In the case of People of the Philippines v. Dominador Domended y Velasco, the Supreme Court affirmed that the slightest penetration of the female genitalia, even by a flaccid penis, constitutes rape under Philippine law. This ruling emphasizes that lack of full erection does not negate the crime of rape, reinforcing the protection afforded to victims and highlighting the importance of consent in sexual acts. The Court underscored that any physical intrusion, however minimal, without consent, is a violation punishable by law, setting a clear precedent for future rape cases.

When a ‘Soft’ Assault Shatters Consent: Examining the Boundaries of Rape

The case revolves around Dominador Domended’s appeal against his conviction for rape. The complainant, Lina Casupang, a 15-year-old girl from Pangasinan, testified that Dominador, her employer, forcibly raped her. The defense argued that inconsistencies in Lina’s statements and a supposed extortion attempt by her family should cast doubt on her credibility. Dominador also claimed that the sexual encounter was consensual, a narrative the Court found unconvincing. The central legal question was whether the act constituted rape, given the defense’s claim that penetration was not fully achieved due to the accused’s “soft” penis.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of inconsistencies in Lina’s statements, particularly regarding whether penetration occurred. The Court acknowledged the discrepancies between Lina’s initial affidavit and her court testimony but emphasized that affidavits are generally inferior to testimonies given in open court. Citing People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 128900, 14 July 2000, the Court reiterated that affidavits are ex parte and often executed under circumstances not conducive to accuracy. The Court gave more weight to Lina’s explanation that she initially lied out of fear, stating:

“x x x because when my statement was taken, I was so afraid so I lied, but now I am no longer afraid.”

This underscored the importance of considering the context in which statements are made, especially in sensitive cases like rape.

Building on this, the Court tackled the argument that a lack of full erection meant rape could not have occurred. The Court firmly rejected this notion, citing established jurisprudence that even the slightest penetration constitutes rape. The Court highlighted the testimonies showing the insertion of the penis into the victim’s vagina. The court also referenced People v. Clopino, G.R. No. 117322, 21 May 1998, 290 SCRA 432 and People v. Calma, G.R. No. 127126, 17 September 1998, 295 SCRA 629, stating:

“It is settled that the slightest penetration of the lips of the female organ or of the labia of the pudendum constitutes rape.”

Therefore, the degree of erection was deemed irrelevant, as any non-consensual penetration, however minimal, satisfies the legal definition of rape.

The defense’s attempt to portray the case as a result of a family feud and extortion was also dismissed. The Court found no credible evidence to support these claims and noted that the offer to negotiate a settlement came from the accused’s wife, not the victim’s family. The Court also pointed out that any negotiations occurred after the crime was committed, and thus, could not undermine the victim’s credibility. The Court further emphasized that the complainant reported the incident to the police immediately, indicating a genuine desire for justice rather than a scheme for extortion.

Finally, the Court addressed the defense’s claim that the sexual encounter was consensual, often referred to as the “sweetheart theory.” The Court found this claim implausible, considering the complainant’s age, her recent employment, and the circumstances of the alleged encounter. The Court highlighted the absurdity of two lovers choosing a rain-drenched and dirty lot for a consensual sexual encounter. Quoting People v. Maglantay, G.R. No. 125537, 8 March 1999, 304 SCRA 279, the Court stated that this defense

“rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience.”

The Court concluded that the complainant’s immediate reporting of the incident and her overall conduct were inconsistent with a consensual encounter.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the act constituted rape, considering the defense’s claim that penetration was not fully achieved due to the accused’s “soft” penis. The court had to determine if lack of full erection negates the crime of rape under Philippine law.
Did the Supreme Court find the accused guilty of rape?	Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the accused Dominador Domended guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay damages to the victim.
What does Philippine law say about the degree of penetration required for rape?	Philippine law states that the slightest penetration of the female genitalia constitutes rape. The Court clarified that a flaccid penis can still cause sufficient penetration to satisfy the legal definition of rape.
How did the Court address the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements?	The Court acknowledged the inconsistencies but gave more weight to the victim’s court testimony, as she explained that she initially lied out of fear. Affidavits are considered less reliable than in-court testimonies because they are ex parte.
What was the “sweetheart theory” presented by the defense?	The “sweetheart theory” was the defense’s claim that the sexual encounter was consensual, implying a romantic relationship. The Court dismissed this as implausible, considering the circumstances and the victim’s immediate reporting of the incident.
Did the Court consider the alleged extortion attempt by the victim’s family?	The Court acknowledged that negotiations for a settlement occurred but noted that these happened after the crime. The Court also found that the offer to negotiate came from the accused’s wife.
What is the significance of the victim reporting the incident immediately?	The victim’s immediate reporting of the incident to the police was a crucial factor in establishing her credibility. It demonstrated a genuine desire for justice and contradicted the defense’s claims of a consensual encounter or an extortion scheme.
What damages were awarded to the victim in this case?	The accused was ordered to pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 for moral damages. These damages are intended to compensate the victim for the physical and emotional harm suffered.

This case serves as a crucial reminder that consent is paramount in sexual interactions, and any form of non-consensual penetration, regardless of its extent, constitutes a grave violation. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the legal protection afforded to victims of sexual assault and clarifies the boundaries of what constitutes rape under Philippine law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Domended, G.R. No. 137564, March 30, 2001