People vs. Olesco

The "sweetheart" defense in rape requires compelling evidence both that the accused and the victim were lovers and that the victim consented to the sexual relations; love is not a license for lust, and being sweethearts does not negate rape. Force in rape need not be so great as could not be resisted; it is sufficient if it consummates the accused's purpose.

Reynaldo Olesco worked as a baker for five months in a bakery inside "FFF," "BBB," owned by Rafael Arimado. AAA was a resident of "DDD" in "BBB" who had been in the place for about a week before October 17, 2001 and used to buy bread at the bakery. The charge was simple rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, subparagraph 3(b), in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353.

On October 17, 2001, at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, AAA, then 18 years old, left "DDD" in "BBB" with her cousin. On her way back home, AAA passed by the bakery. Somebody pulled her and covered her mouth with a hanky; she smelled something like a "snow bear" and lost consciousness. When she regained consciousness at around 11:00 o'clock p.m., AAA found herself naked beside Olesco inside a room located near the bakery. Her whole body ached, especially her cheeks, tummy, and private part. AAA slapped Olesco three times and asked him why he raped her; Olesco answered that he would kill her should she report the incident to the police. After a while, Olesco told her to go home, and she dressed up immediately and went home running.

When she arrived home, AAA told her cousin EEE about what happened. After two days, AAA reported the incident to the barangay. The barangay officials asked her the whereabouts of the accused, which she did not know then because she had seen him only once and knew him only by face. AAA explained that she was able to report the incident to the barangay officials two days after it happened because when she woke up in the morning of October 18, 2001, it was already 9:00 o'clock a.m. and she could not stand as her whole body ached. The barangay officials referred the matter to the police, an investigation was conducted, and AAA was referred to the Philippine National Police Crime Division, Camp Crame, Quezon City, for medico-legal examination.

On October 20, 2001, Dr. Jericho Angelito Q. Cordero, a Medico-Legal Officer based at the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City, conducted a physical and genital examination on AAA. According to Dr. Cordero, at the time of the examination AAA was in a non-virgin state physically, which meant she had a previous intercourse about ten days or maybe a year ago. AAA had a lacerated wound with a healing period of about ten to fifteen days caused by a hard, blunt instrument inserted into her vagina like a finger or an erect penis which would fit and succumb to elasticity or a stick. He testified that the laceration was consistent with the time of the alleged commission of the crime. He also testified that AAA told him she only discovered the wounds when she woke up naked at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of October 17, 2001 with Olesco beside her. His Final Report No. M-2674-01 (Exhibit "E") concluded that there are no external signs of any form of trauma on the external genital area which has a deep healed laceration consistent with sexual intercourse.

Olesco denied having raped AAA and put up the sweetheart defense. He testified that he came to know AAA when she introduced herself and that after three months they became sweethearts. According to Olesco, there is no truth to the complaint filed against him by AAA. He alleged that it was AAA who went to him at the bakery at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening of October 17, 2001. AAA wanted him to go with her to her province in Leyte, to which he agreed. The room referred to by AAA is for the female workers near the bakery where they talked in the presence of their employer. Che-Che and Alex, his co-workers, Jerry and Annalyn Arimando were also inside the room when they entered but they went out. He further testified that during his second month stay in the bakery, he got attracted to AAA whom he used to see every afternoon and they talked even for just a minute until he proposed his love to her. When they became steady, there were occasions that they kissed each other, held hands and even made love in a room beside the bakery prior to October 17, 2001 at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening and thereafter, AAA left at 10:00 o'clock. However, on October 18, 2001, AAA had him arrested by the barangay tanods who brought him to the Coastal Police Headquarters.

The RTC noted that AAA positively identified Olesco as the malefactor; that Olesco failed to rebut AAA's testimony or impute ill motive on her part; and that AAA's testimony was brief, clear, and straightforward and supported by the medical findings. The RTC also observed that Olesco's sweetheart defense lacked sufficient and convincing proof and was not substantiated by any documentary or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures, and the like. Olesco did not present his employer or any of his co-workers to corroborate his claim that he and AAA were sweethearts and that AAA used to frequent his place. The RTC held that even assuming AAA and Olesco were sweethearts, that fact does not serve as a license or justification to commit rape.

