G.R. No. 148899 October 28, 2002
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ventura Peligro y Ampo, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ventura Peligro was charged with rape committed through threat and intimidation against complainant Maria de la Rama on September 21, 1999, in Davao City. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. The prosecution presented the complainant, who testified that while she was pasturing her cattle, the accused-appellant suddenly appeared, grabbed her, pushed her to the ground, and had sexual intercourse with her. Afterward, he gave her P150.00 and warned her not to talk about the incident. She reported the matter to Barangay Kagawad Bienvenido Dana, who testified that the accused-appellant admitted to having sexual intercourse with the complainant but claimed he paid her. Reynante Camirino, a barangay police, testified to apprehending the accused-appellant. Dr. Samuel Cruz, the medico-legal officer, issued a medical report stating the complainant’s hymen was reduced to carunculae myrtiformis and that semenology was positive for spermatozoa, which he presumed belonged to the complainant’s husband. The defense presented only the accused-appellant, who testified that the sexual intercourse was consensual and that he paid the complainant P150.00 as part of an agreed P500.00 payment.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape based on the uncorroborated and incredible testimony of the alleged victim.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Regional Trial Court and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Ventura Peligro. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Applying the guiding principles in rape cases, the Court found that the prosecution did not prove the existence of threat or intimidation that would produce a reasonable fear in the mind of the complainant to justify her lack of resistance. The accused-appellant was unarmed, the complainant was a mature, 36-year-old, married woman, and there was no proof of a great disparity in physical strength between them. The complainant’s testimony was deemed improbable as she did not attempt to resist or shout for help despite the location being only 300 meters from her house and her children being nearby. The medical findings did not corroborate force or violence, and the presence of spermatozoa was attributed to her husband. The Court concluded that the evidence for the prosecution was insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence.