G.R. No. 106493 September 8, 1993
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO DIO Y BOTABARA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On October 28, 1990, in Lower Bonga, Bacacay, Albay, complainant Natividad Bañal was tethering a carabao about sixty meters from her house. Accused-appellant Ernesto Dio suddenly appeared, choked her, placed a hand over her mouth, and poked a knife at her neck. He dragged her to an area with anahaw trees, pushed her down, lifted her skirt, tore her panty, and, with the knife still poked at her neck, succeeded in raping her in a kneeling position. She tried to push him away but was overpowered. After the act, he threatened to kill all members of her family if she reported the incident. She reported the rape to her husband later that afternoon, but they hesitated to report it to the police until November 29, 1990, due to fear of retaliation. A medical examination was not conducted as the doctor was unavailable, and a staff member stated it was unnecessary since she was married.
The defense presented a diametrically opposed version. Accused-appellant denied the rape, claiming alibi—that he was at home making mats on the date in question—and alleged that he and Natividad were lovers. He testified that their relationship began on July 22, 1990, when she borrowed money from him, and that she voluntarily offered herself to him on several occasions, with the last sexual intercourse occurring on October 20, 1990. He claimed she filed the rape charge after he refused her proposal to elope.
The trial court convicted accused-appellant of rape. He appealed, arguing that the court erred in: (1) convicting him despite the complainant’s alleged lack of tenacious resistance and failure to undergo a medical examination; (2) giving credence to the complainant’s testimony and not giving weight to his evidence; and (3) not acquitting him on the ground that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of rape based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. The Court found no error in the trial court’s conviction of accused-appellant. The findings of the trial court, especially on witness credibility, are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of overlooked or misapplied facts. The complainant’s testimony was credible and straightforward; it is highly improbable for a married woman with a child to expose herself to humiliation if her accusations were untrue. Her failure to immediately report the incident was justified by the death threats and the natural reluctance of a rape victim. Accused-appellant’s defense of alibi was weak, as he failed to prove it was impossible for him to be at the crime scene, his house being only one kilometer away. His claim of a love affair was not credible, as it is unthinkable the complainant would immediately report the matter to her husband if it were true, and the claim that she offered her body for a P100.00 debt was unacceptable. The lack of medical examination is not indispensable to a rape prosecution, and the non-presentation of the torn panties was not fatal given the complainant’s detailed and consistent testimony. The Court modified the decision by ordering accused-appellant to pay the victim Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as indemnity.