People vs. Dela Torre

The use of a knife or bolo to threaten a woman and ensure carnal knowledge constitutes force or intimidation, and a bare sweetheart defense cannot overcome the victim’s positive, categorical testimony and corroboration.

Marita Cordova was a 35-year-old married cook at La Fiesta Farm in Barrio Pantay, Teresa, Rizal, owned by Arturo Alindada. Her husband Paulino and the accused Josue Dela Torre also worked on the same farm. The charge was rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with the Information alleging violence and intimidation and the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.

At the time of the incident, Marita Cordova was 35 years old, married to Paulino Cordova, and employed as a cook at La Fiesta Farm in Barrio Pantay, Teresa, Rizal, owned by Arturo Alindada. Her husband and the accused Josue Dela Torre also worked on the same farm. Marita had five children: Merly, 13; Melanie, 10; Lyndon, 7; Fullimer, 4; and Johnny Boy, 1.

Around 7:00 to 8:00 P.M. of November 5, 1989, Paulino Cordova went to see Anthony Inocencio at his farm, also in Barrio Pantay, Teresa, Rizal, near La Fiesta Farm. Paulino asked for help because the accused, then armed with a knife and bolo, was causing trouble and commotion at the La Fiesta Farm. Anthony responded and, upon arriving there, learned that the accused had forcibly taken the shoes and money of Alindada’s workers. Marita and her children asked Anthony whether they could stay in his farm; he agreed, and they all proceeded there. Upon reaching the farm, Marita told Anthony that she had been raped by the accused that night. Anthony immediately fetched policemen from Teresa, Rizal, and accompanied them to La Fiesta Farm, where the accused was accosted.

Marita testified that around 8:00 o’clock in the evening of November 5, 1989, she was cooking in the kitchen of La Fiesta Farm with her five children. Suddenly, the accused, holding a knife and a bolo, appeared in the kitchen and dragged her outside toward a house under construction about 200 meters away. Her children tried to follow but desisted when the accused threatened them, so they stayed in the kitchen. While Marita and the accused were on the way, they met Joel Villasis and Johnny Dizon, also farm workers, who saw the accused poking a knife and a bolo at her. Marita asked for their help, but they did nothing because they were afraid of the accused.

Once inside the house, the accused pushed Marita to the floor, stooped in front of her, poked the knife at her throat, and pinned her arms at her back. He raised her dress above her breast, pulled down his pants, took off her panty, and placed himself on top of her. Still holding the knife, he pointed it at her throat and placed the bolo on the ground. He then spread her legs, kissed her lips down to her neck, and sucked her breast. He inserted his penis into her vagina and made push-and-pull movements for about eight minutes while continuing to kiss her on the lips. Marita could not resist because the knife was pointed at her throat and her arms were pinned at her back. Afterward, the accused stood and threatened to slash her neck if she told anybody about the incident. That very night, Marita informed Anthony Inocencio and later her employer, Arturo Alindada, and her husband.

Melanie Cordova corroborated her mother’s testimony. She and her siblings were in the kitchen that night when the accused dragged their mother toward the house under construction. At a distance of two to three meters, Melanie saw the accused pointing a knife at her mother’s throat and a bolo at her back. They tried to follow, but the accused got angry, so they remained in the kitchen and cried because of fear. The following day, November 6, 1989, Dr. Emmanuel Aranas, a Medico-Legal Officer at Camp Crame, Quezon City, examined Marita. His Medico-Legal Report noted abrasions on the proximal phalange of the right index finger measuring 0.3 x 0.2 cm, on the distal phalange of the right index finger measuring 0.5 x 0.1 cm, and on the middle third of the right leg measuring 7 x 4 cm along its anterior midline; it concluded that Marita was in a non-virgin state physically, that the injuries would resolve in five to six days, and that vaginal and peri-urethral smears were negative for gram-negative diplococci but positive for spermatozoa.

