G.R. No. 101187 July 23, 1993
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WALTER ABORDO and MIGUELA RUFIN, accused, WALTER ABORDO, appellant.

FACTS

Accused Walter Abordo and Miguela Rufin were charged with rape committed in conspiracy on February 17, 1990, in Ormoc City. The complaint alleged that Rufin brought the complainant, Vilma Caballejo, from Isabel, Leyte, to a room in Hotel Don Felipe, where she let Abordo in and then left with her daughter, after which Abordo succeeded in raping Caballejo. Upon arraignment, Abordo pleaded not guilty. Rufin remained at large. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Abordo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify Caballejo P25,000. Abordo appealed.
The prosecution evidence, as found by the trial court, established that on February 17, 1990, Rufin asked permission from Caballejo’s mother for Caballejo to accompany her to Ormoc City. They traveled to Ormoc, had lunch at a carinderia inside the bus terminal where Abordo joined them. Rufin then checked into Hotel Don Felipe. After entering the room, Rufin left and later returned with Abordo. Rufin then left with her daughter, leaving Caballejo with Abordo, who locked the door, pinned her down, threatened to choke her if she shouted, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her twice. Abordo threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Caballejo, weak and terrified, did not report the incident until March 6, 1990, when she confessed to her mother. On March 8, 1990, while at the police station, she saw and identified Abordo near the municipal hall as her rapist. Her grandfather recognized Abordo as a Sangguniang Bayan member. Abordo told her, “Don’t implicate me because, I have nothing to do.” They were later summoned by the Municipal Mayor, who advised them to file a case in court.

ISSUE

Whether the testimony of the offended party deserves full credence as against that of the defense witnesses.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification as to the civil indemnity. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings of fact, emphasizing that such findings are generally not disturbed on appeal unless substantial facts were overlooked. The minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony were deemed trivial and did not impair her credibility. The Court found her testimony straightforward, consistent, and credible, noting her emotional distress while testifying. Her positive identification of Abordo as her rapist was categorical. The defense of alibi was rejected as it cannot prevail over positive identification. The flight of co-accused Rufin was considered corroborative of guilt. The delay of 17 days in reporting the crime was not unreasonable, especially given the threat to her life. The lack of a medical examination was not fatal, as the victim’s credible testimony alone is sufficient to prove rape. The elements of rape—carnal knowledge through force or intimidation—were established. The civil indemnity was increased from P25,000 to P30,000.