G.R. No. 190632; February 26, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MANOLITO LUCENA y VELASQUEZ, alias “Machete,” Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On April 28, 2003, around 11:30 p.m., AAA, a 17-year-old minor, was walking and chatting with friends in San Dionisio, Parañaque City, when two barangay tanods, one of whom was appellant Manolito Lucena, apprehended them for violating a curfew ordinance. AAA’s companions escaped, leaving her alone. She was ordered to board a tricycle. Despite her pleas, she was brought near the barangay hall. One tanod went inside, while appellant stayed to guard her. Upon the other tanod’s return, appellant stated he would take AAA home. Instead, he brought her to Kabuboy Bridge. Appellant threatened to kill AAA if she resisted or jumped. He ordered her to alight, pointed a gun at her, and commanded her to lie down and remove her clothes. He then placed the gun on the ground and inserted his penis into her vagina against her will. After stopping, he inserted his penis again after about five minutes, then stopped, and inserted it a third time. Afterward, he ordered AAA to dress, threatened to kill her if she reported the incident, and dropped her off near a school. The following day, AAA reported the incident to a barangay kagawad and later, with her mother, went to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) where Dr. Merle Tan conducted a medico-legal examination. The examination revealed healing hymenal lacerations at 3 and 5 o’clock, a fresh laceration at 9 o’clock with ecchymosis, and fresh anal lacerations, consistent with blunt force or penetrating trauma. AAA also executed a sworn statement at the Coastal Road Police Headquarters, identifying appellant, who was wearing a “Barangay Police” jacket and had an ID during the incident. The defense presented appellant and Rodel Corpuz. The parties stipulated that appellant was the assigned barangay radio operator from midnight to 5:00 a.m. on April 28, 2003, and that Corpuz left past midnight and returned at 2:00 a.m., finding appellant still there at 5:00 a.m. Appellant denied the allegations, claiming he was on duty as a radio operator, went home after midnight, did not know AAA personally, and was shocked by his arrest.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved the element of force and intimidation in the rape charges.
2. Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant of three counts of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the Regional Trial Court’s conviction. The Court held:
1. The element of force and intimidation was proven. Appellant, a barangay tanod, exploited his authority to apprehend AAA under the pretext of a curfew violation. He used a gun to threaten her, instilling fear sufficient to subdue her will. The medical findings corroborated AAA’s testimony of sexual abuse. Appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi, uncorroborated and weak, could not prevail over AAA’s positive, categorical, and straightforward testimony.
2. The conviction for three counts of rape was proper. The evidence established three separate acts of sexual intercourse. Appellant inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina, stopped, rested for about five minutes, and then repeated the act two more times. Each insertion constituted a distinct criminal act of rape, demonstrating a renewed criminal intent for each assault. Therefore, appellant was correctly found guilty of three counts of rape.
The Court sustained the penalties of reclusion perpetua for each count and the awards of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages for each count.