The accused did not deny having sexual contact with Marita that night but claimed that she was his mistress and that the carnal incident was consensual. He testified that their relationship began on June 15, 1987 in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, when he and Paulino had a drinking spree at the house of a certain Cordova; that around 7:30 in the evening Paulino got drunk and fell asleep; that he then courted Marita, who told him she would be willing to be his mistress if he gave her permanent support; and that at 3:00 in the morning of the following day they engaged in sexual activity. He said their sexual affair became frequent until September 1989, when Marita was recruited to work at La Fiesta Farm, and that he again met her there in October 1989 upon his employment. He further narrated that at about 1:00 in the afternoon of November 5, 1989, he and Marita talked at the kitchen of La Fiesta Farm and agreed to meet about 8:00 in the evening in the nearby house under construction; that he arrived first and she followed; and that they had sexual intercourse on the ground using “sawali” as a mat. The RTC characterized the incident preceding the rape as a “reign of terror” at La Fiesta Farm caused by the appellant, who was running wild with a knife and bolo, creating fear among those who witnessed it.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Appellant argued that the RTC erred in finding him guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
• Consensual Sex: Appellant maintained that the sexual contact on November 5, 1989 was consensual because Marita Cordova was his mistress.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the RTC erred in finding accused-appellant Josue Dela Torre guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
• Aggravating Circumstance of Dwelling: Whether dwelling may be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance where the victim was dragged from the kitchen she used as a dwelling, although the rape was consummated in a nearby house.
• Civil Liability: Whether appellant should be held civilly liable and, if so, what damages should be awarded.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No. The RTC did not err; the prosecution established rape beyond reasonable doubt through Marita’s categorical testimony, Melanie’s corroboration, and the medical report, while appellant’s bare sweetheart defense failed.
• Aggravating Circumstance of Dwelling: Yes. Dwelling was properly appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance because Marita was forcibly taken from the kitchen that served as her dwelling, even if the rape was consummated in a nearby house.
• Civil Liability: Yes. Appellant is civilly liable for P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The SC found the appeal bereft of merit. Marita testified in a candid, straightforward, and categorical manner that the accused, armed with a knife and bolo, dragged her from the kitchen to a nearby house under construction, pushed her to the floor, poked the knife at her throat, pinned her arms at her back, undressed her, and raped her while the knife remained pointed at her throat. Melanie corroborated the dragging and the weapons, and the Medico-Legal Report showed abrasions and spermatozoa. The accused did not deny the sexual contact but claimed Marita was his mistress and consented. The SC rejected the sweetheart theory because, other than his bare allegation, he presented no evidence such as love notes, mementos, or witnesses attesting to a consensual relationship. Marita was a married woman with five children, and strong and convincing evidence was necessary to prove such an affair. Even assuming an illicit affair existed, the categorical and spontaneous testimony of Marita and Melanie, corroborated by the medical report, belied consent on that night. The SC also noted the absence of ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses and applied the rule that positive and categorical declarations under oath are given full faith and credence; affirmative testimony prevails over bare denial. It found it highly inconceivable that a mother of five would falsely charge rape, especially since she immediately reported the assault and submitted to examination the next day.

• Aggravating Circumstance of Dwelling: The Information alleged dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. The SC held that the kitchen at La Fiesta Farm where Marita was dragged was her “dwelling,” even though it did not belong to her. In People vs. Parazo, the SC stressed that the “dwelling” contemplated in Article 14(3) of the Revised Penal Code does not necessarily mean that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells; a lessee, boarder, or bedspacer may claim the sanctity of the place as his home. The fact that the crime was consummated in the nearby house was immaterial. In People vs. Jardiniano, the SC held that dwelling is aggravating if the victim was taken from his house although the offense was not completed therein. Marita was forcibly taken from her dwelling kitchen and then raped in the nearby house.

• Civil Liability: The SC held that the RTC erred in not holding appellant civilly liable. In line with current jurisprudence, it awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Because of the use of a deadly weapon and the presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, both indicating criminal perversity, it awarded P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. It cited the settled rule that in criminal cases, the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the victim to exemplary damages insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned.

