GR 133237; (July, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133237 ; July 11, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ERNESTO DIZON Y ILARDE, appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that in the early morning of May 12, 1996, in Pasay City, fourteen-year-old Jennie Galoza was on her way home when appellant Ernesto Dizon, a neighbor and former live-in partner of her sister, followed her. As she passed the comfort room of his house, Dizon suddenly grabbed her, covered her mouth, and forced her inside. He overpowered her, forced her to lie on the wet floor, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge against her will. Afterward, he threatened her not to report the incident. Jennie immediately went home, crying and with wet hair and clothes, and reported the rape to her parents, leading to Dizon’s arrest.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming Jennie and Dizon were lovers who had a consensual tryst in the same comfort room. Dizon testified they kissed and he inserted a finger into her vagina, but they were discovered by his wife, who slapped Jennie. He denied sexual intercourse. To support this, the defense presented an NBI medico-legal officer who opined that the fresh laceration on Jennie’s hymen could have been caused by digital insertion.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Ernesto Dizon committed rape through force and intimidation.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found Jennie’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent. Her immediate report to her parents, her distressed condition, and the corroborative medico-legal findings all bolstered her account. Dr. Vergara’s findings of a fresh hymenal laceration, congestion, and abrasion were consistent with forcible penile penetration. The Court rejected the defense of a romantic relationship as a mere fabrication, noting the inherent improbability of a secret affair given their close proximity and familial connections. The appellant failed to show any ill motive for Jennie to falsely accuse him and undergo the ordeal of a public trial.
The trial court’s penalty of reclusion perpetua and award of P50,000 civil indemnity were upheld. Additionally, the Court awarded moral damages of P50,000, recognizing that a rape victim is presumed to have suffered moral injuries. The defense’s alternative theory on the cause of the laceration did not create reasonable doubt, as the credible narrative and physical evidence conclusively established the crime of rape.