G.R. No. 178873 , April 24, 2009
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Illustre Llagas a.k.a. Nonoy Llagas, Appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Illustre Llagas, was charged with rape committed against AAA on April 16, 2003, in Baguio City. AAA worked as a waitress and often stayed at the house of her co-worker, BBB. She met appellant, BBB’s cousin, on February 24, 2003. On April 16, 2003, appellant and AAA met to transact the sale of his cellphone. Appellant persuaded AAA to go to his house at Km. 4, Asin Road, assuring her his mother and sister were there. Upon arrival, they were alone. When AAA tried to leave, appellant locked the door, boxed her twice in the stomach, choked her, threatened her with a knife, and forcibly pulled her into a room. Despite her pleas and struggles, he removed her clothes, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. After ejaculating, he sneered at her. While appellant was answering a phone call from his wife, AAA escaped. She reported the incident to her uncle, a policeman, and filed a complaint. A medical examination revealed a healed hymenal laceration consistent with penetrating trauma. Appellant denied the rape, claiming consensual sexual intercourse occurred on February 28 or 29, 2003, at BBB’s house. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay ₱50,000 as civil indemnity and ₱100,000 as moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reduced moral damages to ₱50,000.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for rape despite his claim that the sexual intercourse was consensual and that the prosecution’s evidence was weak.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It held that AAA’s detailed and credible testimony, corroborated by medical findings, sufficiently established the rape. Appellant’s claim of consensual sex was contradicted by his own shifting defenses—initially denying intercourse on April 16, then admitting it but on a different date. His argument that answering his wife’s call during the incident negated force was illogical; the call provided AAA the chance to escape. The Court found AAA’s account of violence, intimidation with a knife, and her helpless resistance compelling and consistent with rape. The award of damages was modified: civil indemnity of ₱50,000 and moral damages of ₱50,000 were affirmed, and exemplary damages of ₱25,000 were added. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld.