Republic of the Philippines

4th Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 69
Batangas City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No.
12345
For: RAPE

- versus -

RONALD GALANG

Y PEREZ,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PEOPLE

Plaintiff,
memorandum:

by

counsel,

respectfully

submits

its

Statement of the Case

Julia Torres filed the action for the crime of rape, through
force and intimidation against Ronald Galang.1

Statement of the Facts

On June 12 at around 7 p.m., Julia Torres (Julia) went to

the house Celia to attend a wedding party. Ronald Galang
(Ronald), the suitor of Julia, was also present. He wanted to
1 Information, p. 1

talk to Julia but she ignored him. She stayed away from him
because she disliked him.
At around 11 p.m., Julia left the wedding reception alone.
She did not bother to walk home alone because she knew
everyone in the barrio. She took a short cut across Mario
Perez farm. At about 50 meters from Marios house, Ronald
came from behind and offered to walk her home. She declined
and walked faster ahead of him.
Ronald doubled his stride and caught up with Julia. He
then grabbed her arm and wrestled her on the ground. He also
covered her mouth with a hand so she could not shout. She
resisted but Ronald pointed a knife at her side and threatened
to stab her should she resist more. Out of fear, Julia gave in
and Ronald ravished her.
After the incident, Julia kept the matter to herself. She
was afraid of the trouble that may arise if her parents and
brothers knew about it. After two days, she was able to muster
the courage to tell her aunt, who in turn told her parents. She
went to the police to complain and submitted herself to a
medical examination.2
Dr. Amado Ampil, a medical examiner for the Province of
Batangas, examined Julia and found that she suffered from
laceration of the cervix posterior portion and laceration of the
vaginal canal posterior portion. The wounds were about two
days old.3
On the other hand, Ronald testified that they, Julia and
him, were lovers. While at the wedding reception, Julia became
furious with him because their friends were teasing him of his
other women and this made her jealous. This prompted Julia
to leave the reception and Ronald followed to woo her. They

2 TSN, October 8, 2014

3 TSN, October 12, 2014

eventually reconciled and that they kissed and embraced each

other and made love on the grass.4

Issues

Did Ronald rape Julia by force or intimidation?

Were Ronald and Julia lovers?
Was the filing of the charge against Ronald prompted by a
genuine desire for justice?

Arguments

The sexual intercourse was done

through force, threat or intimidation.
The law, at the time of the commission of the offense,
provided that rape is committed by a man who shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman, inter alia, through force, threat
or intimidation.5 The degree of force or intimidation required is
relative.6 It is not necessary that the force or intimidation
employed be so great or of such character as could not be
resisted. It is only necessary that the force be sufficient to
consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. 7

4 TSN, October 16, 2014

5 Article 335, Revised Penal Code.
Republic Act 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) approved on September 30, 1997, has
classified rape as a crime against persons. It mandates the incorporation into Title
Eight of the Revised Penal Code a new chapter to be known as Chapter Three on
Rape. Thus, the crime of rape is now governed by Articles 266-A, 266-B, 266-C and
266-D.
6 People v. Baculi, 246 SCRA 756 (1995), at p. 766.
7 People v. Caada, 253 SCRA 277 (1996), at p. 285.

Ronald admitted the sexual intercourse with Julia. 8 The

only element to be established is the existence of force, threat
or intimidation.
Julia testified that Ronald pointed at knife at her side
and threatened to stab her should she resist more. This
testimonial evidence was not refuted by any controverting
evidence of the defense. In People vs. Alquizalas, threatening
the victim with a knife, a deadly weapon, is sufficient to cow
the victim, and it constitutes an element of rape.9
The failure of Julia to shout or to tenaciously resist
appellant should not be taken against her since such negative
assertion would not ipso facto make her submission to
appellants criminal act voluntary.
In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the
light of the victims perception and judgment at the time of the
commission of the crime. As already settled in our
jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way. Some
people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked
into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the
intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance while others may
be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Moreover,
resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no
burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the
force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as the force
or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less
irresistible is beside the point. The presence of a knife on
hand or by his side speaks loudly of appellants use of
violence, or force and intimidation.10
Absence of external injuries on the body of Julia cannot
negate rape through force, threat and intimidation.
In People vs Rogelio Pelagio, the Supreme Court ruled
that in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence
8 TSN, October 16, 2014, p. 4
9 People v. Alquizalas, GR No. 128386 (1999) citing People v. Pada, 261 SCRA 773
(1996), at pp. 777-778; People v. Adlawan Jr., 217 SCRA 489 (1993), at p. 498.
10 People v. Elmer Baldo, G.R. 175238, February 24, 2009

that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the

testimony of the offended party. Even absent a medical
certificate, her testimony, standing alone, can be made the
basis of conviction if such testimony is credible. Moreover, the
absence of external injuries does not negate rape. In fact, even
the absence of spermatozoa is not an essential element of
rape. This is because in rape, the important consideration is
not the emission of semen but the penetration of the female
genitalia by the male organ.11

