G.R. No. 220892 February 21, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. BENEDICT GOMEZ y RAGUNDIAZ, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Benedict Gomez, was charged with the rape of AAA, a 15-year-old minor, on January 20, 2007, in Quezon City. The prosecution’s version established that AAA attended a birthday party and a subsequent drinking session where she became intoxicated and lost consciousness. She awoke to find Gomez on top of her, with his penis inside her vagina, and she struggled but was unable to free herself before losing consciousness again. The following day, she learned from others that multiple individuals had sexually assaulted her. She reported the incident, underwent a medico-legal examination, and positively identified Gomez as one of her assailants during trial. Although AAA had executed an affidavit of retraction, she testified it was done under duress due to a financial debt owed to Gomez’s family.
The defense presented a denial. Gomez, who was AAA’s classmate and former boyfriend, admitted being at the party but claimed he left early and did not engage in sexual intercourse with her. He suggested her accusation stemmed from lingering anger over their past relationship. The Regional Trial Court found Gomez guilty of simple rape, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Gomez then appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modification to the damages awarded. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that the credibility of the victim-witness, AAA, remained intact. Her positive identification of Gomez as the person who raped her was clear, consistent, and credible. The Court found her testimony detailed and unshaken, particularly her account of regaining consciousness during the assault, which bore the hallmarks of truth. The alleged motive of revenge raised by the defense was deemed insufficient to overturn this positive identification.
The retraction affidavit was rightly disregarded. The Court reiterated the doctrine that a retraction is inherently unreliable and does not automatically nullify a prior testimony, especially when the original testimony is credible. AAA’s explanation that the retraction was executed under pressure due to a debt provided a valid reason to reject it. The defense of denial, being inherently weak, could not prevail over AAA’s affirmative testimony. Consequently, all elements of rape through force and intimidation were proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Court modified the damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence, increasing the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00) each.