People of the Philippines v. Romeo G.

Jalosjos
G.R. Nos. 132875-76
Justice Ynares-Santiago
November 16, 2001

FACTS:
Rosilyn Delantar, an eleven-year-old girl, was brought by his foster father, Simplicio Delantar, for a
prospective movie career under the production of the accused-appellant, Romeo Jalosjos, to Ritz
Towers through a talent manager, Eduardo Suarez. To help Rosilyn in her career to become an
actress, this led to several meetings between Rosilyn and accused-appellant at Ritz Towers where
SImplicio would initially bring Rosilyn to the condominium and would fetch her the day afterwards.

During those several meetings, accused-appellant would make Rosilyn change shirt into wearing a
long pulled-down shirt, bathe her, kiss her lips, fondle her breasts, insert his fingers into her vagina,
sway and pressed his penis into her vagina, and even ejaculate toward her thighs. Afterwards, the
accused-appellant would simply instruct her to go to sleep and left money at the table the day after
when she will be fetching by Simplicio.

On one fateful day where the supposed meeting did not take place between her and accused-
appellant, Rosilyn ran away from her home with the aid of one the boarders of Simplicio and report
the sexual assaults of the accused-appellant to Pasay City Police. This led to an investigation by the
NBI and Rosilyn thereafter was taken under the custody of DSWD. There are 12 counts of acts of
lasciviousness and 2 counts of rape that was charged against accused-appellant upon finding
probable cause.

The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant of 2 counts of rape and 6 counts of acts of
lasciviousness. As to the other 6 counts of acts of lasciviousness, the accused-appellant was
acquitted due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

To buttress his defense, accused-appellant raised the defense of denial and alibi stating that he was
on a different place when the incident occurred and that it was his brother, Dominador Jalosjos, who
was actually met by Rosilyn during those several meetings. Accused-appellant in his conviction of 2
counts of rape, contended that, among others, there is absence of the allegation of rape in the five
sworn statements made by Rosilyn and that her testimony in saying that he “idinikit,” itinutok,” idiniin-
diin” his penis at her vagina does not consummate rape.

ISSUE:
Whether or not accused-appellant was guilty of statutory rape?

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified the penalty of
indemnification to 50,000 for each count of acts of lasciviousness.

The testimony of Rosilyn that she felt pain inside her vagina as corroborated in her sworn statements
is indicative of penetration.

At the time of commission of the crimes complained of herein in 1996, statutory rape was penalized
under Section 11 of R.A. 7659, which amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

When and how rape is committed. --- Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

In statutory rape, mere sexual congress with a woman below twelve years of age consummates the
crime of statutory rape regardless of her consent to the act or lack of it. The law presumes that a
woman of tender age does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to
the sexual act. Thus, it was held that carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old even if she is
engaged in prostitution is still considered statutory rape. The application of force and intimidation or
the deprivation of reason of the victim becomes irrelevant. The absence of struggle or outcry of the
victim or even her passive submission to the sexual act will not mitigate nor absolve the accused from
liability.

In the case at bar, the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had
carnal knowledge of Rosilyn. Moreover, the prosecution successfully proved that Rosilyn was only
eleven years of age at the time she was sexually abused. As such, the absence of proof of any
struggle, or for that matter of consent or passive submission to the sexual advances of accused-
appellant, was of no moment. The fact that accused-appellant had sexual congress with eleven year-
old Rosilyn is sufficient to hold him liable for statutory rape, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.