G.R. No. 208524 - People vs. Peralta y Morillo

On December 1, 2006, in Binangonan, Rizal, the accused-appellant, Jeffrey Victoria Y. Cristobal, was charged with rape committed against AAA, a minor aged 15.
The charge alleges that by means of force, threat, and intimidation, the accused wilfully and unlawfully had sexual intercourse with the minor against her will, causing her damage and prejudice.

AAA stated that in the evening of December 1, 2006, she was at Jumil’s Funeral Homes in Calumpang, Rizal while awaiting payments for a betting game.
She observed the accused-appellant sitting opposite her, and subsequently, his friends Noel and Michael arrived, inviting him to eat lugaw.
The accused-appellant accepted the invitation and also convinced AAA to join the group.
Upon discovering that the lugawan was closed, the group decided to return home; however, the accused-appellant then instructed that Noel and Michael should proceed ahead while he stayed behind with AAA.
AAA claimed that the accused led her to a darkened area where he covered her mouth, forcibly engaging in carnal intercourse with her.

BBB observed that AAA appeared pale and was crying upon arriving at their home.
She noted signs of physical trauma including dirty clothes and bloodstains on AAA’s buttocks and groin.
BBB confirmed that AAA identified the accused-appellant as her assailant and that they subsequently reported the incident to the barangay and police.

Conducted a physical examination on AAA a day after the incident.
Found shallow fresh hymenal lacerations at the 3 o’clock position and perihymenal contusions at the 9 o’clock and 3 o’clock positions.
Observed an ecchymosis (kiss mark) on AAA’s neck, contributing to the conclusion of blunt force or penetrating trauma to her genitalia.

The accused admitted to sexual intercourse with AAA but claimed that the act was consensual, citing that AAA was his girlfriend.
He recounted that after meeting at Jumil’s Funeral Homes and going to eat lugaw, an invitation by his friends led them to a vacant lot near the APS Construction Supply Store.
In this location, the accused-appellant initiated kissing and subsequent sexual intercourse with AAA, after which he fell asleep and later discovered her absence.
Edison Baltar testified that he saw the accused sitting on AAA’s lap and observed an intimate sign when AAA kissed the accused on his forehead.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 67, rendered a Decision on April 29, 2009, finding the accused guilty of rape under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(a), in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
The trial court relied heavily on AAA’s straightforward, consistent testimony and the corroborative medico-legal findings evidencing hymenal lacerations consistent with forced defloration.
The accused’s “sweetheart defense,” which argued that the encounter was consensual because of a prior romantic relationship, was rejected due to the lack of documentary or corroborative evidence.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision on July 28, 2011, dismissing the accused’s appeal.
In his appeal brief, the accused reiterated that the sexual intercourse was consensual, referring to:

AAA’s actions, such as accepting invitations and seemingly normal behavior after the act.
The absence of any weapon or abrasions on AAA’s body as proof of the lack of force or intimidation.

The Solicitor General countered that acts and omissions before or after the incident do not equate to consent, emphasizing that the presence of force or intimidation must be evaluated in the context of the victim’s perception and physical evidence.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the CA Decision with modifications regarding the award of damages.
The accused was ordered to pay AAA P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages, with interest at 6% per annum on all awards.
The Court referenced earlier cases (e.g., People v. Bautista, People v. Flores, People v. Pareja, People v. Galido) to underscore the requirements and limitations of the “sweetheart defense” and the non-necessity of victim resistance as a conclusive indicator of consent.

Whether the acts and omissions of the victim before and after the sexual intercourse could be construed as evidence of consent.
Whether the absence of physical abrasions or certain expected resistance indicators negated the presence of force, threat, or intimidation.

Whether the accused-appellant’s claim of a consensual relationship with the victim is substantiated by compelling, corroborative evidence such as documentary proof or consistent testimonial support.
Whether such a defense, even if supported by self-serving statements and limited witness testimony, can override the medical and testimonial evidence indicating force and intimidation.

Whether the medico-legal findings of hymenal lacerations and contusions sufficiently corroborate the victim’s account of being forced into sexual intercourse.
Whether the victim’s detailed narration, despite any perceived discrepancies in her behavior before or after the incident, meets the test of credibility in rape cases.