G.R. No. 191265 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARCELO PEREZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the prosecution having proven the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt, MARCELO O. PEREZ is hereby found guilty of rape committed against his sister-in-law, [AAA], and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . Conformably with existing jurisprudence, accused is hereby ordered to pay the private offended party the amounts of [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity and [P]50,000.00 as moral damages. [13] The RTC held that the testimony of the rape victim had clearly established the elements of rape. The RTC dismissed as minor the inconsistency regarding BBB's presence at the house during the commission of the crime, which as such, does not affect the credibility of AAA. The trial court categorically stated that the absence of laceration and abnormalities on the victim's body did not negate the commission of rape. The trial court considered appellant's flight from the crime scene as an indication of guilt. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On 8 July 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's Decision in toto, viz : IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The decision dated 24 August 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Legazpi City, finding accused-appellant Marcelo Perez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO. [14] Hence, the instant appeal. On 7 April 2010, this Court required the appellant and the appellee to simultaneously submit their respective supplemental briefs. [15] Both parties manifested that they would merely adopt their briefs before the Court of Appeals. [16] Appellant attacks the credibility of the victim by pointing out alleged incredulities and inconsistencies in her testimony. First, AAA testified that her parents, as well as her sister CCC, were all sleeping inside the small house. Appellant notes as incredible that nobody noticed that AAA was being dragged from the small house into the bathroom situated outside the house. Second, AAA did not try to get any of her housemate's attention nor did she try to shout for help. Third, appellant could not have easily undressed himself, and then the victim, while holding a knife. Fourth, the claim of AAA that her mother was inside the house when the rape was allegedly committed ran counter to her statement that her mother was in fact in Manila at that time. Finally, appellant also invites our attention to the findings contained in the medico-legal report. The absence of fresh laceration or any sign of trauma does not jive with AAA's claim that she was raped through the use of force and intimidation. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) insists that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape. The OSG explains that AAA was cowed into silence and submission when appellant threatened to kill her should she resist. The OSG also dismissed the inconsistencies in AAA's testimony as inconsequential. Finally, the OSG be