No clear and convincing evidence

was presented to substantiate the
Sweetheart Theory

The defense failed to present the required evidence to

establish the Sweetheart theory. Ronald testified that he and
Julia were lovers. On the other hand, in her testimony, Julia
vehemently denied it and insisted that he never liked Ronald.
Sweetheart theory, being an affirmative defense, must
be established by convincing evidence some documentary
and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, note,
photographs, and the like.12 Other than Ronalds testimony, no
convincing evidence was presented to substantiate the theory.
The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in
support of the Sweetheart theory, as in the instant
case. Independent proof is required. There is none presented
here by the defense.
In People v. Limos and People v. Garces, Jr., it was held
that while the accused adamantly insists that he and private
complainant were lovers, no love letter, memento, or pictures
were presented by the accused to prove that such a romantic

11 People v Rogelio Pelagio, G.R. 173052, December 16, 2008

12 People v. San Antonio, Jr., GR No. 176633, September 5, 2007

relationship existed.13 A Sweetheart defense, to be credible,

should be substantiated by some documentary or other
evidence of the relationship, which is patently absent here.
Among other things, the accused admitted that he had
sexual intercourse with Julia, the burden of proof was on him
to show that the same were not attended by force, threat or
intimidation, but he failed to discharge of this burden, he
having relied solely on his self-serving testimony of
sweetheart defense.
Even assuming arguendo that they were lovers, rape
could still have been committed if he had carnal knowledge
with the private complainant against her will.14
A
cannot
cannot
license

love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved

be sexually violated against her will.15 A sweetheart
be forced to have sex against her will love is not a
for lust.16

As wisely ruled in previous cases, a man does not have

the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal
desires.17

Delay of the victim in reporting of

rape is not a defense and does not
diminish her genuine desire for justice

Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an

indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never
13 People v. Limos, 465 Phil 66, 94-95, (2004), People v. Garces, Jr., 379 Phil 919
(2000)
14 People v. Vallena, 314 Phil 679, 688 (1995)
15 People v. Garces, Jr., supra.
16 People v. Tayaban, GR No. 128481, September 14, 1994
17 People v Elmer Baldo, G. R. No. 175238, February 24, 2009

complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they

prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than
reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders making
good his threats.18
In People v Cabungan, a delay in reporting a rape case for
two months or longer, as in this case, cannot be taken against
the rape victim. Long silence and delay in reporting the crime
of rape have not always been construed as indications of a
false accusation. A charge becomes doubtful only when the
delay or inaction in revealing its commission is unreasonable
and unexplained.19 In this case, Julias delay in filing the
Complaint is with valid reason. She was afraid of the trouble
that may arise if her parents and brothers knew about it.
The fact that Julia kept silent for two days before
revealing the rape to her aunt does not diminish the reliability
of her testimony. Her silence was rooted on her fear of the
trouble it will bring to her family.
Finally, it is inconceivable that Julia, an 18 years old
typical barrio girl would admit and make public the ignominy
she had undergone if it was not true.

In People v Fernandez, 124 SCRA 319, the Supreme

Court held that it is unthinkable for an unmarried teenage girl
to file a complaint for rape if it were not true. Young girl of that
age being still possessed of the traditional modesty would not
file a charge of that sort if in truth she was not raped thereby
merely exposing herself to shame, embarrassment and
humiliation.20

18 People v Alberto Mahinay, G.R. 179190, February 20, 2009

19 People v. Rolando Cabungan, GR No. 189355, January 23, 2013
20 People v Fernandez, 124 SCRA 319, People v Avelino Reyes, G.R. No. L-62387,
June 19, 1985

Conclusion

Accused Ronald Galang is guilty beyond reasonable

doubt to the crime of rape through force, threat or
intimidation under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal
Code.
Accused admitted the sexual intercourse and interposed
the sweetheart defense without presenting evidence to
substantiate his theory. The sweetheart defense, being an
affirmative defense, must be established by convincing
evidence.
With sexual intercourse having admitted by the accused,
the only element of rape that needs to be established is force,
threat or intimidation. The accused did not present any
evidence to refute the testimony of Julia that the accused
pointed a knife at her side. The threatening of the victim with
a knife, a deadly weapon, is sufficient to cow the victim, and it
constitutes force and intimidation.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed for that:
1. Accused be convicted for the crime of rape;
2. Civil indemnity and damages be awarded for the
emotional pain, mental anguish, sleepless nights and
besmirched reputation brought to Julia and her family;
and
3. All other reliefs just and
circumstances are prayed for.

equitable

under

the

Batangas for Batangas City, March 3, 2015.

ATTY. GROUP ONE

Counsel for Complainant

IBP No. 111111; 01/10/2014 Iloilo City

PTR No. 222222; 01/10/2014 Iloilo City
Roll No. 33333; 05/05/2005
MCLE No. I; 09/09/14
MCLE No. II 007890; 09/09/14
Serial No. of Commission M-721