PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDWARD OLLAMINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Ollamina

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Edward Ollamina, a criminal prosecution for rape committed, according to the information, through force and intimidation under Article 335, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. On automatic appeal, the Supreme Court acquitted him. The case matters because it is the Court's clearest teaching on the element of force and intimidation: the victim's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution, and passivity that is contrary to human experience may be read as consent rather than as fear.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 15, and entered a plea of not guilty. After trial, that court rendered its decision on February 6, 1998, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the private complainant 40,000 pesos as civil indemnity. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's crediting of the complainant's testimony, its disregard of his evidence, and its finding of guilt despite the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal reached the Supreme Court as an ordinary appeal from a conviction carrying reclusion perpetua.

Facts

Julie Ann Redulla was fifteen years old and in the sixth grade, living with her aunt in Bucana, Davao City. Edward Ollamina, twenty four years old, was their neighbor. At around eight thirty in the evening of January 21, 1997, Edward went to her house and invited her to a friend's birthday party in Sasa, Davao City. She agreed without asking her aunt's permission, since her aunt was still at work. They rode a jeepney to Sasa and alighted in a squatter's area of small, closely built houses. Edward pointed to a house whose door was secured with a rope, and the house was dark. When she asked why it was dark, he told her to shut up, and she says she feared for her life.

Edward held her hand and led her inside, into a bedroom where no other persons were present. She sat in a corner. He closed the door, undressed, approached her, and kissed her. She did not shout because, she testified, he threatened to kill her. He held her right arm and right leg so that she lay down, and covered her mouth with his hand. She told him, you said it is a birthday party, you are a liar. He removed her shirt and bra over her refusal, and when he tried to remove her pants she pleaded that she wanted to finish her studies. He inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her pain. Afterwards they dressed, and he let her go home. The next day she told her aunt, and she submitted to a physical examination. The findings noted no extragenital injuries, an intact but distensible hymen, and a positive semenology result.

The accused's version was that they were sweethearts. He claimed that on that evening a certain Bebeng told him Julie Ann wanted to see him, that he found her crying because her aunt wanted her to leave the house upon learning of their relationship, that she begged him to elope, and that they went to a house in Sasa to rent a room. Inside, they talked and assessed whether they were ready for a commitment, concluded they were not, and went home to Bucana the same evening. He denied having sexual intercourse with her that night.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the private complainant.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused employed force or intimidation to consummate the rape.
• Whether or not the accused's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting conviction for rape through force and intimidation.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, defines the crime charged and supplies its elements:

Article 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation.

The Court requires the prosecution to prove that force or intimidation was actually employed upon the victim to achieve the accused's end, and failure to do so is fatal to the prosecution's cause.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court acknowledged the settled rule that the trial court's findings of fact and assessment of credibility are accorded great respect, but held that sufficient reasons existed not to apply it. The test for credibility is whether the testimony conforms to common knowledge and is consistent with the experience of mankind; whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible. The Court found glaring improbabilities in the complainant's account.

On the second issue, the Court held that the alleged force or intimidation was more apparent than real. The accused neither threatened nor forced her to go with him; he neither dragged nor pushed her on the way or inside the room; he was unarmed despite the supposed threat to kill her; and he encountered no real difficulty in undressing her. The fear she testified to was, from all indications, a mere product of her imagination. The Court rejected the Solicitor General's argument that her youth and grade level supplied intimidation, because there was no showing of mental illness or retardation diminishing the voluntariness of her acts, and no evidence of the accused's physical and moral attributes. The Court stated the governing test:

The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.

On the third issue, the Court weighed the complainant's conduct against human experience. She never objected to going to Sasa; when she sensed danger she did not escape; when the accused untied the rope on the door she could have scampered to safety but did not; she allowed him to hold her hand and led her inside; she obediently entered the room and meekly sat in the corner as he closed the door; and she made no outcry and did not use her free hands to ward him off, although the closely built houses meant her cries could easily be heard. From this passivity and submissiveness, nothing could be drawn but consent and voluntariness. The Court added that although denial and the sweetheart theory do not often gain approval, it will not hesitate to set aside a conviction where guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Doctrine

• In rape through force or intimidation under Article 335, paragraph 1, the prosecution must prove that force or intimidation was actually employed upon the victim; failure to do so is fatal to its cause.
• The test of intimidation is whether the threat produced a reasonable fear in the victim's mind that it would be carried out if she resisted; where resistance would be futile, offering none does not amount to consent, and the victim need not resist unto death or sustain injuries.
• The complainant's testimony in rape must be scrutinized with extreme caution, tested against common knowledge and the experience of mankind; what is repugnant to these standards is incredible.
• Passivity and submissiveness, where opportunities to escape or cry out existed and were not taken, may be taken as consent and voluntariness rather than as fear.
• The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court, acquitted Edward Ollamina of rape, and ordered his immediate release unless other legal grounds existed for his continued detention.

Remember This

Memorize the line that force or intimidation must be actually employed and proven, for failure to do so is fatal to the prosecution. Examiners use this case to test the element of force and intimidation, the caution required in assessing a rape complainant's credibility, and the rule that unexplained passivity may be read as consent.