G.R. No. 137757 ; August 14, 2000
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODEGELIO TURCO, JR., aka “TOTONG”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rodegelio Turco, Jr. was charged with the rape of his 13-year-old second cousin, Escelea Tabada, on July 8, 1995, in Isabela, Basilan. The prosecution’s evidence established that Turco, a neighbor, called Escelea from outside her house at night. When she opened the door, he covered her face with a towel, placed his hand on her neck, and forced her to a grassy area near her home. There, he laid her down, removed her clothing, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina despite her resistance, causing her pain and bleeding. He then threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. Escelea disclosed the rape to her brother-in-law ten days later, leading to a medical examination and the filing of a complaint.
The defense denied the accusation and advanced the theory that Turco and the victim were sweethearts, a claim supported by the testimony of a neighbor, Leonora Cabase. Turco himself testified to this effect. The trial court, however, found the prosecution’s version credible and convicted Turco of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay moral damages.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the defense’s “sweetheart theory” and the absence of the examining physician’s testimony regarding the medical certificate.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court dismissed the “sweetheart story” as a bare allegation lacking corroboration, such as love notes or mementos, and held that even if a relationship existed, it would not preclude the use of force or intimidation to commit rape. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a rape victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. It found Escelea’s account of the forcible assault, her resistance, the pain she felt, and the subsequent threat to be clear, consistent, and convincing.
Regarding the medical certificate, the Court ruled that while it was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, its probative value was limited due to the absence of the examining physician for cross-examination. Nevertheless, this absence was not fatal, as a medical examination is not indispensable in a rape prosecution. Escelea’s credible testimony alone provided a sufficient basis for conviction. The Court modified the damages, ordering an additional P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, separate from the P50,000.00 moral damages already awarded by the trial court.