• Force and Intimidation in Rape — Holding a knife or bolo, a deadly weapon, by itself strongly suggests force or intimidation; when used to threaten a woman to ensure carnal knowledge, rape is committed. The SC applied this because the accused brandished a knife and bolo, poked the knife at Marita’s throat even during the rape, and threatened to slash her neck afterward.
• Sweetheart Theory — The defense of consensual sex requires strong and convincing evidence, especially where the victim is a married woman with children; it must be supported by evidence such as love notes, mementos, or witnesses attesting to a consensual relationship. The SC rejected the accused’s bare claim because he presented no such evidence.
• Positive Testimony vs. Bare Denial — Where a witness has no improper motive, positive and categorical declarations under oath are given full faith and credence; affirmative testimony is stronger and more trustworthy than negative testimony. The SC applied this to Marita and Melanie over the accused’s bare denial.
• Dwelling as Aggravating Circumstance — Under Article 14(3) of the Revised Penal Code, dwelling does not require ownership of the place; a lessee, boarder, or bedspacer may claim its sanctity. It is aggravating if the victim is taken from the house even if the offense is completed elsewhere. The SC applied it because Marita was dragged from the kitchen she used as a dwelling, although the rape occurred in a nearby house.
• Penalty for Rape with Deadly Weapon and One Aggravating Circumstance — At the time, Article 335 RPC prescribed reclusion perpetua to death for rape committed with a deadly weapon. Under Article 63 RPC, when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and only one aggravating circumstance is present, the greater penalty is applied. The SC found dwelling as the sole aggravating circumstance; death would have been warranted but was constitutionally suspended, so reclusion perpetua was proper.
• Civil Liability in Rape — A conviction for rape carries civil indemnity and moral damages; exemplary damages are due when an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, is present. The SC awarded P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00 moral damages, and P25,000.00 exemplary damages because of the deadly weapon and dwelling.

• “The act of holding a knife/bolo, a deadly weapon, by itself strongly suggests force, or intimidation, and when the same is used to threaten a woman to ensure carnal knowledge of her, rape is certainly committed.” — The SC used this to reject the claim that no force or intimidation attended the sexual act, stressing that the knife and bolo were themselves instruments of intimidation.
• “Appellant’s “sweetheart theory” is totally unavailing. Marita is a married woman with five children in her care. To embroil her into such kind of amorous relationship, strong and convincing evidence is necessary to prove the same.” — The SC rejected the accused’s claim that Marita was his mistress and consented, noting the lack of corroborating evidence.
• “In People v. Parazo, this Court stressed that the “dwelling” contemplated in Article 14(3) of the Revised Penal Code does not necessarily mean that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells.” — The SC applied this to the kitchen at La Fiesta Farm, holding it was Marita’s dwelling even if owned by her employer.
• “It is now well-settled that in criminal cases, the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the victim to an award of exemplary damages insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned.” — The SC used this to justify exemplary damages because dwelling and use of a deadly weapon attended the rape.

• People vs. Parazo, 272 SCRA 512 (1997) — Relied on for the rule that dwelling does not require ownership of the place where the victim lives or dwells.
• People vs. Jardiniano, 103 SCRA 530 (1981) — Relied on for the rule that dwelling is aggravating when the victim is taken from the house even if the offense is completed elsewhere.
• People vs. Alquizalas, 305 SCRA 367 (1999) — Cited for the rule that holding a knife or bolo is a deadly weapon and strongly suggests force or intimidation; also cited on the penalty.
• People vs. Vedra, 342 SCRA 317 (2000) — Cited for the rule that the use of a knife or bolo to threaten the victim establishes force or intimidation.
• People vs. De Guzman, 343 SCRA 267 (2000) — Cited for the standard that the sweetheart defense may be sustained only with evidence such as love notes, mementos, and witnesses attesting to a consensual relationship; the SC found no such evidence here.
• People vs. Makilang, G.R. No. 139329, October 23, 2001 — Cited for the award of civil indemnity and moral damages in rape.
• People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001 — Cited for exemplary damages where an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, is present.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended — The rape provision applied at the time; the text notes it was later repealed by Republic Act No. 8353 effective October 22, 1997, with new rape provisions in Articles 266-A to 266-D. It prescribed reclusion perpetua to death for rape committed with a deadly weapon.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and only one aggravating circumstance is present, the greater penalty shall be applied. The SC applied this because dwelling was the sole aggravating circumstance.
• Article 14(3), Revised Penal Code — Defines dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. The SC applied it to the kitchen at La Fiesta Farm as Marita’s dwelling even if not owned by her.
• Constitutional suspension of the death penalty — The text refers to the death penalty as then constitutionally suspended; the SC applied this to preclude imposition of death despite the presence of dwelling and to affirm reclusion perpetua.