People v. Apostol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 1, 1993, accused Anthony Apostol, armed with a knife, allegedly dragged Amy Tacuyan, a minor under 12 years old, into a secluded house, forced her to lie on the floor, removed her shorts and panty, and had carnal knowledge of her despite her resistance. He threatened to kill her family if she told anyone. On September 14, 1993, while Amy was walking home from school, Apostol again waylaid her, dragged her to a secluded house, armed with a knife, removed her clothes, and forced himself on her again. He held a knife while committing the act and covered her mouth when she saw her brother and policemen looking for her. Apostol then took Amy to his employer's house, where she told his employer's wife about the incident. The next morning, Amy, accompanied by the employer's wife, went to the police station and reported the incident to her mother. Procedural History: The Provincial Prosecutor filed two informations for rape against Anthony Apostol. An amended information in Criminal Case No. 41756 included the detail that the accused was armed with a knife and the act was against the victim's will. Accused pleaded not guilty. The cases were consolidated and jointly tried. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, Iloilo City, found Apostol guilty of two counts of statutory rape and sentenced him to two penalties of reclusion perpetua, and to pay P40,000.00 as civil liability. Apostol appealed. The Petition: The accused appealed the RTC decision, asserting that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of statutory rape. He argued that the carnal intercourse was consensual as they were lovers.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of statutory rape. Whether the victim's age at the time of the commission of the crime was below twelve (12) years old. Whether the defense of being "sweethearts" and consensual sexual intercourse negates the crime of statutory rape.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of statutory rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count. The Court modified the civil liability, increasing the award to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused for two counts of statutory rape: The Court held that the prosecution established the elements of statutory rape. The victim, Amy Tacuyan, testified that she was raped on September 1, 1993, and September 14, 1993. The accused admitted to the sexual intercourse on September 14, 1993, but denied the incident on September 1, 1993, claiming he was working. The Court found the testimony of child-victims to be given full weight and credit. The accused's alibi for the September 1 incident was considered the weakest of all defenses and was rejected, especially since the complaining witness positively identified him. The Court reiterated that the testimony of the victim and her mother regarding her age was admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule. On the victim's age at the time of the commission of the crime: The Court found that Amy Tacuyan was under twelve (12) years old when the rapes occurred. While the defense presented a teacher's testimony indicating a birth date of October 25, 1981, the victim's birth certificate showed October 24, 1982. The victim's mother and the victim herself testified that she was born on October 24, 1982, making her ten (10) years and eleven (11) months old on September 14, 1993. The Court accorded greater weight to the birth certificate as the best evidence of a person's date of birth, which is an official record. The testimony of the mother, as the one who gave birth, and the victim's own testimony about her age, were also considered reliable and admissible under the family tradition exception to the hearsay rule. On the "sweetheart defense" and consensual sexual intercourse: The Court rejected the accused's defense that he could not be convicted of statutory rape because he and the victim were lovers and the sexual intercourse was consensual. The Court emphasized that the "sweetheart defense" is a "much-abused defense." Even if the relationship were true, it did not grant the accused license to force himself upon the victim. The gravamen of statutory rape under Article 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. The law presumes that a victim of such tender age cannot give valid consent, making the victim's consent immaterial. The elements are simply carnal knowledge and the victim being under twelve (12) years of age.
Main Doctrine
The gravamen of statutory rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. The victim's consent is immaterial, and the law presumes that a victim of such tender age cannot give valid consent. A birth certificate is considered the best evidence of a person's date of birth.