G.R. No. 210658, September 17, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Primo P. Japson alias “Longlong”, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Primo P. Japson, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sogod, Southern Leyte, for two counts of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The victim, AAA, testified that on August 30, 2005, at around six o’clock in the evening, while she was on her way to her grandmother’s house, the accused-appellant, who appeared tipsy, suddenly appeared, embraced her, and brought her to a grassy area. She shouted for help but the nearest house was 80 to 100 meters away. He laid her down, placed himself on top of her, pulled down her underwear, inserted his fingers into her vagina, and then his penis, making push and pull movements. After he ejaculated, he sexually abused her a second time in the same manner. Before leaving, he threatened to kill her if she told anyone. AAA immediately reported the incident to her grandmother, who reported it to the police. A medical examination revealed fresh hymenal lacerations. The accused-appellant denied the charges, claiming their sexual intercourse was consensual and that they were sweethearts. He was supported by the testimonies of his relatives, CCC and DDD, who claimed AAA and the accused-appellant were in a relationship. The RTC found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, with corresponding damages. The CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for two counts of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the testimony of AAA was credible, straightforward, spontaneous, and consistent. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, affirmed by the CA, is conclusive and binding. AAA’s immediate report of the incident to her grandmother and the police, and the medical findings, corroborated her testimony. The Court rejected the accused-appellant’s defenses: (1) that AAA’s testimony was not credible; (2) that there was no showing of force or intimidation; and (3) the sweetheart theory. The Court ruled that a rape victim has no burden to prove she did all within her power to resist, and lack of active resistance or physical injuries does not negate rape. The threat to kill constituted intimidation. The accused-appellant’s claim of a consensual relationship was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, relying only on the testimonies of his relatives, which were unpersuasive. The Court found the elements of rape through force, threat, or intimidation were present. The penalties and damages imposed by the lower courts were affirmed.