G.R. No. 123916; June 19, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LYNTON ASUNCION Y UANANG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On May 15, 1986, an Information was filed charging Lynton Asuncion with rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, committed on or about April 3, 1985, in Baggao, Cagayan. The accused, armed with a gun, and by using force, violence, and intimidation, allegedly had sexual intercourse with Lelia G. Cipriano against her will. The accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
The prosecution’s version, as testified to by private complainant Lelia Cipriano, is that at about 6:00 p.m. on April 3, 1985, while walking home with Robert Domingo, the accused, visibly drunk and holding a gun, appeared, pistol-whipped Robert Domingo, and then dragged Lelia to the shoulder of the road. He pointed the gun at her head, threatened to shoot her if she shouted, pushed her to the ground, pulled down her pants and underwear, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. After the incident, she went home, reported the rape to her aunts and the barangay captain, and underwent a medical examination the next morning.
The defense’s version, as testified to by the accused and corroborated by witness Edwin Ayson, is that the accused and Robert Domingo engaged in a fistfight upon meeting on the road, which was pacified by Ayson. The accused denied raping Lelia and theorized that the case was filed in retaliation for him hitting her boyfriend, Robert Domingo. Edwin Ayson testified he saw the fight and that Lelia ran away, but his testimony contained inconsistencies on cross-examination regarding who ran first.
The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay P30,000.00 in damages. The accused appealed.

ISSUE

The main issues, as framed by the accused-appellant’s assigned errors, are: (1) whether the prosecution proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the trial court failed to scrutinize the complainant’s testimony which allegedly contained serious inconsistencies; (3) whether the judge who rendered the decision erred by not having presided over the entire trial and by allegedly deciding based on incomplete records; (4) whether the conviction for rape was a serious error; and (5) whether the trial court erred in not considering a motion for new trial/reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
On the first and second issues, the Court found the complainant’s testimony to be categorical, straightforward, and spontaneous, which was sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape. The Court held that in rape cases, the testimony of the victim alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict, as usually only the participants can testify to its occurrence. The alleged inconsistencies in her testimony were deemed inconsequential.
On the third issue, the Court ruled that the fact that the judge who penned the decision did not hear all the evidence in chief does not taint the judgment. The Court noted that the trial court had undertaken the retaking of a prosecution witness’s testimony and approved a stipulation regarding another witness’s testimony before rendering judgment. Furthermore, the Court conducted an independent review of the records and found no reason to disturb the factual findings.
On the fourth issue, the Court found no error in the conviction, as the elements of rape through force and intimidation were duly proven by the complainant’s credible testimony.
On the fifth issue, the Court found the motion for new trial/reconsideration to be without merit, as it was based on a sworn statement from Robert Domingo recanting his earlier affidavit, which the Court viewed with suspicion and as insufficient to warrant a new trial.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court also modified the award of damages, increasing the civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and awarding P50,000.00 as moral damages, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.