G.R. No. 223138 . July 5, 2017.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RICKY PRIMAVERA y REMODO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Ricky Primavera, was charged with the rape of AAA, a 16-year-old minor, in the early morning of November 17, 2005, in Lagonoy, Camarines Sur. AAA testified that she was sleeping alone when Primavera, a neighbor, awakened her, threatened her with a gun, and strangled her with a cord to subdue her resistance. He then proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her. After the act, he threatened to kill her and her family if she reported the incident. AAA later confided in her cousin, leading to a report to the police and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Medical examination revealed an intact hymen but a hymenal orifice wide enough to allow penetration without injury.
The defense presented denial and alibi. Primavera claimed the charge was fabricated because AAA’s mother, BBB, held a grudge after he refused a loan. He alleged he was home sleeping at the time. Two witnesses testified regarding the friendly relationship between the families and Primavera’s whereabouts, with one stating he saw Primavera collecting jueteng bets earlier in the evening but not during the alleged incident time.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for rape based on the credibility of the victim’s testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great weight and respect, as it is in a direct position to observe demeanor. AAA’s categorical, consistent, and straightforward narration of the rape, including the details of the threat, force, and sexual act, was found credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The medical findings, which indicated the possibility of penetration without hymenal laceration, did not negate the commission of rape but were consistent with AAA’s testimony.
The defense of denial and alibi was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. Alibi requires proof of physical impossibility to be at the crime scene, which was not established given the proximity of Primavera’s house to AAA’s. The alleged motive for fabrication—a denied loan—was deemed insufficient to engender reasonable doubt, as it did not convincingly explain why a young victim would undergo the ordeal of a public trial and falsely accuse someone of a grave crime. The affirmance included modifications to the damages awarded, imposing civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, each at Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP75,000.00).