People vs.

Godoy (Judicial Notice)

Facts: Accused-appellant, Danny Godoy, was charged with 2 separate information before the RTC for
rape and kidnapping with serious illegal detention against plaintiff-appellee, Mia Taha.

Appellee alleged that on Jan. 21, 1994, appellant raped her when she was visiting the boarding house of
her cousin near Palawan National Highschool, though she was allowed to go home after. On Jan. 22,
1994, appellant went to appellee's home to ask permission from her parents to bring appellee with him
to solicit funds as appellee was a candidate for Miss PNS Pulot. Appellee did not say anything about the
rape to her parents because Appellant threatened to kill her family if she did.

Appellant brought appellee to Sunset Garden where appellant allegedly raped her for 3 days. On Jan. 25,
1994, appellee was brought to the house of appellant's friend in Edward's subdivision, in which appellee
was raped 3 times. On Jan. 27, 1994, appellee was reported and listed as a missing person in a police
blotter. Appellant sought the help of a certain Naem to help settle the case with appellee's parents.

On the same day, appellee was released and her parents brought her to a hospital where the
examination showed hymenal opening was in stellate shape and that there was a laceration, which
shows that appellee had participated in sexual intercourse, though the examiner could not verify if
intercourse was forced as there were no signs of bruises or injuries but only a week-old laceration.

Later, at the office of the Provincial Prosecutor, appellant's mother offered P30,000 for the settlement of
the case which the parents of appellee accepted and an affidavit of desistance was executed and sworn
to before a prosecutor.

In the case of the appellant, a different version occurred.

Before the alleged rape occurred, appellee would often say that she loved appellant. While what started
as a joke eventually developed into a relationship, despite appellant being married. It was on Dec. 20,
1993 when they had their first sexual intercourse as lovers.

In many different occasions, witnesses would see appellant and appellee together in intimate scenarios,
such as being caught together in dark and isolated places at unholy hours.
It was even appellee's idea to stay at Sunset Garden with appellant. To be noted is that it was appellee
who arranged for the registration and paid for the bill with the funds they solicited. That evening,
appellant excused himself from appellee and went to appellee's parents stating that appellee was
staying in Sunset Garden.

On Jan. 27, 1994, appellant was met by the Chief of Police who invited him to the station. While
detained, appellant did not have the opportunity to talk with appellee.

During trial, appellee made general denials to most testimonies given by witnesses. To note though was
the letter delivered by appellee's cousin which she denied to be made by her but upon cross-
examination, she admitted that the signature was hers as well as her handwriting.

On Feb. 4, 1994, the MTC resolved, on both cases, found the existence of a prima facie case against
appellant. Despite the execution of an affidavit of desistance withdrawing the charges against the illegal
kidnapping, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor file 2 informations for rape and illegal kidnapping
against appellant. The court a quo rendered that appallent was guilty by proof beyond reasonable doubt
on May 20, 1994.

ISSUE: Will the defense of appellant that both he and appellee were lovers, be a reasonable defense
against the charges of rape and illegal kidnapping?

RULING: GR:No
ER: While the "sweetheart theory" does not often gain favor with this Court, such is not always the case
if the hard fact is that the accused and the supposed victim are, in truth, intimately related except that,
as is usual in most cases, either the relationship is illicit or the victim's parents are against it. It is not
improbable that in some instances, when the relationship is uncovered, the alleged victim or her parents
for that matter would rather take the risk of instituting a criminal action in the hope that the court would
take the cudgels for them than for the woman to admit to her own acts of indiscretion.

The Court takes judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas in the Philippines, young ladies are
strictly required to act with circumspection and prudence. Great caution is observed so that their
reputations shall remain untainted. Any breath of scandal which brings dishonor to their character
humiliates their entire families. It could precisely be that complainant's mother wanted to save face in
the community where everybody knows everybody else, and in an effort to conceal her daughter's
indiscretion and escape the wagging tongues of their small rural community, she had to weave the
scenario of this rape drama.