PEOPLE v. TIONLOC

People of the Philippines vs. Juan Richard Tionloc y Marquez

G.R. No. 212193

February 15, 2017

Facts:

 At around 9:30 PM of September 29, 2008, AAA was having a drinking session with appellant and Meneses in the appellant’s house. After some time, she felt dizzy so she took a nap. She was roused from her sleep by Meneses who was mounting her and inserting his penis into her vagina. She felt pain but could only cry in silence for fear that the knife nearby would be used to kill her if she resist. While still feeling dizzy, appellant approached her and asked if he could also have sex with her. When she did not reply, appellant mounted and raped her. The following day, AAA reported the incident to the police and underwent a medical examination and the results revealed two lacerations in her hymen. The RTC clarified that appellant is charged with rape through sexual intercourse under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the RPC based on the allegations in the Information and not with rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2 of the same provision of the law. Appellant appealed the RTC’s decision arguing that discrepancies in sworn statement of AAA and her testimony diminished her credibility. The CA ruled that discrepancies between the affidavit and testimony of AAA did not impair her credibility; the CA held that the rape victim AAA is not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that she might even try to obliterate it from her memory. CA therefore affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification.

Issue:

Whether or not the Trial Court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged?

Held:

Yes. Force as an element of rape, must be sufficient to consummate the purposes which the accused had in mind. In this case, the prosecution established that appellant was 18 year old man who had sexual intercourse with AAA, a woman who was 24 years old during the incident. However, there was no evidence to prove that appellant used force, threat, or intimidation during his sexual congress with AAA. There was no evidence that the knife was placed nearby precisely to threaten or intimidate her. Appellant went on top of AAA without saying anything or uttering threatening words. For her part, AAA neither intimated any form of resistance nor expressed any word or rejection to appellant’s advances. Three things are thus clear from the testimony of AAA: first, appellant never employed force, threat, or intimidation against her, second, AAA never gave the slightest hint of rejection when appellant asked her to have sex with him, and third, appellant did not act with force since he readily desisted when AAA felt slightest pain and tried to move during their sexual congress. AAA could have resisted right from the start. But she did not, and chose not to utter a word or make any sign of rejection of appellant’s sexual advances. The fact that AAA was tipsy or drunk at that time cannot be held against the appellant. Thus, as usual, she voluntarily went with them to the house of appellant and chatted with them while drinking liquor, the prosecution failed to show that she was deprived of her will power. It has been ruled repeatedly that in criminal litigation, the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from weakness of the defense. Thus, the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden of evidence in this case entitles appellant to an acquittal.