G.R. No. 189850 - People vs. Torres y Nava

Rico Jamlan Salem was charged with rape and found guilty by the trial court, receiving a sentence of reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties and an order to indemnify the victim P50,000.00.
The case arose from events on August 13, 1994, when Mirasol Sabellano was allegedly raped near her residence in Sitio Balaos, Iponan, Cagayan de Oro City.

According to her account, she was sent by her mother to buy sugar from a sari-sari store near their house at about 7:00 P.M.
Upon leaving her house, she encountered Rico Salem waiting outside the fence of her property.
She testified that after buying the sugar, Rico forcibly pulled her to a grassy area, made her lie down, and then proceeded to remove her T-shirt, pants, and underwear—damaging her clothing in the process—before inserting his penis into her vagina.
Mirasol asserted that she resisted initially but ultimately succumbed under the threat of having her life taken if she shouted for help.
Her testimony was supplemented by a police report and medical findings noting multiple linear abrasions on her back, stomach, and thigh.

Rico Salem did not deny having sexual relations with Mirasol but claimed that their encounter was consensual, asserting that they had been sweethearts since May 21, 1994.
He narrated that on August 13, 1994, he and Mirasol met outside her home and proceeded to ride together on his bicycle, engaging in a consensual "romantic" encounter that included verbal exchanges such as his marriage proposal.
Rico emphasized that this was not his first encounter with Mirasol, asserting that a consensual tryst had also occurred on August 2, 1994.

Two defense witnesses, both trisikad drivers, testified that they saw the accused and the complainant riding a bicycle together and laughing—a testimony used to support the claim of a consensual relationship.
The defense presented inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, particularly regarding the alleged threat, as she was seen in a well-lit area and had ample opportunity to cry for help during the incident.
Physical evidence showed multiple linear abrasions on the complainant’s body; however, the origin of these injuries was not clearly explained by her narrative.
Additional testimony revealed that while the complainant alleged forceful actions, there was no report of physical violence such as boxing, slapping, or kicking, raising doubts on her version of coercion.

The trial court had placed significant credence on the complainant’s uncorroborated testimony despite the presence of contradictory circumstances such as adequate lighting, opportunity to shout, and the actions witnessed by defense witnesses.
Rico’s presentation of a “sweetheart” defense implied an ongoing intimate relationship, which was not contested by the prosecution, further complicating the factual matrix of the case.

Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that force or intimidation was used in establishing the rape.

Did the evidence sufficiently demonstrate that the sexual act was non-consensual?
Was the threat alleged by the complainant credible given the circumstances?

Whether the inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony and the physical evidence undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

How do the discrepancies between the complainant’s account and the defense witnesses’ testimonies impact the assessment of the incident?
Was the presence of abrasions adequately explained by the narrative of a forcible commission of the crime?

Whether the accused’s evidence, including his version of a consensual encounter and corroboration by defense witnesses, creates a reasonable doubt regarding his guilt.

Does the “sweetheart” defense effectively counter the claim of rape?
Is there compelling evidence that the relationship was consensual despite the complainant’s allegations?