People vs. Nuyte (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NELSON NUYTE

G.R. No. 219111, March 12, 2018

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Facts: An Information was filed charging appellant as follows: on May 3, 2004 at more or less 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, x x x Province of Albay, Philippines, the above named accused, with lewd and unchaste design, by means of intimidation, coercion, influence and other consideration, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with "AAA", x x x 14 years old, x x x against her will and consent, act which debased and degraded her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.

Theirs was a consensual sex, appellant admitted. In fact their sexual congress happened several times, usually at noontime in the same grassy place where AAA tethers the cows.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of rape and/or child abuse.

Ruling: Yes. Infliction of physical injury is not an essential element of rape. The narration of AAA established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of rape, to wit: appellant had carnal knowledge of "AAA" through force and intimidation, and without her consent and against her will. The "sweetheart theory" claimed by appellant is futile. It was never substantiated by the evidence on record. The alleged love letter supposedly written by "AAA" was never presented in court.

In this case, the victim was 14 years old when the crime was committed. Following People vs. Abay, appellant may either be charged with violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or with rape under Article 266-A of the RPC. In such instance, the court must examine the evidence of the prosecution, whether it focused on the specific force or intimidation employed by the offender or on the broader scope of coercion or influence to have carnal knowledge with the victim. In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution in no uncertain terms focused on the force or intimidation employed by appellant against "AAA" under Article 266-A (1)(a) of the RPC. The prosecution, through the steadfast declaration of "AAA", was able to establish that the appellant forced her to lie down on a grassy ground and, at knifepoint, inserted his penis into her vagina. Appellant therefore, should be held guilty of rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the RPC and sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead of violation of Section 5(b)of RA 7610.

Ratio Decidendi: Tenacious resistance against rape is not required; neither is a determined or a persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA which affirmed the Decision of the RTC, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of rape and five counts of violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610.