Digest

FACTS:
Julia Torres, eighteen years old, single, and a resident of Barrio Talaan, Lian,
Batangas. Julia alleged that Ronald Galang raped her. She narrated what
happened. She was allegedly raped in the rice field near Mario’s house. She
struggled to get free but accused pointed a knife at her side and threatened to
stab her if she called for help or persisted in fighting back. Out of fear she gave in
and she was raped by accused. She kept the matter for a while because she was
afraid to the trouble that will happen if her parents and brothers will found it.
After two days of worrying and feeling bad, she finally told her aunt about it and
she in turn told her parents. She went to the Police to file a complaint. She also
submitted herself to medical examination.
She further narrated that accused raped her on June 12 at 11 p.m. She went
to the house of Celia in their barrio to attend wedding party and she saw accused
there. Accused was her only suitor. Accused wanted to talk to her but she ignored
him because she disliked him for a suitor. In fact, she stayed away from accused.
Walking alone did not bother her because she knew everyone in the barrio. She
took a short cut across Mario’s farm, in the direction of their house. At 11 p.m.
she leave and started to walk home alone in the moonlight. When she was about
fifty meters from Mario’s house, accused came behind her and requested that he
walk her home. She declined and doubled her steps. Accused caught her arm and
wrestled her to the ground, it was rough and dry.
While they were down on the ground, accused covered her mouth with a
hand so she could not shout and pointed a knife at her and forced her to yield to
him.
Dr. Amado Ampil, a medical examiner for the Province of Batangas

examined Julia Torres after she complained to the Lian police that she had been
raped. It took her two days before reporting the incident, her physical built was of
small built, 4 feet and 11 inches in height and of fair complexion. After conducting
a medical examination, Dr. Ampil found after examining her body that she suffered
from laceration of the cervix posterior portion and laceration of the vaginal canal
posterior portion. No any injuries of her body. Dr. Ampil prepared a medical report
showing such finding. (marked as Exhibit A.)
Accused Ronald Galang, twenty years old, single and a resident of Barrio
Talaan, Lian, Batangas for his defense narrated as follows: that he knew the
complainant, Ms. Julia Torres. She denied the allegation that he raped Julia. He
admitted having sexual relation with Julia on the evening of June 12. Julia had
been his sweethearts for over two months before June 12. On that evening, they
met by prior agreement at Celia’s house right in their barrio. When they met each
other at that wedding party, things started out well and he had some fun meeting
their friends. But, because of their jokes that he had some other girl, Julia became
angry and refused to talk to him. He left to brood outside. He returned to the
party an hour after a friend called him inside. When the party ended, he walked
along side Julia and tried to explain the jokes played by his friends. She did not
want to believe him at first. After a while, he convinced her to sit with him on a
piece of log near the house of Mario. The evening was romantic and they
eventually reconciled. What happened after they reconciled was they kissed and
embraced and, forgetting themselves, they made love on the grass. After he made
love Julia, he walked with her up to about twenty meters of her house. Julia freely
agreed to make love with him that night of the wedding party at Celia’s house. He
discovered that evening that Julia was a virgin because she bled. It worried him
but she said that it was not too painful. After that evening of June 12, Julia called
the following day, insisting that he marry her because she was afraid she might
have become pregnant. Because he had to look after his parents yet, he declined,
asking her to wait for a while. Julia became angry and threatened to complain to
her parents that he raped her.
Witness Mario Perez, forty-five years old, married, farmer, and a resident of
Barrio Talaan, Lian Batangas, gave his testimony. He remembered that he was
home that evening of June 12. He was told that a rape was committed on his farm
that evening and it so happened that his two-year old daughter was then running
a fever. He remembered that he slept late because he had to watch their sick
daughter while his wife took her turn to rest. The night was not so dark because
the moon shone brightly in the sky. After watching his sick daughter, he took his
turn to sleep after midnight. He heard no outcry from outside his house.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ronald raped Julia.
Ruling:
Ronald is not guilty for the crime of Rape.
Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, by Republic Act No. 8353, defines the
crime of rape as follows:
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is committed -
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;

b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above
be present;
In People v. Orquina, the Court observed that an allegation of a "love

relationship" between the parties, even if found to be true, did not eliminate the
use of force to consummate the crime because the gravamen of rape is the carnal
knowledge of a woman against her will and without her consent.
In the case at hand it should be noted first and foremost is that Ronald and
Julia were adults capable of consenting to the sexual intercourse. The established
circumstances - their having agreed to attend the wedding; they kissed and
embraced and, forgetting themselves, they made love on the grass. After they
made love, they walked together; Julia freely agreed to make love with Ronald
that night of the wedding party at Celia’s house.
It is not fair and just to quickly reject the defense of consensual sexual
intercourse interposed by the accused. Such possibility calls to open our minds to
the conclusion that the sexual intercourse resulted from consensuality between
them.
That the medico-legal examination turned up with the findings that Julia
suffered from laceration of the cervix posterior portion and laceration of the
vaginal canal posterior portion with no other injuries of her body. Such findings
did not justify the full rejection of the demonstrable consensuality of their sexual
intercourse. Moreover, the mere presence of laceration did not preclude the
giving of her consent to the sexual intercourse, for lacerations could also be
suffered during voluntary submission of the partners to each other's lust. Such
possibility calls for us to open our minds to the conclusion that the sexual
intercourse resulted from consensuality between them.
Ronald’s invocation of the “sweetheart theory” is NOT persuasive.

Ronald’s bare invocation of the sweetheart theory cannot stand. To be
credible, the sweetheart theory must be corroborated by documentary,
testimonial, or other evidence. Usually, these are letters, notes, photos,
mementos, or credible testimonies of those who know the lovers.
In all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the burden to establish

the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging this burden, the
Prosecution's duty is to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the
information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime
necessarily included therein. The Prosecution must further prove the participation
of the accused in the commission of the offense. In doing all these, the
Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not anchor its
success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused.
The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from the presumption
of innocence in favor of the accused that no less than the Constitution has
guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of proof,
that he must then be acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not overcome
the presumption of innocence in his favor. In other words, the weakness of the
defense put up by the accused is inconsequential in the proceedings for as long as
the Prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof in establishing the
commission of the crime charged and in identifying the accused as the malefactor
responsible for it.
Accused Galang is Acquited for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS:

Dr. Amado Ampil, a medical examiner for the Province of Batangas

ISSUE: Whether or not Ronald raped Julia.

Ronald is not guilty for the crime of Rape.

Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is committed -

a. Through force, threat or intimidation;

In People v. Orquina, the Court observed that an allegation of a "love

Ronald’s invocation of the “sweetheart theory” is NOT persuasive.

In all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the burden to establish

You might also like