G.R. No. 249500 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. PO2 RHYAN CONCEPCION Y ARGUELLES, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC ordered accused-appellant to pay AAA P100,000.00 each as civil indemnity and moral damages in consonance with this court's ruling in People v. Jugueta . [45] Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed his conviction to the CA. In his Brief, [46] he argued that AAA's testimony was riddled with inconsistencies that bring doubt to AAA's accusation of rape. Accused-appellant took issue with AAA's direct testimony where she stated that she met accused-appellant thrice before the incident occurred, whereas she clarified with the RTC that she met accused-appellant a total of five times. Accused-appellant emphasized that the lack of any torn clothes or body injuries negated AAA's claim that she resisted the alleged rape. AAA's failure to immediately report the matter to the police officer and Barangay Tanod outside the police hall cast serious doubt on AAA's claim that accused-appellant raped her. Lastly, AAA's allegation that accused-appellant ejaculated inside her (after initially stating that she could not know if he ejaculated inside her) was refuted by the findings of the medico-legal. Dr. Escaro's Medico Legal Report failed to confirm the presence of spermatozoa. The Medico Legal Report did not state that deep healed lacerations in AAA's vagina was caused by accused-appellant especially since AAA admitted that she already experienced sexual intercourse before the alleged rape. In all, the prosecution's contradictory evidence could not overcome accused-appellant's right to be presumed innocent. [47] The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appearing for the prosecution, asserted that accused-appellant is guilty of rape since the totality of evidence undisputedly showed that accused-appellant "[took] advantage of [AAA]'s youth and relative lack of physical strength" [48] in order to successfully have carnal knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation. The OSG explained that the inconsistencies in AAA's testimony as to the number of times she met with accused-appellant and whether accused-appellant ejaculated inside AAA's vagina are irrelevant in finding accused-appellant guilty of rape. The OSG reiterated that AAA did not immediately report the crime to the police officer and Barangay Tanod who were outside the police precinct because of fear that they would not believe her. As to accused-appellant's denial and alibi, the OSG observed that the same were merely self-serving since there was no evidence to prove his exact whereabouts at the time of the incident. [49] Ruling of the Court of Appeals On June 25, 2019, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction with modification as to the monetary awards particularly, by awarding AAA with P75,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages with legal interest of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of the judgment until full payment. [50] While the CA held that the factua