G.R. No. 139433; April 11, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Arman Arofo and Gaspar Fortaliza, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Arman Arofo and Gaspar Fortaliza were charged with rape committed against Glenda Mantuhak on March 1, 1989, in Consolacion, Cebu. The information alleged they conspired and used force and intimidation. Both pleaded not guilty. Glenda, then a 20-year-old student, testified that while walking home, she was accosted by the appellants. Gaspar boxed her, Arman covered her mouth, and they carried her to a banana plantation. They moved her to a stringbean plantation and finally to a coconut plantation, threatening her with a gun and a knife. At the coconut plantation, Gaspar inserted his penis into her vagina but ejaculated outside. Subsequently, Arman pushed her down, forcibly inserted his penis into her mouth, and then consummated the rape by inserting his organ into her vagina. Medical examination confirmed abrasions, contusions, multiple hymenal lacerations, trauma to the fourchette, and the presence of spermatozoa. Glenda executed sworn statements identifying the appellants. The appellants presented alibis: Arman claimed he was in school attending classes, supported by teachers and a classmate; Gaspar claimed he was watching a movie with family members. The trial court found Glenda’s testimony credible, convicted the appellants of two counts of rape, and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua per count.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellants Arman Arofo and Gaspar Fortaliza of two counts of rape based on the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence and in not acquitting them due to alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s statements.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that Glenda’s testimony was clear, spontaneous, and rich in detail, and there was no showing of any sinister motive to falsely implicate the appellants. The alleged inconsistencies in her sworn statements were not material to the fact of rape and did not undermine her credibility. The medical findings corroborated her account. The appellants’ defenses of denial and alibi, being inherently weak, could not prevail over Glenda’s positive identification. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count was proper, as the rapes were committed by two persons. However, the trial court erred in not awarding civil indemnity and moral damages. The Court modified the decision to order the appellants to pay solidarily the sums of P50,000 as indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages for each count of rape.