ISSUES

I.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING ILL MOTIVE ON THE PART
OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AS THE REASON FOR THE FILING OF
THE CRIME OF RAPE AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.[20]
OUR RULING

The appeal has no merit.

The testimony of AAA deserves weight and credence.

Jurisprudence has emphatically maintained that the trial court's

evaluation and conclusion on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases
are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even
finality, especially after the CA, as the intermediate reviewing tribunal,
has affirmed the findings; unless there is a clear showing that the
findings were reached arbitrarily, or that certain facts or
circumstances of weight, substance or value were overlooked,
misapprehended or misappreciated that, if properly considered, would
alter the result of the case.[21]

The Court has amply elucidated on the reason for according weight to
the findings of the trial court, viz:

It is well-settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and

their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court
because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand
and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling
examination. These are important in determining the truthfulness of
witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of
conflicting testimonies. For, indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and
inflection of the voice are potent aids in ascertaining the witness'
credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity and can take
advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in the record
so that all that theappellate court can see are the cold words of the
witness contained in transcript of testimonies with the risk that some
of what the witness actually said may have been lost in the process of
transcribing. As correctly stated by an American court, "There is an
inherent impossibility of determining with any degree of accuracy
what credit is justly due to a witness from merely reading the words
spoken by him, even if there were no doubt as to the identity of the
words. However artful a corrupt witness may be, there is generally,
under the pressure of a skillful cross-examination, something in his
manner or bearing on the stand that betrays him, and thereby destroys
the force of his testimony. Many of the real tests of truth by which the
artful witness is exposed in the very nature of things cannot be
transcribed upon the record, and hence they can never be considered
by the appellate court."[22]
Consequently, it was incumbent upon the accused-appellant to present
clear and persuasive reasons to persuade the Court to reverse the
lower courts' unanimous determination of her credibility as a witness
in order to resolve the appeal his way.[23] The onus is upon the
accused-appellant to prove those facts and circumstances which the
lower courts allegedly failed to consider and appreciate, and that
would fortify his position that they seriously erred in finding him guilty
of the crime charged. The accused-appellant, however, miserably
failed to discharge his burden.

By the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction usually rests solely

on the basis of the testimony of the victim; provided that such
testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things. Thus, the victim's credibility
becomes the primordial consideration in the resolution of rape cases.
[24]
Noteworthily, both the RTC and the CA found the testimony of AAA
credible and persuasive.

In conjunction thereto, jurisprudence has firmly upheld the guidelines

in evaluating the testimony of a rape victim, viz: first, while an
accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove
but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to
disprove; second, in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape
where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and lastly, the
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence of the defense.[25] The Court has meticulously applied these
guidelines in its review of the records of this case, but found no reason
to depart from the well-considered findings and observations of the
lower courts.

The Court notes that the testimony of AAA was full of convincing
details which, in her young age, could not have been known to her
unless these were the truth. "When the offended party is of tender age
and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what
transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the
shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she
testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of
truth and sincerity."[26]

A catena of cases sustains the ruling that the conduct of the victim
immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost
importance in tending to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of
rape.[27] In this case, after the accused-appellant had carnal
knowledge of her, AAA immediately left his house and proceeded to
her brother's house where she narrated what had happened to her. On
that same day, AAA went to the barangay to report the incident, then
to the police station to give her statements, and subsequently to the
crime laboratory to submit herself to physical examination. The act of
AAA in wasting no time in reporting her ordeal to the authorities
validates the truth of her charge against the accused-appellant.

AAA's positive and categorical statement that the accused-appellant

had carnal knowledge of her was reinforced by the testimony and
medico-legal report of Dr. Chua. The pertinent findings of Dr. Chua
were as follows:

LABIA MINORA: Hyperemic with abrasion at 6 o'clock position.

HYMEN: Deep healed laceration at 5 and 6 o'clock positions.

