3R£tmblic of tue

l31Jilippincss
§5,upremc q[ourt
;Jffilaniln

FIRST u,:vISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 239892

Plaintiff- Appellee,
Present:

PERALTA, CJ, Chairperson,

CAGUIOA, REYES,
- versus - J.,
LAZARO-JAVIER, and
LOPEZ,JJ.

Promulgated :
ROGER MENDOZA y GASPAR,
Accused-Appellant.
JU_N 1_0 2020
x x

DECISION

PERALTA, CJ.:

This is an appeal of the DecisionI dated January 22, 2018 of the Comi of
Appeals (CA), affirming the Judgment2 dated November 17, 2016 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 102, Quezon City in
Criminal Case Nos. GL-Q-13-180860-61, and finding Roger Mendoza y Gaspar,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Rape under Article 266-A, par.
l(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353.

The facts follow.

On December 25, 2011, around 7:00 p.m., private complainant AAA,3 a

thirteen (13)-year-old girl, went out to urinate in the restroom with no light

2
Penned by Assoc iate Just ice Norma nd ie B. Pizzaro, with Assoc iate Ju st ices Ramon A. Cruz and
Pabli to A. Perez conc urri ng; rollo, pp. 2-18.
Rollo, pp. 45-55.
:'7f'
ho " seho Id me mbm , sha ll be w ithh e ld P"' S"' " t to Rep"blie Aet No. 76 I

those of heo· immed iate fam ii y , o

3 T he identity of the victim or any i nformatio n to establis h or co mpro mise her identity, as we ll as
those of heo· immed iate fam ii y , o
those of heo· immed iate fam ii y , o
Decision -3- G .R. No. 239892

therein, located at the back of a three .(3)-storey house where she lived with her
father, brother, grandmother, an( Jncles. While inside the restroom, sh.! was not
able to lift the makeshift door of the cubicle to cover herself. After urinating, she
was about to pull up her underwear when appellant Mendoza, her neighbor,
suddenly went inside the cubicle where she was in and prevented her from raising
her underwear and pants. Appellant told her that he will give her One Hundred
Pesos (Pl00.00). Appellant then proceeded to remove his shorts, inserted the tip of
his penis into AAA's vagina, and kissed her neck, breasts, and lips. AAA tried to
push appellant away, but failed to do so. The. entire incident las ted about ten
(10) minutes, and thereafter, appellant gave AAA One Hundred Pesos (Pl00.00)
and left. AAA went back to the house and did not tell anyone about what
happened.

Then on January 1, 2012, around 7:00 p.m., AAA was alone in the third
floor of the house watching telev ision while her father BBB went out to throw the
garbage. It was then that appellant suddenly appeared inside the house and found
AAA in the third floor. Appellant placed himself on top of AAA and kissed her
neck and breasts, and eventually removed his shorts and AAA's underwear and
jogging pants. Appellant, thereafter, inserted the tip of his penis in AAA's
vagina. AAA tried to fight, back to no avail. Appellant ab c told AAA that he
loved her, but the former did not respond.

AAA's father arrived at the ho'.:. e and caught appellant lying beside his
daughter with the zipper of his pants 0pened. When appellant saw AAA's father,
the former stood up and told the father, "aaregluhin na Zang" and "
nagmamahalan kami." The father asked AAA if what appellant said was true, but
AAA denied it. AAA's father immediately called CCC, AAA's grandmother, and
asked her to call the police and barangay officials. When CCC learned of what
happened, she slapped appellant's face. There was tension in the house when
appellant challenged AAA's father into a fight. When the police arrived, appellant
could no longer be found. The incident was reported to the barangay and it was
only then that AAA divulged what happened to her and appellant on December
25, 2011.

AAA was then examined by Dr. Paul Ed C. Ortiz at the police station on
January 2, 2012 wherein the genital examination result turned out to be "grossly
normal."

"An Act Providing .for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protect ion Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination, and.for Other Purposes"; Republic Act No. 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and
Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties There.for, and for Other
Purposes"; Sectio n 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Ru le on Violence Against Women and Their
Children ," effec tive November 5, 2004; Pl!ople v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006); and Amended Adm
in istrat ive Circular No. 83-2015 datt,J 3e ptember 5, 2017, S ubject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation,
Publicat io n, and Posting ci1 the Websites of Decisions, Fina l Reso lutions, and F:
O,docs Using Ficfaious Namos/Pocsonal Ciccumsta"'°'· {/",
Decision -3- G .R. No. 239892

On May 15, 2013, or more than one (1) year after the inci dent, appellant was
arrested somewhere in Nueva Ecija.

