PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUPERTO
RUBILLAR, JR. Y GABERON, Accused-Appellant, G.R. No. 224631, August
23, 2017, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
FACTS:
An information filed before the RTC charging Rubillar of Rape of AAA. Rubillar
offered AAA a ride to which she assented. Rubillar was AAA’s father’s
kumpare.
About four (4) kilometers from where they left, Rubillar stopped the motorcycle
and made AAA wear a helmet supposedly to avoid apprehension by the traffic
police. However, said helmet had a heavily-tinted face shield, thereby making
it difficult for AAA to see. Thereafter, Rubillar drove at a fast speed without
stopping at traffic lights. This prompted AAA to tell Rubillar to already drop her
off, but the latter drove faster and told her to shut up.
They reached a Davao Motel where Rubillar then drove his motorcycle inside
and thereupon, was assisted by a man. AAA wanted to ask for help from the
man but he immediately left.
When they were left alone, Rubillar dragged her upstairs and pushed her to
the bed. Despite AAA's resistance, Rubillar placed himself on top of her,
forcibly held her hands, undressed her, and kissed her. He then inserted his
penis into AAA's vagina and made a push and pull motion. Afterwards,
Rubillar told her to wash herself in the comfort room and, subsequently, to put
on the helmet. Rubillar allegedly threatened to kill her should she tell anyone
about what happened.
The prosecution presented Dr. Margarita Isabel Amoroso Artes stated that
she examined AAA and found a "definitive penetrating injury" on her hymen.
For his part, Rubillar admitted having carnal knowledge of AAA, but
maintained that they were sweethearts since August 200611 and their sexual
act was consensual. He further narrated that after AAA’s on-the-job training
he asked AAA to lunch. However, AAA invited him to go to the motel in front
of the machine shop instead, to which he agreed. Thus, they checked in at the
motel where a room boy met them and led them to a room. In his counter-
affidavit, Rubillar alleged that AAA paid for the motel but in his testimony, he
claimed to have paid the room boy while AAA went up to the second floor.
The RTC found Rubillar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape. The RTC
found AAA's testimony straightforward and credible as she positively
recounted the incidents that led to the commission of the crime against her.
The RTC added that even if it were true that they were clandestine lovers,
conviction is still warranted as long as the element of force or intimidation
attended the sexual act. The RTC further noted that Rubillar had moral
ascendency over AAA considering the former's advanced age and
relationship with her father.
The CA upheld Rubillar's conviction, finding the prosecution to have
established all the elements of the crime charged.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Rubillar's conviction for Rape should be upheld.
HELD:
Yes. In deciding Rape cases, it is well to emphasize that such crime is a
serious transgression with grave considerations and consequences both to
the accused and the complainant. On the one hand, the accused is presumed
innocent and shall not be convicted unless his guilt is proven beyond
reasonable doubt, in which case, he shall be meted with a severe penalty. On
the other hand, the Court is ever mindful that a young woman would not
publicly announce that she was raped if it were not true.
No woman would want to expose herself to the process, the trouble, and the
humiliation of a rape trial unless she actually has been a victim of abuse and
her motive is but to seek atonement for her abuse.
Relatedly, three (3) principles guide the Court in reviewing rape cases: (a) an
accusation of rape can be made with facility, and while the accusation is
difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, although
innocent, to disprove; (b) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two
persons being usually involved, the testimony of the complainant should be
scrutinized with great caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.
Rape under Article 226-A (1) (a) of the RPC, as amended, 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;
xxxx
To be convicted of Rape under this provision, the prosecution must prove the
following elements beyond reasonable doubt: (a) offender had carnal
knowledge of the victim; and (b) such act was accomplished through force,
threat, or intimidation.
In the present case, Rubillar's invocation of the "sweetheart theory" is
essentially an admission of him having carnal knowledge with AAA, albeit
maintaining that the same was consensual. Thus, it is crucial to determine
whether or not AAA indeed consented to the sexual act, considering that the
gravamen of Rape is sexual congress with a woman without her
consent.38 Stated differently, the only question left for the Court to resolve is
whether the prosecution has proven the second element beyond reasonable
doubt.
The "sweetheart theory" is an affirmative defense often raised to prove the
non-attendance of force or intimidation. As afore-stated, it is "effectively an
admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on
accused-appellant the burden of proving the alleged relationship by
substantial evidence."
In this case, Rubillar's allegation of relationship with AAA was overwhelmingly
corroborated by his other witnesses. First, Odiongan testified that prior to the
alleged incident, AAA introduced Rubillar to him as his new boyfriend and that
he saw them in an intimate embrace. Second, Laguardia recalled that Rubillar
introduced AAA to him as his girlfriend through a text message, then,
borrowed his motorcycle, which Rubillar and AAA used for about an hour.
Third and most relevant is the testimony of Kalan, AAA's long time friend, who
testified that AAA explicitly told her that Rubillar was his boyfriend once before
the alleged incident and a second time after AAA ran away from home.
It appears from these testimonies that Rubillar and AAA mutually
acknowledged their clandestine relationship and revealed it to some people
close to them. The Court stresses that the finding of a then subsisting
relationship between the complainant and the accused raises suspicions on
the truthfulness of AAA's testimony, wherein she vehemently denied having a
relationship with the accused.
Assessing both versions and considering the established fact of relationship
between them, there is reasonable doubt as to whether or not the element of
force or intimidation attended the sexual act. To reiterate, AAA's denial of the
relationship in her version of the facts created doubt on the credibility of her
story.
The Court adds that the conduct of the victim immediately following the
alleged sexual assault is significant in establishing the truth or falsity of the
charge of rape. In this case, while about to leave the motel, AAA could have
ran away instead of boarding Rubillar's motorcycle. Also, getting off at the
public market to do the errands of her mother is not usual for someone who
has been raped. Moreover, AAA stated that she left her family's house
because she did not want her mother and others to be involved in the alleged
rape incident, but Kalan testified that she left the house to elope with "Berang"
(Rubillar's alias). Plainly, AAA's act of leaving home to elope with her alleged
malefactor is uncharacteristic of one who has been raped and seeks
retribution for it.
The value of a witness's testimony should be compatible with human
knowledge, observation, and common experience, such that whatever is
repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial
cognizance.52 While it is true that not all victims react the same way after
suffering forced coitus,53 it appears highly unlikely for a victim of rape to cry
out that she was sexually abused and, thereafter, to elope with her offender.
Otherwise stated, the testimonies of Kalan and Caio rendered AAA's
testimony highly suspect. At this point, it is worthy to note that AAA failed to
give any reason why her two close friends would testify against her claim of
rape in court.
Considering the totality of the evidence presented in this case, the Court
doubts whether Rubillar employed force or intimidation upon AAA during their
sexual encounter. It must be clarified, however, that the Court's finding does
not mean absolute certainty that Rubillar did not coerce AAA to engage in the
act. It is simply that the evidence presented by the prosecution falls short of
the quantum of proof required to support a conviction.
As a final note, the Court reminds the members of the bench of their solemn
duty to decide cases based on the law and to "free themselves of the natural
tendency to be overprotective of every woman claiming to have been sexually
abused and demanding punishment for the abuser. While they ought to be
cognizant of the anguish and humiliation the rape victim goes through as she
demands justice, judges should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is
to render justice according to law."
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 24,
2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01219-MIN is
hereby REVERSED. Accused-appellant Ruperto Rubillar, Jr. y Gaberon
is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. His immediate release
from confinement is hereby ordered unless he is detained for some other
charge.
