G.R. No. 118946 October 16, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICO JAMLAN SALEM, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Rico Jamlan Salem was charged with and found guilty of rape by the trial court and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution’s version, as narrated by the complaining witness Mirasol Sabellano, is that on August 13, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., she was sent by her mother to buy sugar at a nearby store. Outside her fence, Salem waited for her, pulled her to a grassy area, forced her to lie down, went on top of her, removed her clothes, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She resisted but could not match his force and was threatened with death. Afterward, she was found by people with torches and brought home. The following day, she gave a statement to the police. The defense version, presented by Salem, is that he and Mirasol were sweethearts since May 21, 1994, and the sexual encounter on August 13 was consensual, being their second such encounter. He claimed they met by agreement, rode his bicycle to a coconut grove, and had sex after he promised to marry her. On their way home, they were met by Mirasol’s enraged father. Two trisikad drivers testified to seeing a man and a woman happily riding a bicycle that evening. The trial court convicted Salem, giving full credence to Mirasol’s uncorroborated testimony and finding force and intimidation proven by the threat to kill her if she shouted.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt, specifically whether the carnal knowledge was accomplished through force or intimidation.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Rico Jamlan Salem on reasonable doubt. The Court held that the indispensable element of force or intimidation was not established. The Court scrutinized the complainant’s testimony and found the alleged threat or intimidation to be more fantasy than real, as the accused was unarmed, holding a bicycle with one hand, and the complainant had opportunities to seek help from a nearby store or neighbors but did not. The sequence of events regarding the removal of her clothes was deemed discordant and defied logic. The Court noted the absence of any physical evidence of violence and considered the possibility that the charge was a contrivance after the relationship was uncovered by the parents who were against it. The presumption of innocence was not overcome, as the prosecution’s evidence failed to stand on its own merits.