327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination
CAN
A VICTIM’S FAILURE TO FLEE, RESIST, OR SHOUT NEGATE A RAPE CHARGE, EVEN WHEN
THE ACCUSED IS HER OWN UNCLE?
People
of the Philippines vs. Leo Ibañez y Morales
FACTS
OF THE CASE
In
four separate Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Bacolod City, Leo Ibañez y Morales was charged with four counts of qualified
rape committed against his 17-year-old niece, AAA, between March and May
2003 in Negros Occidental. Each complaint alleged the use of a deadly weapon,
the victim’s minority, and the relationship of the accused to the
victim—qualifying circumstances under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC).
The
prosecution presented the victim AAA, who narrated in vivid detail how Ibañez
repeatedly entered their home when she was alone, threatened her with a knife,
and raped her. She testified to four distinct instances of rape, all under
similar circumstances of intimidation and abuse. Her account was bolstered by
medical evidence presented by Dr. Maguad, showing old hymenal lacerations
consistent with sexual abuse.
Ibañez
denied the accusations, claiming alibi and asserting that the charges were
fabricated due to a land dispute with AAA’s father. He claimed he was working
at a resort far from AAA's home during the incidents. He also raised the
improbability of the rape, citing what he deemed were unreasonable and passive
responses from AAA—such as allegedly letting him inside the house again or
failing to shout for help.
The
RTC rejected Ibañez’s defense, emphasizing the strength of AAA’s consistent and
categorical testimony, as well as the medical findings corroborating her
claims. The court convicted him of four counts of qualified rape,
imposing reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each
count, and awarded civil, moral, and exemplary damages.
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, modifying
only the damages, increasing each to ₱100,000.00 and adding legal
interest.
Still
contesting the verdict, Ibañez brought the case before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
Whether
or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of
accused-appellant Leo Ibañez y Morales for four counts of qualified rape
despite the victim’s failure to flee, shout, or physically resist.
SUPREME
COURT'S RULING
The
Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that lack of
resistance does not equate to consent. AAA's failure to flee or cry for
help was not indicative of consent but rather of the coercive environment
created by Ibañez, who used a knife and held moral ascendancy over her as an
uncle.
The
Court stressed that reactions to sexual assault vary, and no standard
behavior should be imposed on rape victims. It underscored that the core
element of rape is lack of consent, not the presence of injuries or
overt resistance.
The
accused’s denial and alibi were found weak and unsubstantiated. The Court also
reaffirmed the credibility of AAA’s testimony, consistent with settled
jurisprudence giving weight to a victim's lone but credible testimony in rape
cases.
DISPOSITIVE
PORTION
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The
Court of Appeals’ December 21, 2016 Decision in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 02169 is AFFIRMED.
Accused-appellant
Leo Ibañez y Morales is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of four
counts of qualified rape, punished under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code. He is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole,
for each count.
He
is also DIRECTED to pay the victim, for each count, ₱100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, ₱100,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱100,000.00 as
exemplary damages, plus 6% interest per annum from finality of
judgment until fully paid.
Should
the criminal justice system adopt stronger protocols to protect victims of
sexual abuse from being discredited based on stereotypical behaviors expected
of "ideal" rape victims?
IMPORTANT
DOCTRINES
- "Resistance
is not an element of rape." “Lack of resistance does not negate rape. The main
element is lack of consent.”
(People v. Quintos)
- "Credibility
of the victim outweighs denial." “A credible testimony of a rape
victim, especially when corroborated by medical findings, is sufficient to
sustain a conviction.”
(People v. Arlee)
- "Minor
inconsistencies do not impair credibility." “Discrepancies in minor details do not
affect the veracity of a victim’s categorical and consistent testimony.”
(People v. Corpuz)
- "Moral
ascendancy equals force."
“Rape may be committed through moral coercion where the offender has
influence over the victim, especially in cases involving relatives.”
CLASSIFICATION:
Criminal Law