Thus, two (2) Informations were filed against appellan t for the crime of Rape
which reads as follow s:

Crimina l Case No . GL-O- 13 -1 80 8 60 :

T hat on or about the 25th day of Decem ber 2011, in Quezon City, P
hilippin es, the above-named accused, by means of force and inti midatio n, with
lewd design, did[,] then and ther [,] willfully, unl a wfully[,] and felonious ly ha
ve carnal knowledge with one [AAA], a minor , 13 years old, agains t her will and
without her consent, to the da mage and prejudice of the sa id [AAA].

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. GL-Q- 13- 180861:

That on or about the pt day of January 2012, in Quezon C ity, Phili

ppines, the a bove-na med acc used , by means of force and inti midation,
w ith le wd designs, did[,] :L ..:n and there[,] willfully, unla wfu ll y[,] and
elo nio us ly have carnal kno wledge with one [AAA], a minor, 1 3 yea rs old,
against her will and without her conse nt, to the damage and prej udice of the sa id
[AAA].

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Appellant, during his ar raig nment on June 26, 2013 , with the assistance of
counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. After pre-trial, trial on the merits
ensued.

The prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim AAA, BBB, CCC,
and Dr. Paul E d C. 0 11iz, the Medico-Legal Officer who examined the vict im.

In his de fense, appellant denied raping AAA. According to him, on

December 25, 2011, around 7:00 p.m., he was in a drink ing spree at the house of
his best friend located about three (3) houses away from his place of reside nce
. Appellant claimed that he was only able to go home the following day at around
5:00 to 6:00 a.m. and did not see AAA or any of he r relat ives .

Appellant claimed that b was cooking at his house with his moth er and
¥

siblings on January 1, 2012, around 7:00 p.m. T hereafter, around 9:00 p.m., he
went to the house of his " lcumpare" for a dr ink and left there around l 0:30
p.m. to go home. Appellant, before going inside his ho use, urinated. While urinating,
AAA saw him and caJled him. Appellant then we nt inside AAA 'sr/ house and saw that
AAA's father was the re, too. Appi:l lanl gave AAA One
'
Decision -4- G.R. No. 239892

Hundred Pesos (Pl 00.00) as Christmas gift, and before leaving, AAA thanked
appellant and told him that his zipper was open.

Sometime in May 2013, appellant was then arrested in Nueva Ecija

where he claimed to have already resided for more than a year, and it was only
then that he learned about the charge, against him.

On November 17, 2016, the RTC rendered its judgment findiPg

appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape. The
dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads, as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of ·the foregoing, judgment is hereby

rendered finding the accused ROGER MENDOZA y GASPAR, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of two (2) counts of rape penalized
under [Article] 266-A, paragraph l (a) of the Revised Penal Code as amended
by R.A. No. 8353.

Accordingly, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of

Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole and to indemnify private
complainant [AAA] the amo unts of Php 50,000.00 as civil inde mnity, Php
50,000.00 as moral damages and Php 30,000.00 as exemplary da mages, and
interes t.at the rate of 6% per annum shall also be imposed on all damages
awarded from the finalit y of this judgment until fully paid for each count.

SO ORDERED.4

Appellant elevated the case to the CA, and on January 22, 2018, the
appellate court dismissed appellant's appeal and affirmed his conviction of
two (2) counts of Rape in a Decision r·1t has the following dispositive portio:r..:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed RTC Judgment

dated November 17, 2016 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that the
award of civil indemnity is incre ase d from Fifty Thousand Pesos
(PhPS0,000.00) to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP75,000.00), the award
of moral damages is increased from Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhPS0,000.00) to
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP75,000.00), and the award of exemplary
damages is increased from Thirty Thousand Pesos (Ph.P30,000.00) to
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP75,000.00). Costs against the Accused-
Appe llant.

SO ORDERED.5

Appellant now comes to this Court for the resolution of his appeal
pointing out the following issues :

CA rollo , p. 55.
Rollo, p. 1 7 .
 Decis ion -s- G.R. No. 239892

I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF TWO (2) COUNTS OF RAPE, DESPITE THE
CLEAR IMPROBABILITIES AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE
TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUT ION'S WITNESSES .

