G.R. No. 139695 ; August 26, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Guillermo Ferrer, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Guillermo Ferrer was charged with rape under Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Section 5(B) of Republic Act 7610. The information alleged that on or about February 20, 1998, in Tanay, Rizal, the accused, by means of force, violence, and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of the 13-year-old complainant, Leonisa Apolinario, against her will and consent. The prosecution’s evidence established that at around 4:00 a.m. on February 20, 1998, Leonisa was sent by her aunt to get plywood. On her way back, she was followed, grabbed, and threatened with death by a man whose face was covered with a T-shirt. He brought her to a grassy area near a “kasay” tree in Peralta Farm, pushed her down, forcibly removed her shorts, and had carnal knowledge of her twice despite her resistance. Leonisa recognized the accused through his voice and general physical features, having known him since she was in grade school as he often visited her cousin in their house. She immediately reported the rape to her aunt and barangay officials, who apprehended the accused. A medico-legal examination revealed a deep vaginal laceration consistent with the alleged rape and injuries indicative of a struggle. The accused denied the accusation, interposing alibi and claiming he did not know Leonisa, although he admitted visiting her uncle’s house. The trial court convicted him of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay P75,000.00 civil indemnity.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt despite the defense’s claim that the testimony of the complainant was doubtful and contrary to human experience.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The appeal was bereft of merit. The Court held that Leonisa Apolinario was categorical and positive in identifying the appellant as her assailant. She recognized him by his voice and physical features despite his face being covered, as she had known him for a long time and he frequently visited her house. Her immediate reporting of the crime to her aunt and barangay officials, and her consistent identification of the appellant in her sworn statement and in court, bolstered her credibility. The Court noted that her initial confusion during a second police investigation did not undermine her positive and consistent courtroom identification. The defense of alibi and denial was rejected, as it could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim, and the accused failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The award of civil indemnity was reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. Additionally, the appellant was ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages, which are inherently suffered in crimes of this nature. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.