POSTERIOR FOURCHETTE: Congested.

CONCLUSION: Clear evidence of penetrating trauma/force to the

hymen with recent penetration trauma to the Labia Majora and Minora.
[28]

Dr. Chua testified that, based on her findings, her conclusion was that
AAA was sexually abused.[29] Of significance in this case is the legal
teaching that while it is settled that a medical examination of the
victim is not indispensable in the prosecution of a rape case, and no
law requires a medical examination for the successful prosecution of
the case, the medical examination conducted and the medical
certificate issued are veritable corroborative pieces of evidence,
which strongly bolster the victim's testimony.[30] Together, these
pieces of evidence produce a moral certainty that the accused-
appellant indeed raped the victim.[31]

To prove that the RTC erred in according credence to AAA's testimony,

the accused-appellant offered the absurd contention that AAA's
testimony can only prove that she had shared an intimate moment
with someone else and not with him. Accused-appellant anchored his
contention in his testimony on the witness stand, viz: that on 1 July
2009, he was at home watching television with his wife; that AAA was
not in his house that day; that he was told by his wife that AAA had
asked P200,000.00 in exchange for her dropping the case against him;
and that he did not give in to the demand of AAA because nothing
happened between him and AAA. In contrast, according to the
accused-appellant, was the testimony of AAA where she admitted that
nothing happened between them.[32]

Accused-appellant's contentions have no basis. When AAA affirmed

her sworn statement[33] before the RTC, she clarified and firmly
maintained that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her.
Her testimony was as follows:

Q. What happened next after he pinched you on your left shoulder?

A. I kicked him again and he stood up. He took a knife, threatened to kill me. And after that his
friend arrived.

Q. And he went out?

A. I went out of the room, got my slippers, told the matter to my brother and we went to the
barangay but the barangay referred us to the police.

Q. Let us go back to the holding of the knife and his friend has not yet arrived. What happened
when Bryan got that knife?
A. He threatened to kill me if I would tell it to anybody (Papatayin kita pag nagsumbong ka).
Q. What happened next?
A. His friend arrived. When his friend arrived he proceeded to the c.r. Bryan followed him. I
immediately went out of the room and got my pair of slippers and proceeded to our house
and reported the matter to my brother.

Q. So nothing happened, there was no sex?

A. None, sir.

Q. You gave your sworn statement to the police marked as Exh "A." I will read your sworn
statement to the police given on July 2, 2009 wherein you stated: "Una po, nagpadede po
ako ng bata, four months old na anak ng amo ko, tapos isinarado niya po iyong pintuan at
tsaka iyong bintana. Dapat kami lang ng bata sa higaan, tsaka lang siya pupunta sa higaan
pag dumating iyong asawa niya, tapos tumabi siya sa akin. Ako po ang umalis, tapos
sinampal niya ako, bakit daw ako umaalis e umiiyak yung bata. Pinabalik niya ako sa
higaan, bumalik ako noong umalis siya, pumunta siya sa higaan sa kabila. Bumalik ako,
pinadede ko iyong bata, wala akong kamalay-malay na nandyan na pala siya sa tabi ko.
Paglingon ko nakahubad na siya, hinawakan niya ang kamay ko binanda ako sa pader
malapit sa higaan, sinabi kong huwag mong gawin sa akin kasi hindi ako ang asawa mo,
katulong lang ako. Pero ginawa niya pa rin. Hinubaran niya ako, hinawakan niya ang
dalawang kamay ko tapos sinampal pa niya ako. Tapos pinatungan niya po ako, tapos dun,
tinadyakan ko siya, pag pangalawang tadyak kinurot niya ako dito sa may balikat ko.
Lumaban ako, tapos pagtayo niya tumayo na rin ako, bubuksan ko iyong pinto pero hindi
mabuksan iyong pinto pag walang susi. Tapos kumuha siya ng kutsilyo, tinutukan niya ako
ng kutsilyo, tinutok niya dito sa noo ko, sinabi niya sa akin 'sige, sige anong gusto mo
papatayin kita ngayon,' hinila niya ako sa higaan. Lumaban po ako pero hindi ko siya kaya.
Tapos pinabuka niya iyong paa ko, pinasok na niya iyong oten niya sa pekpek ko. Sinampal
pa niya ako, napasok niya iyong oten niya, nilabas pasok niya..." Is that not true?
A. That is true.

