G.R. No. 187540; September 1, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JESSIE BUSTILLO y AMBAL, Appellant.

FACTS

On February 19, 2004, in Quezon City, appellant Jessie Bustillo approached 16-year-old AAA on a bridge. He grabbed her, brought her under the bridge, and forcibly kissed and undressed her. AAA cried and pleaded for mercy, but appellant threatened to throw her into the river if she made noise. He then proceeded to have carnal knowledge with her against her will. Immediately after the incident, AAA, accompanied by her sister, reported the rape to barangay officials and the police, leading to appellant’s apprehension in the early hours of February 20. A medical examination conducted on AAA revealed multiple abrasions on her neck and fresh lacerations on her hymen, with vaginal smears positive for spermatozoa, findings consistent with recent sexual intercourse.
Appellant denied the charge and raised the “sweetheart” defense, claiming AAA was his girlfriend and that the sexual act was consensual. He asserted that AAA had told him she was 18 years old. His friend, Jessie Templor, corroborated this claim, testifying that he saw appellant on top of AAA under the bridge and that AAA had visited appellant at his workplace previously.

ISSUE

The sole issue for resolution is whether the sexual intercourse between appellant and AAA was consummated through force, violence, or intimidation, thereby constituting rape, or whether it was consensual as claimed by the defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the sexual act was committed through force and intimidation, not consensually. The Court found AAA’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent. Her immediate reporting of the incident to authorities, coupled with her detailed sworn statement given just hours after the rape, demonstrated spontaneity and reinforced her lack of consent. The medical findings were pivotal, as the physical injuries on her neck and the fresh hymenal lacerations were objective corroboration of the force employed and her non-consent, contradicting the claim of a voluntary romantic encounter. The Court also noted the trial court’s observation of AAA’s childish and innocent demeanor, which made the “sweetheart” defense implausible, especially given the location and circumstances of the act. Appellant’s admission of carnal knowledge shifted the burden to him to prove consent, which he failed to do. The confluence of AAA’s credible testimony, her prompt outcry, and the corroborative medical evidence established the element of force and intimidation beyond reasonable doubt, warranting the affirmation of the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awarded damages.