G.R. No. 138614 ; May 7, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HECTOR BALDOSA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Hector Baldosa was charged with rape before the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental. The information alleged that on or about July 8, 1996, around 9:00 PM, in Siaton, Negros Oriental, he had carnal knowledge of Maria Fe B. Calabroso by means of force, violence, and intimidation. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, as testified by the victim Maria Fe Calabroso, is as follows: On the evening of July 8, 1996, she was sleeping with her two-year-old son when the accused, her husband’s first cousin, rammed the door of her house, rushed towards her, and pressed a bolo against her throat. He demanded money and threatened to kill her and her son. Out of fear, she revealed where she kept their savings of P6,000.00, which he took. He then ordered her to remove her underwear, and despite her pleas and refusal, he forcibly ripped her panty off and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her. The commotion agitated nearby chickens, causing the accused to panic and jump out the window, leaving his bolo behind. Maria Fe immediately went to her brother-in-law Jimmy Calabroso to report the robbery and rape, and they proceeded to her parents-in-law’s house. The following day, she reported the incident to the barangay captain and the police and underwent a medical examination.
The defense presented a different story. The accused claimed that he and Maria Fe had been having a love affair since February 1995 and would often engage in sex. He alleged that on the morning of July 8, 1996, Maria Fe told him to come to her house that evening. He claimed they had consensual sex that night and were about to engage in it again when her brother-in-law Jimmy arrived, causing him to panic and jump out the window. He asserted that Maria Fe filed the rape case because she feared her husband would harm her after they were caught. His wife, Merlyn Baldosa, corroborated his testimony about catching them in an intimate embrace and later forgiving them.
The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to indemnify the victim P50,000.00 and to restitute the P6,000.00 taken. The accused appealed.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision with modification regarding civil liabilities. The Court found no cogent reason to overturn the trial court’s findings on witness credibility, which is best assessed by the trial judge who observed the witnesses firsthand. The testimony of Maria Fe was clear, convincing, and consistent. The Court rejected the defense of a love affair as an implausible fabrication, noting that it is a common defense in rape cases. The medical findings, though not showing fresh lacerations, were consistent with the victim’s testimony that she was not a virgin, having been married and given birth. The presence and use of a bolo constituted sufficient intimidation to bring the victim to submission. The victim’s conduct immediately after the incident—seeking help, reporting to authorities, and undergoing medical examination—was characteristic of someone who had been sexually abused.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the order to indemnify the victim P50,000.00 and restitute P6,000.00 were upheld. Additionally, the Court ordered the accused to pay the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages, which is deemed innate in the crime of rape. Costs were imposed against the appellant.