Q. So before the friend arrived, was Bryan able to have sex with you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why did you not say before when I asked you? You went once to the friend?
A. When he was already naked, he was able to pin my both hands on the wall, and he
parted my legs and inserted his penis in my vagina and after that he kicked me and he
pinched me on my shoulder.[34](emphasis supplied)
The Court emphasizes that it has been its consistent declaration that
inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony are
generally expected,[35] viz:

Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in

detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a person's achievement
or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is
something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a
stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her
conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape
victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an
accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had
undergone.[36]
Moreover, since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of
emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a
standard in testing the credibility of a witness.[37] To the Court, what is
essential is that AAA's testimony meets the test of credibility
notwithstanding the gruelling cross-examination by the defense, and
that it persuasively conformed to the evidence on record.

In the same vein, the assertion of the accused-appellant that AAA had
ill motive in filing the present charge, i.e., demanding P200,000.00 in
exchange for dropping the case against him, fails to convince. Notably,
it would be the accused-appellant's wife, Jane, who would be in the
best position to testify on this matter considering that AAA allegedly
had demanded the P200,000.00 from her. Jane, however, never took
the witness stand to corroborate the claim of the accused-appellant.
Likewise, the record is bereft of any showing as to any documentary
evidence that would substantiate AAA's demand for P200,000.00.

The legal teaching continuously invigorated by our jurisprudence is

that motives have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to
the testimony of a minor rape victim.[38] A young girl's revelation that
she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical
examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could
be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity,
cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction.[39]

The defense prof erred by the accused-appellant was inherently weak.

The defense proffered by the accused-appellant that he was home with

his wife during the time material to the charge against him, cannot
suffice to reverse his conviction.

Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi

and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony
and identification of the complainant. Denial is an intrinsically weak
defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-
culpability to merit credibility.[40] Alibi, on the one hand, is viewed with
suspicion because it can easily be fabricated. For the defense of alibi
to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when
the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was
not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the
crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
[41]
Unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, alibi cannot
prevail over the positive declaration of a victim who, in a natural and
straightforward manner, convincingly identifies the accused-appellant.
[42]

Accused-appellant's alibi and denial easily came to nothing in view of

his admission that he was actually at the place of the crime at the
time of its commission. Even granting for the sake of argument that
there was truth to the accused-appellant's contention that he was with
his wife on that day, this, however, cannot justify a conclusion that he
did not have carnal knowledge of AAA. The consistent ruling of the
Court is that "Rape can be committed even in places where people
congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises,
inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same
room where other members of the family are also sleeping. It is not
impossible or incredible for the members of the victim's family to be in
deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexual assault is being
committed. Lust is no respecter of time and place x x x."[43] More
importantly, AAA's unfailing positive identification of the accused-
appellant as the one who had carnal knowledge of her, fastened to the
fact that there was no showing that she had ill motive in filing this
charge, prevails over his defense of alibi and denial.

The dearth of evidence that would corroborate the implausibility that

the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA weakens his
defense of denial and alibi. To stress, not even Jane or Erickson
testified to reinforce his position that he could not have raped AAA on
1 July 2009.

The crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the

prosecution.