II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF TWO (2) COUNTS OF RAPE, DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION' S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS
THEREOF.6

According to appellant, the testimony of the victim 1s full of inconsistencies

and improbabilities, therefore, it should not have been accorded full faith and
credit. Appellant further claims that in both incidents of the alleged rape, the victim
did not scream or shout for help. He als o argues that there is no evidence to show
that there was even a slight penetration of the victim's genitalia and that force,
threat, or intimidation was employed by appellant to the victim.

The appeal has no merit.

In reviewing rape cases, we are guided by the following well- entrenched

principles: (1) an accusation fo r rape can be made with facility: it is difficult to
prove, but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it;
(2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are
usv:::1Jy 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.7

T he determination of the credibility of the offended party's testimony is a

most basic consideration in every prosecution for rape, for the lon e testimony of
the victim, if credible , is sufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction.8 As in most
rape cases, the ultimate issue in this case is credibility. In this regard, when the iss
ue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the
findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide
the question as it heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment
and manner of testifying during trial.9 The exceptions to the rule are when such
evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked ,
misunderstood or misapplied

6 CA ro flo , pp. 29 and 33 .

9
Peo ple v. Peralta, 6 1 9 Phil. 268, 273 (2009).
Remiend o v. Peo ple, 618 Phil. 27 3, 287 (2009).
/
People v. Padilla. 617 Phil. 170, 182-183 (2009); People v. Ramos, 577 Phil. 297, 304 (2008).

/'
•/
Decision -8- G.R. No. 239892

some facts or circ umstance of weight and substance which could affect the result of
the case.10

Here, appellant insists that in the victim' s testimony in court and in the
Sinumpaang Salaysay, she mentioned that appellant inserted the tip of his penis
into her vagina, while in the Sexual Crime Protocol Form of the MedicC'- Legal
Officer, the vict im wrote that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina.
Appellant also claims that it was highly improbable that it took more or less ten
(10) minutes to inse1i the tip of his penis in her vagina. Such assertions of appellant
are inconsequential because such inconsistencies or discrepancies are just minor
details. As aptly ruled by the CA:

x x x The alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities do not negate the

statement and narration of the Private Complainant that the Accused-
Appellant inserted his organ into her vagina. Moreover, since human memory
is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonia l
account has never been used as a standard in testing the cred ibilit y of a
witness. This, coupled with the fact that the victim is a thirteen (13)-year-old
girl, innocent and unfamiliar with sexual congress, belies the Accused-
Appellant's claim.1 1

This Comi has consistently ruled that inconsistencies of witnesses with respect
to minor details and collate ral matters do not affect the substance of their
declarations, their veracity or the weight of their testimonies. It would be unfair to
expect a flawless recollection from one who is forced to relieve the gruesome deta
ils of a painful and humiliating experience such as rape.12 More so, the minor
inconsistencies signified that the witness was neither coached nor lying on the
witness stand. What is important is her cornple t and vivid narration of the rape
itself, which the trial court herein found to be truthful and credible.13

This Court also finds no merit as to the contention of appellant that the
victim's credibility has been tarnis hed by her failure to immediately report the first inc
ident of the alleged rape. The delay in reporting the incident is not 8 factor in
diminishing the value of AAA's testimony. In People v. Ogarte, 14 this Court ruled
that the rape victim's defen-al in reporting the crime does not equate to falsification
of the accusation, thus:

The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of

time to persons close to her or to repo11 the matter to the authorities does not
perforce warrant the conclu sio n that she was not sexually molested and that her
charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. Delay in
prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims
of rape never complain Jr file criminal charges against the

10 Peo ple v. Panganib an, 4 12 Phil. 98, I08-109 (200 I ).

II Ro!!o, p. 12.
12 Peop le v. Bautista, 474 Phil. 53 l , 555 (2004). 13
Peop le v. Santos, 420 Phil. 620, 631 (2001). 14
664 Phil. 642 (2011).
Decision -8- G.R. No. 239892

rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to
the world or risk the offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their
victims.15

Also, as to appellant's claim that the victim's failure to shout for help affects
her credibility, such deserves scant consideration . This Com1 has recognized the
fact that no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has been
raped. It is a settled rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not
negate rape.16 Behavioral psychology teaches that people react to similar situations
diss imilarly.17 The range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured
even by calculus . It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape
victims.18 Indeed, we have not laid down any rule on how a rape victim sho uld
behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience i·s relalive and may
be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her
credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Different people act
differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of
behavio ral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful
experience.19

