G.R. No.
177138 January 26, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JOEL GUILLERMO, Appellant.
CORONA, J.:
Facts: AAA testified that when she was 13 years of age, she and appellant, who is her first cousin, lived
at her grandparents’ house. She, with her siblings, slept in the sala illuminated by a kerosene lamp. On
three separate occasions, she woke up in the middle of the night to find the appellant wielding a knife
and removing her clothes and blanket. He subsequently forced her to engage in sexual intercourse with
him. The appellant threatened to kill her and the rest of her family if she reported the incident. Because
she believed the threats of the appellant, she kept quiet about the incidents until her elementary school
teacher noticed that she was pregnant. AAA revealed to her the dastardly acts of the appellant. She
accompanied AAA to report the matter to her father. They then proceeded to the police station to file
the complaint. Dr. Ganciñia testified that AAA disclosed that appellant forced her to engage in sexual
relations with him. She found that AAA had cervical lacerations and confirmed that AAA was 5 to 6
months pregnant.
BBB testified that on September 28, 1998, when she was 12 years old, appellant sexually abused her.
She lived at her grandparents house. At night, she slept in the sala (which was illuminated by a kerosene
lamp) beside her siblings. One evening, she woke up as she felt someone licking her genitals. To her
surprise, she discovered that her clothes had been removed and appellant was on top of her. Appellant
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Throughout the entire ordeal, appellant was holding a
knife and threatening to kill her and her family if she told anyone about the incident. Dr. Ganciñia
testified that, after examining BBB she found four healed lacerations in the child’s cervix.
For its part, the defense argued that AAA was the sweetheart of appellant, and they had four sexual
encounters when she accepted his love proposal. He insisted on the validity of the affidavit of desistance
by AAA.
With respect to BBB’s accusation, appellant said that BBB was like a sister and he treated her
accordingly. He was not aware of any reason for her to accuse him of molesting her.
Issue: Is the defense of the accused tenable?
Held: No. The "sweetheart theory" is an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently
places on the accused the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence.
Appellant presented no evidence to substantiate his claim.
Furthermore, the Court does not look with favor on affidavits of retraction. Recanted testimony is highly
questionable because it can be secured through monetary considerations. It is dangerous for courts to
reject testimonies solemnly given before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses who made
them change their minds later on. Such a rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the
investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. Here, the affidavit of retraction was
precisely executed by AAA in exchange for financial assistance and land (which she never received).
Appellant’s guilt of the crime of simple rape through force or intimidation has been established beyond
reasonable doubt. Inasmuch as the minority of both AAA and BBB was not proven and their relationship
with appellant was outside the scope of Article 14 of the RPC and Article 266-B of RA No 8353, these
circumstances cannot be considered as aggravating circumstances.
Nonetheless, the victims are entitled to exemplary damages since appellant used a deadly weapon to
perpetrate the offense. While the use of a deadly weapon is not one of the generic aggravating
circumstances in Article 14 of the RPC, under Article 266-B thereof, the presence of such circumstance in
the commission of rape increases the penalty, provided that it has been alleged in the Information and
proved during trial. Thus, even if the use of a deadly weapon is not alleged in the Information but is
proven during the trial, it may be appreciated to justify the award of civil liability, particularly exemplary
damages.
In this instance, while the Information did not state that appellant possessed a deadly weapon, the
prosecution sufficiently established that he threatened his victims with a knife in order to facilitate the
commission of his bestial acts and cow his victims into silence. Inasmuch as appellant may not be
sentenced to death, the presence of such circumstance justifies the award of exemplary damages.