For a successful prosecution of rape, the following elements must be

proved beyond reasonable doubt, to wit: (1) that the accused had
carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was
accomplished: (a) through the use of force and intimidation, or (b)
when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c)
when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.[44]

The evidence of the prosecution unmistakably validates the

conclusion that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA
on 1 July 2009, through the use of force and intimidation. AAA
persuasively narrated that, despite her effort to escape from the room
after the accused-appellant pinned her arms, mounted her, and
pinched her shoulder, the accused-appellant was able to get hold of a
knife that he used to threaten her while he dragged her to the bed and,
thereafter, successfully have carnal knowledge of her.

Jurisprudence imparts that the act of holding a knife by itself is

strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation; and threatening
the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring a woman to submission,
although the victim does not even need to prove resistance.[45] Force,
threat or intimidation, as an element of rape, need not be irresistible,
but just enough to bring about the desired result.[46]

The penalty to be imposed upon the accused-appellant

The Court finds that the RTC and the CA were correct in imposing upon
the accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua in
accordance with Art. 266-B of the RPC.
As to the award of damages, the Court finds the need to modify the
same to conform with the jurisprudence laid down in People v.
Jugueta,[47] viz: civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary
damages at P75,000.00 each. The civil indemnity and the moral and
exemplary damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until folly
paid.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The 27 August 2014 Decision

of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06030, finding the
accused-appellant Bryan Ganaba y Nam-ay GUILTY of Rape and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the award of
damages as follows: civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of
P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00. The civil indemnity
and the moral and exemplary damages shall earn interest at the rate
of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment
until fully paid.

March 15, 2017

G.R. No. 213390

PEOPLE OF THE PHILPPINES, Plaintijf-Appellee

vs
JESSIE GABRIELy GAJARDO, Accused-Appellant

RESOLUTION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This is an appeal from the March 25, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05147 which affirmed with modification the July 19, 2011 Decision of
1 2

the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 43, in Criminal Case No. 2010-0118-D finding appellant Jessie Gabriel y Gajardo guilty of the crime of rape and
imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The facts of the case are as follows:

Appellant was indicted for rape in an Information which alleged:

That on or about the 17th day of February 2010, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused JESSIE
GABRIBL y GAJARDO, with force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, have carnal knowledge upon one ["AAA"], a 17-year old minor, against
3

her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.

Contrary to Article 266-A par. 1-a, in relation to the 2nd par. of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353.
4

Arraigned thereon, appellant entered a negative plea.

"AAA" at the time material to this case is a 17-year old first-year nursing student at the Colegio de Dagupan and temporarily resides at the boarding house of appellant in
Dagupan City. "AAA" testified that at about 6:00 p.m. of February 17, 2010, she, with her cousin and co-boarder ''BBB," was inside their room at the second floor of the said
boarding house when appellant suddenly entered their room and accused them of having stolen items of merchandise from his store located near the said boarding house.
"AAA" and "BBB" vehemently denied this accusation, but appellant did not believe them. Instead, appellant directed them to see him in his room at the first floor of the boarding
house to talk about the matter. When "AAA" went inside appellant's room, the latter renewed his insistence that "AAA" own up to having stolen the merchandise in question,
otherwise he would bring her to the Police Station and have a theft case against her blottered. He t.1-ien told her to sit on his lap and began caressing her back. "AAA"
demanded that he stop what he was doing because she did not like it, but he paid no heed to her demand. When "AAA" stood up to leave, appellant pulled her back, compelled
her to sit on his lap anew, and then proceeded to unhook her bra. What took place after this, "AAA" herself graphically recounted thus:

PROS. PERALTA:

xxxx

Q We go back to that incident when he removed the hook of your bra, what happened after that?

A He made me lie down, Madam.

Q What happened next?

A [T]hen he forced me, he raped me, Madam.

Q When you said he raped you, what do you mean by that?

A He made me lie down, he made me spread my legs and he undressed me, Madam.

Q What were you wearing at that time?

A I was wearing t-shirt and pajama, madam.

Q And x x x after spreading your legs, what did he do next?

A He x x x inserted his penis [into] my vagina, Madam.

