G.R. No. 116599 September 27, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINGO PAGPAGUITAN, alias “PINGKONG” and ROBERTO SALAZAR alias “OPAW”, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On January 31, 1992, in Barangay Bitan-agan, Butuan City, accused-appellants Domingo Pagpaguitan and Roberto Salazar, conspiring and mutually helping one another, with the use of force and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with the 14-year-old complainant Evelyn Nalam against her will and consent. The accused tricked her into leaving her employer’s house by falsely claiming her father was angry and would kill her. Instead of taking her to a commander to pacify her father, they brought her to an uninhabited farmhouse. Armed with knives, they threatened to kill her. Inside, Pagpaguitan boxed her chest and thighs multiple times until she fell, removed her panties, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her while she pleaded and wept, causing her pain and vaginal bleeding. Salazar watched by the door. The next morning, at Pagpaguitan’s house and in Salazar’s presence, Pagpaguitan forced himself on her again. A meeting was later held where Pagpaguitan proposed marriage, which the complainant rejected. A medical examination revealed hematomas on her thighs and a non-intact hymen. The accused were arrested, pleaded not guilty, and were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Pagpaguitan claimed they were sweethearts and the act was consensual, alleging they had eloped.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused beyond reasonable doubt of rape despite the allegedly untrustworthy and flip-flopping uncorroborated testimony of the private complainant.
2. Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the testimonies of the purok president and barangay captain that the subject of the complaint was initially elopement.
3. Whether the trial court erred in arrogating unto itself the special task of determining the genuineness of the handwriting of the complainant, which result it heavily relied upon in its verdict against the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the appeal without merit and affirmed the conviction.
1. The trial court did not err. In rape cases, the credibility of the complaining witness is paramount. The complainant’s testimony was positive, credible, and consistent, not “flip-flopping.” She categorically detailed the force, intimidation, and sexual acts against her will. Her testimony alone, if credible, suffices for conviction. The medical findings of hematomas corroborated her account of physical violence.
2. The trial court did not err. The testimonies of the purok president and barangay captain regarding an initial perception of elopement were properly disregarded. Their testimonies were based on hearsay (what the accused’s parents told them) and did not disprove the rape. The complainant’s rejection of the marriage proposal at the meeting before them negated the claim of a consensual relationship.
3. The trial court did not err. The trial judge, as required by the Rules of Court, made an independent examination and comparison of the handwriting on the letters presented by the defense (allegedly from the complainant expressing love) with her standard handwriting. The judge found the letters forged, a finding accorded respect. Furthermore, even if genuine, such letters do not prove consent to the specific sexual acts committed by force and intimidation on January 31, 1992. The defense of sweetheart or elopement cannot justify rape. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of moral damages were affirmed.