G.R. No. 201103; September 25, 2013
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Jimmy Cedenio y Peralta, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Jimmy Cedenio, and the private complainant, AAA, rented separate rooms on the same floor of a building in Pasay City, sharing a common bathroom. On October 20, 2004, at around 9:30 a.m., after her roommates left, AAA took a bath and returned to her room. She noticed the light was on. Upon entering, Cedenio, who was behind the door, placed his arm around her and poked a fan knife at her side. She pleaded with him not to kill or rape her, but he said he only wanted to talk. He then told her to lie down on a foam on the floor, grabbed the towel wrapped around her, and proceeded to have carnal knowledge with her despite her pleas and her statement that she was menstruating. Afterward, he threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. AAA dressed quickly, left, and reported the rape to her boyfriend, BBB, at Baclaran Mall. They went to the barangay hall to report. There, AAA saw Cedenio in the vicinity; BBB and barangay tanods chased and apprehended him. PO3 Herman Abanilla witnessed the commotion, arrested Cedenio, and brought him to police headquarters. Cedenio denied the accusation, claiming he was selling cigarettes and candies at Pasay Rotunda at the time of the incident, returned home at 10:30 a.m., and later fetched his children from school. He alleged he was near the barangay hall in the afternoon to buy food when tanods arrested him.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Jimmy Cedenio for the crime of Rape.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modifications. The Court found no reason to overturn the findings of the lower courts. The prosecution established all elements of rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended: Cedenio had carnal knowledge of AAA, and it was committed through force and intimidation by poking a knife at her and threatening to kill her. The Court rejected Cedenio’s claim that AAA’s lack of physical resistance was contrary to normal behavior, ruling that physical resistance is not required when intimidation is present, and fear for life and personal safety can compel submission. His defense of alibi was deemed inherently weak, as he failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, with the modification that it shall be imposed without eligibility for parole. The awards of civil indemnity (₱50,000.00) and moral damages (₱50,000.00) were upheld as consistent with jurisprudence. The Court additionally awarded exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00 to set a public example. All damages awarded shall earn interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the Resolution until fully paid. The appeal was dismissed.