PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONALD RIVAS Y GARCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Rivas

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Ronald Rivas y Garcia, a criminal prosecution for rape. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of Janice Bautista y Villanueva by means of force, coercion, and intimidation, against her will and without her consent. The case matters because the accused admitted the sexual act but denied the force, and the Supreme Court used the appeal to restate, in one compact ruling, the settled rules on the relative nature of force in rape, the weight of the victim's lone testimony, and the significance of an intact hymen and the absence of external injury.

Procedural History

The accused was indicted before the Regional Trial Court of Rizal, sitting in San Mateo, Branch 76. When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. The prosecution presented the complainant, her mother Editha Mumar, and Doctor Winston Tan, the medico-legal officer of the national police crime laboratory. On May 5, 2003, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, subparagraph a, in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to pay 50,000 pesos as indemnity ex delicto in addition to 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, assigning as sole error that the trial court convicted him despite the fact that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was resolved in the Supreme Court's Second Division.

Facts

On March 23, 2002, the complainant went with the accused to buy junk food. They attended a birthday party, dropped by the house of the accused, and then headed home on a motorcycle. At the gate of Filinvest I, the motorcycle stopped because it allegedly ran out of gasoline. The place was woody and grassy and had no houses. A couple passed by and gave them a liter of gasoline, but the motorcycle still would not start.

The accused asked the complainant's permission and walked toward a storeroom. When he returned, he held her hands and professed his love for her, saying at the same time that he was ready to face the consequences of his acts. She was able to run, but he caught up with her. He pulled her two hands until they reached the grassy place, placed his hand on top of her chest, and lay on top of her. She shouted, but he covered her mouth and warned her not to make noise. He removed her pedal pants and her panty, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain.

The next day, March 24, 2002, Doctor Tan examined her. The findings showed a hymen that was elastic, fleshy, intact, and lax; a posterior fourchette that was abraded; and a vaginal smear positive for spermatozoa. The conclusion was that the findings were compatible with recent sexual intercourse. The complainant immediately told her mother what had happened upon her mother's inquiry as to why she was crying, and at the barangay she was crying and shouting at the accused. For his part, the accused admitted the sexual intercourse but claimed it was consensual, narrating that they had fallen in love with each other, that they kissed, and that the complainant herself removed the button of her pedal pants.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused for rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite his admission of the sexual act and his claim that there was no force, threat, or intimidation.
• Whether or not the force or intimidation required in rape must be of such degree as could not be resisted.
• Whether or not the absence of external injury on the complainant and the intact condition of her hymen negate the commission of rape.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines when rape is committed. The Court states the rule in these words:

Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (i) by using force or intimidation; (ii) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (iii) when the woman is under twelve (12) years of age.

This provision frames the entire case, because the accused admitted carnal knowledge and the only question was whether it was attended by force or intimidation under the first circumstance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit. The trial court's evaluation of the complainant's testimony was received on appeal with the highest respect, because the trial court had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and determine if they were telling the truth. The complainant's testimony was plain, clear, and straightforward, detailed in her narration, and consistent even on rigid cross-examination. The Court stressed that if the testimony of the rape victim is accurate and credible, conviction may issue upon the sole basis of that testimony, because no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and run the risk of public contempt unless she is, in fact, a rape victim. It also noted that no improper motive was shown why the complainant would impute so grave a felony to the accused, and that the accused even maligned her reputation as a woman of loose morals to exonerate himself.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the force necessary in rape is relative. It is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted; it is only necessary that it be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. The Court found that the accused's act of pulling the complainant until they reached the grassy area, removing her pants and panty against her will, and covering her mouth while committing the act unerringly indicated the use of force.

On the third issue, the Court held that the absence of injury or abrasion on the complainant's back did not contradict the use of force, because proof of external injuries is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape committed with force or violence, and the absence of injury neither negates the commission of rape nor signifies lack of resistance. As to the intact hymen, the Court held that the fact that the victim has remained a virgin does not negate rape, and that a medical report stating that her hymen is still intact does not rule out rape, since full penetration is not required. The Court explained that the hymen may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse, and that the absence of hymenal lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse. The Court added that absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by law; it is sufficient that moral certainty as to the presence of the elements of the offense, as well as of the identity of the offender, be established, and here all the elements of the crime charged were met.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain three rules. First, the force or intimidation in rape is relative; it need not be so great as could not be resisted, only sufficient to consummate the purpose of the accused. Second, the credible and consistent testimony of the victim alone may sustain a conviction for rape, especially where no improper motive is shown and the victim reported the wrong immediately to her mother. Third, neither the absence of external injury nor an intact hymen negates rape, because external injuries are not indispensable and the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. These rules all operate within the first circumstance of Article 266-A, which requires only carnal knowledge by using force or intimidation.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Rizal in toto, sustaining the conviction of the accused for rape and the penalties and damages imposed.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the force necessary in rape is relative, and that it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. Examiners like to use this case to test the rules on the sufficiency of the victim's lone testimony and on whether an intact hymen or the absence of external injury defeats a charge of rape.