G.R. No. 223113 . February 19, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AUGUSTO GONZALES, ESMENIO PADER, JR., and MARCELO ANTONIO, Accused; MARCELO ANTONIO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The case stemmed from an Information charging appellant Marcelo Antonio, along with Augusto Gonzales and Esmenio Pader, Jr., with the rape of AAA, a 15-year-old minor, on December 13, 1999, in Zambales. The prosecution evidence established that while AAA was on her way home, the three accused, along with Marlon Cajobe, accosted her. After she refused an invitation to accompany them, she was dragged to a sandpile. Augusto removed her clothes while appellant and Esmenio pinned her down. Appellant and Augusto punched her. Appellant then kissed her and was the first to have carnal knowledge of her, followed by Augusto and then Esmenio. AAA’s cries attracted Loma Pascua, who summoned Barangay Kagawad Eduardo Escobar. The barangay official chased the assailants and apprehended only appellant. A medico-legal examination confirmed recent lacerations and the presence of spermatozoa.
The defense presented a different version. Appellant claimed he merely witnessed Augusto on top of AAA before an unidentified person attacked him, rendering him unconscious. Upon waking, he heard Augusto instruct the others to kill him, and he was subsequently stabbed. He asserted that barangay officials later mauled him and forced a confession. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modifications to the awarded damages. The Court upheld the findings of the trial and appellate courts, emphasizing that the credibility of the victim-witness is paramount in rape cases. The Court found AAA’s testimony to be clear, convincing, and consistent on material points, detailing how all three accused successively raped her through force and intimidation. The medico-legal certificate corroborated her account. The Court dismissed appellant’s arguments regarding alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, ruling that these pertained to minor and trivial details that did not undermine the core narrative of the crime. Such minor discrepancies may even enhance credibility by negating any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.
The Court also rejected the defense of denial and frame-up, which it deemed weak and self-serving, especially when weighed against the positive and categorical identification by the victim. The claim that AAA did not exhibit sufficient resistance was unavailing; the Court reiterated that resistance is not an essential element of rape when intimidation is present, and different victims react differently to traumatic assault. The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are accorded great weight and respect. On the award of damages, the Court modified the CA decision in line with prevailing jurisprudence, increasing the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to ₱75,000.00 each, all with 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid.