G.R. No. 95893 , July 6, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEO PEREZ and LUIS MELENDRES, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of May 27, 1987, in Nabunturan, Davao, Marlene Jaictin (20 years old) and her boyfriend Nestor Sarpamones were accosted near the Nabunturan Central Elementary School by three men. One took Nestor away, while the other two took Marlene to a garden, assaulted her, and took turns raping her. Afterward, three other men—accused-appellants Leo Perez and Luis Melendres, and their co-accused Leo Amolong (at large)—arrived. Marlene cried for help, and the first two rapists fled. Two of the newcomers chased them, while Melendres stayed with Marlene, pointed a knife at her, and dragged her to an oval ground. When his companions returned, all three conspired to rape her: Melendres raped her first with Perez holding her legs; Perez then raped her with Melendres assisting; and finally, Amolong raped her behind the grandstand. Afterward, they took her to Perez’s house for the night and later to her employer’s house, threatening to kill her if she reported the incident. Despite threats, Marlene reported the rapes to the police three days later. A medical examination confirmed contusions, abrasions, and a laceration of the vulvar mucous membrane. The accused denied the charges, claiming they were on a rover patrol that night and had rescued Marlene from the initial rapists. The trial court convicted Perez and Melendres of rape.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellants Leo Perez and Luis Melendres for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility was upheld, as it had the direct opportunity to observe demeanor. Marlene’s testimony was clear, consistent, and credible, despite minor inconsistencies and an initial affidavit (Exhibit 1) that omitted details, as affidavits are often incomplete. The delay in reporting was justified due to death threats. The defense of denial and alibi was unconvincing, and the testimony of Nelly Perez (Leo’s sister) was deemed biased. Conspiracy among Perez, Melendres, and Amolong was established by their concerted actions—each assisting or standing guard while the others raped Marlene. However, as Amolong remained at large, conspiracy applied only to Perez and Melendres for the rapes they personally committed. The Court modified the damages: moral damages were set at P50,000.00 for each of the two rapes (total P100,000.00 jointly and severally), and exemplary damages were disallowed. The appeals were dismissed, and the trial court’s decision was affirmed with modifications.