Q What happened when he inserted his penis [into] your vagina?

A I [cried] and I told him that I don't like [what he was doing] but he insisted, Madam.

Q When you refused, what did he do, if any?

A I just cried, Madam.

Q How about the accused?

A He continued what he was doing, Madam.

Q What was he doing?

A He was raping me, Madam.

Q For how long did it happen?

A Minutes, Madam.

Q When you said minutes, you mean one (1) minute?

A Around thirty (30) minutes, madam.

Q What was his position at that time?

A He was on top of me, madam.

Q While he was on top of [you], what did [he] do?

A He raped me, Madam.

Q When you said he raped you, what do you mean by that?

A He inserted his penis [into] my vagina, Madam.

Q What did you feel at that time when he inserted his penis [into] your vagina?

A None, [M]adam.

Q What, if any, did you feel or notice while his penis was inside your vagina?

A None, [M]adam.

Q You said that you were crying while he was raping you, why were you crying?

A I was afraid and I don't like it, Madam.

Q When he started to insert his penis [into] your vagina, did you feel anything?

A Yes, [M]adam.

Q What did you feel?

A It was painful [M]adam.

COURT:

Q Why did you not push him while he was on top of you?

A He was forceful, [M]adam.

Q What do you mean when you said her was forceful?

A He [was strong], [M]adam. 5

Appellant's lecherous assault upon "AAA;' ceased only when his child knocked on the door and called for him. When he heard his child's knocking, he released "AAA" from his
clutches, told her to get dressed and leave the room. "AAA" then went to the bathroom to wash and then returned to her room at the second floor where she continued to cry.
"BBB" asked her why she was crying but she could not tell her of her forcible violation. Later that evening, "AAA's" aunt, "CCC," and her husband "DDD," together with "BBB's''
mother "EEE" (who was earlier texted by "BBB" to come to the boarding house) arrived. They confronted appellant about his accusation that "AAA'' and "BBB" had stolen certain
items from his store. It was then that "'AAA" told "CCC" and "DDD" that she had been raped by appellant. A call was then made to the city police department which deployed
SPO1 Esteban Martinez and PO1 Ramon Valencerina, Jr. who, upon reaching the boarding house, were informed that "AAA" had been raped by appellant. These police officers
arrested appellant and brought him to the police station. After this, "AA.A'' submitted herself to physical examination at the Region 1 Medical Center in that city.

The other prosecution witnesses, namely "BBB," "EEE'' and "CCC," not having actually witnessed "AAA's" violation, claimed that they came to know of "AAA's" rape from "AAA"
herself. However, they were present just outside the boarding house when "CCC", "AAA's" aunt exploded into hyste1ical outburst on hearing from "AAA" that she had been
raped by appellant. The Medico-Legal Report issued by Dr. Marlene Quiramol moreover showed tell-tale evidence that "AAA" had indeed been sexually abused, as there were
erythema and fossa navicularis at the external genitalia, as well as multiple fresh lacerations at the 3, 6, 9 and 12 o'clock positions in "AAA's" hymen.

Appellant denied that he raped "AAA". He claimed that on the morning of February 17, 2010J he noticed that some items of merchandise in his store were missing and he
suspected that "AAA" and '~BBB" were the culprits; hence, he went to their room to confront them. These two however denied his accusation, so he confronted them with the
pictures of the missing items which he earlier took in the locker inside the room rented by "AAA" and "BBB."

Appellant nevertheless admitted that on said occasion, he talked with "AAA" inside his room at the first floor of the boarding house for some 15 minutes, but stressed that after
their conversation, "AAA" went outside while he proceeded to his store.

