(alright, let me do a cross)
Atty. Clavecilla: "Ginoong Dumadag sinabi mo na ayaw mong labagin ang sinumpaan mo sa batas ng tao at sa batas ng diyos.. tama ba ako?"
Dumadag: "Opo tama po"
Atty. Clavecilla: "Ginoong Dumadag.. sinabi mo na may relasyon kayo ng babaing umaakusa sayo?"
Dumadag: "Opo"
Atty. Clavecilla: "Ngayon, dahil kayo ay may relasyon.. masasabi mo ba Ginoong Dumadag na ito ay nababase sa tinatawag nating pagmamahal?"
Dumadag: "Opo attorney"
Atty. Clavecilla: "Ang ibig mo bang sabihin na ang pagmamahal na ito ay maituturing na.. pagibig?"
Dumadag: "Opo"
Atty. Clavecilla: "At ang iyo bang pagibig sa babaing ito ay WAGAS, DALISAY at MATATAG??" (nak ng.. LOL)
Defense Counsel: "Objection your honor, immaterial.." (Hahahahaha!)
Judge: Atty. Clavecilla.. is there really a need to sound condescending?
Atty. Clavecilla: Your honor I am just trying to determine the intensity of the alleged love relationship in connection with the motive of the crime
Judge: Well in that case counsel, objection overruled .. you may proceed.
Atty. Clavecilla: Thank you your honor... Ginoong Dumadag.. iyo bang masasabe na Intensity 5 kayo nung isinagawa mo ang krimen? (HAHAHAHA)
I think I learned something from the House Deputy Speaker at the latest Congressional Inquiry.. how to appear and sound condescending in criminal litigation... I'll keep that in mind and use it someday...
(Alright let's get to a real case.. this is a rape case)
The Criminal Case of Rape.. here's the facts.
Information was filed with the Manila RTC against Carlo DUMADAG of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11, of Republic Act No. 7659.
(So here's what happened..)
Above-named accused, armed with a knife, with lewd design, by use of force or intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of a woman (name withheld) below eighteen (18) years of age, all against her will and consent. During his arraignment appellant, with the assistance of his counsel de officio, entered a negative plea to the charge and so trial ensued.
(Alright, let's get to this quick.. after the direct, cross, redirect and re-cross..)
Version of the Prosecution
That the girl a young barrio lass, 16 years of age at the time she testified declared that in the early morning of December 25, 1998, she was on her way home after hearing the midnight mass. She was a little bit behind Thelma, Carlos and Clarence, all surnamed Dumadag. All of a sudden, appellant approached her from behind and poked a Batangas knife on her threatening to stab her if she shouts. He pulled her towards the house of Joel Boyet Ursulum (Boyet). Once inside, she was forced to remove her pants and panty because of fear. Appellant also removed his pants and brief and pushed her on a bamboo bed. Pointing the knife at the left portion of her abdomen, appellant ordered her to hold his penis against her vagina. Appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. After appellant was through, they stayed inside the house until 6 in the morning. All this time, appellant continued to hold the knife. Pleading that she be allowed to go home, appellant finally let her go after threatening to kill her if she reports the incident to her parents. The girl decided not to disclose what transpired because of fear. Nevertheless, the girl's uncle, learned from appellant himself that the latter had sexual intercourse with her. Her uncle relayed the information to her father who confronted her about the incident. After confirming the same from they decided to report the matter to the police where she was investigated and her sworn statement taken. Physical examination on the girl indicated that there was laceration on her hymen.
Version of the Defense
On the other hand, appellant does not deny having had sexual intercourse with the girl. Instead, he claimed that it was voluntary and without the use of force since they were lovers. To support his claim that she was his girlfriend, appellant presented Boyet and Nieves Irish Oandasan (Nieves Irish) who both corroborated his sweetheart defense.
RTC Ruling
RTC declared appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge lodged against him after finding the girl's testimony to be credible as it was given in a candid and straightforward manner. It rejected appellants sweetheart defense holding that a sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Consequently he was condemned to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and payment of damages.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the trial court. The records of this case were transmitted to the Supreme Court. Both parties filed their respective Briefs. Consistent however to the Supreme Court's pronouncement of a decision laid in People v. Mateo (the anti-direct appellate review case) the case was referred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.
In his brief, appellant assigned the following errors.
1. The trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of private complainant that accused poked a knife at the left side of her abdomen after she came out from the church.
2. The trial court erred in not acquitting accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The CA Ruling
Resolving jointly the foregoing imputations against the trial court, the CA affirmed with modification the appealed judgment of conviction. The CA ruled that there is nothing on record which shows that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied a fact or circumstance of weight and substance which would have affected the case. The CA junked appellants contentions that he and the girl were lovers; that no force or intimidation was employed on the girl; and that there was contradiction as to which of his hands was placed around her neck. The CA further held that the girl's simple account of her ordeal evinces sincerity and truthfulness.
ISSUE:
Did the lower court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of private complainant and finding no reasonable doubt on the part of the accused.
Did the lower court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of private complainant and finding no reasonable doubt on the part of the accused.
RULING:
The appeal is bereft of merit.
The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent. On the basis of the records, the Court finds the girl candidly and categorically recounted the manner appellant threatened her and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her against her will. She consistently testified on all points raised by the presiding judge. Therefore the Court, just as the courts below, is convinced of the truth and sincerity in the account of the girl. It bears to stress that AS A RULE, TESTIMONIES OF CHILD VICTIMS OF RAPE ARE GIVEN FULL WEIGHT AND CREDIT, FOR YOUTH AND IMMATURITY ARE BADGES OF TRUTH.
Neither is it improbable for appellant to employ such criminal design in the presence of his own family especially when overcome by lust. It is a common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby. Lust is no respecter of time and place. As established, the girl was silenced by appellants threat of killing her with a knife. Thus, the reason for her failure to shout or cry for help is because she was overcame by fear. It has been held that minors, could be easily intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against their lives.
The fact that there is no evidence of resistance on the part of the girl DOES NOT CLOUD HER CREDIBILITY. The failure of a victim to physically resist does not negate rape when intimidation is exercised upon her and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapists assault because of fear for life and physical safety. In this case, the girl was dragged by appellant with a knife pointed on her neck and warned not to shout or to reveal the incident to anyone or else she would be killed. That warning was instilled in her mind such that even when appellant was just holding his weapon after the intercourse, she did not attempt to flee. The intimidation made by the appellant are sufficient since it instilled fear in her mind that if she would not submit to his bestial demands, something bad would befall her.
Well-settled is the rule that where the victim is threatened with bodily injury, as when the rapist is armed with a deadly weapon, such as a pistol, knife, ice pick or bolo, such constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the victim to submission to the lustful desires of the rapist.
Well-settled is the rule that where the victim is threatened with bodily injury, as when the rapist is armed with a deadly weapon, such as a pistol, knife, ice pick or bolo, such constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the victim to submission to the lustful desires of the rapist.
There is no question that the girl underwent sexual intercourse as admitted by appellant himself and as shown by the medical findings. However, appellant denies having raped her and instead, claims that he and the girl were lovers and the act of sexual intercourse was a free and voluntary act between them. In short, he interposes the sweetheart theory to exculpate himself from the rape charge filed against him.
Appellants claim that they are lovers is untenable. For one, such claim was not substantiated by the evidence on the record. The only evidence adduced by appellant were his testimony and those of his relatives Boyet and Nieves Irish. According to Boyet, he knows of their relationship because they were conversing and writing each other while Nieves Irish saw them once walking in the street. To the mind of the Court, these are not enough evidence to prove that a romantic relationship existed between both of them. In People v. Napudo where the accused likewise invoked the sweetheart defense, this Court held that:
"The fact alone that two people were seen seated beside each other, conversing during a jeepney ride, without more, cannot give rise to the inference that they were sweethearts. Intimacies such as loving caresses, cuddling, tender smiles, sweet murmurs or any other affectionate gestures that one bestows upon his or her lover would have been seen and are expected to indicate the presence of the relationship."
Other than Dumadag's self-serving assertions and those of his witnesses which were rightly discredited by the trial court, nothing supports appellants claim that he and the girl were indeed lovers. A sweetheart defense, to be credible, should be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of relationship such as notes, gifts, pictures, mementos and the like. Appellant failed to discharge this burden.
Besides, even if it were true that appellant and the girl were sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily negate rape. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiance and worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. LOVE IS NOT A LICENSE FOR LUST. But what destroyed the veracity of appellants sweetheart defense were the credible declaration of the girl is her categorical denial that he is her boyfriend.
With the credibility of the girl having been firmly established, the courts below did not err in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape committed through force and intimidation. The sweetheart theory interposed by appellant was correctly rejected for lack of substantial corroboration.
