Art. 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed.

– Rape is committed:
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a. Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth
or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another
person.
On the evidence of rape as manifested by the condition of the female genitalia
Autopsy Report (Genital Examination)
Time of death: around 10:00am – January 1, 2021
Autopsy performed: 9:00am – January 2, 2021
1. Labia Majora: Presence of no abrasion
2. Labia Minora: The left side is (text ineligible)
3. Hymen: Presence of deep healed lacerations (underscoring mine — RT) at the 3, 6, and
9 o’clock position.
4. Anus: no evident signs of injury noted at the time of examination.
Prior to discussing the possibility of rape in the case at bar, it is important to note that the Court
has consistently considered that “We must bear in mind that the burden of proof is never shifted
and the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits. Whether the
accused's defense has merit is entirely irrelevant in a criminal case. It is fundamental that
the prosecution's case cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence
for the defense.” People v. Cruz, 736 Phil. 564, 571 (2014) citing People v. Painitan, 402 Phil.
297, 312 (2001); People v. Bormeo, 292-A Phil. 691, 702-703 (2014) citing People v. Quintal,
211 Phil. 79, 94 (1983); People v. Garcia, 289 Phil. 819, 830 (1992).
The court has iterated the manner in which the crime of rape can be committed.
Thus, rape under the RPC, as amended, can be committed in two ways:
(1) Article 266-A paragraph 1 refers to rape through sexual intercourse, also known as "organ
rape" or "penile rape." The central element in rape through sexual intercourse is carnal
knowledge, which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
(2) Article 266-A paragraph 2 refers to rape by sexual assault, also called "instrument or object
rape," or "gender-free rape." It must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in
sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1. (People v. Caoili, G.R. No. 196342 (2017)
In the instant case, the prosecution moves for the charge of rape by the first manner of
committing the same or “organ rape” or “penile rape”, as mentioned in the immediately
preceding paragraph. It is therefore essential that the central element thereof or “carnal
knowledge” be proven by the prosecution to have occurred on the alleged victim at the
time of the alleged crime, Christine Dacera, beyond reasonable doubt.
Time and time again the Court has iterated that “For one, hymenal injury has never been an
element of rape, for a female might still be raped without such injury resulting. The essence of
rape is carnal knowledge of a female either against her will (through force or intimidation) or
without her consent (where the female is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious [as is
apparently the theory being alleged by the prosecution], or is under 12 years of age, or is
demented).” (People v. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011; see also People v.
Masalihit, G.R. No. 124329, December 14, 1998, 300 SCRA 147, 155; People v. Flores, Jr.,
G.R. No.128823-24, December 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 325, 333.)
Medical experts have consistently held that deep healed lacerations indicate that such damage
to the hymen occurred five (5) to ten (10) days from the time of the injury. Logic would dictate
that such laceration could not and did not happen at the time of the alleged crime, as it would
have occurred days before to manifest such degree of healing. Coupled with the absence of
other facts and circumstances that would support the theory, rape is but a baseless accusation
and should not be further entertained by the court.
While the court has held that “the fact that her hymenal injury was not fresh but already deep-
healed was not incompatible with the evidence of rape by him. In this regard, her claim that he
had previously subjected her to similar sexual assaults several times before May 29, 2002,
albeit not the subject of this prosecution, rendered the absence of fresh hymenal injury not
improbable even as it showed how the deep-healed laceration might have been caused.”
(People v. Taguilid, G.R. No. 181544) Such conclusion presupposes prior sexual abuse by the
offender or offenders, which is not the case here.
In a CCTV footage provided for by the hotel wherein the alleged victim and suspects were
staying, it can be seen that Christine was initially very well in control of her mental faculties and
showed no signs of being deprived of her will nor otherwise forced to be in the hotel rooms nor
deprived of her liberty by any means. It can even be validly concluded, based on the same
footage, that she was willfully and happily hopping from room to room while playfully interacting
with some of the suspects, a behavior which is inconsistent with a victim of prior sexual abuse
with the same perpetrator. Hence, the holding by the Court in the immediately preceding
paragraph does not hold water in the case at bar.
Absent any other showing that the crime of rape was committed, the evidence currently
available cannot sustain the charge of rape unless other more conclusive and reliable evidence
is presented in the case.