Title
People vs. LOPEZ
Case
G.R. No. L-45084
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1984
Accused acquitted of raping 13-year-old due to lack of proven force or intimidation; medical evidence insufficient to establish non-consent.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-45084)

Testimony of the Complainant

Eligrace testified that on the afternoon of June 11, 1973, after being asked to buy cigarettes with borrowed money from Lopez, she was called inside a room where Lopez proceeded to engage in a sexual act. The complainant described feelings of nervousness and claimed Lopez held her down and covered her face with a blanket. She stated that she was unable to resist due to his hold, and after the incident, she ran away to inform her mother.

Medical Examination

Following the incident, Eligrace was examined by Dr. Fe Manaois in Dagupan City. The medical report noted several findings, indicating that while there were no visible signs of injury, the examination revealed the presence of spermatozoa, suggesting that sexual intercourse had occurred, despite the absence of physical injury.

Defense of the Accused

Lopez denied the allegations, asserting that he did not have sexual relations with the complainant on that day or at any other time. He provided an alibi, stating that he was with his mother-in-law during the time of the alleged rape, and was unaware of Eligrace’s whereabouts after she left his house.

Analysis of Force and Intimidation

The crux of the legal determination rested on establishing whether there was evidence of force or intimidation during the act. The court noted that the complainant demonstrated compliance with Lopez's requests, characterizing her acquiescence rather than a struggle against coercion. Additionally, the testimony showed that while the complainant expressed fear, there were significant ambiguities surrounding the use of a threat and the lack of physical resistance.

Presumption of Innocence

The constitutional presumption of innocence is critical in this case. The evidence presented did not convincingly demonstrate that force or intimidation was employed to carry out the alleged act. As established in legal precedent, there must be a burden of proof on the prosecution

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.