G.R. Nos. 150983-84 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROGELIO TALAVERA Y RULLODA, SPO3 ROLANDO MENDOZA (DISMISSED), PO3 ALBERTO TRAJANO (AT LARGE), PO3 RICO SUAREZ (AT LARGE) & PO3 GODOFREDO BAUTISTA (AT LARGE), ACCUSED.ROGELIO TALAVERA Y RULLODA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proved the guilt of accused Rogelio Talavera y Rulloda beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 96-148521 of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 in relation to R.A. 7610, without any mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the victim Grace Nodalo the amount of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00 and costs of suit. For failure of the prosecution, however, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 96-148522 of the crime of Robbery, defined and penalized under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code, accused is hereby acquitted. Hence, this appeal, raising a lone assignment of error, to wit: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT, ROGELIO TALAVERA, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CONSUMMATED CRIME OF RAPE ON THE BASIS OF COMPLAINANT GRACE NODALO'S IMPLAUSIBLE AND CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY. [4] The appeal is without merit. According to appellant, Nodalo's description of the manner of commission of the rape is unworthy of belief. Understandably, while Nodalo may not exactly be naïve in the ways of sex, she may have been too ashamed to accurately relate the details of the events. It should be borne in mind that this portion of her testimony referred to a harrowing experience which she would rather forget. Besides, no matter how skillful a counsel conducts an examination, the answers given may not always accurately reflect what really happened or the narration of events may not always exactly hew to the witness' actual experience. This may be due to any or a combination of the following: the sensitivity of the subject matter, the witness' feelings of anger, fear, shame or embarrassment, the witness' maturity or simply the witness' intellectual capacity and level of education. Appellant also brands as incredible Nodalo's testimony that after appellant pulled down her pants and panties, he succeeded in raping her with his pants and buttons on. This contention is misplaced. The records plainly show that appellant himself testified that he removed his own pants and underwear. Thus: ATTY. VALDEZ: q. After she removed her underwear, what happened next? a. I also removed my pants, Sir. q. And what else? a. I also removed my underwear, Sir. [5] Appellant also points out that Nodalo failed to shout or offer resistance against the sexual attack on her despite the fact that he was unarmed and there were people inside the police station who could have helped her. This is likewise untenable. The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for life and personal safety. [6] It is settled that when