G.R. No. 131812; August 22, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL YLANAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On August 14, 1996, a complaint was filed by Rosemarie Monopolio, a 15-year-old helper, accusing Manuel Ylanan of rape on August 13, 1996, at around 3:00 A.M. in Cebu City. She testified that while sleeping in a makeshift room in the kitchenette where she worked, appellant entered, clamped her mouth, placed a pillow on her face, and threatened to kill her. He locked her arms and neck in a “full nelson hold,” rendered her immobile, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge from behind. She reported the incident to her aunt, Leticia Agustin, and then to the barangay and police. A medical examination by Dr. Esterlita Fiel revealed fresh hymenal lacerations. The defense presented appellant, who admitted sexual intercourse but claimed consent, alleging they were sweethearts with plans to marry. His son, Manoline Cinco Flores, testified that Rosemarie was introduced as their new mother. Leticia Agustin also testified they were sweethearts, though she later claimed not to understand her affidavit. Rebuttal witnesses, including Rosemarie’s sister Julie Fe Monopolio, denied the sweetheart relationship. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay P100,000 in damages. Appellant appealed, challenging the credibility of the complainant and the trial court’s assessment of witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the private complainant and in not giving evidentiary weight to the defense’s child witness, essentially raising the issue of witness credibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision with MODIFICATION. The Court upheld the credibility of Rosemarie Monopolio’s testimony, noting the trial judge’s firsthand observation of her demeanor, pain, and anguish, which lent credence to her account. The Court rejected appellant’s “sweetheart theory” as a defense, citing that such a relationship does not preclude rape. It also found that the act of penetration from behind was not sexually impossible and that the absence of external injuries or shouts for help does not negate rape, as there is no standard behavior for a victim. The Court dismissed the testimonies of Leticia Agustin and the child witness as insufficient to overcome the positive identification by the complainant. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The award of damages was modified: appellant was ordered to pay P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.