WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the [c]ourt finds accused DIOSDADO TUBAT y VERSOZA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua [and] to pay the complainant the amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, plus the costs of suit.6
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision dated June 30, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxx, xxx, in Criminal Case No. 31344-MN, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant DIOSDADO TUBAT is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the complainant in the amount of P50,000.00, as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, plus costs of suit.9
(1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.12
Nonetheless, this matter raised by appellant is a minor detail which had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape. Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters -- not to the central fact of the crime -- do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of witnesses' declarations, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole.16 For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged.17 It cannot be overemphasized that the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony.18
As it has been repeatedly held, no woman would want to go through the process, the trouble and the humiliation of trial for such a debasing offense unless she actually has been a victim of abuse and her motive is but a response to the compelling need to seek and obtain justice.19
It is settled jurisprudence that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.20
Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her attackers because of fear. xxx The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a gun is sufficient to bring her into submission.22 Thus, the law does not impose upon the private complainant the burden of proving resistance.23
In rape cases, while denial and alibi are legitimate defenses, bare assertions thereof cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. In particular, the defense of alibi is weak if wanting in material corroboration, as in this case.27
In order to merit credibility, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability which herein accused-appellant failed to show. And in order for alibi to prosper, the accused-appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or its immediate vicinity. In the present case, accused-appellant failed to demonstrate this fact.28
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 2-9. Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Arturo G. Tayag , concurring.
2 The accusatory portion of the Information dated 29 July 2004 in Criminal Case No. 31344-MN reads:
That on or about the 10th day of March 2004, in the City of xxx, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a knife, with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sexually abused/molested [AAA], by having carnal knowledge with her against her will and without her consent. Records, p. 1.
3 Id. at 15. Order dated 3 January 2005.
4 In People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419), the real name and the personal circumstances of the victim, and any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, including those of her immediate family or household members were withheld in order to maintain the confidentiality of information on child abuse cases, and consistent with the application of: (1) the provisions of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and its implementing rules; (2) Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004) and its implementing rules; and (3) this Court's Resolution dated 19 October 2004 in A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children). While it would appear that victims of rape who are already of legal age are not covered by the provisions of Republic Act No. 9262, we deem it best to extend similar protection to them in order to respect their dignity and protect their privacy and that of their families.
5 Records, pp. 60-62. Decision dated 30 June 2006 penned by Judge Benjamin T. Antonio.
6 Id. at 62.
7 Id. at 63. Notice of Appeal dated 18 September 2006 filed by appellant with the trial court.
8 CA rollo, p. 68. Notice of Judgment dated 30 January 2008 of the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals.
9 Id. at 76. Decision dated 30 January 2008 of the Court of Appeals.
10 Rollo, p. 21. Resolution dated 16 July 2008, First Division, Supreme Court.
11 Id. at 28-31. Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated 8 October 2008 of the Office of the Solicitor General; Id. at 24-27. Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief dated 22 September 2008 of the Public Attorney's Office.
12 People v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 188106, 25 November 2009, 605 SCRA 807, 814 citing People v. Glivano, G.R. No. 177565, 28 January 2008, 542 SCRA 656, 662 further citing People v. Malones, 425 SCRA 318, 329 (2004).
13 People v. Ogarte, G.R. No. 182690, 30 May 2011citing People v. Buenviaje, 408 Phil. 342, 354 (2001).
14 People v. Padilla, G.R. No. 182917, 8 June 2011 citing People v. Paculba, G.R. No. 183453, 9 March 2010, 614 SCRA 755, 763-764.
15 G.R. No. 178321, 5 October 2011.
16 Id. citing People v. Suarez, G.R. Nos. 153573-76, 15 April 2005, 456 SCRA 333, 345.
17 Id. citing People v. Villarino, G.R. No. 185012, 5 March 2010, 614 SCRA 372, 387 further citing People v. Masapol, G.R. No. 121997, 10 December 2003, 417 SCRA 371, 377.
18 Id. citing People v. Wasit, G.R. No. 182454, 23 July 2009, 593 SCRA 721, 729.
19 People v. Saludo, G.R. No. 178406, 6 April 2011 citing People v. Alcazar, G.R. No. 186494, 15 September 2010, 630 SCRA 622, 633; People v. Belga, G.R. No. 129769, 19 January 2001, 349 SCRA 678.
20 People v. Belga, id., citing People v. Manuel, 298 SCRA 184 [1998].
21 G.R. No. 172118, 24 April 2007, 522 SCRA 189.
22 Id. citing People v. Galido, G.R. Nos. 148689-92, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 502, 515; People v. David, 461 Phil. 364, 680-681(2003); People v. Gutierrez, 451 Phil. 227, 239-240 (2003).
23 Id.
24 People v. Francisco, G.R. No. 141631, 4 April 2003, 400 SCRA 650, 657 citing People vs. Tanail, 323 SCRA 667, 675 [2000]; People vs. Narido, 316 SCRA 131 [1999].
25 Id.
26 Id. at 661.
27 Rollo, p. 8 citing People v. Cachapero, 428 SCRA 744 (2004).
28 Id. citing People v. Arevalo, 421 SCRA 604 [2004].
29 See People v. Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, 5 October 2011.
30 Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides, in part:
ART. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. ? xxx
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
1. xxx
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
xxx
See also People v. Dumadag, G.R. No. 176740, 22 June 2011.
31 People v. Bulagao, supra note 29 citing People v. Manulit, G.R. No. 19258, 17 November 2010, 635 SCRA 426, 439.
32 Id. citing People v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 188106, 25 November 2009, 605 SCRA 807, 821; People v. Dumadag, supra note 30.
33 People v. Dumadag, supra note 30 citing People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 181827, 2 February 2011, 641 SCRA 472 and People v. Alverio, G.R. No. 194259, 16 March 2011.