The only other witness presented by appellant, one Sandro Montanez, a boarder in the former's boarding house, simply testified that on the day in question (February 17, 2010),
he saw "AAA" doing her laundry and that he did not notice anything unusual in her appearance at all.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

Synthesizing the conflicting contentions of the prosecution and the defense, the RTC held:

The instant rape case is one of multifarious cases where there are no identified witnesses, and where the evidence effectively boils down to the complainant's word against the
accused's. However, a pronouncement of guilt arising from the sole testimony of the victim is not unheard ot: so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility. This is
especially true in the crime of rape the evidentiary character of which demands so much on the part of the victim - it entails her to submit to an examination of her private parts,
and to subject the sordid details of her story to a public trial and against a given presumption of the accused's innocence.

To establish the crime of Rape under the article cited above, two elements must be shown to exist. And these are; 'that the accused had carnal knowledge of the offended party;
and that the coitus was done through the use of force or intimidation.'
AAA cried profusely while recounting her awful experience at the hands of her abuser. As has been repeatedly held, 'no young girl would concoct a sordid tale of so se1ious a
crime as rape, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive was other than a fervent desire to seek justice.'
AAA had revealed the incident to her relatives. If it is not rape, what is it?

Accused's attempt to characterize the testimony of 'AAA' as incredible lacks merit. Accused['s] defense of denial must crumble in light of AAA's positive and specific testimony. It
is an established jurisprudential rule that denial, like alibi, being negative self-serving defense, cannot prevail over the affirmative allegations of the victim and her categorical
and positive identification of the accused as her assailant. 'Denial must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence otherwise they cannot prevail over the
positive testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.'

Moreover, AAA's testimony is corroborated by the findings of the examining physician, Dr. Marlene Quiramol x x x viz[.]; (+) Erythema at the peri hymenal and fossa navicularis;
(+) Multiple fresh lacerations at 3, 6, 9 & 12 o'clock positions. Medical examination showed evidence of sexual abuse.

'When a rape victim's account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the exarmining physician, the same is sufficient to support a
conviction for rape.' As the Highest Court succinctly stated in People vs. Borja,' a victim who says she has been raped almost always says all there is to be said.'

The defense made it appear x x x that there were other people at the time of the incident. Granting arguendo that there were other people in the house when the rape was
committed, rapists are not deterred from committing t11eir odious act by the presence of people nearby or the members of the family. Lust, being a very powerful human urge is,
to borrow from People v. Virgilio Bernabe, 'no respecter of time and place.' For the crime of rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal or the weather to
be fine, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed. Rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest places and circumstances and by the
most unlikely persons. The beast in a man bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere - even in places where people congregate, in parks, along
the roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places
which to many would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its commission. Besides, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.

In stark contrast to AAA's firm declaration, the defense of denial invoked by the accused rests on shaky grounds. The accused insists that 'the accusation is a lie' and claims that
he did not rape the victim It should be noted however that accused himself admitted having a one-on-one confrontation with AAA in his room about the alleged missing items as
he required her to see him in his room and it lasted for around 15 minutes. Why would he require her to go to his room when he had already confronted them inside their room if
not for his bestial desire and intention? Besides, he already went to the extent of taking pictures of the alleged missing items inside the locker of the victim and her cousin in their
absence so as to compel them to admit the crime. Why did he not complain right away to the police if indeed his accusation against the victim is true?

Judicial experience has taught this Court that denial like alibi are the common defenses in rape cases. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with
strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. It is a negative self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
The barefaced denial of the charge by the accused even if one of his boarder had testified cannot prevail over the positive and forthright identification of him as the perpetrator
of the dastardly act.

In rape, force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. AAA's failure to shout or to
tenaciously resist accused should not be taken against her since such negative assertion would not ipso facto make voluntary her submission to accused's criminal act. As
already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may
appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Moreover resistance is not an element of
rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as the force or intimidation present,
whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. Though a man puts no hand on a woman, yet if by the use of mental and moral coercion and intimidation, the accused
so overpowers her mind out of fear that as a result she dare not resist the dastardly act inflicted on her person, accused is guilty of the crime imputed to him. In this case, the
threat of reporting her to the police and have the incident blottered regarding his accusation of theft against her speaks loudly of accused's use of force and intimidation.

