G.R. Nos. 137661-63; July 4, 2002
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ADRIANO PONSICA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Adriano Ponsica, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of three counts of rape against his 13-year-old neighbor, Melba Quidem. The first incident occurred on April 7, 1997, inside Ponsica’s house after Melba and others had finished watching television. As her companions left, Ponsica gagged her with a handkerchief, carried her to a corner, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on the cemented floor. He threatened to kill her family if she reported the assault, causing her initial silence.
The second rape happened in November 1997 in a similar manner after a television viewing session, this time in a nearby bamboo grove. The third and most brazen incident occurred on April 3, 1998, inside Melba’s own home while she slept beside her brothers. Ponsica entered, positioned himself on top of her, and penetrated her, boxing her in the stomach when she resisted. The crimes were eventually revealed to Melba’s aunt, leading to a medical examination and the filing of criminal charges.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for three counts of rape beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the defense of denial and alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously applied the legal principle that the testimony of a rape victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Melba’s detailed, consistent, and candid narration of the three traumatic events was found to be credible and unshaken by cross-examination. The Court emphasized the inherent difficulty for a young, unmarried woman from a rural setting to fabricate a story of defloration, undergo a physical examination, and endure the publicity of a trial unless the crime truly occurred. Her initial delay in reporting, due to the appellant’s death threats against her family, was deemed reasonable and did not impair her credibility.
The defense of denial and alibi was rejected as inherently weak, especially since Ponsica failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scenes. His claim that the charges were motivated by a land dispute was unsupported by evidence. The medical findings, though not showing fresh lacerations due to the passage of time, corroborated her account of sexual abuse. Consequently, the Court upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. However, it modified the damages, awarding P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each rape, while deleting the unsubstantiated award of exemplary damages.