Rape of a sweetheart

This is a case where having an amorous relationship or being sweethearts is not considered as an excuse or a defense in the commission of the crime of rape.

The victim here is Letty, a 16-year-old barrio lass. She worked at a city canteen owned by Gina as a stay-in waitress where she slept on the second floor. Also temporarily residing at the canteen together with the family of Gina was her sister Dolly and the latter’s husband Manny, who decided to move into the city and stay at Gina’s canteen until Dolly gives birth.

One early morning at about two o’clock while Letty was asleep, she felt someone beside her and was thus awakened. Upon opening her eyes she saw Manny, who immediately placed himself on top of her. Letty tried to shout and free herself by pushing and kicking Manny many times. But the stronger and much older Manny eventually succeeded in pursuing his immoral intentions and having carnal knowledge of Letty. After satisfying his lust, Manny warned Letty not to report the incident to anyone and threatened her that should she squeal, he would kill her and her family. Manny then left Letty, who was terribly afraid and shaken and could do nothing but cry until dawn.

Within the month, Letty left the canteen and returned home to her parents in their hometown. The sexual encounter resulted in her pregnancy. When her parents discovered what happened to her, they brought her to the hospital for medical examination then proceeded to the police station where she gave her statement on what happened. The police then endorsed her complaint to the city prosecutor, who filed a criminal complaint accusing Manny of rape. In the meantime, Letty already gave birth to a baby girl.

At the trial, Letty reiterated what happened to her as above enumerated. But Manny had a different story. He denied having raped Letty and claimed they were lovers. According to him, he met Letty at the canteen about five months before the incident and began courting her until they became sweethearts and had several sexual intercourses before and even after the alleged rape happened, the last being in the house of his other sister. Corroborating his story were three other witnesses, who allegedly saw them after the alleged rape on several occasions having a tryst. In fact, Letty’s mother even visited him while he was in jail.

But the trial court gave more credence to Letty’s story and found Manny guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced him to death, which was the penalty imposed by law at that time. The RTC also ordered Manny to acknowledge and support Letty’s daughter.

On automatic review by the Supreme Court, Manny insisted that he and Letty were lovers and that their sexual congress was consensual.

The Supreme Court, however, sustained the conviction of Manny. It believed Letty who testified in a clear, definitive and convincing manner as found by the trial court. The SC said that Manny miserably failed to prove that he and Letty indeed had a romantic liaison as this claim was categorically denied by Letty and there was no substantial evidence presented to support it like love letters, mementos, pictures. Besides, the SC said that it is very unlikely that Letty would make up a story of rape with all its attendant scandal and humiliation. Considering the modesty and timidity of a typical Filipina, especially one from the rural areas, it is hard to accept that the victim would fabricate facts which would cast dishonor on her maidenhood. No young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been raped unless that was the truth, the SC said.

Furthermore, granting for the sake of argument that Manny and Letty were really lovers, that fact alone would not negate the commission of rape. A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancée and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust.

So Manny is indeed guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt. But his penalty should only be reclusion perpetua, not death, considering that the crime committed is simple rape without any other qualifying circumstances. Manny cannot also be compelled to acknowledge the daughter of Letty, but only give support. The rule is that if the rapist is a married man he cannot be compelled to recognize the offspring of the crime, should there be any, as his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate. (People vs. Manahan, G.R. 128157, Sept. 29, 1999)