here by the defense. Moreover, even if it were true that they were sweethearts, a love affair does not justify rape. As wisely ruled in a previous case, a man does not have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires. In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way. Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. In this case, the presence of a fan knife on hand or by his side speaks loudly of appellant’s use of violence, or force and intimidation. PEOPLE VS CAMPUHAN Facts: Campuhan was a helper in the business of the family of the victim, a 4-year-old girl. One time, the mother of the victim heard the latter cry, “Ayoko!”, prompting her to rush upstairs. There, she saw Campuhan kneeling before the victim, whose pajamas and pany were already removed, while his short pants were down to his knees. Campuhan was apprehended. Physical examination of the victim yielded negative results. No evident sign of extra-genital physical injury was noted. Her hymen was intact and its orifice was only .5 cm in diameter. Trial court found him guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to death. Issue: Whether or not Campuhan is guilty of statutory rape. Held: NO. The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of woman below 12 as provided in RPC 335(3). The victim was only 4 years old when the molestation took place, thus raising the penalty from “reclusion perpetua to death” to the single indivisible penalty of death under RA 7659 Sec. 11, the offended party being below 7 years old. In concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of hymen necessary; the mere touching of external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching should be understood as inherently part of the entry of penis into the labias of the female organ, and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum (the part instantly visible within the surface). Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness. Here, the prosecution failed to discharge its onus of proving that Campuhan’s penis was able to penetrate the victim’s vagina however slight. Also, there were no external signs of physical injuries on the victim’s body to conclude that penetration had taken place.