View full case

PEOPLE v. JUAN RICHARD TIONLOC Y MARQUEZ

FACTS:

This case involves an appeal by Juan Richard Tionloc y Marquez ("appellant") against the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) finding appellant guilty of rape. The case centers around the rape committed against "AAA," with the prosecutors alleging rape through sexual intercourse under paragraph 1(b) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The appellant, however, is charged with rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2 of the same provision. Appellant pleaded not guilty and denied raping "AAA."

According to the prosecution's version of events, "AAA" was having a drinking session with appellant and another person, Elvis James Meneses ("Meneses"), when she felt dizzy and took a nap. She was awakened by Meneses who was raping her. She felt pain and feared resisting due to a knife nearby. After Meneses left, appellant approached her and asked for sex. Appellant stopped when she tried to move her body. "AAA" immediately reported the incident to the police and underwent a medical examination which revealed two lacerations in her hymen.

The defense, on the other hand, claimed that appellant was having a drinking session with his cousin when Meneses and "AAA" arrived and joined them. Appellant alleged that he saw Meneses and "AAA" having sex, but nothing more happened. Meneses corroborated this version of events.

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape through sexual intercourse against "AAA" based on her credible and consistent testimony. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, stating that discrepancies in "AAA's" statements did not impair her credibility. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, insisting on his innocence and arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the required evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the discrepancy in the designation of the crime in the Information violates the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

  2. Whether the alleged victim's silence and lack of resistance can be considered as consent to the sexual act.

  3. Whether the age gap between the victim and the appellant negates force, threat, or intimidation.

  4. Whether the victim's drunkenness should have deprived her of her will power to give consent.

RULING:

  1. The discrepancy in the designation of the crime in the Information does not violate the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The allegations in the Information charged the accused with rape through sexual intercourse, and these allegations determine the nature of the crime committed.

  2. The Court held that the victim's silence and lack of resistance cannot be considered as consent to the sexual act. The Court stated that a mere attempt to resist is not sufficient, and resistance must be manifested and tenacious. However, in this case, the victim did not resist from the start and did not show any rejection of the appellant's advances until the middle of their sexual intercourse. It would be unfair to convict the appellant of rape when the victim gave him the impression of her consent through her silence and only changed her mind later.

  3. The Court ruled that the age gap between the victim and the appellant negates force, threat, or intimidation. The victim insinuated that she felt shivering after the sexual intercourse but did not attribute it to force, threat, or intimidation from the appellant. Furthermore, their age difference, with the victim being older and their friendship, contradicts the presence of force, threat, or intimidation.

  4. The Court held that the victim's drunkenness should have deprived her of her will power to give consent. However, the Court found that the victim was only tipsy or drunk and failed to show that she was completely deprived of her will power. The evidence did not establish the gravity of her condition or her immobility during the alleged rape.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The character of the crime is determined by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information, not by the caption or preamble or the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated.

  • In rape cases alleging force, threat, or intimidation, the prosecution must establish that the element of voluntariness on the part of the victim is absolutely lacking. The prosecution must prove that force or intimidation was actually employed by the accused upon the victim to achieve his end. Failure to do so is fatal to the prosecution's case.

  • Force, as an element of rape, must be sufficient to consummate the purposes which the accused had in mind. Intimidation includes the moral kind, such as the fear caused by threatening the victim with a knife or pistol.

  • Resistance should be made before the rape is consummated. If there is no resistance, it may be inferred that the sexual acts were done with the victim's consent.

  • Resistance to sexual advances must be manifested and tenacious. A mere attempt to resist is not sufficient.

  • The age gap between the victim and the accused may negate the presence of force, threat, or intimidation.

  • Drunkenness may only be considered in rape cases if it deprives the victim of her will power to give consent.