G.R. No. 201151 January 14, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NESTOR SUAREZ y MAGTAGNOB, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Nestor Suarez y Magtagnob was charged with the rape of his 15-year-old niece, AAA. The Information alleged that on or about December 21, 2008, in Catanduanes, through force, threat, intimidation, and grave abuse of authority, he had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will. The qualifying circumstances of relationship (uncle within the third civil degree by affinity) and minority (victim under eighteen) were alleged, with nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated that the accused is the uncle of the victim, AAA was born on December 18, 1993, and the distance between their houses is about thirty meters. At trial, AAA testified that on the night of December 21, 2008, while she was sleeping beside her younger sister and her parents were away, she was awakened by appellant mashing her breasts. Appellant, wearing only briefs, was on top of her legs. He threatened her not to make noise or something bad would happen to her sister. He carried her sleeping sister out of the room, kissed and sucked different parts of her body, lowered her shorts and underwear, and inserted his penis into her vagina. After the act, he returned her sister to the room and again threatened her not to tell anyone. AAA did not immediately report the incident. Her menstruation stopped in January 2009; appellant gave her white tablets in January and February. In April 2009, she told a cousin, leading to a police report. A medico-legal certificate showed AAA had a healed vaginal laceration and was positive for pregnancy. Appellant denied the accusation, proffering alibi and claiming he was falsely accused due to a property dispute. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the amounts of damages awarded.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications. The Court held that the conviction for rape was proper. The testimony of AAA was found to be clear, spontaneous, and straightforward, deserving full faith and confidence. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the credibility of the complainant’s testimony is vital, and once found credible, her lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court rejected appellant’s arguments alleging improbabilities in AAA’s account, such as lack of significant resistance, failure to shout for help despite her parents being nearby, and the sister remaining asleep. It ruled that resistance is not an element of rape, and victims react differently; the force employed was sufficient to consummate the act. The Court also noted that the medical examination, while not an element of rape, corroborated AAA’s testimony. Appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi were weak and could not prevail over AAA’s positive identification and credible testimony. The qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority were duly proven. The Supreme Court modified the awards of damages, increasing civil indemnity to P100,000, moral damages to P100,000, and exemplary damages to P100,000, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.