PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

VS
HEINRICH S. RITTER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
G.R. No. 88582, March 5, 1991

GUTIERREZ, JR., J:

FACTS:
On March 29,1989, the trial court in Olongapo City held that Ritter was guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape with Homicide defined and penalized in Art. 335
No. of the RPC, and was sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify the
heirs of Rosario Baluyot under the following information:
a. Ritter allegedly hired Rosario Baluyot along with Jessie Ramirez for sexual favors
on or about Oct. 10,1986 in the city of Olongapo
b. Rosario Baluyot was under 12 years of age at the time the crime was committed
constituting statutory rape.
c. Ritter inserted a sexual vibrator in the vaginal canal of Rosario Baluyot causing
her demise 7 months after the alleged offense.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Ritter committed rape
2. Whether or not Ritter committed homicide
3. Whether or not Ritter is liable for civil damages
RULING:
1. NO. The court held that Ritter was not liable for statutory rape nor rape because the
prosecution could not prove that Rosario Baluyot was below 12 years of age at the time
of the alleged offense and that evidence showed that Rosario willingfully subjected
herself to the sexual advances of Ritter and even accepted P300 as payment the next
morning.
2. No. The court affirmed the claim of the defense that given the expert opinion with respect
to the time it takes for serious infection to impair the body due to insertion of a foreign
object in the vaginal canal, it is improbable that the death of the young girl was due to
the ordeal with Ritter. A medical witness also claimed that Rosario mentioned that it was
a “Negro” that inserted the vibrator 3 months prior to her death. Ritter was caucasian and
Austrian.
3. Yes. The actions of the appellant are contrary to morals, good customs, public order
and public policy violating Article 21 of the Civil Code. It should be noted that while
criminal liability may be extinguished, civil liability may still prevail as decided upon in
Urbano v. IAC, supra​.

E.C.