• Due Process / Variance: Appellant Olesco argued that he was denied due process because the Information alleged rape through force and intimidation, but the prosecution established that AAA was unconscious when she was raped.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Appellant Olesco insisted that there was nothing in AAA's testimony indicating that he had sexual intercourse with her and that no sufficient evidence proved his culpability.
• Credibility of AAA: Appellant Olesco argued that AAA's testimony was ambiguous and full of discrepancies; that her claim of losing consciousness when her mouth was covered with a drug-laced handkerchief was unbelievable and ridiculous; and that her open-court testimony contradicted her Sinumpaang Salaysay.

• Guilt Proven: Appellee maintained that Olesco's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Force and Intimidation / Due Process: Whether the prosecution established the force and intimidation alleged in the Information when Olesco pulled AAA and covered her mouth with a drug-laced handkerchief, causing her to lose consciousness, and whether the proof that she was unconscious when raped denied Olesco due process.
• Credibility of AAA: Whether AAA's testimony was ambiguous, discrepant, and unbelievable, particularly her claim that she lost consciousness after her mouth was covered with a drug-laced handkerchief.
• Sweetheart Defense: Whether Olesco's sweetheart defense was sufficiently proven and whether it negated rape or showed AAA's consent.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether Olesco's guilt of simple rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Damages: Whether the award of P50,000 civil indemnity and P50,000 moral damages should be affirmed and whether additional exemplary damages and interest should be awarded.

• Force and Intimidation / Due Process: Yes. Pulling AAA and covering her mouth with a drug-laced handkerchief was force sufficient to consummate Olesco's purpose; force need not be so great as could not be resisted. The proof did not depart from the Information.
• Credibility of AAA: No. The alleged ambiguities and discrepancies pertained to witness credibility, which the trial court assessed; the RTC found AAA's testimony straightforward, clear, and supported by medical findings, and the SC found no reason to depart.
• Sweetheart Defense: No. The sweetheart defense requires compelling evidence of both the love affair and consent; Olesco presented only testimonial evidence, no tokens, mementos, photographs, or corroboration, and being sweethearts does not negate rape.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. AAA positively identified Olesco, her testimony was credible and supported by medical findings, and Olesco failed to impute ill motive or rebut her testimony.
• Damages: Yes as to civil indemnity and moral damages; additional P30,000 exemplary damages and 6% interest per annum from finality are proper.

• Force and Intimidation / Due Process: The SC agreed with the CA that Olesco's act of pulling AAA and covering her face with a drug-laced handkerchief was synonymous with force. AAA smelled something like a "snow bear" and lost consciousness; Olesco then raped her. The pulling and covering of her mouth with the drug-laced hanky was the immediate cause of her unconsciousness and facilitated the rape. The SC applied the rule that force in rape need not be so great or of such character as could not be resisted; it is enough that the force employed is sufficient to consummate the purpose. Failure to offer tenacious resistance does not make submission voluntary. The SC thus rejected the claim that no force was employed and treated the force alleged in the Information as established.
• Credibility of AAA: The SC held that the contentions that AAA's testimony was ambiguous and full of discrepancies, and that her claim of losing consciousness from a drug-laced handkerchief was unbelievable and ridiculous, deserved scant consideration. These contentions pertained to the assessment of a witness's credibility, which is properly within the province of the trial court. The RTC found the prosecution witnesses' testimonies straightforward, reasonable, clear, and categorical, and the CA affirmed. The SC found no reason to depart from those findings, applying the rule that trial court findings deserve weight and respect because the trial judge hears the witnesses and observes their demeanor; only when the trial court overlooked or misapprehended facts of weight and influence are they reopened for independent examination. The SC also cited the age-old rule that assigning values to testimonies and weighing credibility is best left to the trial court. The alleged contradiction with AAA's Sinumpaang Salaysay was treated as a credibility matter.
• Sweetheart Defense: The SC held that the sweetheart theory or defense is an oft-abused justification and must be proven by compelling evidence. For the SC to consider it, there must be compelling evidence: first, that the accused and the victim were lovers; and second, that she consented to the alleged sexual relations. The defense cannot rest on testimonial evidence alone; independent proof is required, such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. Olesco could not remember the date he and AAA became steady, had no remembrance to prove the alleged relationship, and presented no employer or co-worker to corroborate his claim. The SC also held that even if they were sweethearts, that fact does not negate rape because it does not give license to have sexual intercourse against the victim's will and does not prove consent.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The SC affirmed the finding that Olesco's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. AAA positively identified Olesco as the malefactor. The RTC found that Olesco failed to rebut AAA's testimony or impute ill motive on her part. AAA's testimony was brief, clear, and straightforward and was supported by the medical findings. The SC noted that AAA lost no time in reporting the incident to her cousin, who relayed it to the barangay officials, resulting in Olesco's arrest. Olesco also failed to present his employer or co-workers who could corroborate his claim that he only talked with AAA on the night of October 17, 2001.
• Damages: The SC held that the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, correctly awarded P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages. In line with current jurisprudence, the SC added an award of P30,000 as exemplary damages and interest at 6% per annum on all damages awarded from the finality of judgment until fully paid. The SC cited People vs. Alverio for this modification.

