Same; Same; Absence of victims resistance. The law does not impose upon
the victim the burden of proving resistance. Absence of resistance does not
constitute voluntary submission to the perpetrators lust.
FACTS: Two criminal charges were filed against defendants for the alleged
rape of a 13 year old girl in her residence at the Province of Albay, on or
about February 22, 2006.
The victim, on her testimony, stated that she was awaken when
Barberan and Delos Santos entered her room. She was not able to resist or
cry for help from her relatives since Barberan held her hands and covered
her mouth while Delos Santos raped her, after him Barberan took his turn.
She admitted her willingness to keep the crime in secrecy were it not for
the accused boasting that she had lost her virginity on their hands and is
spreading rumors about her. These rumors prompted her parents to
confront the victim and it was revealed that she was indeed raped. Thus,
the complaint was filed against the accused.
The trial court held the accused guilty. This decision was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals. Hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court, where the
defendants allege that they could not be convicted because of the absence
of direct proof except the victims inconsistent testimony. They also contend
that it was physically impossible for them to commit the crime since they
were not in the area when it was allegedly committed.
Issue:
HELD: