G.R. No. 122339. August 4, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOVEN DAGANTA alias “LOBEN,” appellant.

FACTS

On August 11, 1992, an Information for rape was filed against Loven Daganta alias “Loben” before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City. The Information alleged that on or about May 26, 1992, in Barangay Calapandayan, Subic, Zambales, the accused, by means of force, intimidation, and threats, had carnal knowledge of Melissa E. Wood, a nine-year-old girl, against her will. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim P50,000 as moral damages. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
The prosecution’s version, as summarized by the trial court, was that on May 26, 1992, at about 1:00 p.m., the victim Melissa Wood was on her way to her grandmother when the accused, a neighbor, called her and brought her inside his room. Inside, the accused kissed her on the cheek and lips, sprayed insect repellent on her face causing her to lose consciousness, and raped her. When she woke up, she found her clothes crumpled, felt pain in her lower abdomen and private parts when urinating, and later saw blood stains on her panties. She informed her sister Lilibeth that same afternoon, and her mother Emerita was informed the next day. Emerita confronted the accused, who allegedly apologized and promised not to repeat it. Melissa was examined by Dr. Rogelio Pizarro, who found contusions and a hymenal laceration consistent with penetration by a hard object like a penis. A complaint was filed on May 28, 1992.
The defense’s version, as summarized by the trial court, was that on the said date and time, Melissa climbed over the fence to the accused’s house, asked him to play, touched him, and persisted despite his refusal as he was cementing the house. Irked, he pushed her. She went home and complained. The next day, her mother confronted him using bad words and asked why he pushed Melissa. The accused denied raping Melissa and testified they stayed together in the room for an hour. Dr. Richard Patilano testified for the defense, stating that if the medical examination was conducted two days later, the laceration found would still be fresh.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of rape based on the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal was meritorious. The guilt of the appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, leading to his acquittal. The Court emphasized that in rape prosecutions, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with great caution, as the crime is usually known only to her and the rapist. Material lapses in the victim’s testimony can create reasonable doubt. Conviction must rest on the strength of the state’s evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. The Court found such material lapses and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly in the testimony of the victim regarding the loss of consciousness and the events thereafter, which cast doubt on the veracity of the claim of rape. The medical findings, while indicating recent sexual intercourse, were not conclusive of rape by the appellant. Between the positive testimony of the victim and the denial of the accused, the former generally prevails, but only if the testimony is credible, consistent, and convincing. In this case, the prosecution failed to meet the required quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt.