Principles guiding review of rape cases. – “(1) an accusation of rape, while easy to make, is difficult to prove and even harder for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) because rape, by its very nature, involves only two persons, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with the greatest caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its merits and must not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense; and (4) the complainant’s credibility assumes paramount importance because her testimony, if credible, is sufficient to support the conviction of the accused.”[1]
No single appropriate response when a woman is sexually assaulted.- “Rape victims react differently. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. there is no standard form of reaction for a woman when facing a shocking and horrifying experience such as a sexual assault. The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into sensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion. However, any of these conducts does not impair the credibility of a rape victim.” [2] “People react differently to distressing situations. In rape cases, victims are not burdened to show physical resistance when they are intimidated. Intimidations is addressed to the victim’s perception and is, therefore, subjective, This Court will not burden victims of rape of proving physical resistance, especially when their assailants assaulted them and coerced them with a lethal weapon.[3]
Impregnation is not an element of rape. – “It is a well-entrenched principle in our case law that the rape victim’s pregnancy and resultant childbirth are irrelevant in determining whether or not she was raped. Pregnancy is not an essential element of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is importance and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter’s will or without her consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner.[4] It is not absurd nor contrary to human experience for a rape witness to give birth 10 months after the alleged sexual assault as there may be cases of long gestations.[5]
Sweetheart theory– For the sweetheart theory to prosper, the existence of the supposed relationship must be proven by convincing substantial evidence. Failure to adduce such evidence renders his claim to be self-serving and of not probative value. For the satisfaction of the Court, there should be a corroboration by their common friends or, if none, a substantiation of tokens of such a relationship such as love letters, gifts, pictures and the like.[6]
Rule on Examination of Child Witness. – “A child of tender years may be asked leading questions under Section 10( c ), Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Sec. 20 of the 2000 Rule on Examination of A Child Witness also provides, “The court may allow leading questions in all stages of examination of a child if the same will further the interests of justice.”[7]
Corroboration of testimony of child not required. – “Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. The child’s testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases.[8]
Imputation of improper motive on the part of complainant. – “It is settled that where there is no evidence showing devious reasons or improper motives why a prosecution witness would falsely testify against an accused or implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. A young girl’s revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out details of an assault on her womanhood cannot be so easily dismissed as a mere concoction. The credibility of a rape victim is augmented when, as in the instant case, she has no malevolent motive to testify against the accused or where there is absolutely no evidence which even remotely suggests that she could have been actuated by such motive.”[9] A rape victim’s testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the accused.[10] Categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over denial and alibi, which are negative and self-serving.[11]
Medical certificate or lack of it. – “In a rape case, a medical certificate is only considered as “corroborative and is not an indispensable element in the prosecution of this case.”[12] “Non-presentation of a medical certificate or the physical who made the physical examination can not, in the least, affect the credibility of a victim’s testimony. The victim’s testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of accused’s prosecution and conviction, if such testimony meets the test of credibility.”[13] A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape. It merely corroborates the testimony of the victim, It is a settled tule in evidence that presumption from suppression does not apply to corroborative evidence. Hence, the non-presentation of the medical certificate, which is merely corroborative, does not give rise to the presumption that if presented, it would be adverse to the prosecution.[14]
“Sworn statements/affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declaration because the former are often executed when an affiant’s mental faculties are not in such a state as afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired. Testimonies given during trials are much more exact and elaborate. Thus, testimonial evidence carries more weight than sworn affidavit.”[15]
Jurisprudence dictates that when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis exist as to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has been established.[16] It is settled that when the offended party’s testimony is corroborated by physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis to conclude that sexual intercourse (and sexual abuse) had occurred.[17] A rape victim’s straightforward and candid account, corroborated by the findings of the examining physician is sufficient to convict the accused.[18]
Discrepancy in the affidavit and the testimony. – “Any inconsistencies between AAA’s affidavit and her testimony in open court do not detract from her credibility. These alleged inconsistencies pertain to tangential matters and do not affect the very essence of the crime, that is, that ZZZ raped and sexually abused AAA, his own daughter, when she was only fourteen (14) years old. The Court does not expect, nor does the law demand, that a victim must be able to repeatedly narrate her abuse with laser sharp precision.[19]
Delay in reporting the rape. – “A delay in reporting a rape incident does not mean that the rape accusation is baseless or fabricated, as the delay here could be attributed to AAA’s tender age and fear that reporting what happened to her would only bring shame to their family, as her aunt told her.”[20] Rape victim of tender age may be easily intimidated and cowed into silence by the mildest threat against her life. This is especially true in this case where the assailant is the minor victim’s own father who exercises moral ascendancy over her.[21] A rape victim’s failure to recount the unfortunate incident, at once, far from impairing her credibility, bolstered it, because it is not uncommon for young girls to vacillate in such instances when threatened by their ravisher, more so when the latter is a housemate.[22] Even a delay of eight years is permissible.[23]
Verily, no person such as the private complainant would be capable of concocting such grand tales if the same were not true. Besides, the court does not see any reason at all why she would fabricate a story against the accused and for her to undergo the embarrassment, stress of public trial and to testify on details of her ordeal were it not to condemn an injustice committed against her womanhood considering that she is already a full grown accomplished woman as a peace officer. Her testimony, truly, deserves fill faith and credit.[24]
Lust is no respecter of time and place. – It is not impossible to perpetrate a rape even in a small room.[25]“As the Court has oft repeated, lust is no respecter of time and place. [26]The Court ruled in People v. Nuyok,
The presence of others as occupants in the same house where the accused and AAA lived did not necessarily deter him from committing the rapes. The crowded situation in any small house would sometimes be held as to minimize the opportunity for committing rape, but it has been shown repeatedly by experience that many instances of rape were committed not in seclusion but in very public circumstances. Cramped spaces of habitation have not halted the criminal from imposing himself on the weaker victim, for privacy is not a hallmark of the crime of rape.”[27]
Date and time of commission of the offense. – “Neither date nor time of commission is an essential element of the crime of rape. What is decisive is that the commission of the crime has been sufficiently proven. Therefore, it is not necessary to allege the date in the Information with ultimate precision.[28]
Besides, a victim of tender age is not expected to recall the exact date and time when her traumatic experience took place.[29]
Admission of photocopy of birth certificate. – “Without doubt, a certificate of live birth is a public record in the custody of the local civil registrar who is a public officer. Clearly, therefore, the presentation of the photocopy of the birth certificate of AAA is admissible as secondary evidence to prove its contents. Production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial court’s discretion, whenever in the case at hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production.