Moreover, AAA said she was not able to do anything to resist the accused [when] he was raping her. She told him to stop what he was doing [because] she didn't like it but he
[persisted]. The most that she did was to cry. Owing to the minority of AAA and her physique as compared to her molester, the Court believes that she was cowed by the
1âwphi1

accused's act of forcing himself upon her especially so when he threatened to report them to the authorities. 'Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats
and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to her attacker because of fear - physical resistance is not the sole test to ascertain whether or not a woman
involuntarily yielded to the lust of her attacker.'

AAA's account evinced sincerity and truthfulness and she never wavered in her story, consistently pointing to accused as her rapist. Besides, no woman would willingly submit
herself to the rigors, humiliation and stigma attendant in a rape case if she was not motivated by an earnest desire to punish the culprit. While there may be inconsistencies in
AAA's testimony, they refer only to trivial matters which did not affect at all her account of the incident.

'Errorless recollection of a traumatic and agonizing incident cannot be expected of a witness when she is recounting details of an experience as humiliating and as painful as
rape.'
6

Against this backdrop, the RTC disposed thus –

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused JESSIE GABRIEL GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, defined
and penalized under Article 266-A (a) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, or the Anti Rape Law of 1997 and is hereby imposed with the penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua. He is ordered to pay AAA the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱50,000.00), by way of civil indemnity, FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱50,000.00), as
moral damages and THIRTY TH0USAND PESOS (₱30,000.00) as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED. 7

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

From this judgment, appellant appealed to the CA maintaining that the RTC erred in finding him guilty of the crime of raped.

But the CA thumbed down the appeal, anchoring its verdict on the RTC's aforequoted ratiocination, and more particularly on "AAA's" testimony-in-chief relative to the actual
assault on her person in the manner quoted. Indeed, the CA's findings that "AAA" was raped by appellant were a virtual reiteration of the

RTC's own summation as regards the rape.

The CA characterized "AAA's'' testimony in this wise:

The testimony of AAA is simple, candid, straightforward, and consistent on material points, detailing the act of rape against her by appellant. It is corroborated by the physical
evidence of fresh hymenal lacerations. The medico-legal report revealed tt1at AAA's perihymenal areal and fossa navicularis had erythema and her hymen had multiple fresh
lacerations at 3, 6, 9 & 12 o'clock positions. In short, the medical exan1ination showed evidence of sexual abuse. x x x 8

After this, the CA addressed appellant's assault upon "AAA's" credibility, to wit:

Appellant, however, casts doubts on the credibility of AAA He contends that AAA was motivated by revenge because he had accused her of stealing and insisted that she admit
the act. He also assails the credibility of AAA's account of the rape by pointing out that: AAA offered no resistw1ce; she first claimed that she did not feel appellant's penis inside
her vagina but later abandoned her claim; x x x she did not tell her boardmate Montanez, "BBB", and her aunt "CCC" [about the alleged rape] but confided to them, except
Montanez, that appellant was forcing her to admit to the theft; AAA did not immediately reveal the rape to the police but first talked to her uncle after which the latter confronted
appellant. 9

The CA however found appellant's contentions unconvincing:

It is highly improbable that a young, decent woman taking up nursing would concoct a rape story against a man who is accusing her of a petty crime which she denies. A woman
who claims rape exposes herself to the spectacle of a public trial where she would recount the sordid details of her ordeal. Thus, it has been repeatedly ruled 1hat no young and
decent woman in her right mind would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if
she was not motivated solely by her desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.

