THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REINO ROLL Y PACHECO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Roll

The Case

This is People versus Roll, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Reino Roll for sexually assaulting a fourteen-year-old neighbor of low intellectual capacity, and the trial court convicted him. The case matters to a reviewee because it shows how the Supreme Court treats the element of force or intimidation in rape: it does not demand that the victim fight back in the manner a strong adult might, and it accepts intimidation, such as the holding of a knife, as a substitute for physical violence. It is also a study in how the Court weighs the testimony of a mentally retarded child against the accused's claims of improbability and alibi.

Procedural History

Reino Roll was charged with rape before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. After trial, that court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to indemnify the offended party in the amount of 12,000 pesos under Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code, and gave him full credit for preventive imprisonment. Roll appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the judgment and affirmed it in full.

Facts

Milagros Rosendo was a fourteen-year-old girl living in Boy's Town Village, Parang, Marikina, Rizal. She had very low intellectual capacity: it took her seven years of schooling to reach the third grade. She and the accused were neighbors, and their families were on good terms, so much so that the accused had offered to be a godfather to one of her mother's children.

One morning in December 1973, Milagros went to the accused's store to buy soap. As soon as she paid, the accused pulled her inside, tore her duster, removed her panties, and pushed her onto a bed in the room. He removed his pants and went on top of her. She resisted, kicking him and the wall, and shouted for help at least three times. She saw five persons pass by the store, but they did not respond. The accused succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina; she felt pain and bled. She went home and washed her bloodstained panties without her mother's knowledge. Afraid of being whipped by her mother, she kept silent. Two weeks later, while she was alone at home, the accused came and raped her again. Two weeks after that, unable to bear the abuses any longer, she finally told her mother, who filed a complaint with the Philippine Constabulary at Camp Crame. A medico-legal examination by Doctor Desiderio Moraleda found healed lacerations of the hymen at the three and seven o'clock positions, consistent with the insertion of a human organ, and he concluded that Milagros was no longer a virgin.

Roll denied the charge. He argued that the complainant's own testimony showed no force or intimidation, that she could have escaped while he was removing his pants, and that the store was too near houses and passersby for the crime to have been committed. He also claimed that the complainant's parents had approached him for a monetary settlement.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the element of force or intimidation in the commission of the rape.
• Whether or not the delay of the complainant in reporting the rape to her mother destroys her credibility.
• Whether or not the accused's defense of alibi and his claim of a settlement offer can overcome the positive testimony of the complainant.

Applicable Provisions

Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code, cited by the trial court in fixing the indemnity, provides:

Article 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity. — Persons guilty of rape, seduction or abduction, shall also be sentenced: 1. To indemnify the offended woman. 2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so doing. 3. In every case to support the offspring.

This provision is the basis for the award of indemnity to the offended party in the amount of 12,000 pesos.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that force and intimidation were clearly present. The complainant testified that the accused pulled her inside the store, tore her dress, pushed her onto the bed, and went on top of her, while she kicked him and the wall and shouted for help three times. The Court stressed that she used the very word "rape," a word whose connotation is one of force and violence. It also rejected the argument that the accused never restricted her movements, noting that he held her against the bed with the weight of his body, that of a well-built man of thirty-eight years. On the knife, the Court held that the mere act of holding it is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and that intimidation can give rise to rape just as much as violence or force. The Court also refused to expect a mentally retarded girl of fourteen to have taken the bold measures the appellant suggested, such as bolting out of the room or opening the window.

On the second issue, the Court found the delay in reporting fully explained by the complainant's fear of being whipped by her mother, a fear that also kept her silent after the second assault. It was only after a third attempt that she could no longer bear the abuses and reported them.

On the third issue, the Court found the alibi futile in the face of the complainant's positive identification of the accused. It also found his claim of a settlement offer unconvincing: if true, it would only confirm that he had committed the wrong, and it was unnatural for the parents to approach him when the complaint had already been filed. The Court found no reason to doubt the sincerity and veracity of the complainant, who had no ax to grind against the accused and who submitted herself to a medical examination at the cost of her honor.

Doctrine

Force or intimidation in rape need not be of such character as to overcome the strongest resistance; it is enough that it is sufficient to consummate the crime. Intimidation, such as the holding of a knife, is equivalent to force or violence for purposes of rape. The victim's resistance is measured against her age, her mental capacity, and the circumstances of the assault, not against the boldness of a mature adult. Delay in reporting the crime does not by itself impair credibility where it is explained by fear, especially in the case of a young and mentally retarded victim. Positive identification by the complainant prevails over alibi, and a claim of a settlement offer, if true, tends to confirm rather than negate the accused's guilt.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in full, with costs against the appellant.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the holding of a knife is itself strongly suggestive of intimidation, and intimidation is enough for rape just as much as force or violence. Examiners like to use this case to test whether a candidate understands that resistance is not measured by the strength of an adult, but by the capacity of the victim, and that delay in reporting does not destroy credibility when explained by fear.