G.R. No. 174861; April 11, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. REYNALDO OLESCO Y ANDAYANG, Appellant.

FACTS

On November 5, 2001, an Information was filed charging appellant Reynaldo Olesco with rape committed on or about October 17, 2001, in Parañaque City, by means of force and intimidation against the complainant “AAA,” then 18 years old. Appellant pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution evidence established that on October 17, 2001, at around 10:00 p.m., “AAA” was on her way home when someone pulled her and covered her mouth with a handkerchief, causing her to lose consciousness. She regained consciousness at around 11:00 p.m., finding herself naked beside the appellant inside a room near a bakery. Her body ached, especially her private part. She slapped appellant, who threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. She dressed and ran home, reporting the rape to her cousin and, two days later, to barangay officials and the police. A medico-legal examination conducted on October 20, 2001, by Dr. Jericho Angelito Q. Cordero revealed that “AAA” was in a non-virgin state physically and had a lacerated wound in her vagina with a healing period of 10 to 15 days, consistent with sexual intercourse and the time of the alleged crime.
The appellant denied the charge and invoked the “sweetheart defense.” He testified that he and “AAA” were lovers, having become sweethearts after three months of her buying bread from his bakery. He claimed that on the evening in question, “AAA” visited him at the bakery to ask him to accompany her to her province, and they merely talked in a room. He alleged they had consensual sexual intercourse on a prior occasion. He was arrested by barangay tanods the following day.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 258, in its September 23, 2003 Decision, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to pay “AAA” ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages. The RTC gave credence to “AAA’s” positive identification, straightforward testimony, and the corroborative medical findings, while rejecting the appellant’s sweetheart defense for lack of corroborative evidence.
The Court of Appeals, in its May 30, 2006 Decision, affirmed the RTC ruling in its entirety. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the appellant’s conviction for rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision.
The Court upheld the conviction, ruling that all elements of rape were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) sexual intercourse took place; (2) it was accomplished through force or intimidation; and (3) the victim was a woman. The Court found the testimony of “AAA” to be credible, clear, and consistent. Her account of being rendered unconscious, regaining consciousness naked and in pain beside the appellant, and being threatened was deemed sufficient to establish force and intimidation. Her failure to immediately report the crime was reasonably explained by her physical pain and fear.
The Court gave weight to the medico-legal findings, which corroborated “AAA’s” claim of recent sexual intercourse and physical trauma.
The appellant’s “sweetheart defense” was rejected for being uncorroborated and insufficient. The Court emphasized that such a defense requires compelling proof of both a romantic relationship and the victim’s consent to the specific sexual act in question. The appellant failed to present any corroborative evidence, such as love letters, photographs, or testimonies from his employer or co-workers, to substantiate his claim of a relationship. The Court reiterated that even if a relationship existed, it does not justify non-consensual sex, as “love is not a license for lust.”
The Court also found no merit in the appellant’s claim of a denial of due process regarding the mode of commission alleged in the Information. The variance between the allegation of force and intimidation and the proof of the victim being rendered unconscious did not prejudice the appellant’s right to prepare his defense, as the core fact of non-consensual sexual intercourse was established.
Thus, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages were affirmed.