Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Bacatan
Case
G.R. No. 203315
Decision Date
Sep 18, 2013
Bacatan and Mabano lured AAA to a beach, where Bacatan raped her with Mabano’s assistance. Despite Bacatan’s claim of a consensual relationship, the Supreme Court convicted him, affirming force and intimidation, and awarded damages to AAA.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 43290)

Court Proceedings

The decision under review originates from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 18, which rendered a verdict on June 20, 2002, convicting Bacatan of rape and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua with damages. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in its Decision dated January 28, 2011, affirmed the RTC's ruling.

Facts of the Case

The facts detail a drinking spree involving Bacatan, Mabano, and AAA. Initially, AAA joined them on a motorcycle ride to purchase beer, during which they deviated to a private cottage at NAZ Beach Resort. Allegations arose when Bacatan reportedly forced AAA into sexual intercourse, overpowering her despite her attempts to resist. Mabano played a role in restraining her, thus facilitating the act.

Defense Argument

Bacatan contended that the encounter was consensual, claiming that he and AAA were in a romantic relationship. He sought to disprove the prosecution's narrative by asserting that there was no visible force or injuries on AAA, indicating that she did not resist. He also raised questions regarding the validity of the medical evidence presented against him.

Ruling of the RTC

The RTC found Bacatan guilty beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the credibility of AAA's testimony while rejecting the defense assertions. The court determined that the evidence of rape was compelling, particularly due to the corroboration provided by the victim's immediate actions post-incident and the medical examination confirming sexual assault.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA upheld the RTC's decision, noting that the prosecution met the burden of proof. The appellate court reiterated that a victim's behavior post-assault cannot detract from the fact of rape and recognized that no credible person would falsely accuse someone of such a heinous crime without a motive grounded in truth.

Supreme Court's Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of both lower courts, firmly rejecting the claim of consensual sexual relations. The Court held that resistance is not a requisite element of rape and noted that the combined physical strength of two males against AAA, who was only 18 years old and of lesser strength, constituted sufficient force.

Legal Implications

The ruling underscored the principles surrounding the crime of rape as defined under Article 266-A of the Revise

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.