G.R. No. 220023 . August 08, 2016.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. DARIO TUBORO Y RAFAEL, APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Dario Tuboro y Rafael was charged with rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 . The Information alleged that sometime in November 1996, in Antipolo, Rizal, he used force, violence, and intimidation, armed with a kitchen knife, to have carnal knowledge of the complainant AAA, a child over twelve but under eighteen years old, against her will. During arraignment, he pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that Dario is her father’s brother-in-law. She stated she was raped by Dario in November 1996 at his house in Sitio Bulao, Cainta, Rizal, while she was sleeping and he was alone with her. She was fourteen years old at the time. She also testified about previous sexual abuses in Payatas, Quezon City, in April and October 1996, which she did not immediately report due to threats from Dario. Her father, Ireneo Melgar, testified that he learned of the rape from relatives in December 1996 and subsequently reported it. Emma Melgar testified about seeing AAA and Dario’s wife, Susan, in a serious conversation, with Susan later stating AAA was pregnant and had undergone a “hilot.” The medico-legal officer, Dr. Valentin Bernales, found AAA’s hymen intact but distensible.
The defense presented only Dario, who denied the allegations, claiming he was elsewhere during the alleged incidents and that the case was a harassment suit by AAA’s family who wanted him separated from his wife.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Dario of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, ordering him to pay moral and civil indemnity damages.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, particularly that of AAA, is accorded great weight and respect, and no compelling reason was shown to overturn it. The minor inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony regarding the Payatas incidents did not undermine her credibility concerning the Sitio Bulao rape, which was the subject of the Information. The Court found AAA’s testimony on the November 1996 rape in Sitio Bulao to be clear, consistent, and credible. The defense of denial and alibi was weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The medical finding of an intact but distensible hymen does not negate rape. The Court sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of moral damages and civil indemnity, applying the relevant legal interest rate.