PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs Cain Ivashkov, Accused-

Appellant.

The Facts

The private complainant, WWW, and accused-appellant, Cain Ivashkov were married on

February 10, 2016, in consideration of the Merger Agreement of their respective family

corporations.

On July 20, 2017, WWW, the wife of accused-appellant, executed a Complaint before the

National Bureau of Investigation alleging that her husband, the accused-appellant sexually,

psychologically and physically abuse her, coercing her on doing unspeakable acts of

lasciviousness and forcing her to watch child pornographic videos and, lastly threatening to kill

her if she ever try to report or speak about his unlawful actions.

On August 15, 2017, the office of the City Prosecutor of Makati issued a Joint Resolution,

finding probable cause upon the pieces of evidence presented by the NBI for grave threats, less

serious physical injuries, rape and violation section 4(l) of R.A. 9775 or Anti-Child Pornography

Act of 2009 and recommended that the appropriate criminal information be filed against the

accused-appellant.

On September 7, 2017, two information for rape and one for the violation section 4(l) of R.A.

9775 was filed before the RTC of Makati and are respectively docketed as Criminal Case No.

101-1297, 101-1298 & 101-1299.

On September 28, 2017, the National Bureau Investigation procured a search warrant and a

warrant of arrest for the accused-appellant, Cain Ivashkov. They have arrested the latter and

seized on latter’s study and bedroom a hard drive and laptop containing child pornographic

videos and any of its form, ball gags, floggers, whips, handcuffs, and other sexual instruments.

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued thereafter for all cases.
 Version of the prosecution

The prosecution started their case by presenting pieces of evidence that proves the fact that the

accused-appellant, Cain Ivashkov was previously married to an American named, Neha Parker in

October 3, 2010 and that they later got divorced in December 14 of 2015 due to grounds of

sexual misconduct on the part of the accused-appellant and irreconcilable differences.

Thereafter, having the divorce decree recognized here in the Philippines, accused-appellant

proceeded in marrying the private complainant, WWW. They alleged that the history of the

accused of committing sexual deviancy supports that the cases against him are not without merit.

In the first year of WWW and accused-appellants marriage, the latter treated the former the way

a husband should and does not force her to be sexually intimate with him if she isn’t willing. The

latter started to change in January of 2017. The accused-appellant is then easily angered and

quick to shout and berate former. The accused-appellant also then started to lock himself in his

study after coming home from work and in the middle of the night come to their room heavily

intoxicated with alcohol touching the latter inappropriately in her sleep. After the mentioned

incidents, things escalated to the former being forced to do unspeakable acts of lasciviousness

towards the accused on February 10, 2017, which was, incidentally their first year anniversary.

After the said incident, the accused threatened to kill WWW if she ever said anything about what

transpired.

Such abuse happened two more times. One, took place on or about the second week of April,

more or less 9:00 pm, where the accused-appellant tied the hands of the private complainant on

the window rails of his study in order for him put his genitals in the mouth and later on, the anal

orifice even after the latter’s cries and vehement pleading for the former to stop.

The second incident transpired on June 20, 2017, this is where the accused-appellant after

sexually and physically abusing WWW, forcefully made her watch with his videos of child

pornography. A week after the last abuse, WWW was rushed to the hospital for having a
miscarriage. After losing their child, WWW upon recovering from the grief and trauma decided

to flee on July 18, 2017, from the conjugal home while taking advantage of the fact that her

husband is on a business trip abroad. thereafter, filed a complaint before the NBI by presenting

photos and medical report of the injuries she incurred and copies of the pornographic videos that

her husband forced her to watch.

Version of the defense

The accused-appellant averred that first and foremost is that he did not commit any of the acts

alleged to him and that his prior divorce does not have any relation to the charges against him.

He then added that any sexual acts that transpired within their marriage are both with express

consent and that the acts of lasciviousness that they’ve done was within the purview of their

privacy as husband and wife and such is recognized in Section 2, Article XV of The

Constitution.

The defense then raised the issue that WWW, as the wife of the accused-appellant, cannot testify

against him in court without his consent as provided by Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised

Rules of Court .

Lastly, the accused-appellant maintained that only the sexual instruments are his and not the

child pornographic videos that were found in his study was not his and was only planted by his

wife in order for her to get rid of him and have their marriage annulled. He also claimed that the

private complainant was having an adulterous affair with another man and that the miscarriage

was personally induced by the latter to hide her infidelity.

RTC

On January 30, 2019, the court has rendered their decision on Criminal Case No. 101-1297,

101-1298 & 101-1299. The court opted in giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the

prosecution’s witnesses and documentary evidence the provide for records regarding the time

that WWW was admitted to the hospital due to miscarriage. Aside from the medical records

about the cause & effects of the miscarriage, there was also accounts of numerous contusions and
lacerations found on WWW wrists, thighs, abdomen, chest, buttocks of varying color and stages

of healing indicating that there was a habitual or continuous application of force on the said sites.

Moreover, the investigation report presented by the NBI about the seized laptop and hard

drive of the accused indicated that the videos and other forms of child pornography found therein

was already downloaded prior to 2014. The said laptop was also found to be connected to the

dark web, invalidating the claim of the accused that the said videos were only planted by the

private complainant-appellee.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds accused Cain Ivashkov “GUILTY” beyond reasonable

doubt of the two separate charges of rape and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of

reclusion perpetua and to pay complainant [P]50,000.00 in each case as moral damages,

indemnify complainant the sum of [P]75,000.00 in each case, [P]50,000.00 as exemplary

damages for each count of rape. For the of violation section 4(l) of R.A. 9775 this court hereby

sentences him to suffer of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine of [P] 80,000.00 for

the violation of the latter law and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

The accused-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied due to lack of merit.

Hence accused filed an appeal before the CA.

CA

On March 10, 2019, the CA decided to affirmed the decision of the RTC of Makati in finding the

accused-appellant “GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of rape and the violation

of R.A. 9775.

WHEREFORE, the decision of RTC Makati in Criminal Case No. 101-1297, 101-1298 & 101-

1299 is hereby affirmed with cost.

SO ORDERED.

The Court
 I.

THAT THE SEXUAL ACTIVITY DONE WITHIN THE MARRIAGE IS PROTECTED BY

THE CONSTITUTION.

This court acknowledge the point of the accused that the marriage is protected by our

Constitution but it does not necessarily mean that individual rights of the spouses are to be

impaired in order to preserve and protect the marriage. In the case of People vs Jumawan (G.R.

No. 187495), this court stated that:

“Husbands do not have property rights over their wives' bodies. Sexual intercourse, albeit within

the realm of marriage, if not consensual, is rape. This is the clear State policy expressly

legislated in Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act

(R.A.) No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.”

In this case, accused appellant evidently force himself upon WWW, thus his actions constitutes

as rape.

II.

THAT THE PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE IS

ABSOLUTE.

This court does not agree with the accused in stating that the privileged communication between

husband and wife is absolute. They have only stated the general rule for there are exceptions.

The whole Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court reads:

Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During their marriage, neither

the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the

affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for

a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or

ascendants.

Hence the testimony furnished by the private complainant, WWW, is admissible to the courts.
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the Decision dated March 10, 2019 of the Court of

Appeals in Criminal Case No. 101-1297, 101-1298 & 101-1299 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.