GR 200508; (September, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 200508; September 4, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs. CHRISTOPHER RIVERA Y ROYO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
An Information for Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code was filed against Christopher Rivera y Royo (Rivera). The prosecution’s witness, AAA, a 20-year-old housemaid, testified that she met Rivera on September 28, 2004, at their workplace. Rivera offered to help her find a new job. The following day, September 29, 2004, Rivera brought her to the Ilang Ilang Motel/Lodge along Quezon Boulevard, misrepresenting it as his parents’ house. Inside the room, Rivera shoved her, pushed her onto the bed, forcibly undressed her, held her hands tightly, and inserted his penis into her vagina despite her struggles and shouts for help. After the incident, they proceeded to her cousin’s house in Antipolo City, where she reported the rape to the police. A medico-legal examination revealed a fresh shallow laceration on her hymen. For the defense, Rivera claimed AAA was his girlfriend and that their sexual intercourse inside the motel room was consensual. He stated they checked in together, with AAA contributing money for the room, and that she professed her love for him. Defense witness Grace Dueño, the lodging house cashier, supported Rivera’s claim, testifying that both appeared happy when they checked in.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment finding accused-appellant Christopher Rivera y Royo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found Rivera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of rape through AAA’s credible and categorical testimony, which was consistent with human nature and experience. The Court gave weight to the trial court’s assessment of AAA’s credibility and found her account of being deceived, forcibly subdued, and sexually assaulted to be convincing. The defense of a romantic relationship was rejected as a mere bare assertion unsupported by convincing proof. The Court emphasized that even assuming a prior relationship existed, it is not a license for sexual assault, and a woman’s prior sexual intimacy with a man does not imply perpetual consent. The medico-legal findings corroborated AAA’s claim of recent sexual intercourse. The Court sustained the penalties and awards of damages imposed by the lower courts.