As to appellant's argument that there was no evidence of penile penetration

in the victim 's genitalia, such is worthless. In People v. Teodoro,20 this Com1
held that:

In objective terms, carnal kno wledge, the o ther essential element in

consummated statutory rape, does not require full penile penetration of the
female. The Court has clarified in People v. Campuhan that the mere touching of
the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act is
sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. All that is necessary to reach the
consummated stage of rape is for the penis of the accused capable of
consummating the sexua l act to come into contact with the lips of the pudendum
of the victim. This mean s that the rape is consummated once the penis of the
accused capable of consummating· the sex ua l act touches either la bia of the
pudendum. As the Cou11 has ex plained in People
v. Bali-balita, the touching that constitutes rape does not mean mere epidermal
contact, or stroking or grazing of organs, or a slight brush or a scrape of the penis
on the external la yer of the victim's vagina, or the ma ns pubis, but rather the
erect penis touching the labias or sliding into the female genitalia. Accordingly,
the concl usion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the
pudendum const it utes cons umm ated rape proceed s from the physical fact that the
labias are phys ically sit uated beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface,
such that for the penis to touch either of them is to attain some degree of p-::ne
tration beneath the surface of the female genitalia . It is req uired, however, that
this manner of touching of the labias must be sufficiently and convincingly estab
lishe d.21

Id. at 661.

j1
15
16 Peoplev. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759,778 (2014).
17 People v. /ba y, 303 Phil. 16 , 26 ( 1994).
18 People v. /\1/ontemayor, 444 Phil. 169 , 1 86 (20 03).
19 People v. Talaboc, 326 Phil. 45 1 , 464 ( 1 996 ) .
20 70 4 Phil. 335 (20 1 3), as cited in Peo ple v. Baguiu11, G.R. No. 223553, Ju ly 4 , 2 0 18.
21 Id. (E mphas is s upp lied ).
Decision -8- G.R. No. 239892

Thus, the CA did not err when it thus ruled:

x x x Penetration of a woman's sex organ is not an element of the crime

of Rape. Penile invasion of and contact with the la bia would suffice. Note that
even the briefest of contacts under circumstances of force, intim idation, or
unconsc iousness is already Rape. In order to sustain a conviction of Rape,
penetration of the female genital organ by the male is not indispen sable.
Neither rupt ure nor laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is required.
Thus, the fact that there is no sign of laceration will not negate a finding that
Rape was committed. In addition, a medical certificate is not necessary to
prove the commiss ion of Rape, as even a medical exa mination of the victim is
not indispensable in a prosecution for Rape. Exp ert testimony is merely
corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.22

It is also argued that the prosecution was not able to prove the presence
of force, intimidation or threat. The absence of external signs of physical
injuries does not necessarily negat e rape.23 In rape, force need not always
produce physica l injuries . What is irB;· x tant is that the victim was able to giv
a credible and clear testimony as to the presence of the intimidation that was
employed. Thus, the argument of appellant is inconsequential.

Appellant reiterates his defense of denial. Denial and alibi are viewed by
this Court with disfavor,24 considering these are inherently weak defenses,25
especially in light of private complainant's positive and straightforward
declarations identifying accused-appellant26 as the one whu committed the
bastardly act against her, as well as her straightforward and convincing
testimony detailing the circumstances and events leading to the rape.27 In this
instance, appellant offered nothing but denial without further proof.

WHEREFORE, the appeal of Roger Mendoza y Gaspar is DISMISSED

for lack of merit. Consequently, the Decision dated January 22, 2018 of the
Court of Appeals finding the same appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
two (2) counts of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph l(a) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, is AFFIRMED .

22 Rollo, p. 13.
2J People v. Malones,469 Phil. 30 I , 325 (2004). citi ng People v. Manrique, 432 Phil. 801, 809 (2002).
24 People v. Malana , 646 Phil. 290, 308 (20 I 0 ), c iting People v. Peralta, supra note 6, at 274.
25 People v. Estrada, 624 Phil. 2 1 1 , 2 1 7 (20 I 0).
26 People v. Pa culba, 628 Phil. 662, 676(2010; Peop le v. Achas, 612 Phil. 652, 666 (2009).
7 Id.
 Decision -9- G.R. No. 239892

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO T· PERALTA
Chief Jrstice

WE CONCUR:

/Ck ----- AMY . Lr\lZ,ARO-JAVIER

- ssociate Justice
c. REYifs, JR.
ociate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

DIOSDADqM. PERALTA
Chie\Justice
Decision -9- G.R. No. 239892