G.R. No. 199445 February 4, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PACITO ESPEJON y LEBIOS, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Five criminal informations for rape were filed against appellant Pacito Espejon for allegedly raping AAA, a twelve-year-old girl, on five separate occasions in 2003. The prosecution’s evidence consisted of AAA’s testimony, her birth certificate, and a medico-legal report. AAA testified that on August 10, September 28, October 26, November 9, and December 8, 2003, the appellant, armed with a bolo, brought her to a shrubby area of an elementary school, where he undressed or made her undress, kissed her, touched her breasts and vagina, and placed himself on top of her. She stated that during the August 10, September 28, and December 8 incidents, the appellant did not insert his penis into her vagina, while during the October 26 and November 9 incidents, he tried but failed to penetrate due to her pain. In all incidents except the last, she was forced to masturbate him, after which he gave her ₱20.00. AAA’s mother learned of the incidents only after the last one, from a neighbor who witnessed it. AAA did not report earlier incidents due to fear. The medico-legal report indicated no physical findings of penetration and an intact hymen. The defense presented testimonies of denial and alibi from the appellant and his wife, claiming he was engaged in chores during the alleged incidents and suggesting the charges stemmed from a prior rift over stolen mangoes.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of AAA, thereby finding the appellant guilty of the crimes charged.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal, affirming the findings of the lower courts with modifications. It held that the assessment of witness credibility by the trial court is generally accorded great respect, as it is in a unique position to observe the witness’s demeanor. The Court found no reason to deviate from this rule, as the alleged inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony—such as her failure to immediately report the incidents and her acceptance of money—were not sufficient to undermine her credibility. These actions were explained by her fear of the appellant, who was known to her family and often visited their house. The Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ modification, convicting the appellant of two counts of consummated rape (for October 26 and November 9, 2003) and three counts of attempted rape (for August 10, September 28, and December 8, 2003). The penalties and damages imposed by the Court of Appeals were sustained.