Statutory crime
There is rape when the sexual intercourse with a woman is without her consent either because of force, threat, intimidation, fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, or when she is deprived of reason. But if any of these means have not been adequately proven, can a sexual intercourse with a woman still be considered as rape? This is answered in this case of Letlet.
Letlet is the daughter of Rochelle with her ex-lover and live-in partner who abandoned them already. After her previous affair, Rochelle once more found another lover, Anton who co-habited with her and Letlet. Letlet looked up to Anton as her adoptive father.
Rochelle and Anton’s common law relationship seemed to be going along quite well. Rochelle collected shrimps and shells for a living and would usually be by the sea from 4 to 7 pm. Anton on the other hand was a farmer who tilled a rice field, a kilometer away from their home. Letlet was still in the elementary school.
After about eight years of cohabitation at about 5 pm Letlet who was then already 11 years old, arrived from the school to cook for their family. She was interrupted by Anton and was asked to go to the room upstairs. He made Letlet lie down on the floor and warned her that he would kill her and her mother if she would call for help. Then he removed Letlet’s panty, undressed himself and stripped her of her innocence. Letlet cried and pleaded him to stop. She grew more fearful as she saw a knife within Anton’s reach. After Anton threatened her again, Letlet became more terrified and did not tell her mother what happened.
The incident occurred again a week later. Anton asked Letlet to lie down, had carnal knowledge of her and then went outside. Letlet stayed in the room upstairs, crying, until Rochelle came home later that evening. For the succeeding months Anton continued to rape Letlet who kept silent out of fear.
Five months later, Rochelle noticed Letlet’s swollen breasts, low appetite and sleepiness. And after two more months, her belly had become bigger. Medical test revealed that she was pregnant. But she still refused to reveal the identity of the father although neighbors already suspected that Anton got her pregnant. Eventually however Anton admitted raping Letlet to Rochelle and his brother, Rudy. So Rudy immediately reported the matter to the police who filed two charges of rape against Anton concerning the first two rapes he committed on Letlet.
During the trial, after Letlet had already given birth to a baby boy, she narrated what Anton did to her. Rochelle, Rudy and the doctor who examined Letlet also testified. On the other hand Anton still denied the charges and claimed he was in the ricefield when the alleged sexual assault on Letlet occurred. He also contested the alleged inconsistent testimonies of Letlet as to the time the rape happened and whether she was awake during the sexual molestation.
But the Regional Trial Court (RTC) still convicted Anton of the two counts of statutory rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each and to pay the corresponding damages. This ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court (SC).
According to the SC, the alleged inconsistencies in Letlet’s testimony as to the time and date of the rape are immaterial, collateral and minor matters. They do not touch upon the elements of the crime nor do they affect the substance, truth and weight of the victim’s testimony. They are expected in girls of tender years who is unaccustomed to a public trial particularly when she would recount such a harrowing experience. Leeway should be given to minors especially when they are relating past incidents of abuse. Letlet, then 11 years old had no reason to concoct lieas against Anton. Her failure to actively resist the aggression and to immediately report the incident to the authorities or to her mother does not make her charge baseless, untrue and fabricated because she cannot be expected to act like an adult or a mature and experienced woman.
Furthermore, Anton’s physical superiority and moral influence or ascendancy added to the intimidation of Letlet since she considered Anton as her father even if there is no biological relation between them.
Besides even if there was no threat or intimidation or fraudulent machination and abuse of authority, as Anton claimed, his acts amounted to statutory rape because he had carnal knowledge of a minor under 12 years of age (People vs. Entrampas, G.R. 212161, March 29, 2017).