PHILIPPINES

SC acquits rape convict, says act was 'consensual'

'The mere presence of abrasions and contusions on her did not preclude the giving of her consent to the sexual
intercourse, for abrasions and contusions could also be suffered during voluntary submission of the partners
to each other's lust,' the High Court says

Lian Buan @lianbuan

Published 4:58 PM, May 06, 2017

Updated 6:40 PM, May 06, 2017
MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court has acquitted a security guard of raping his girlfriend, after it ruled
that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that what transpired between the two was not
consensual.

In a decision promulgated on April 5, 2017, a copy of which was made public only recently, the SC's Third
Division reversed the rulings of the Manila Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals (CA) on a security
guard who was accused of raping his girlfriend.

Citing an earlier ruling, the SC's Third Division said: "Without the proof of his guilt being beyond reasonable
doubt, therefore, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused herein was not overcome. His acquittal
should follow."

The decision was penned by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin with concurrences from Senior Associate
Justice Antonio Carpio, and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr, Bienvenido Reyes, and Noel Tijam.

He said, she said

Based on the account of the woman, a house helper, the man asked her out on a date. After eating at a fast-
food joint, they went to a nearby motel and when she refused to go up the stairs, the man dragged her, insisting
they would only talk and eat. Once inside the room, the man pushed her towards the bed. She tried to leave but
the door was locked. (READ: That thingy called rape culture)

The woman said she went to the toilet to call her cousin, a policeman named Alberto German, but her phone
battery got drained so she could not give him her location. Her companion then barged into the toilet, pulled
her out, and raped her even as she tried to aght him off.

The woman said she was forced to take a jeepney with the man after the incident as she did not know her way
back. She then sought the help of German, who instructed her to ask to call and set another meetin with the
man. When the man arrived at the meeting place, German arrested him and brought him to the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI).

Other Stories

Supreme Court warns o>cials: ‘Good faith’ not always a valid excuse
The good faith doctrine is ‘inapplicable in a situation where there are circumstances that should have prompted the
government occials to make further inquiries,’ says the High Court

Man-eating tiger shot dead in India after massive hunt

Disputes erupt after the tiger's killing as media reports say it was shot in Yavatmal forest with no attempt to tranquilize her

The unpredictability of Supreme Court Justice Bernabe

Bernabe often votes with a nuance. She is respected in the High Court because of her collegial virtues.

An NBI medico legal occer examined the woman and found "fresh deep hymenal lacerations," an abrasion on
her breast, and a contusion on the victim's hand, the Court said in its decision. (READ:
#BeenRapedNeverReported: Rape victims speak up online)

Based on the man's version, the woman was his girlfriend who consented to the date and their motel check-in.
He claimed the woman went to the toilet and came out wearing only a towel.

He said that the woman "did not resist when he went on top her" and penetrated her, "but he stopped when she
told him that she was not yet ready," the decision read.

They then got dressed, left the motel, and rode a jeepney together. After they parted, he said he got a call from
the woman asking if they could see each other. When the man arrived at the meeting place, German arrested
him.
The man's mother testiaed that the cop tried to extort P200,000 from his son.

The question of consent

In 2009, the Manila RTC convicted the man. This was later acrmed by the CA.

In its ruling, the High Court said while the RTC and the CA regarded the woman as a "credible witness," it
believed that it is "not fair and just to quickly reject the defense of consensual sexual intercourse interposed by
the accused."

The RTC and the CA gave weight to the medical andings on the woman, but the High Court had a different take.

"The mere presence of abrasions and contusions on her did not preclude the giving of her consent to the
sexual intercourse, for abrasions and contusions could also be suffered during voluntary submission of the
partners to each other's lust," the SC said.

The High Court added: "Such possibility calls for us to open our minds to the conclusion that the sexual
intercourse resulted from consensuality between them."

The Court said what the woman "did not do" during the incident proved that what happened was consensual.

"Although she claimed that he had held her by the hand and pulled her upstairs, there is no evidence showing
that she resisted in that whole time, or exhibited a reluctance to enter the motel with him. Instead, she
appeared to have walked with him towards the motel, and to have entered it without hesitation. What she did
not do was eloquent proof of her consent," the Court said in its ruling.

The Court also noted in its decision, however, that the "sweetheart defense is not usually regarded with favor in
the absence of strong corroboration."

"This is because the mere fact that the accused and the victim were lovers should not exculpate him from
criminal liability for rape," it said.

Read the full decision here. – Rappler.com

You May Like Promoted Links by Taboola

Migz on Koko wife: I have witnesses

Free shipping above P995
PHP1,499 - zalora.com.ph

7 Places to Take Your Kids to Before They're Grown Up

Discover Hong Kong

Even The Most Daring Man Couldn’t Break This Tough Smartwatch
Tact Watch

17 hairstyles which make you look much younger

WoJournals

You can play this Game in your browser for free

Panzer Rush

Leave a comment ∠

PHILIPPINES

CA can't review Ombudsman decisions in criminal cases – Supreme

Court
The High Court strengthens Ombudsman andings in criminal cases

Lian Buan @lianbuan

Published 8:03 PM, October 29, 2018

Updated 8:03 PM, October 29, 2018
REVIEW POWER. The Occe of the Ombudsman's decisions in criminal cases cannot be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. Photo
by Darren Langit/Rappler

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court clariaed that the Court of Appeals (CA) has no jurisdiction over the
Occe of the Ombudsman insofar as reviewing its orders, directives, and decisions in criminal cases is
concerned.

The Supreme Court said that if occials want to challenge an Ombudsman decision in criminal cases, they can
do so before the High Court.

“An aggrieved party is not without recourse where the anding of the Ombudsman as to the existence of
probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. An
aggrieved party may ale a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,” the en banc
said in a decision penned by Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa.

The Court added: “A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court questioning the anding of the
existence of probable cause – or the lack thereof – by the Ombudsman should be aled with the Supreme
Court.”

What this effectively means is that there is now limited remedy for occials criminally charged with corruption.
But the Supreme Court kept the CA’s power to review the administrative decisions of the Ombudsman.

So occials dismissed or suspended from occe could still ask for a review or reversal by the CA. (READ:
Cleared of corruption? Martires will no longer appeal to Supreme Court)
Gatchalian petition

The High Court reiterated this rule as the en banc denied the petition of Senator Sherwin Gatchalian. The
senator wanted the CA to stop his graft charges related to the allegedly irregular sale of their family’s thrift
bank to the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) in 2009.

The appellate court denied Gatchalian’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, which prompted the senator to run to
the SC to review the CA’s power.

In 2015, the Supreme Court declared Section 14 of the Ombudsman law unconstitutional. That provision used
to prohibit any court to hear “any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or andings of the
Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court."

In essence, the Supreme Court gave the CA the power to review Ombudsman actions, which is what Gatchalian
argued in his petition.

“A thorough reading of the decision...would reveal that it was limited in its application – that it was meant to
cover only decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in administrative cases,” the en banc said.

Gatchalian has already been cleared of criminal liability by the Sandiganbayan, which means the Supreme
Court’s latest decision is moot insofar as the senator’s cases go, but it sets a precedent for future corruption
cases. – Rappler.com

Leave a comment ∠

Help us improve this website