Memorandum-Plaintiff.doc

Republic of the Philippines 4th Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 69 Batangas City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. 12345 For: RAPE

- versus -

RONALD GALANG

Y PEREZ, Accused. x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PEOPLE

Plaintiff, memorandum:

by

counsel,

respectfully

submits

its

Statement of the Case

Julia Torres filed the action for the crime of rape, through force and intimidation against Ronald Galang.1

Statement of the Facts

On June 12 at around 7 p.m., Julia Torres (Julia) went to the house Celia to attend a wedding party. Ronald Galang (Ronald), the suitor of Julia, was also present. He wanted to 1 Information, p. 1

talk to Julia but she ignored him. She stayed away from him because she disliked him. At around 11 p.m., Julia left the wedding reception alone. She did not bother to walk home alone because she knew everyone in the barrio. She took a short cut across Mario Perez’ farm. At about 50 meters from Mario’s house, Ronald came from behind and offered to walk her home. She declined and walked faster ahead of him. Ronald doubled his stride and caught up with Julia. He then grabbed her arm and wrestled her on the ground. He also covered her mouth with a hand so she could not shout. She resisted but Ronald pointed a knife at her side and threatened to stab her should she resist more. Out of fear, Julia gave in and Ronald ravished her. After the incident, Julia kept the matter to herself. She was afraid of the trouble that may arise if her parents and brothers knew about it. After two days, she was able to muster the courage to tell her aunt, who in turn told her parents. She went to the police to complain and submitted herself to a medical examination.2 Dr. Amado Ampil, a medical examiner for the Province of Batangas, examined Julia and found that she suffered from laceration of the cervix posterior portion and laceration of the vaginal canal posterior portion. The wounds were about two days old.3 On the other hand, Ronald testified that they, Julia and him, were lovers. While at the wedding reception, Julia became furious with him because their friends were teasing him of his other women and this made her jealous. This prompted Julia to leave the reception and Ronald followed to woo her. They

2 TSN, October 8, 2014 3 TSN, October 12, 2014

eventually reconciled and that they kissed and embraced each other and made love on the grass.4

Issues

Did Ronald rape Julia by force or intimidation? Were Ronald and Julia lovers? Was the filing of the charge against Ronald prompted by a genuine desire for justice?

Arguments

The sexual intercourse was done through force, threat or intimidation. The law, at the time of the commission of the offense, provided that rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman, inter alia, through force, threat or intimidation.5 The degree of force or intimidation required is relative.6 It is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. 7

4 TSN, October 16, 2014 5 Article 335, Revised Penal Code. Republic Act 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) approved on September 30, 1997, has classified rape as a crime against persons. It mandates the incorporation into Title Eight of the Revised Penal Code a new chapter to be known as Chapter Three on Rape. Thus, the crime of rape is now governed by Articles 266-A, 266-B, 266-C and 266-D. 6 People v. Baculi, 246 SCRA 756 (1995), at p. 766. 7 People v. Cañada, 253 SCRA 277 (1996), at p. 285.

Ronald admitted the sexual intercourse with Julia. 8 The only element to be established is the existence of force, threat or intimidation. Julia testified that Ronald pointed at knife at her side and threatened to stab her should she resist more. This testimonial evidence was not refuted by any controverting evidence of the defense. In People vs. Alquizalas, threatening the victim with a knife, a deadly weapon, is sufficient to cow the victim, and it constitutes an element of rape.9 The failure of Julia to shout or to tenaciously resist appellant should not be taken against her since such negative assertion would not ipso facto make her submission to appellant’s criminal act voluntary. In rape, the 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. As already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. The presence of a knife on hand or by his side speaks loudly of appellant’s use of violence, or force and intimidation.10 Absence of external injuries on the body of Julia cannot negate rape through force, threat and intimidation. In People vs Rogelio Pelagio, the Supreme Court ruled that in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence 8 TSN, October 16, 2014, p. 4 9 People v. Alquizalas, GR No. 128386 (1999) citing People v. Pada, 261 SCRA 773 (1996), at pp. 777-778; People v. Adlawan Jr., 217 SCRA 489 (1993), at p. 498. 10 People v. Elmer Baldo, G.R. 175238, February 24, 2009

that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party. Even absent a medical certificate, her testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of conviction if such testimony is credible. Moreover, the absence of external injuries does not negate rape. In fact, even the absence of spermatozoa is not an essential element of rape. This is because in rape, the important consideration is not the emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ.11

No clear and convincing evidence was presented to substantiate the Sweetheart Theory

