PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY COMILANG y BALLESTEROS, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 213853. July 29, 2019.

FACTS:
Jerry Comilang was charged with the crime of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the testimony of the private complainant, AAA, who was 13 years old at the time of the incident. AAA testified that Comilang, her neighbor and the common-law partner of her aunt, sexually assaulted her inside his house. The defense interposed denial and alibi, claiming Comilang was elsewhere during the alleged incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted Comilang of Rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Comilang appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly questioning AAA’s credibility and the lack of physical evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Jerry Comilang for the crime of Rape, despite alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and lack of corroborative physical evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the conviction. The Court held that the testimony of the victim, AAA, was credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish the elements of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Credibility of the Victim’s Testimony: The Court reiterated the well-entrenched doctrine that the testimony of a rape victim, if credible, is sufficient to support a conviction. AAA gave a clear, candid, and straightforward account of the harrowing incident. The alleged inconsistencies in her testimony pertained to minor details and did not affect the core facts of the rape. In fact, minor inconsistencies may even strengthen credibility as they negate the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.

2. Elements of Rape: The prosecution successfully proved all the elements of rape under Article 266-A: (a) that Comilang had carnal knowledge of AAA; and (b) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation. AAA’s detailed narration of how Comilang used his moral ascendancy and physical force to subdue her, a 13-year-old girl, satisfied these elements. Her immediate report to her mother and the subsequent medical examination, while not conclusive of rape, lent credence to her account.

3. Defense of Denial and Alibi: The Court ruled that Comilang’s defense of denial and alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive and credible identification by the victim. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Comilang failed to meet this burden, as the place he claimed to be was not so far as to preclude his presence at the crime scene.

4. Moral Damages: The Court affirmed the award of moral damages but, following prevailing jurisprudence, modified the amounts. The accused was ordered to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with legal interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.

The conviction was upheld, and the modified damages were imposed.