Title
People vs. Fruelda y Anulao
Case
G.R. No. 242690
Decision Date
Sep 3, 2020
Accused-appellant Fruelda convicted of sexual assault, not rape, for digitally penetrating AAA in a church storeroom; "sweetheart theory" rejected, voluntary surrender mitigated penalty.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 135382)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Offense alleged to have occurred on or about April 28, 2014. RTC Branch 8, Pallocan West, Batangas City convicted the accused of rape and sentenced him (Decision dated August 31, 2016). The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification (Decision dated May 29, 2018). The Supreme Court rendered the controlling disposition reversing part of the conviction and convicting for sexual assault (Decision rendered September 3, 2020).

Summary of the Prosecution’s Version of Events

AAA testified that while charging her cellphone inside the church she was directed to the storeroom by the accused. After pointing to where bar soaps were kept, she was grabbed—first across the breasts, then at the front of her pants over her genitals—dragged farther into the storeroom, and the accused used his body to block the door. She resisted (placing her arms in an “X” position), sustained bruises, was pressed against a wall causing a head bump and disorientation, and the accused opened her zipper, inserted his fingers into her vagina (moving them in and out), then pulled out his penis and said “tumuwad ka.” She later regained consciousness seated on the floor with her pants and underwear pulled down to her knees, cried, and reported the assault to church members and police, resulting in a medico‑legal examination and photographs of injuries.

Forensic and Corroborative Evidence Offered by the Prosecution

Medico‑legal findings (Medical Report No. SA‑0139‑14) described multiple abrasions on the face, neck, chest, and forearms and “clear evidence of recent blunt penetrating trauma to the hymen and recent blunt trauma to the labia minora.” Dr. Jerico Cordero (interpreting the report) explained that deep fresh hymenal lacerations indicate injuries within a 24‑hour period and could have been caused by a blunt penetrating object such as a finger or a penis. Photographs of bruises and injuries were introduced (Exhibits I–M). Police testimony described the complainant’s hysterical demeanor during initial interview and an ocular inspection of the storeroom that corroborated the alleged scene as secluded.

Summary of the Defense and the “Sweetheart” Theory

The accused admitted a sexual encounter inside the storeroom: he acknowledged inserting his finger into AAA’s vagina and averred that AAA then fellated him. He asserted the relationship was consensual, claiming they were lovers (the “sweetheart” defense). Defense witnesses Conchita Pandi and Romel Elida testified as to perceived intimacy or prior interactions suggesting a relationship. The accused also testified that upon learning of the complaint he presented himself to authorities.

RTC Decision

The trial court convicted the accused of rape under Article 266‑A, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, finding the complainant’s testimony credible and relying on the medico‑legal report and photographs to establish force and penetrative injury. The RTC sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua and ordered indemnity and exemplary damages.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA affirmed the RTC’s finding of guilt for rape but modified the civil awards, ordering payment of P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P75,000 as exemplary damages. The CA emphasized the complainant’s credible and consistent testimony, the presence of injuries indicating force, and the inadequacy of the sweetheart defense in the absence of independent proof (tokens, mementos, photographs). The CA also rejected the appreciation of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, concluding the accused’s appearance at the CIDG was intended to explain his side, not to unconditionally surrender.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

(1) Whether the CA erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape by carnal knowledge. (2) Whether the CA erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of the accused.

Supreme Court’s Legal Approach and Guiding Principles

The Court applied established evidentiary principles in sexual‑offense cases: the complainant’s testimony must be scrutinized with care but may suffice if credible; the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the presumption of innocence must be preserved; and where the accused pleads a sweetheart defense the burden shifts to him to prove the relationship and consent by compelling, independent evidence. Procedural rules on duplicity were also considered: where two offenses are charged in one information and the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict of those offenses as charged and proved.

Recharacterization of the Offense: Sexual Assault, Not Rape by Carnal Knowledge

Although the RTC and CA convicted for rape by carnal knowledge, the Supreme Court concluded that the proven facts, taken as credible, support conviction for sexual assault under Article 266‑A(2) rather than rape by carnal knowledge under Article 266‑A(1)(b). The Court accepted the complainant’s testimony and the medico‑legal evidence; however, AAA’s direct account established forcible digital penetration (finger inserted into her vagina) and later loss of consciousness. While the accused admitted finger insertion and a subsequent sexual act (fellatio), the Court found no proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused achieved carnal knowledge (i.e., penile penetration) while the complainant was unconscious. The presence of the accused’s penis being massaged and the complainant’s later discovery of disarrayed clothing raised the possibility of penile intercourse, but possibility alone is insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence. Given the evidentiary composition, the Court held the only offense proved beyond reasonable doubt was sexual assault by forcible insertion of a finger and related forced sexual acts as defined under Article 266‑A(2). The Court noted that although the accused admitted a second act (forced fellatio), that specific act was not charged in the Information and thus could not form the basis of an additional conviction.

Assessment of the Sweetheart Defense

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the sweetheart defense imposes on the accused the burden of proving both the existence of a lover relationship and consent by compelling, independent proof (tokens, mementos, photographs). The defense relied primarily on the accused’s testimony and the testimonial impressions of two witnesses; the Court deemed this insufficient to establish consensual relations or consent on the occasion in question. Consequently, the sweetheart theory failed to negate the prosecution’s showing that force was used.

Voluntary Surrender as a Mitigating Circumstance

Contrary to the CA’s conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated. The Court applied the elements required for voluntary surrender: (a) the offender was not actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender was spontaneous and voluntary. The Court clarified that an explicit acknowledgment of guilt is not required; it suffices that the accused spontaneously submitted himself to authorities, thereby saving the state the trouble and expense of capture. Given

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms