When the victim of rape is under 18 years of age and the offender is a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, the latter shall suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection.
However, such relationship must not only be expressly alleged in the information or charge sheet, but must be established by clear, positive and more stringent proof. This case of Rolando explains this rule.
Rolando was accused of raping 14-year-old Jasmine by having sexual intercourse with her while she was sleeping in one of two rooms in a house her family was renting. Rolando accomplished his lustful desires about two o'clock in the early morning despite Jasmine's resistance because of force threats and intimidation to kill her pointing at her a "buntot page".
The initial complaint or information filed against Rolando was amended so as to expressly allege that the accused (Rolando) is "a relative of the offended party within the third civil degree", because he was the brother in-law of Jasmine the victim.
During the trial Jasmine was able to prove and to convince the court that the sexual intercourse was done thru force and intimidation despite Rolando's avowal that Jasmine consented to it and even encouraged his advances. To establish the relationship of Rolando to Jasmine, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Jasmine herself who declared that Rolando is the "husband of my sister". Also presented as proof was the testimony of Jasmine's mother who stated that Rolando is "the husband of my daughter". Aside from these testimonies, the prosecution also submitted a letter of Rolando to Jasmine's parents addressing them as "mama at papa" and his use of the phrase "ang inyong manugang, Rolando".
According to the trial court, these testimonies and letter are enough proof to establish that Rolando is a relative by affinity of Jasmine within the third civil degree. So it sentenced Rolando to death. Was the lower court correct?
No. Affinity is defined as the "relationship which the spouse has to the blood relatives of the other because of marriage. The connection is existing, in consequence of marriage between each of the married persons and the kindred of the other. The doctrine of affinity grows out of the canonical maxim that marriage makes husband and wife one. The husband has the same relation by affinity to his wife's blood relatives as she has by consanguinity and vice versa".
Considering that the relationship of the accused to the victim qualifies the crime of rape punishable by reclusion perpetua to rape punishable by death, it is but proper that a more stringent proof of relationship between the offender and the offended party must be established by the prosecutor. Corollary, a clearer proof of relationship between the complainant and the spouse of the accused must be presented. In this case the relationship of Rolando and Jasmine is not adequately substantial since it is merely based on the testimony of Jasmine, her mother's testimony and Rolando's use of the words "mama and papa" in his letters to Jasmine's parents. Needless to say, the evidence presented are not sufficient to dispel doubts about the true relationship of Rolando and Jasmine, to the benefit of which Rolando is entitled. Where the life of an accused hangs in the balance, a more exacting proof must be adduced. So Rolando should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua only and not death by lethal injection (People of the Philippines vs. Berana G.R. 123544 July 29, 1999).
By this ruling, the Supreme Court seems to imply that the prosecution should have presented a clear and positive proof that Jasmine, the complainant, and the spouse of Rolando are sisters.
Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: sison@ipaglabanmo.org.