G.R. No. 79090 October 1, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Romeo Joya y Clamosa and Joselito Arbolante y Niviar, accused. Romeo Joya y Clamosa, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Romeo Joya and Joselito Arbolante were charged with rape in an information filed on August 28, 1984, alleging that on or about April 28, 1984, at Barangay Bucal, Tanza, Cavite, they conspired with one Ismael Cervania (at large) to have carnal knowledge of 14-year-old Maria Benneth C. Tolentino by means of force and intimidation, aggravated by being committed in the dwelling of the offended party. Both accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted them on January 27, 1987, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, indemnification of P30,000.00, and costs. During the pendency of the appeal, Joselito Arbolante withdrew his appeal, leaving Romeo Joya as the sole appellant.
The prosecution’s evidence, as summarized by the Solicitor General, established that on April 28, 1984, the complainant, then 14 years old, was tending her mother’s store. Around 7:00 PM, the appellant and his companions, including Arbolante and Cervania, arrived and had a drinking spree. After closing the store around 9:00 PM and checking her house, the complainant returned to the store around 11:00 PM and found the appellant inside. He boxed her, threatened to kill her, forced her to lie down, removed her clothing, and succeeded in raping her. She noticed Arbolante and Cervania acting as guards. Subsequently, Cervania and then Arbolante also raped her in turn, followed again by the appellant. The complainant cried and bled from her private part.
The defense presented denial and alibi. Appellant testified he was at the store until around 8:00 PM, then went to his employer’s house and later to his brother-in-law’s farmhouse, where he slept. Barangay tanod Senando Dulce testified they conducted a “ronda” from 9:00 PM to 2:00 AM, passed the store four times, and noticed nothing unusual. Mateo Cesa, a neighbor, testified he was near the store until 11:00 PM and saw no incident. Ricardo Riginding, the farm owner, testified the appellant was already sleeping at the farmhouse before 10:00 PM. Co-accused Arbolante testified he went home around 11:45 PM and noticed nothing unusual.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of accused-appellant Romeo Joya for the crime of rape has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction of accused-appellant Romeo Joya for the crime of rape, with the modification that the award of moral damages is increased to P50,000.00.
The Court held that the minor inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony regarding details such as the time she left and returned to the store, the duration of the assaults, and the store’s illumination did not impair her credibility. These were considered inconsequential given her traumatic experience and the fact she was undergoing psychiatric examination during the trial delays. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a rape victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
The defense of alibi was rejected as weak and unsubstantiated. For alibi to prevail, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. The appellant failed to establish this impossibility. The testimonies of the defense witnesses, including the barangay tanod and the neighbor, were found insufficient to corroborate the alibi and did not discredit the positive identification by the complainant.
The Court also noted that the complainant’s failure to shout for help was reasonable due to the threat to her life, and her conduct after the incident—crying until morning and reporting the crime—was consistent with that of a victim. The medical certificate, although noting no signs of physical violence, confirmed the complainant was no longer a virgin, which corroborated her claim of penetration.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was correctly appreciated as the rape was committed in the store, which was also the complainant’s home as she slept there when her mother was out. However, the Court clarified that the three separate acts of rape, while proven, constituted a single offense as charged in the information, leading to one conviction.