Offspring of indiscretion - A Law Each Day (Keeps Trouble Away)

Persons guilty of rape shall also be sentenced to acknowledge the offspring of the crime "unless the law should prevent him from doing so." This case is one instance where the rapist was not compelled to acknowledge the offspring.

This case involves Carina a 16-year-old simple barrio lass, a mere elementary graduate who worked at a canteen as a stay-in waitress. One evening at about two o'clock in the morning, Carina was awakened from her sleep when she felt someone beside her. Upon opening her eyes she saw Redentor, the brother-in-law of the owner of the canteen, who immediately placed himself on top of her. Despite Carina's stiff resistance as she tried to shout and to push and kick Redentor many times to free herself, Redentor still succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the poor barrio girl after she became weary and exhausted. The sexual encounter resulted in her pregnancy which precipitated the filing of a case of rape against Redentor with the assistance of Carina's parents.

At the trial of the case, which lasted even beyond Carina's giving birth to a baby girl, Redentor denied having raped Carina. He claimed they were lovers who had several sexual congresses even before the supposed rape incident. Redentor further alleged that they still saw each other on several occasions after the said rape and after Carina had already left the canteen.

But the trial court nevertheless convicted Redentor. The court found Carina's testimony more believable than Redentor's contrasting sweetheart theory because it was clear, definitive and more convincing. So aside from sentencing Redentor to death, he was also ordered to indemnify the victim P50,000 as moral damages and to acknowledge and support the offspring of his indiscretion. Was the trial court correct?

The Supreme Court on automatic review declared that the trial court was correct in convicting Redentor of the crime of rape as it debunked Redentor's sweetheart theory because he miserably failed to prove the alleged romantic liaison which was denied by Carina. The Supreme Court said that there was no substantial evidence, e.g. love notes, mementos or pictures presented to support it.

Furthermore, according to the Supreme Court, even assuming that Redentor and Carina were really lovers, that fact alone would not negate the commission of rape because a sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, said the Supreme Court, "a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust.

But according to the Supreme Court, the order of the court requiring Redentor to acknowledge the child is not correct. Compulsory acknowledgment of the child is not proper there being a legal impediment in doing so as it appears that Redentor is a married man. He is married to the sister of the canteen's owner. If the rapist is a married man, he cannot be compelled to recognize the offspring of the crime as his child whether legitimate or illegitimate. Only that part ordering Redentor to support the child is in accordance with law.

Furthermore, according to the Supreme Court, the proper penalty to be imposed on Redentor should only be reclusion perpetua, it appearing that the crime committed was merely simple rape i.e. not committed with any of the circumstances that makes the crime heinous under Sec. 11, RA 7659 (People of the Philippines vs. Manahan G.R. No. 128157 Sept. 29, 1999).

Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: [email protected]