People vs Calongui G.R. No. 170566 March 3, 2006

People vs Calongui

G.R. No. 170566

March 3, 2006

FACTS: 2:00 AM of January 1, 1998, Marinel, who was 13 years old at that time, slept in the same room as the appellant, Calongui and her three siblings. She was awaken and found that her shorts and panties were already removed by Calongui. He threatened Marinel that he would kill her and her siblings if she would resist his sexual advances. Marinel, however, tried to repel his sexual assault by moving her body and kicking Calongui’s thighs but he still succeeded in having sexual congress with her. The next morning, Marinel learned that her brother, Noel, who was 12 years old at that time, saw the incident but pretended to be asleep out of fear that Calongui would harm him.  Marinel told her brother not to tell anyone what he saw and she also did not say anything to her parents out of fear that Calongui would make good his threats.

On September 26, 1998 at 3:00AM, Calongui again raped Marinel which was witnessed by Noel. She was undressed from waist down and threatened that she and her siblings be killed if she resisted.

Shortly after the second rape incident, Calongui worked as a laborer at B-Meg and stayed at B-Meg barracks. Encouraged by his absence, Marinel told her mother what happened which led to the filing of the instant criminal cases.

Noel testified that he saw her sister being raped by Calongui and on both occasions he pretended to be asleep out of fear and that he did not report the incident to his parents upon Marinel’s instructions and also because of Calongui’s threats. Dr. Salvacion Pantorgo, Medical Officer at the Bicol Medical Center in Naga City also testified that she physically examined Marinel on November 18, 1998 and found some superficial laceration on Marinel’s organ. Dr. Pantorgo also found Marinel to be in a non-virgin state.

Calongui denied that he had sexual intercourse with Marinel on January 1, 1998. He also claimed that the September 26, 1998 incident was consensual since he and Marinel were sweethearts at that time.

In its December 23, 2002 decision, the RTC of Camarines Sur convicted Calongui for two counts of rape; sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and was ordered to indemnify the victim P 50, 000.00 as civil liability, P 50, 00.00 as moral damages and P 30, 000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification as to the payment of exemplary damages. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the sexual intercourse was consensual because they are sweethearts, if not, does the victim’s failure to offer tenacious resistance makes the act consensual.

RULING: No. The SC stated that it is already a well-settled rule that the sweethearts defense must be proven by compelling evidence, specifically, that the accused and the victim were lovers and that the victim consented to the alleged sexual relations. The appellant’s claim that he and Marinel were lovers remained uncorroborated and unsubstantiated for there are no momentos, notes, pictures, and love letters presented. Marinel also denied the alleged love relationship on direct cross-examination. Besides, the sweethearts defense cannot also rule out rape and even if it were true, the relationship does not, by itself, establish consent for love is not a license for lust.

The appellant’s claim that Marinel has bigger physique than him and could have resited and overcome his advances or could have shouted for help since her siblings and parents were nearby is also untenable. The time the rape incidents occurred, Marinel was still 13 years old thus she cannot be expected to put up a resistance as would be expected from a mature woman. Marinel also testified that she was not of bigger built than the appellant at the time of the incident although she looked bigger than the appellant at the time she testified after the incidents two years ago. Moreover, Marinel’s failure to offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary her submission to the criminal acts.

The presence of force, threats and intimidation during the two rape incidents was also clearly established by the testimony of Marinel during the cross-examination.

The SC therefore denied the appeal and affirmed CA’s decision dated October 26, 2005 modifying the December 23, 2002 Judgment of the RTC of Camarines Sur.