G.R. No. 199268 People v.

Jastiva February 12, 2014

People of the Philippines, Aurelio Jastiva,

plaintiff-appellee accused-appellant
Leonardo-De Castro, J.

DOCTRINE:
Criminal Law; Revised Penal Code; Force, Violence or Intimidation The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a
relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other. And
physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself
against her will to the rapists advances because of fear for her life and personal safety.

FACTS:
On August 3, 2004, AAA, a 67-year-old married woman, was drying corn in their small barn in a farmland,
when her husband, BBB, left her alone to attend to their sick daughter. At about 11:00 in the evening, AAA
was fast asleep when Aurelio Jastiva (Jastiva) threatened her with a knife and warned her not to shout
because he will have sexual intercourse with her. AAA was able to grab Jastivas hand but then, she felt the
blade of the knife he held. Thereafter, Jastiva removed AAAs underwear but he cannot proceed with his
lewd design because his penis was not yet erected. Jastiva, therefore, toyed with AAAs sexual organ by
licking it. Jastiva then made his way up and tried to suck AAAs tongue. After that, Jastiva held his penis
and inserted it to AAAs vagina. After ravishing his victim and before AAA could stand up, Jastiva patted
AAAs shoulder and said "Salamat." Since it was dark in the barn, it was only after the consummation of
the crime that AAA recognized who her assailant is.
On the next day, AAA relayed her nightmare to her neighbor and her husband BBB. The spouses reported
the incident and AAA was medically examined. The doctor found that AAAs vaginal opening, labia majora
and labia minora on both sides, showed signs of irritation and is reddish in color, in addition to a partial
separation of tissues between the labium. AAA also sustained multiple scratches at her lips.
AAA filed a Complaint for Rape against Jastiva. The latter argued that the evidence presented by the
prosecution was not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He questioned the credibility of
AAA on the ground that AAA did not shout for help nor struggle against her assailant. Also, AAA could
not have positively identified the perpetrator because it was too dark in the barn. The accused also
questioned the ability of the victim to identify her rapist just by seeing its face illuminated by moonlight
since it was dark and there is lack of lightning in the kamalig where the crime took place. Furthermore,
Jastiva questioned the credibility of the medical examination and argued that the filing of the case by AAA
was ill-motivated.
The accused presented three witnesses which are his daughter, common-law wife and Ordas (a visitor in
his house when the crime happened). The witnesses have said that Jastiva was in his own house on the
night of the incident and it was impossible for the accused to have left the house without being noticed.
RTC: The accused was GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of rape after trial and
evaluation of evidence.
CA: AFFIRMED in all respect RTCs decision except that Jastiva is further ordered to pay INTEREST on
all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt on the
basis of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence presented.
 G.R. No. 199268 People v. Jastiva February 12, 2014

HELD:
Appeal is denied and conviction of Jastiva is affirmed.
The elements of rape (under paragraph 1, subparagraph a of Article 266-A) are as follows: (1) that the
offender is a man; (2) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (3) that such act is
accomplished by using force, (threat) or intimidation.
The prosecution was able to prove the guilt of Jastiva beyond reasonable doubt based on AAAs credible,
positive and categorical testimony, AAAs positive identification Jastiva as the perpetrator, the physical
evidence presented and the absence of ill motive on the part of AAA in filing the complaint against Jastiva.
Firstly, the Court ruled that a conviction of rape may issue upon the sole basis of the victims accurate and
credible testimony. No decent and sensible woman will publicly admit to being raped and, thus, run the
risk of public contempt, unless she is, in fact, a rape victim. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is
a relative term, depending not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship
with each other. And physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised
upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapists advances because of fear for
her life and personal safety. In this case, AAA was already 67 years of age when she was raped in the dark
by Jastiva who was armed with a knife. A woman of such age could only recoil in fear. Moreover, physical
resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an
accused. The law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What needs only to be
proved by the prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse
with the victim which it did in the case at bar.
Secondly, AAA has established Jastiva as her attacker despite the allegation that it was dark in the barn
which made it impossible for AAA to identify him. AAA testified to the fact that she saw Jastiva when he
walked past her after the incident and his face was finally illuminated by the moonlight. The high court
held that an accused need not always be identified under a perfect or near perfect visibility. The Court is
not disposed to doubt the evidenced ability of the complainant to identify her rapist especially because
AAA testified that she knows Jastiva very well since Jastiva is her neighbor living some 100 meters away
from the crime scene. Thus, AAA does not need to mention any distinguishing features of Jastiva.
Thirdly, the Medical Certificate is consistent with AAAs assertion that Jastiva raped her.
Lastly, Jastiva did not allege, much less show, that AAA was prompted by improper or malicious motives
to impute upon him such a serious charge. This being so, the categorical and positive identification of
Jastiva prevails over the latters plain alibi and bare denial.
Jastiva was not able to show that the RTC and CA overlooked any fact or material of consequence that
could have altered the outcome had they taken it into consideration, this court will not disturb on appeal
the RTCs findings of facts, but must fully accept these. The three guiding principles in rape prosecutions:
1.) an accusation of rape is easy to make and difficult to prove, but is even more difficult to disprove. 2.)
the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost care and caution 3.) the evidence of the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits; and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
defense.