THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO OBQUIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Obquia

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Rolando Obquia, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of Marietta Segovia, a seventeen-year-old salesgirl, by means of force and intimidation while armed with a knife. The case matters to the reviewee for two reasons: it states the settled rule that the force or intimidation in rape need not be irresistible, and it shows how the Supreme Court treats the sweetheart defense and the findings of the trial judge on credibility.

Procedural History

The information was filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, charging rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act Number 7659. A warrant of arrest issued in October 1997, but the accused was arrested only in March 1999. When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. The prosecution presented five witnesses, among them the victim, her father, her grandmother, her father's friend, and the examining physician. The defense presented the accused himself, his niece Manilyn Cruzin, and his uncle's employee Andres Miano.

On November 22, 1999, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the offended party in the amount of 75,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. The accused then brought the case to the Supreme Court by appeal, assigning as errors the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the giving of weight and credence to the testimony of the private complainant.

Facts

Marietta Segovia worked as a salesgirl in the store of Pedro Obquia in Suba, Tubigon, Bohol. The accused, a nephew of Pedro, worked in the same store. He courted her, but she rejected him because she already had a boyfriend. On the evening of July 1, 1997, at about seven o'clock, the two went out to dispose of garbage. The accused told her that the usual dump site was already prohibited and suggested another site after the Tinangnan Bridge. As they approached the bridge, he seized her and dragged her to a place below it, telling her he was forced to do this because she would not accept his offer of love. She tried to free herself and was about to shout for help, but he poked a knife at her neck. He forced her to lie down, removed her shorts and panty, and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. She felt pain and her private parts bled because it was her first time.

When they returned to their employer's house, Marietta told her housemates Vicky and Manilyn, a niece of the accused, what had happened. Manilyn reported the matter to Pedro, who said he would arrange a wedding. Marietta did not tell her father at once, for fear that he might kill the accused. On July 4, 1997, her father Nicasio and his friend Roger Tapik visited her at the store. Roger saw her crying and learned that she had been raped; he punched the accused and then ran away. On July 8, 1997, the accused, accompanied by Pedro and three others, went to her house to ask for her hand in marriage. Her grandmother Rosario, not knowing of the rape, consented, and they applied for a marriage license, which was disapproved because Marietta was only seventeen. That evening, when the accused came to render pre-nuptial service, Marietta finally told her grandmother the truth and asked that he be sent away.

On July 10, 1997, Marietta and her father filed a complaint for rape with the Tubigon police, and she was examined at the Gov. Celestino Gallares Memorial Hospital. The medico-legal certificate of Dr. Aida Ramiro showed healed lacerations of the hymen at the nine o'clock and three o'clock positions, which could have been caused by any hard object or by sexual intercourse, and which, being smooth and without redness, could have been caused more than a week before the examination. The defense claimed that Marietta was the accused's girlfriend and that the intercourse was consensual, that they slept together in his room that night and had intercourse three more times, and that the charge was filed out of shame after Andres Miano teased her.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution evidence sufficiently established that the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant through force and intimidation.
• Whether or not the testimony of the private complainant is credible in light of the testimonies of the defense witnesses Manilyn Cruzin and Andres Miano.
• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, defines rape and provides:

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; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

The information charged the accused under the first circumstance, force or intimidation, and the Court measured the evidence against that element.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the contention has no merit. It stated the settled rule that in order to prove rape, it is not imperative that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as to be irresistible; it is only necessary that the force or intimidation applied enabled the assailant to consummate his evil intent. Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself because of fear for her life and personal safety. The Court found that Marietta struggled but was overpowered, that she wanted to shout but was threatened with a knife, and that there is intimidation where the victim is threatened with a knife and brought to submission against her will.

On the second issue, the Court gave the highest respect to the trial court's findings on credibility, because the trial judge is in the best position to observe the demeanor of witnesses. It found the complainant's testimony candid, spontaneous, and straightforward, clear, detailed, and consistent on all material points, and corroborated on material points by both prosecution and defense witnesses. Manilyn herself confirmed that on the night in question Marietta told her she had been molested, and reported the matter at once to Pedro, which could only be because she believed what she had been told. The Court noted that, except for the belated claim of a love relationship, there were no letters, notes, photographs, mementos, or gifts such as lovers would exchange. It also found the defense testimonies inconsistent: the accused impliedly admitted that his first sexual intercourse with the complainant was on July 1, 1997, and said he chose the nipa grove because he feared his aunt and uncle, yet claimed they had sex three more times inside his uncle's house that same night.

On the third issue, the Court found that no improper motive had been shown why the complainant should charge the accused with a serious offense. His speculation that she filed the case out of embarrassment failed, because by his own account she merely laughed off the teasing. The Court observed that it is very unlikely for any young woman in her right mind to fabricate a charge of rape, undergo a medical examination of her private parts, and subject herself to the trauma and scandal of a public trial, unless she was motivated by a strong desire to seek justice. It therefore found no reason to reverse the appealed decision, reducing the indemnity to 50,000 pesos and awarding moral damages of 50,000 pesos in addition.

Doctrine

First, in rape by force or intimidation under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the force or intimidation need not be so great or of such character as to be irresistible; it is enough that it enabled the assailant to consummate his purpose, and physical resistance need not be shown where intimidation produces fear for life and personal safety.

Second, findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest respect, because the trial judge observes their demeanor during trial.

Third, the sweetheart defense must be supported by evidence of the love relationship, such as letters, notes, photographs, mementos, or gifts; a belated and unsupported claim cannot overcome the complainant's positive testimony.

Fourth, absent proof of improper motive, the filing of a rape charge, submission to a medical examination, and endurance of a public trial are taken as indicators of a desire to seek justice.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Rolando Obquia for rape and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, modifying the judgment by reducing the indemnity to 50,000 pesos and ordering him to pay an additional 50,000 pesos as moral damages.

Remember This

Memorize the line: force or intimidation in rape need not be irresistible; it is enough that it enabled the assailant to consummate his evil intent. Examiners use this case for the elements of rape by force or intimidation, the sweetheart defense, and the deference given to the trial court's credibility findings.