Republic of the Philippines!

Department of Justice!
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR!
Makati City!
!
!
Maria Santos, ! ! ! ! ! XV-03-INV-14-D-04396!
! Complainant! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! For: Rape by Sexual Assault!
! - versus - ! ! ! ! ! ! Article 266-A Revised Penal Code!
!
Juan dela Cruz,!
! Respondent!
!
x-x!
!
RESOLUTION!
!
! Complainant is a lesbian, she was born on 10 August 1987 (at present she is 27 years old).
She has been working as a free lance stunt woman/double in various television networks and
movies for more than ten (10) years. According to her, respondent is one of the actors in the movie
_________________ and the telenovela _________________. !
!
! In her Complaint-Affidavit she narrated that, sometime in early 2009 (in the last few weeks
of the taping for ______________ telenovela) at Barangay Forbes, during a taping break,
respondents driver told her that respondent wanted to talk to her inside the latters SUV, prompting
complainant to go inside the said vehicle. Thereat, he saw respondent who told her, Ang ganda
ganda kong tibo. Dapat makatikim ka ng tunay na lalaki para di ka na maghanap ng babae.
Afterwards, respondent unzipped his pants, grabbed her by the hair and pulled her towards his
hard and very very tiny penis which appeared to be uncircumcised because of the excess loose
skin on its tip. He forced his penis into her mouth and made her swallow it for a few seconds.
Complainant pushed him away and threatened to bite his penis, but respondent persisted in
pushing his penis towards her mouth. Thereafter, in front of complainant, respondent masturbated,
pumped his penis until he ejaculated. Respondent continued his sexual desire by putting his hand
inside her shorts and inserting his finger into her vagina.!
!
! Complainant then went out of the SUV with so much shock and disbelief. She did not tell
anyone about what happened at the time because it was very painful, humiliating and shameful.
Neither did she immediately file a case because she was afraid and thought that nothing would
come of it because of respondents celebrity status. Now she is coming out because she was
inspired by the courage of the other sexually abused women who are filing cases against
respondent.!
!
! On the other hand, respondent in his Counter-Affidavit denied the allegations and prayed
for the dismissal of the complaint on circumstances as follows:!
!
! First, the supposed event happened more than 5 years ago, casting doubts on the
credibility of the charge itself and of the complainant. The reason for the delay in filing the herein
complaint was not satisfactorily explained by complainant. It is important to note that just after
respondent filed a Criminal Complaint against Mario Ramos, the latter publicly stated that he had
already spoken to six or seven women whom respondent had supposedly raped. The timing of the
filing of the herein complaint, thus, raises serious questions on complainants credibility.!
!
! Second, as regards the element of force, she did not allege any other act of force
committed against her. There is also no claim that respondent used a weapon to threaten
complainant during the alleged incident. Complainant is physically fit, agile and strong, of medium
Page 1 of 3
build and tall at around five feet six inches. She could have easily pushed him away during their
tryst and could have struggled in the course of their ordeal or have bitten his penis. Respondent
stressed that there was never any occasion for her to push or resist him because he never raped
her or forced her to do anything. There were other defenses raised by the respondent but
undersigned is of the belief that it deserved scant consideration in this legal forum.!
!
! The Reply and Rejoinder Affidavits of respective parties though extensive are mere re-hash
of their earlier Affidavits. !
!
! At the last schedule for preliminary investigation, complainant and respondent appeared
with their respective counsels. Both parties admitted that they knew each other. !
!
! Before evaluating the evidence presented, during preliminary investigation, the identities of
both parties were not disputed. They both admitted that they knew each other. Respondent is a
man and complainant is a woman (even if she identified herself as a lesbian). There were no
explicit denials on the approximate year and exact place of the incident. The issue to be resolved is
whether or not there exists a probably cause for the offense charged.!
!
! The law allegedly violated is Republic Act No. 8353 (The Anti Rape Law of 1997), an Act
expanding the definition of the crime of rape, reclassifying the same as a crime against persons,
amending the Revised Penal Code and for other purposes. Chapter Three thereof reads:!
!
! ! Article 266-A. Rape. When and How Committed. Rape is committed:!
!
! ! (1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the !
! ! following circumstances:!
!
! ! ! (a) Through force, threat or intimidation;!
! ! ! (b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise !
! ! ! ! unconscious;!
! ! ! (c) By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority;!
! ! ! (d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is !
! ! ! ! demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above
! ! ! ! shall be present.!
!
! ! (2) By any person who, under the circumstance mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
! ! shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons !
! ! mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
! ! another person.!
!
! The act being complained of is in the form of sexual assault, that is, by inserting his penis
into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal
orifice of another person. As enumerated in the provision of the afore-quoted law, the unlawful act
should be within the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2 thereof.!
!
! From the evidence adduced, there were no allegations that complainant was deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious. However, there appears to be assertions of force, threat or
intimidation, or grave abuse of authority.!
!
! Complainant asserts that When we were both inside the SUV, Juan xxx unzipped his pants
and grabbed me by the hair and pulled me towards his hard xx penis xxx He forced his xxx penis
into my mouth and made me swallow it for a few seconds xxx He still persisted xxx putting his
hand inside my shorts and inserted his finger into my vagina. Though the words grabbed, pulled
and forced were used, the manner and means how it was grabbed, pulled and forced were not
specified. The degree how the said actions were made are necessary to determine whether or not
complainant, who is able bodied and of sound mind was deprived, vitiated and impaired of freedom
Page 2 of 3
to struggle and resist the forceful act being inflicted on her person. The Reply Affidavit did not even
expound on the acts of grabbing, pulling and forcing.!
!
! The status of complainant as stunt woman/double is lower than that of respondent, who
was already a celebrity in television and movies at that time. Respondent was in the limelight
while complainant was in the background. However, the concept of authority and/or ascendancy
between and connecting both parties were not established. Thus, the circumstance of abuse of
authority is wanting.!
!
! Aside from the long delay before the case was filed, it would also appear that the element
of force or intimidation was not clearly established. There may be no question that there was force
in grabbing the hair of complainant but not necessarily so in making her swallow the penis of
respondent. Complainant stated that respondent made her to swallow his penis which constitutes
the crus of the complaint but never clarified how did he do it. There was no evidence that
respondent threatened her with physical harm or with a weapon if she would not submit to his
desires. Under such circumstance, complainant could have simply kept her mouth closed so as to
defeat the aim of respondent. But she did not and never clarified that she was forced or intimidated
by the respondent to open her mouth in order to consummate the crime. There is no reason for the
complainant to be afraid of respondent so as to just follow whatever he required her to do as the
incident allegedly happened with lots of other people around outside. !
!
! WHEREFORE, for lack of probably cause, it is hereby recommended that the herein case
be DISMISSED.!
!
! November 25, 2014, Makati City. !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! (signed)!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ELENA CAMARILLO!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! Assistant City Prosecutor!
!
!
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL:! ! APPROVED:!
!
(signed)! ! ! ! ! (signed)!
PATRICK RYAN REYES! ! ! FERDINAND TABORA! !
2nd Assistant City Prosecutor!! ! 33City Prosecutor!
Chief, Division II

Page 3 of 3