People vs Ritter Case Digest 194 SCRA 690
FACTS
On or about October 10, 1986, Ritter brought Jessie Ramirez and Rosario Baluyot in a hotel room in Olongapo.
Ritter masturbated Jessie and fingered Rosario. Afterwards, he inserted a foreign object into the vagina of Rosario. The next morning, Ritter gave Jessie 200, and Rosario 300.
Rosario told Jessie that Ritter inserted an object inside her vagina. Sometime the following day, the object has already been removed from her vagina said, Rosario. On May 14, 1987, Alcantara saw Rosario with a bloody skirt, foul-smelling. Rosario was brought to Olongapo City general hospital and confined.
The OB-Gyne tried to remove the object inside her vagina using forceps. The Ob-Gyne failed to remove the object because it was deeply embedded and covered by tissues. She was having peritonitis. She told the attending physician that a Negro inserted the object into her vagina 3 months ago.
Ritter was liable for rape with homicide. RTC found him guilty of rape with homicide.
RELATED:
- People v Mendoza Case Digest G.R. No. L-5877, Sept. 28, 1954
- De Jesus vs Syquia Case Digest -58 Phil 866 – G.R. No. L-39110, November 28, 1933
- Geluz v. Court of Appeals Case Digest – G.R. No. L-16439 – July 20, 1961
- Tenchavez v Escaño Case Digest – L-19671, November 29, 1965
- Chi-Ming Tsoi vs Gina Lao – Case Digest G.R. №119190 January 16, 1997
- Tañada vs Tuvera Case Digest – G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985
- Andal v Macaraig Case Digest. GR No. 2474, May 30, 1951
ISSUE
W/N Ritter was liable for rape and homicide
Ruling
No. The prosecution failed to prove that Rosario was only 12 years old when the incident with Ritter happened. And that Rosario prostituted herself even at a tender age. As evidence, she received 300 from Ritter the following morning.
A doctor/specialist also testified that the inserted object in the vagina of Rosario Baluyot by Ritter was different from that which caused her death. Rosario herself said to Jessie the following day that the object has been removed already. She also told the doctor that a Negro inserted it into her vagina 3 months ago.
Ritter was a Caucasian.
However, it does not exempt him from moral and exemplary damages. He must award moral and exemplary damages to the victim’s heirs. It does not necessarily follow that the appellant is also free from civil liability which is impliedly instituted with the criminal action.
Ritter was deported.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant HEINRICH STEFAN RITTER is ACQUITTED on grounds of reasonable doubt.
Ritter paid the amount of P30,000.00 by way of moral and exemplary damages to the heirs of Rosario Baluyot. The Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation is hereby directed to institute proper deportation proceedings against the appellant and to immediately expel him thereafter with prejudice to re-entry into the country.
People vs Ritter Case Digest 194 SCRA 690