• Sweetheart Defense — In rape, the sweetheart defense must be proven by compelling evidence: first, that the accused and the victim were lovers; and second, that she consented to the alleged sexual relations. Love is not a license for lust. The SC rejected Olesco's defense because he presented only testimonial evidence, could not remember when they became steady, had no remembrance, and no corroboration; even if proven, being sweethearts does not negate rape or prove consent.
• Force in Rape — For rape to exist, force need not be so great or of such character as could not be resisted; it is enough that the force employed is sufficient to consummate the purpose. Failure to offer tenacious resistance does not make submission voluntary. The SC held that pulling AAA and covering her mouth with a drug-laced handkerchief was sufficient force because it caused unconsciousness and facilitated the rape.
• Credibility of Witnesses — The task of assigning values to testimonies and weighing credibility is best left to the trial court, which forms first-hand impressions; its findings deserve weight and respect unless it overlooked or misapprehended facts of weight and influence. The SC deferred to the RTC's finding that AAA's testimony was straightforward, reasonable, clear, and categorical, as affirmed by the CA.
• Being Sweethearts Does Not Negate Rape — Even if the accused and victim were sweethearts, that fact does not give license to have sexual intercourse against the victim's will and does not prove consent. The SC applied this to reject Olesco's defense as inconsequential.
• Damages in Rape — Upon a finding of rape, civil indemnity and moral damages are proper; in line with current jurisprudence, exemplary damages and 6% interest per annum from finality may also be awarded. The SC added P30,000 exemplary damages and 6% interest to the P50,000 civil indemnity and P50,000 moral damages.

• "In rape, the `sweetheart' defense must be proven by compelling evidence: first, that the accused and the victim were lovers; and, second, that she consented to the alleged sexual relations. The second is as important as the first, because this Court has held often enough that love is not a license for lust." — The SC opened with this standard and applied it to reject Olesco's sweetheart defense.
• "It is a well-established doctrine that for the crime of rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force employed accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be resisted; it is only necessary that the force employed by the guilty party be sufficient to consummate the purpose which he had in view x x x." — The SC adopted this statement in holding that pulling AAA and covering her mouth with a drug-laced handkerchief was sufficient force.
• "Failure to offer tenacious resistance does not make the submission by the complainant to the criminal acts of the accused voluntary. What is necessary is that the force employed against her be sufficient to consummate the purpose which he has in mind." — The SC quoted this rule to reject the claim that AAA's submission was voluntary.
• "The sweetheart theory' orsweetheart defense' is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience. For the Court to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required -- such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. There is none presented here by the defense." — The SC rejected Olesco's sweetheart defense for lack of independent proof.

• People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 140278, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 469 — Followed for the standard on the sweetheart defense and the rule that force in rape need not be irresistible.
• People vs. Magbanua, G.R. No. 176265, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 698 — Followed for the rule that credibility assessment is best left to the trial court and that being sweethearts does not negate rape.
• People vs. Baldo, G.R. No. 175238, February 24, 2009, 580 SCRA 225 — Followed for the requirement of independent proof, such as tokens, mementos, and photographs, to support the sweetheart defense.
• People vs. Alverio, G.R. No. 194259, March 16, 2011 — Followed for the additional award of exemplary damages and 6% interest per annum on damages from finality.

• Article 266-A, paragraph 1, subparagraph 3(b), Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353 — The SC affirmed Olesco's conviction for simple rape under this provision.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353 — The penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed for simple rape in the absence of any aggravating or qualifying circumstance.
• Republic Act No. 7610, Republic Act No. 9262, and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children) — Cited in the text for withholding the victim's identity and information that could establish or compromise it.