Defenses against Rape

People of the Philippines

Vs.
Jessie Malate y Caete
G.R. No. 185724 June 5, 2009

Ruling: In determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in rape cases, the Court is guided by
three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the
accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent,
to disprove the charge; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually
involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great
caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. As a general rule,
corroboration of the victims testimony is not a necessary condition to a conviction for rape where
the victims testimony is credible, or clear and convincing or sufficient to prove the elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The weight and sufficiency of evidence are determined by the
credibility, nature, and quality of the testimony.

Exception/Defense: However, such as when the trial courts findings of facts and conclusions are
not supported by the evidence on record, or when certain facts of substance and value that would
likely change the outcome of the case have been overlooked by the trial court, or when the assailed
decision is based on a misapprehension of facts. Moreover The Court has been consistent in
declaring that for alibi to prosper, the defense must establish the physical impossibility for the
accused to be present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and could be basis for
his acquittal.

People of the Philippines

Vs.
Felimon Patentes y Zamora
G.R. No. 190178 February 14, 2014

Ruling: The long standing rule is that when an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she
says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has indeed been committed. Since the
participants are usually the only witnesses in crimes of this nature and the accused's conviction or
acquittal virtually depends on the private complainant's testimony, it must be received with utmost
caution. It is then incumbent upon the trial court to be very scrupulous in ascertaining the
credibility of the victim's testimony. Judges must free themselves of the natural tendency to be
overprotective of every woman claiming to have been sexually abused and demanding punishment
for the abuser. While they ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation the rape victim
goes through as she demands justice, judges should equally bear in mind that their responsibility
is to render justice according to law.

Exception/Defense: A conviction in a criminal case must be supported by proof beyond reasonable

doubt, which means a moral certainty that the accused is guilty; the burden of proof rests upon the
prosecution. The testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity should not be received
with precipitate credulity for the charge can easily be concocted. Courts should be wary of giving
undue credibility to a claim of rape, especially where the sole evidence comes from an alleged
victim whose charge is not corroborated and whose conduct during and after the rape is open to
conflicting interpretations. While judges ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation that
a rape victim undergoes as she seeks justice, they should equally bear in mind that their
responsibility is to render justice based on the law. The numerous inconsistencies in the testimony
of private complainant have created reasonable doubt in Our mind.1âwphi1 In view of the
foregoing considerations, the presumption of innocence in favor of appellant must be upheld
considering that the evidence brought forth in trial falls short of the quantum of proof to support a
conviction.

People of the Philippines

Vs.
Gerald Soriano Alias Pedro
G.R. No. 191271 March 13, 2013

Ruling: In these cases, both the rape and the homicide must be proven beyond reasonable doubt,
as the victim can no longer testify against the perpetrator of the offense.28 Thus, a resort to
circumstantial evidence becomes inevitable to prove the case.29 Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the
Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when the concurrence of the
following factors obtain: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such
as would prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

Exception/Defense: The circumstances and facts must be absolutely incompatible with any
reasonable hypothesis propounding the innocence of the accused. In the case at bar, the prosecution
failed to establish the existence of an unbroken chain of circumstances that lead to no other logical
conclusion but the guilt of the accused. The evidence in this case having fallen short of the standard
of moral certainty, any doubt on the guilt of the accused should be considered in favor of his
acquittal. The law enforcers' missteps in the performance of the investigation and the prosecuting
attorney's careless presentation of the evidence cannot lead to any other conclusion other than that
there are doubts as to the guilt of the accused.

People of the Philippines

Vs.
Loven Daganta Alias Loben
G.R. No. 122339 August 4, 1999

Ruling: In Rape cases, the prosecution is not required to establish penile penetration because even
the slightest touching of the female genitalia by an erect penis consummates the crime.[19] Hence,
as a general rule, there is no need to show that the hymen has been ruptured. Indeed, jurisprudence
holds that the testimony of the victim that she has been sexually assaulted, if credible, is sufficient
to convict the accused. As a general rule, the trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses
is not disturbed on appeal, because the judge had the opportunity to observe them and the manner
in which they testified.

Exception/Defense: All in all, If the Prosecution’s evidence is hazy and contradictory sorely
lacking as it is in material details. Admittedly, a conviction can be based on circumstantial
evidence. However, if the chain of circumstances does not show a coherent and consistent story
that would give rise to a certitude sufficient to convince this Court to impose on appellant the very
grave penalty of reclusion perpetua.

People of the Philippines

Vs.
Cesar Masalihit y Mondido
G.R. No. 124329 December 14, 1998

Ruling: Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to convict an accused. Absolute certainty of
guilt is not demanded by the law to convict one of any criminal charge, but moral certainty is
required nevertheless, If there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he should be
acquitted.

Exception/Defense: What could have been particularly damning for the accused in the preliminary
examination was never introduced during the trial in the court below. We are specifically referring
to the element of carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse the absence of which negates rape. If the
actual narration of facts by the complaining witness when asked what she understood
by rape disproves the commission of the very offense charged, as one of the indispensable
elements of the crime is missing which is carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse.

People of the Philippines

Vs.
Guilbert Arcillas y Perez
G.R. No. 126817 December 27, 2000

Ruling: Circumstantial evidence may justify a conviction for rape if the following requisites
concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such to produce the
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Exception/Defense: The mere presence of spermatozoa in the vagina, according to the Court, did
not prove that the accused raped the private complainant since these sperm cells could have been
introduced by sexual contact earlier or later than the alleged rape.
 People of the Philippines
Vs.
Bernabe Pareja y Cruz
G.R. No. 202122 January 15, 2014

Ruling: The enactment of Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti–Rape Law of 1997, revolutionized
the concept of rape with the recognition of sexual violence on “sex–related” orifices other than a
woman’s organ is included in the crime of rape; and the crime’s expansion to cover gender–free
rape. “The transformation mainly consisted of the reclassification of rape as a crime against
persons and the introduction of rape by ‘sexual assault’ as differentiated from the traditional
‘rape through carnal knowledge’ or ‘rape through sexual intercourse.’”

Exception/Defense: The accused cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it
was proven during trial. This is due to the material differences and substantial distinctions
between the two modes of rape; thus, the first mode is not necessarily included in the second,
and vice–versa. Consequently, to convict an accused of rape by sexual assault when what he was
charged with was rape through carnal knowledge, would be to violate his constitutional right to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
 In Partial Fulfillment for the
Student Internship Program (S.I.P)
Internship/on-the-job training

Jurisprudence on Defenses against Rape

A Compilation

Saint Louis College

City of San Fernando La Union
April 21, 2017

Atty. Diric V. Galanto

Submitted to:

John Raymond M. Macusi

Submitted by: