Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 192819 (People of the Philippines v. Amado Maravilla y Juego). - Appellant was charged with rape in three separate Informations for having sexual intercourse with his employer's 16-year-old daughter, against her will.

The first rape incident occurred on July 28. 2001, at around 8 p.m., while complainant was at her family's house, which also accommodates their funeral parlor business. She went to the office of the funeral parlor to call her friend and, when she stepped out of the office, appellant, her father's employee in the funeral parlor business, pulled her toward him by placing his right hand on her stomach and covering her mouth with his left hand. She struggled against him but her efforts were futile. Appellant threatened to kill her if she told her parents. He then pulled her to his bed, forced her to lie down, sat on her stomach, and continued to cover her mouth with his hand. He told her not to make any noise and again threatened to kill her if she told her parents. Appellant pulled down his slacks, removed complainant's shorts and underwear, parted her legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Appellant stayed on top of her for quite a long time. When he was done, he stood up, put on his pants, and repeated his threat to kill her.

The second rape incident transpired sometime in August 2001. One night, complainant had just switched off the light in the garage when appellant appeared, pulled her toward him, and brought her to the morgue. In the morgue, appellant ordered complainant to turn her back on him. He then undressed her and threatened to kill her if she would tell anyone about the incident. He pulled down the zipper of his pants, held complainant's stomach from behind, and inserted his penis into her vagina while she was crouched before the wall.

For the third time, appellant raped complainant on August 18, 2001, at around 8:00 p.m. She had just gone out of the office of their funeral parlor when appellant suddenly pulled her toward him, covered her mouth with his right hand, and placed his left hand on her stomach. He again threatened to kill her if she would report the incident. He then brought complainant to the place where he usually slept. He ordered her to lie down on the bed, removed her shorts and underwear, pulled down his pants, parted her legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Appellant made a push-and-pull movement against complainant, causing her to feel pain. She tried to push appellant away from her but she was unsuccessful as he was very strong. While appellant was raping her, the family's housemaid saw them and suddenly spoke when she realized what was happening. Appellant immediately stood up, pulled up his pants, and went to sleep. Complainant asked the housemaid for help. The latter convinced her to tell her parents about the rape. Her parents were attending a funeral that night and so, she waited until the following morning to tell them about what appellant had done to her.

In his defense, appellant denied that he raped complainant and testified that she was actually willing to engage in sexual intercourse with him. His narration of the events showed that it was complainant who seduced him into having sexual intercourse with her.

On August 2, 2007, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the accused of the crime of rape, thus: 

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused AMADO MARAVILLA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT [of] the crime of rape in Criminal Cases No. 4160-A, 4161-A AND 4162-A and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of three (3) counts of RECLUS1ON PERPETUA. 

Accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of P50,000.00 (in) each of the three criminal cases or the total amount of P150,000.00, as moral damages. 

x x x x 

IT IS SO ORDERED.^[1]

Appellant appealed the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated April 27, 2009, the CA affirmed the RFC decision, with the modification that appellant was ordered to pay complainant civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of the three rape cases, in addition to moral damages.^[2]

The CA found no cogent reason to reverse the trial court's findings. It noted that complainant described the three rape incidents in a straightforward, clear, and consistent manner. She remained consistent during the cross-examination and even during the clarificatory questioning by the trial judge.^[3] 

According to the CA, the facts that appellant threatened to kill complainant only once during each incident of rape and that complainant did not muster all her strength to repel the sexual advances were not sufficient bases to discredit complainant's testimony. The law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What needs only to be proved is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse with the victim. In this case, there is no doubt that force and intimidation attended the commission of the rape.^[4]

The CA further held that the failure of the prosecution to present as witness the housemaid who allegedly witnessed the third rape was not fatal to its case. Complainant's testimony, by itself, strongly and sufficiently established appellant's guilt. The testimony of the housemaid would have been merely corroborative.^[5]

Finally, the CA explained that civil indemnity, which is in the nature of actual and compensatory damages, is obligatory upon a conviction of rape. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, complainant is entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of rape.^[6]

Appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office, filed a notice of appeal, which was given due course by the CA. The records of the case were then elevated to this Court.

The Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it is no longer filing a supplemental brief, and that it is adopting all the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in its brief filed before the CA.

In his supplemental brief, appellant principally argues that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of force, threat, and intimidation.

The appeal has no merit.

The Court sustains the decision of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape. Findings of trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.^[7] Mere, we find none of these instances present.

Indeed, a review of complainant's testimony would show that her narration of the three rape incidents was straightforward and categorical; hence, the testimony should be given full credence. From the said testimony, it is evident that force, threat, and intimidation attended the commission of the rape.

In an attempt to discredit complainant, the defense contended that the threat given to her was not sufficient to instill fear, considering that appellant was not even armed with any weapon. There was also no showing of intimidation. The arguments deserve scant consideration.

For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. Intimidation must he viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the rape and not by any hard and fast rule. It is, therefore, enough that it produces fear � fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. Intimidation would also explain why there are no traces of struggle which would indicate that the victim fought off her attacker.^[8]

The prosecution's failure to present the housemaid as witness has no bearing on its case. By the very nature of this crime, it is usually only the victim who can testify as to its occurrence. Thus, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.^[9] Otherwise stated, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, suffices to warrant a conviction for rape.

WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS  the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated April 27, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C No. 03074, finding appellant Amado Maravilla y Juego guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, and AFFIRMS said Decision.

SO ORDERED. 

  Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
  Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] CA rollo, p. 33.

^[2] Rollo, p. 24.

^[3] Id. at 11-20.

^[4] Id. at 20-21.

^[5] Id. at 23.

^[6] Id.

^[7] People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 741, 752.

^[8] People v. Ricamora, G.R. No. 168628. December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 514, 528, citing People v. Manggasin, G.R. Nos. 130599-600, April 21, 1999, 306 SCRA 228, 243.

^[9] People v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 168650, October 26, 2007, 537 SCRA 494, 502-503.