PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JIMMY SORIANO, APPELLANT.

People versus Soriano

The Case

This is People versus Soriano, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Jimmy Soriano for having carnal knowledge of a woman named in the record as AAA, a twenty year old with mental retardation and impaired speech, by means of force and intimidation. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers, in one short decision, the Court's settled rules on the elements of rape under the Revised Penal Code as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, on the victim's supposed duty to resist, on the place and time of the crime, and on the variance between the date alleged in the Information and the date proven at trial.

Procedural History

Soriano was charged before the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 57. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. The trial court, in its decision of 13 January 2000, held that all the elements of rape were present, but found that the prosecution failed to prove that AAA was mentally deranged. It therefore convicted him of simple rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to indemnify AAA in the amount of 50,000 pesos, to pay 50,000 pesos as moral damages and 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages, to give support to AAA's offspring, and to pay the costs.

Soriano appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in its decision of 28 July 2005 affirmed the conviction. He then brought the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Supreme Court decided the case in September 2007.

Facts

AAA is a woman with mental retardation and impaired speech. Sometime in February 1999, under a mango tree in Barangay Salinap, San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Soriano had sexual intercourse with her. He threatened to kill her, covered her mouth with his hand, and placed her left hand at her back. Because of the threat, AAA did not report the rape to her parents.

On 28 July 1999, AAA's mother, BBB, noticed that her daughter's belly was bulging. AAA told her that Soriano had raped her. BBB reported the matter to the police and submitted AAA for medical examination. The medico-legal certificate, which the defense admitted, indicated that AAA was pregnant.

At trial, the prosecution presented BBB, AAA, the medico-legal physician, and a rural health physician who testified that AAA had some degree of mental retardation but who admitted on cross-examination that he was a general medical practitioner and not an expert in psychiatry. Soriano was the sole witness for the defense. He claimed that BBB and AAA harbored ill-feelings against him and that he did not know who the father of AAA's child was. On cross-examination he admitted that he had long been AAA's neighbor, that he knew of her impaired speech, and that he had tried to settle the case for 10,000 pesos. AAA's father testified in rebuttal that his family had no grudge against Soriano.

Issues

• Whether or not Soriano is guilty of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the absence of tenacious resistance on the part of the victim negates the element of force and intimidation.
• Whether or not rape may be committed in a place where people usually pass by.
• Whether or not the variance between the date alleged in the Information and the date established by the evidence is fatal to the conviction.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, provides:

Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. – Rape Is Committed - 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

This is the provision under which Soriano was charged and convicted, and the Court measures the evidence against its elements of carnal knowledge and of force, threat, or intimidation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal lacks merit and that the elements of rape are present. First, carnal knowledge took place: AAA testified that Soriano had sexual intercourse with her, and her testimony was buttressed by the medico-legal certificate showing that she was pregnant, since pregnancy is a natural possibility after sexual intercourse. When the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.

On the second issue, the Court held that carnal knowledge was committed by force and intimidation, because AAA testified that Soriano threatened to kill her, and that threat was likewise the reason she did not report the crime to her parents. The Court affirmed that the law does not impose on the rape victim the burden of proving resistance. Force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime, and not all rape victims react the same way. Here Soriano covered AAA's mouth with his hand, preventing her from shouting, aside from the fact that she has impaired speech.

On the third issue, the Court held that the presence of people in a certain place is no guarantee that rape will not and cannot be committed. For rape to be committed, it is unnecessary for the place to be ideal or the weather to be fine, for rapists bear no respect for place and time when they execute their evil deed. The Court noted that rape may be committed even inside a room in a crowded squatters' colony and even during a wake.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that even a variance of a few months between the time alleged in the Information and that established by the evidence during trial has been held not to constitute a serious error warranting the reversal of a conviction solely on that ground. The victim's failure to state the exact date and time of the commission of rape is a minor matter, and is even expected when the victim is recounting the painful details of a humiliating experience. The date of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime.

The Court, however, deleted the award of 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages, because the prosecution failed to prove any aggravating circumstance.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. Rape under Article 266-A is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation, and carnal knowledge is sufficiently established when the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's findings of penetration. The law does not impose on the rape victim the burden of proving resistance; force and intimidation are viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the crime, because not all victims react the same way. Rape may be committed even in places where people congregate, for lust is no respecter of time or place. The date of the commission of rape is not an essential element, so a variance of a few months between the Information and the evidence does not warrant reversal. Finally, exemplary damages cannot be awarded absent proof of an aggravating circumstance.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals finding Jimmy Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, with the modification that the award of exemplary damages was deleted for lack of basis.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the law does not impose on the rape victim the burden of proving resistance, and that lust is no respecter of time or place. Examiners use this case on the elements of rape, on the victim's lack of any duty to resist, and on the harmless variance between the date alleged and the date proven.