G.R. No. 114936; February 20, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMY ANDRES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Romy Andres was charged with four counts of rape. After a consolidated trial, the Regional Trial Court acquitted him in three cases but convicted him in Criminal Case No. 776-19 for rape allegedly committed in February 1988. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of the complainant, Ruwerose A. Corpuz. She testified that in February 1988, while she was fetching vegetables, appellant, armed with a knife, pulled her into a house, covered her mouth, removed her clothing, and had carnal knowledge of her. She was eleven years old at the time. She reported the incident to her grandmother that same night. A medico-legal report later indicated an old hymenal laceration and other signs consistent with sexual penetration.
The appellant denied the February 1988 incident. He admitted to having sexual intercourse with the complainant on two later occasions in 1989 but claimed it was consensual, alleging they were lovers. He argued on appeal that the trial court erred in convicting him despite the complainant’s implied consent to the sexual act.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of rape for the incident in February 1988.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The appellant was convicted under the third paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines statutory rape. The legal logic is clear: for statutory rape, only two elements must be proven: (1) carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) that the woman was under twelve years of age at the time of the act. The complainant’s birth certificate conclusively established she was eleven in February 1988. The Court found her testimony credible, detailed, and corroborated by the medico-legal findings of an old hymenal laceration, which evidenced penetration.
The appellant’s defense of implied consent is irrelevant and without merit in statutory rape. The law presumes that a child below twelve cannot give intelligent consent to a sexual act; thus, consent is not a defense. The voluntariness of the child is immaterial. The mere fact of sexual intercourse with a girl under twelve constitutes the crime. The Court also noted the unlikelihood of a young, inexperienced girl fabricating a story of defloration and undergoing the ordeal of a public trial unless motivated by a genuine desire for justice. Therefore, the conviction for statutory rape was upheld.