G.R. No. 124739 April 15, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINADOR PILI y ORTIZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On March 6, 1994, around 8:00 p.m., private complainant Fe Revilla was at her house in Quezon City with friends Raquel Castaneda and Carlito Ocenas. Accused-appellant Dominador Pili and a companion, Ashmad, arrived. Appellant pulled out a fan knife and declared, “Trip kong manggulo ngayon.” Ashmad left. Appellant also left but returned shortly, reiterating his intent to cause trouble, prompting Fe’s friends to leave. Appellant then seized Fe, aimed his knife at her, and pushed her to a bed. He pulled down his trousers, slid her dress up, removed her underwear, and had carnal knowledge of her. He stopped upon realizing she was menstruating, verified this with a lighter, and kissed her face. Fe escaped when a car horn sounded, distracting appellant. She ran to the Barangay Lupon, met Rev. Reynaldo Cabangon, and reported the rape by “Domeng.” She executed a sworn statement that evening. A medical examination the next day confirmed she was in a non-virgin state and found an abrasion on her scapular region. Appellant was arrested on March 7, 1994. The prosecution’s case relied on Fe’s testimony and the medico-legal report.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Appellant claimed he was at Ricardo Malto’s residence watching TV from before 8:00 p.m. until about 8:45 p.m. on March 6, 1994, then went home. He alleged Fe’s motive was revenge because he had opposed her previous cohabitation with his brother, Ricardo Pili. Ricardo testified that Fe had threatened to file a case against them after their separation.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Dominador Pili of rape based on the complainant’s testimony and evidence presented by the prosecution.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s assessment of the complainant’s credibility is accorded great respect, as it is in the best position to observe her demeanor. The Court meticulously scrutinized Fe Revilla’s testimony and found it credible, straightforward, and consistent. Her immediate reporting of the rape to a pastor and the police, coupled with the medico-legal findings (abrasion and non-virgin state), corroborated her account. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The alleged motive of revenge was insufficient to discredit Fe’s testimony, especially since she had previously testified in favor of appellant in another case. The elements of rape—carnal knowledge through force or intimidation—were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and an award of moral damages were upheld.