G.R. No.

199268
February 12, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. AURELIO JASTIVA
Criminal Law; Revised Penal Code; Force, Violence or Intimidation; The
force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not
only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their
relationship with each other. And physical resistance need not be
established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the
latter submits herself against her will to the rapists advances because of
fear for her life and personal safety.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS: On August 3, 2004, AAA, a 67-year-old married woman, was drying
corn in their small barn in a farmland, when her husband, BBB, left her
alone to attend to their sick daughter. At about 11:00 in the evening, AAA
was fast asleep when Aurelio Jastiva (Jastiva) threatened her with a knife
and warned her not to shout because he will have sexual intercourse with
her. AAA was able to grab Jastivas hand but then, she felt the blade of the
knife he held. Thereafter, Jastiva removed AAAs underwear but he cannot
proceed with his lewd design because his penis was not yet erected. Jastiva,
therefore, toyed with AAAs sexual organ by licking it. Jastiva then made his
way up and tried to suck AAAs tongue. After that, Jastiva held his penis and
inserted it to AAAs vagina. After ravishing his victim and before AAA could
stand up, Jastiva patted AAAs shoulder and said "Salamat." Since it was
dark in the barn, it was only after the consummation of the crime that AAA
recognized who her assailant is.
On the next day, AAA relayed her nightmare to her neighbor and her
husband BBB. The spouses reported the incident and AAA was medically
examined. The doctor found that AAAs vaginal opening, labia majora and
labia minora on both sides, showed signs of irritation and is reddish in color,
in addition to a partial separation of tissues between the labium. AAA also
sustained multiple scratches at her lips.
AAA filed a Complaint for Rape against Jastiva. The latter argued that
the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He questioned the credibility of AAA on the
ground that AAA did not shout for help nor struggle against her assailant.

Also, AAA could not have positively identified the perpetrator because it was
too dark in the barn. Furthermore, Jastiva questioned the credibility of the
medical examination and argued that the filing of the case by AAA was illmotivated.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE
THE GUILT OF JASTIVA BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The prosecution was able to prove the guilt of
Jastiva beyond reasonable doubt based on AAAs credible, positive and
categorical testimony, AAAs positive identification Jastiva as the
perpetrator, the physical evidence presented and the absence of ill motive
on the part of AAA in filing the complaint against Jastiva.
Firstly, the Court ruled that a conviction of rape may issue upon the
sole basis of the victims accurate and credible testimony. No decent and
sensible woman will publicly admit to being raped and, thus, run the risk of
public contempt, unless she is, in fact, a rape victim. The force, violence, or
intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size,
and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other.
And physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is
exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to
the rapists advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. In this
case, AAA was already 67 years of age when she was raped in the dark by
Jastiva who was armed with a knife. A woman of such age could only recoil
in fear. Moreover, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine
whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. The
law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What
needs only to be proved by the prosecution is the use of force or
intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse with the victim
which it did in the case at bar.
Secondly, AAA has established Jastiva as her attacker despite the
allegation that it was dark in the barn which made it impossible for AAA to
identify him. AAA testified to the fact that she saw Jastiva when he walked
past her after the incident and his face was finally illuminated by the
moonlight. AAA testified that she knows Jastiva very well since Jastiva is her
neighbor living some 100 meters away from the crime scene. Thus, AAA
does not need to mention any distinguishing features of Jastiva.

Thirdly, the Medical Certificate is consistent with AAAs assertion that

Jastiva raped her.
Lastly, Jastiva did not allege, much less show, that AAA was prompted
by improper or malicious motives to impute upon him such a serious
charge. This being so, the categorical and positive identification of Jastiva
prevails over the latters plain alibi and bare denial.