GR 54161; (March, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 54161 -62, March 9, 1989
People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Ymana y Mangaoang
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Ernesto Ymana, was convicted by the trial court of Rape (Criminal Case No. U-1430) and Acts of Lasciviousness (Criminal Case No. U-1430-A). The complainant, Florita Ymana, his second cousin, alleged that on June 28, 1978, the appellant lured her to a neighbor’s house to pick lice, then forcibly pushed her into a room and had sexual intercourse with her twice. The following day, June 29, she claimed the appellant again accosted her at another neighbor’s house, pushed her to the kitchen, and performed a push-and-pull movement behind her while attempting to force her to hold his penis. The medical certificate confirmed the complainant was no longer a virgin but showed only healed hymenal lacerations and no fresh injuries indicative of recent force or violence. The defense was a sweeping denial, with the appellant testifying he never saw the complainant at the locations on the stated dates.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused for the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED the appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the prosecution must prove carnal knowledge and that it was accomplished by force or intimidation. The medical findings were critically examined and found to be inconclusive and non-incriminatory. The certificate indicated only old, healed lacerations and no signs of recent trauma, violence, or physical struggle, such as bruises, abrasions, or torn clothing. The absence of any external or physical sign of the employment of force created reasonable doubt as to the commission of rape.
Furthermore, the complainant’s conduct was deemed inconsistent with that of a victim of recent sexual assault. The Court found it incomprehensible that, if she had been raped on June 28, she would voluntarily return to a similar situation with the appellant the very next day without raising an alarm, fleeing, or offering any outcry. This lack of instinctive resistance or protest suggested consent and was contrary to ordinary human behavior following a traumatic violation. The totality of the evidence failed to establish the element of force or lack of consent beyond moral certainty. Consequently, the reasonable doubt warranted acquittal.