G.R. No. 130947 . September 14, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMON ROMAN y BERNALDEZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On June 26, 1991, at around 3:00 p.m., 18-year-old Milan Salcedo went to a public pumpwell to bathe. Accused-appellant Ramon Roman arrived, placed his hand on her shoulder, kissed her, and professed his love. When Milan resisted, he dragged her to a grassy area. She cried and shouted, but he poked a short handgun at her, frightening her into silence. He removed her clothes, laid her on a towel, and inserted his penis into her private organ, causing excruciating pain. After ejaculating, he again had sexual intercourse with her twice more at 25-minute intervals, each time while poking the gun at her. He then warned her not to tell anyone or he would kill her and her family. They returned to her house past 5:00 p.m., where Milan cried and later told her mother about the rape at around 9:00 p.m. The family did not confront accused-appellant out of fear, as he stayed and slept in their house that night, carrying a gun. The next day, Milan and her mother reported the incident to the police. A medical examination revealed fresh hymenal lacerations and other injuries. A month later, Milan married her fiancé, Amado Nillo. Accused-appellant left for Manila on June 27, 1991, and was only arrested in 1994. An information for rape was filed against him. At trial, accused-appellant did not deny having carnal knowledge but claimed it was consensual, alleging he and Milan were sweethearts and that they had sexual relations three times that afternoon by mutual agreement. He presented a handkerchief with embroidered initials, and his cousin testified to seeing them in a consensual sexual encounter. His wife testified he admitted an affair with Milan. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with moral damages and costs.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. It held that the trial court did not err in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the complainant’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent, detailing how accused-appellant used a gun to intimidate her into submission. The medical findings of fresh hymenal lacerations corroborated her claim of recent sexual intercourse. The Court rejected accused-appellant’s defense of a sweetheart relationship as implausible, noting the complainant was engaged to be married to another man a month after the incident and that the alleged love token (handkerchief) was not convincingly proven to be from the complainant. The testimony of accused-appellant’s cousin, who claimed to have witnessed a consensual act, was deemed unreliable as it defied belief that he would silently watch without making his presence known. The Court also found the claim of a pre-planned trip to Manila unconvincing as a reason for the complainant to fabricate a rape charge. The Court ruled that accused-appellant could only be held liable for one count of rape as charged in the information, despite evidence of three acts. The trial court’s award of moral damages was affirmed. However, the Supreme Court modified the decision by ordering accused-appellant to pay an additional sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, which is automatically granted in rape cases. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.