IMPOTENCE AS A DEFENSE IN RAPE CASES SHOULD BE PROVED WITH

CERTAINTY

People v. Cruz
G.R. No. 186129, August 4, 2009
VELASCO, JR., J.

FACTS:
This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA which affirmed the Decision of the RTC
convicting accused-appellant, Jesus Paragas Cruz, of one (1) count of rape.
On June 6, 1998, AAA, then nine years old, was allegedly raped by Cruz at her house.
Afterwards, Cruz threatened to kill her should she report what had just happened. AAA
tried her best to keep the rape a secret but nevertheless, told her mother, BBB, what
happened to her a few months later. BBB took her daughter and reported the matter to
the authorities. A medical examination showed that AAA had hymenal lacerations.
During the trial, Cruz maintained that it was impossible for him to commit rape as he had
been sexually impotent since 1995. He also pointed to a land dispute he had with the
victims family as a possible reason for the fabricated charge. Cruzs wife corroborated
his testimony. The RTC found him guilty for the crime charged. He appealed to the CA
raising the issues that AAAs hymenal lacerations could have been caused by means
other than sexual intercourse, he is impotent, and the corroboration of two other
witnesses should not be disregarded. The CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC. Hence,
this appeal.

ISSUE:
Was impotency as a defense of the accused-appellant proved with certainty as not to
convict him of the crime of rape?

HELD:
No. As a defense, impotence is both a physical and medical question that should be
satisfactorily established with the aid of an expert and competent testimony. Impotency
as a defense in rape cases must likewise be proved with certainty to overcome the
presumption in favor of potency.
In this case, while Cruz was indeed diagnose as suffering from erectile dysfunction, this
does not preclude the possibility of his having sexual intercourse with AAA. As the CA
observed, AAA was raped in 1998 while the medical examination of Cruz was conducted

in 2001, three years had already elapsed. Thus, it is useless to disprove his sexual
potency at the time of the rape incident. Cruz was not able to adduce hard evidence to
demonstrate his impotency prior to or on the day the crime of rape was committed.
Therefore, Cruzs impotency cannot, therefore, be considered as completely eliminating
the possibility of sexual intercourse.