In the case at bar, the defense does not dispute the contents of the photocopied birth certificate; in fact it admitted the same. Having failed to raise a valid and timely objection against the presentation of this secondary evidence the same became a primary evidence, and deemed admitted and the other party is bound thereby.[30]
Rape under Article 266-A is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman through force or intimidation. However, when rape is committed by a close kin, like the victim’s father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother, moral influence or ascendancy substitutes for force or intimidation.[31]
[1] People v. Castromero, 345 Phil. 653 (1997), cited in People v. Agao, G.R. No. 248049, October 4, 2022
[2] People v. Palanay, 805 Phil. 116 (2017) cited in People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 265272, November 6, 2023; People v. XXX, G.R. No. 233867, February 28, 2022
[3] People v. Salazar, G.R. no. 239138, February 17, 2021
[4] People v. Begic, 552 Phil. 555 (2007), cited in People v. Gahi, G.R,. No. 202976, February 19, 2014
[5] People v. Gahi, G.R,. No. 202976, February 19, 2014
[6]People v. Bayrante, G.R. no. G.R. No 188798, June 13, 2012
[7] People v. Ugos, G.R. No. 181633, September 12, 2008
[8] People v. Ugos, G.R. No. 181633, September 12, 2008
[9] People v. Gayyoma, 374 Phil. 249 (1999), cited in in People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 265272, November 6, 2023
[10] People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 135022, July 11, 2002; People V. Ugos, G.R. No. 181633, September 12, 2008
[11] People v. Suarez, G.R. Nos. 153773-76; People v. Ugos, G.R. No. 181633, September 12, 2008
[12] People v. Orita, 262 Phil 963 (1990), cited in People v. XXX, G.R. No. 262520, November 13, 2023
[13] People v. Gapasan, G.R. No. 110812, March 29, 1995
[14] People v. Gapasan, G.R. no. 110812, March 29, 1995
[15] People v. Sanchez, 361 Phil. 692 (1999), cited in People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 265272, November 6, 2023
[16] People v. AAA, G.R. No. 247007, March 18, 2021, cited in People v. XXX264352, G.R. No. 264352, December 4, 2023
[17] People v. XXX, G.R. no. 238405, December 7, 2020, cited in People v. XXX, G.R. No. 233867, February 28, 2022
[18] People v. Suarez, G.R. Nos. 153573-76, April 15, 2005, cited in People v. Ugos, G.R. No. 181633, September 12, 2008
[19] People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 265272, November 6, 2023
[21] in People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 265272, November 6, 2023
[22] People v. Torio, G.R. Nos. 133216 & 133479, November 17, 1999.
[23] People v. Manggasin, G.R. No. 130599-600, April 21, 1999
[24] People v. XXX, G.R. No. 262520, November 13, 2023
[25] People v. Torio, G.R. Nos. 133216 & 133479, November 17, 1999.
[26] People v. Agbayani, 284 SCRA 315, People v. Manuel, 236 SCRA 545
[27] People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 265272, November 6, 2023, citing People v. Nuyok, 759 Phil. 437 (2015);
[28] People v. ABC260708, G.R. No. 260708, January 23, 2024
[29] People v. ZZZ[232239], G.R. No. 232239, April 28, 2021, cited in People v. ABC260708, G.R. No. 260708, January 23, 2024
[30] People v. Cayabyab, 503 Phil. 606, cited in People v. ABC260708, G.R. No. 260708, January 23, 2024
[31] People v. XXX, 867 Phil. 362 (2019); Ramilo v. People, 852 Phil. 471 (2019), cited in People v. XXX, G.R. No. 262520, November 13, 2023