G.R. No. 123803 February 26, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pastor Jerusalem Medel, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The complainant, Axel Rose Rula, and the appellant, Pastor Jerusalem Medel, were members of the Student Missionary Outreach (SMO). On November 7, 1993, they, along with Reverend Alejo Calopes, traveled to Tadian, Mountain Province, for a mission. On their return trip on November 9, they stopped in Baguio City. After Rev. Calopes departed for Manila, appellant and complainant were left alone. They checked into Veny’s Inn to temporarily deposit their belongings. According to the prosecution, after returning to the inn from sightseeing and dinner, appellant emerged from the bathroom in his brief, declared his desire for her, locked the door, and forcibly raped her despite her pleas and struggles, choking her and delivering a blow to her shoulder. He threatened her to keep silent. After the incident, they checked out and took a bus to Manila, where complainant cried throughout the trip. Complainant’s aunt, Gloria Trayco, later noticed blood stains on her clothes and a hematoma on her shoulder, which complainant initially attributed to a fall and menstruation. Complainant’s behavior changed, and she eventually revealed the rape to her aunt on April 22, 1994, leading to a report to the NBI. A medico-legal examination revealed an old-healed hymenal laceration consistent with the alleged rape date. Appellant denied the charge, claiming their sexual intercourse was consensual. He testified that complainant had a crush on him, volunteered to pay for the inn room, and that they engaged in intimate acts, including kissing in a movie theater and consensual sex twice at the inn. He stated their relationship became more intimate after the trip.

ISSUE

Whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, i.e., whether the sexual intercourse was forced or consensual.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED appellant Jerusalem Medel on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the element of force or intimidation. The complainant’s conduct before, during, and after the alleged rape was inconsistent with that of a victim who had been forcibly assaulted. The Court noted her initial reluctance to get a room was overcome, she went sightseeing and dined with appellant without reporting any threat, registered at the inn herself, and did not attempt to escape or seek help during several opportunities. Her subsequent visits to appellant’s house for vaccines and her delay in reporting the incident for over five months, despite having confidantes, undermined her credibility. The medical findings only confirmed sexual intercourse, not force. While appellant’s conduct was morally reprehensible, the evidence did not establish his guilt for rape beyond reasonable doubt.