The defense failed to present the required evidence to establish the Sweetheart theory. Ronald testified that he and Julia were lovers. On the other hand, in her testimony, Julia vehemently denied it and insisted that he never liked Ronald. “Sweetheart theory”, being an affirmative defense, must be established by convincing evidence – some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, note, photographs, and the like.12 Other than Ronald’s testimony, no convincing evidence was presented to substantiate the theory. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the Sweetheart theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required. There is none presented here by the defense. In People v. Limos and People v. Garces, Jr., it was held that while the accused adamantly insists that he and private complainant were lovers, no love letter, memento, or pictures were presented by the accused to prove that such a romantic

11 People v Rogelio Pelagio, G.R. 173052, December 16, 2008 12 People v. San Antonio, Jr., GR No. 176633, September 5, 2007

relationship existed.13 A Sweetheart defense, to be credible, should be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of the relationship, which is patently absent here. Among other things, the accused admitted that he had sexual intercourse with Julia, the burden of proof was on him to show that the same were not attended by force, threat or intimidation, but he failed to discharge of this burden, he having relied solely on his self-serving testimony of “sweetheart defense.” Even assuming arguendo that they were lovers, rape could still have been committed if he had carnal knowledge with the private complainant against her will.14 A cannot cannot license

“love affair” does not justify rape, for the beloved be sexually violated against her will.15 A sweetheart be forced to have sex against her will – love is not a for lust.16

As wisely ruled in previous cases, a man does not have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires.17

Delay of the victim in reporting of rape is not a defense and does not diminish her genuine desire for justice

Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never 13 People v. Limos, 465 Phil 66, 94-95, (2004), People v. Garces, Jr., 379 Phil 919 (2000) 14 People v. Vallena, 314 Phil 679, 688 (1995) 15 People v. Garces, Jr., supra. 16 People v. Tayaban, GR No. 128481, September 14, 1994 17 People v Elmer Baldo, G. R. No. 175238, February 24, 2009

complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender’s making good his threats.18 In People v Cabungan, a delay in reporting a rape case for two months or longer, as in this case, cannot be taken against the rape victim. Long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape have not always been construed as indications of a false accusation. A charge becomes doubtful only when the delay or inaction in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained.19 In this case, Julia’s delay in filing the Complaint is with valid reason. She was afraid of the trouble that may arise if her parents and brothers knew about it. The fact that Julia kept silent for two days before revealing the rape to her aunt does not diminish the reliability of her testimony. Her silence was rooted on her fear of the trouble it will bring to her family. Finally, it is inconceivable that Julia, an 18 years old typical barrio girl would admit and make public the ignominy she had undergone if it was not true.

In People v Fernandez, 124 SCRA 319, the Supreme Court held that it is unthinkable for an unmarried teenage girl to file a complaint for rape if it were not true. Young girl of that age being still possessed of the traditional modesty would not file a charge of that sort if in truth she was not raped thereby merely exposing herself to shame, embarrassment and humiliation.20

18 People v Alberto Mahinay, G.R. 179190, February 20, 2009 19 People v. Rolando Cabungan, GR No. 189355, January 23, 2013 20 People v Fernandez, 124 SCRA 319, People v Avelino Reyes, G.R. No. L-62387, June 19, 1985

Conclusion

Accused Ronald Galang is guilty beyond reasonable doubt to the crime of rape through force, threat or intimidation under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Accused admitted the sexual intercourse and interposed the sweetheart defense without presenting evidence to substantiate his theory. The sweetheart defense, being an affirmative defense, must be established by convincing evidence. With sexual intercourse having admitted by the accused, the only element of rape that needs to be established is force, threat or intimidation. The accused did not present any evidence to refute the testimony of Julia that the accused pointed a knife at her side. The threatening of the victim with a knife, a deadly weapon, is sufficient to cow the victim, and it constitutes force and intimidation.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed for that: 1. Accused be convicted for the crime of rape; 2. Civil indemnity and damages be awarded for the emotional pain, mental anguish, sleepless nights and besmirched reputation brought to Julia and her family; and 3. All other reliefs just and circumstances are prayed for.

equitable

under

the

Batangas for Batangas City, March 3, 2015.

ATTY. GROUP ONE Counsel for Complainant

IBP No. 111111; 01/10/2014 – Iloilo City PTR No. 222222; 01/10/2014 – Iloilo City Roll No. 33333; 05/05/2005 MCLE No. I; 09/09/14 MCLE No. II 007890; 09/09/14 Serial No. of Commission M-721