Even assuming that AAA did not tenaciously resist the sexual assault[,] that does not negate rape. In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's
perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. It is settled that not all victims react the same way. Some victims may cry out, some may faint, some may
be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at
all. Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon
her. As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. In this case, what is important is that AAA did not consent to the
intercourse. She cried as appellant ravished her and told her uncle about the rape at the first opportunity.

xxxx

That AAA did not immediately report the rape to the police when they came to the house but to her uncle enhances rather than weakens her testimony. It is consistent with
1âwphi1

human experience for a woman to prefer to reveal the assault on her honor to her kin first rather than to strangers, including the police. 10

Expounding on the usual reason for the seeming inability of the prosecution to assemble a number of witnesses to establish a rape case, like the present case, the CA posited:

Inasmuch as the crime of rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually the victim alone who can testify on the forced sexual intercourse.
Therefore, in a prosecution for rape, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important point to consider. If the victim's testimony meets the test of
credibility, the accused can justifiably be convicted on the basis of her lone testimony.11

In the end, the CA sustained the factual underpinnings of the RTC's verdict, harking back to the well-settled dictum that the trial court is the best assayer and evaluator of
witnesses and their testimonies, thus:

The trial court gave credence to AAA and her testimony. Since the trial court had the opportunity to examine her demeanor and conduct on the stand, We do not find any reason
to depart from its findings. Time and time again, it has been ruled that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial
court because of its unique firsthand opportunity to observe them under examination. x x x

There is no showing that the trial court overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted some facts or circumstances of weight and substance in convicting appellant. Its decision
must be upheld. Besides, appellant's defense is in the nature of a denial which hardly creates reasonable doubt of his guilt in light of his testimony that he was at the place and
time of the rape. Appellant's denial cannot prevail over AAA' s direct, positive and categorical assertion that rings with truth. Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot
outweigh positive testimony. As between a categorical statement that has the earmarks of truth on the one hand and bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to
prevail.
12

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 43, dated July 19, 2011, in Criminal Case No. 2010-0118-D is
AFFIRMED with modification in that accused-appellant Jessie Gabriel is further ordered to pay interest on all damages awarded at the rate of 6% per annum :from the date of
finality of judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. 13

Our Ruling

We find no reason to disturb the CA's above-mentioned findings and conclusion, especially so because in the case at bench the CA and the RTC have uniformly given short
shrift to appellant's bare denial.

In the 1901 case of United States v. Ramos, this Court had already declared that "[w]hen a woman testifies that she has been raped she says, in effect, that all that is
14

necessary to constitute the commission of this crime has been committed. It is merely a question then, whether or not this court accepts her statement." Jurisprudence has
clung with unrelenting grasp to this precept.

The trial court's assessment and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses vis-a-vis their testimonies ought to be upheld as a matter of course because of its direct, immediate
and first hand opportunity to observe the deportment of witnesses as they delivered their testimonies in open court. Thus, the trial court's findings bearing on the credibility of
witnesses on these matters are invariably binding and conclusive upon the appellate court unless of course, there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked,
misapprehended or misconstrued some fact or circumstance of weight or substance, or had failed to accord or assign such fact or circumstance its due import or significance.
Here, it bears stressing that the CA itself declared in its Decision that:
There is no showing that the trial court overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted some facts or circumstances of weight and substance in convicting appellant. Its decision
must be upheld. Besides, appellant's defense is in the nature of a denial which hardly creates reasonable doubt of his guilt in light of his testimony that he was at the place and
time of the rape. Appellant's denial cannot prevail over "AAA's" direct, positive and categorical assertion that rings with truth. Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot
outweigh positive testimony. As between a categorical statement that has the earmarks of truth on the one hand and bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to
prevail.
15

To these postulations by the CA, we give our unreserved assent. Nonetheless, we have to modify the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.
Conformably to this Court's holding in People v. Jugueta, the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be upgraded to ₱75,000.00 each. The
16

CA, however correctly imposed interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all monetary awards.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed March 25, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05147 finding appellant Jessie
Gabriel y Gajardo guilty of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with FURTHER MODIFICATIONS that the awards for
civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages are increased to ₱75,000.00 each.

SO ORDERED.