G.R. No. 137664 ; May 9, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO PADRIGONE a.k.a. “ROBERTO SAN MIGUEL”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of January 3, 1995, appellant Roberto Padrigone and three others broke into the house of sixteen-year-old Rowena Contridas in Buhi, Camarines Sur. Padrigone and a co-accused poked a knife at Rowena and her younger sister, Nimfa, gagged them, and threatened to kill them if they reported the incident. Padrigone then undressed Rowena, forced her to lie down, and raped her. The other accused allegedly watched and later took their turns. The sisters reported the crime to the police, and Rowena was medically examined. The doctor found a recent hymenal tear and copious vaginal discharge, possibly semen. A psychiatrist later diagnosed Rowena with “Acute Psychotic Depressive Condition,” concluding it was strongly related to a traumatic experience, noting Rowena had confided she was raped.
The accused, including Padrigone, pleaded not guilty and interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. Padrigone claimed they visited Rowena on the evening of January 2, where she expressed a desire to elope, and they left late evening upon advice from a barangay watchman. The trial court convicted Padrigone of rape but acquitted his three co-accused for insufficiency of evidence. Padrigone appealed, arguing the prosecution evidence was weak and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of accused-appellant Roberto Padrigone for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established Padrigone’s guilt through the credible and categorical testimony of the victim, Rowena Contridas, which was consistent with the medical findings. The medical examination corroborated her account, revealing a recent hymenal tear. The psychiatric evaluation further substantiated the traumatic impact of the rape, diagnosing a condition directly linked to the incident. The Court emphasized that testimonies of rape victims, especially young ones, are accorded full credence when they are consistent and straightforward, as no woman would willingly admit to a violation of her chastity unless it were true.
The Court rejected Padrigone’s defense of denial and alibi, which were inherently weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. His claim of a social visit was deemed unpersuasive against the positive identification and detailed account of the victim. The acquittal of the co-accused did not exonerate Padrigone, as the evidence against him—primarily Rowena’s direct testimony—remained strong and convincing. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is generally binding on appeal. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court modified the damages, ordering Padrigone to pay an additional P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, distinct from the P50,000.00 moral damages awarded by the trial court, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.