PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLDAN CARRERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Carrera

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Roldan Carrera, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused was charged with inserting his finger into the vagina of a twenty-seven-year-old woman, against her will, on a rainy night in Barotac Viejo, Iloilo. The case matters for two reasons. First, it fixes the elements of rape by sexual assault and clarifies that the force required need not be irresistible. Second, it reminds the reviewee that the victim need not prove resistance, because resistance is not an element of the crime.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, tried the accused on the information for rape by sexual assault. After trial, in a decision dated August 5, 2011, the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term ranging from four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor as maximum, with the accessory penalties and costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the finding of guilt and the failure of the trial court to consider the absence of force, threat, or intimidation. In his brief, he narrowed the issues to whether force, threat, or intimidation attended the assault, and whether voluntariness on the part of the victim was absolutely lacking. The Office of the Solicitor General defended the conviction, and the Supreme Court resolved the appeal on the merits.

Facts

On the rainy evening of June 13, 2004, at around seven o'clock, the victim was walking home from a tailor shop. About ten meters from her house, the accused suddenly emerged from a dark portion of the street and blocked her way. She recognized him because he had worked as a carpenter in the construction of their house. She asked him whether there was any problem and even invited him to supper. He answered, "Hipos karon, patyon ta," meaning quiet, or else I will kill you. He then grabbed her arm and dragged her toward a church.

At the left side of the church, he pushed her to the ground. She fell face down, and he immediately pinned her by placing his knees on her back and holding her left arm. With one hand, he pulled down her garterized shorts and panty. He then inserted his finger into her vagina against her will, while kissing her ears and face. She struggled, tried to kick and box him, and shouted for help, but the heavy rain drowned her voice. When he loosened his hold on her arm, she moved both her hands, broke free, and ran home half naked, without any underwear.

Her mother was shocked to see her daughter without underwear, with blood on her legs and mud all over her body, and immediately reported the matter to the nearby police station. The next day, a medical examination by Dr. Aimee Icamina found fresh and complete hymenal lacerations and a fresh laceration of the fourchette, with the impression of definite evidence of abuse or sexual contact. The accused offered alibi and denial, claiming he was in another barangay that evening, but the trial court found it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene, since the distance was only a thirty-minute motorcycle ride, and that the victim could not have mistaken his identity.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the elements of rape by sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not force, threat, or intimidation attended the commission of the sexual assault.
• Whether or not the absence of injuries, of torn garments, and of tenacious resistance shows that the victim consented, or voluntariness on her part was present.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 2, defines rape by sexual assault, and the Court restates its elements as follows:

(1) That the offender commits an act of sexual assault; (2) That the act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means: (a) By inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice; or (b) or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. (3) That the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances: (a) By using force or intimidation.

These elements are the measure of the conviction, and the Court tests the evidence of the victim against each of them.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements were established beyond reasonable doubt. The victim's categorical and straightforward testimony showed that the accused committed an act of sexual assault by inserting his finger into her vagina, against her will, and that he did so with force.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that no force or intimidation was proved because the accused carried no weapon and uttered no threatening words at the moment of the assault. What is essential is that force was employed to carry out the crime. The grabbing of the victim's arm, the dragging, and the pinning down of her body were themselves force. The Court stressed that the victim was pinned face down, and that this act alone was the force used to commit the sexual assault. Intimidating and threatening words need not accompany the use of force, and the absence of a weapon does not mean the victim cannot be raped, for physical strength alone may be the weapon of the malefactor. The Court also held that the victim did shout for help, but the heavy downpour left her cries unheard, and that the argument on moral ascendancy was illogical and, in any event, beside the point because actual force, not intimidation, was employed.

On the third issue, the Court found a total absence of voluntariness. The victim struggled hard, tried to kick and box her attacker, and failed only because he overpowered her. Quoting the vintage case of People versus Momo, the Court held:

When force is an element of the crime of rape, it need not be irresistible; it need but be present, and so long as it brings about the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or less irresistible, is beside the point.

Quoting People versus Bacatan, the Court added that the law does not impose on the rape victim the burden of proving resistance, because resistance is not an element of rape. The absence of abrasions or contusions is therefore inconsequential, and not all victims react the same way. The failure to offer tenacious resistance does not make submission voluntary. The Court also dismissed the arguments on the untorn garterized shorts and the supposedly busy street, since the garments were easily stretchable and the heavy rain had emptied the street. The victim's running home half naked, her mother's testimony, and the medico-legal findings all ruled out consent.

Doctrine

For the Bar candidate, the rules to retain are these. Rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 has three elements: the commission of an act of sexual assault; the act being committed by inserting the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; and the act being accomplished by using force or intimidation. The force need not be irresistible; it need but be present, and so long as it brings about the desired result, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. Force may be shown by grabbing, dragging, and pinning down the victim, and physical strength alone may serve as the weapon. Threatening words need not accompany the use of force, and the absence of a weapon is not fatal to the prosecution. Resistance is not an element of rape, so the victim bears no burden to prove it, and the absence of injuries or torn garments does not signify consent.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction, modifying the judgment only to award the victim thirty thousand pesos as civil indemnity, thirty thousand pesos as moral damages, and thirty thousand pesos as exemplary damages, all with legal interest at six percent per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize this line: when force is an element of rape, it need not be irresistible; it need but be present, and so long as it brings about the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. Examiners use this case to test the elements of rape by sexual assault and to probe whether a candidate wrongly treats resistance or the absence of injuries as an element of the crime.