G.R. No. 116740 November 28, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERRY GUMAHOB, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Gerry Gumahob, was charged with the rape of Marijun Montalba on the evening of October 18, 1993, in Hubangon, Mahinog, Camiguin. The prosecution’s evidence established that the victim, a high school student living in her uncle’s house, was alone when Gumahob, naked, entered. He grabbed her, covered her mouth, delivered fistic blows to her abdomen, tore her dress and undergarments, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. He threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. The victim lost consciousness and only confided in a classmate the next day, leading to a medical examination and a police report.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Gumahob claimed the sexual act was consensual, alleging he and the victim were sweethearts and that it was their first sexual encounter. He testified they engaged in intimacy on a mat after which he left, and he denied using force or making threats. He suggested the complaint was fabricated due to a quarrel.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the sexual intercourse between the accused-appellant and the complainant was consensual or constituted rape through force and intimidation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the complainant, a young barrio lass, to be credible, straightforward, and worthy of belief. It emphasized the judicial principle that an accusation for rape can be sustained solely on the credible testimony of the victim. The Court rejected the defense of consensuality as implausible and unnatural. It noted the immediate physical and emotional trauma exhibited by the victim, her prompt reporting to a trusted friend, and the medical evidence, which, while not conclusive of force, was consistent with her narrative. The Court found no credible motive for the complainant to undergo the ordeal of a public trial and expose herself to shame if her story were not true. In contrast, the accused’s story was deemed a mere denial and an afterthought designed to escape liability. Consequently, the trial court’s judgment imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnity was affirmed in toto.