G.R. No. 147968 December 4, 2002
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Rogelio Bitancor alias “Boy,” appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Rogelio Bitancor, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Bohol for the rape of Donafaye Amparo, who was 11 years old at the time of the incident on the evening of July 22, 1996. The prosecution’s version, as presented by the OSG, states that while the victim and a companion, Jackelyn Aranay, were walking home, appellant followed them. The victim stumbled, and appellant caught her, brought her to a gemelina tree, forcibly removed her panty, inserted his finger and then his penis into her vagina. He covered her mouth, and when she tried to escape, he boxed her thighs and threw her to the ground five times, threatening to kill her if she reported it. The victim revealed the incident to her mother four days later after being treated by a “hilot” for body pains and swellings. A medical examination by Dr. Lina Cero revealed hymenal lacerations, fresh wounds, swelling, and non-motile spermatozoa in a vaginal smear, confirming penetration. The defense, however, presented witnesses, including the appellant, who denied the charge. They testified that the victim was not followed that night, that appellant was at a mahjong game from 7:00 PM to midnight, and that the case was fabricated for revenge because a relative of the victim’s father had been convicted for raping appellant’s sister.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecution evidence was sufficient. The Court reiterated that the lone credible testimony of the victim in a rape case is sufficient to sustain a conviction, as the crime is often committed in solitude. The Court found the victim’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent, and it was corroborated by the medical findings of fresh hymenal lacerations and the presence of spermatozoa. The delay in reporting was satisfactorily explained by the appellant’s threat to kill her. The defense of alibi was rejected as it was not physically impossible for the appellant to have been at the crime scene, and the claim of fabrication for revenge was deemed contrived and far-fetched by the trial court. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court modified the damages, ordering the appellant to pay the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto, in addition to the P50,000 moral damages and P200 actual damages awarded by the trial court.