View full case

PEOPLE v. PEDRO RUPAL

FACTS:

The appellant, Pedro Rupal, was charged with rape in Crim. Case No. 06-1748. The victim, AAA, testified that on December 15, 2005, accused-appellant approached her at her school and asked her to change a P100.00 bill into smaller denominations. Later that day, accused-appellant met AAA at a waiting shed, pulled her towards a coconut plantation, removed her underwear, and raped her. He threatened her not to tell anyone or he would harm her and her siblings. AAA disclosed the incident to her mother on January 2, 2006, after being chased by accused-appellant. AAA underwent a medical exam which revealed healed lacerations in her vaginal opening. Accused-appellant denied committing the offense and did not submit a counter-affidavit when arrested. The trial court found AAA's testimony credible and convicted accused-appellant of rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the appeal was deemed without merit.

In Crim. Case No. 06-1748, Pedro Rupal was convicted of raping AAA on December 15, 2005. AAA provided a detailed account of how accused-appellant pulled her towards a coconut plantation, pushed her to the ground, and sexually abused her. AAA's testimony was supported by a medical certificate and the testimony of a physician. The trial court sentenced accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua and awarded a civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but modified the award of damages. Accused-appellant argued that AAA's testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility, but the CA found no merit in his arguments.

The victim in this case, a student, testified that accused Pedro made a push and pull movement towards her while they were in school. She described feeling pain in her vagina and confirmed that it was Pedro's penis that was pushed towards her. The victim also mentioned that her panty was missing and speculated that it may have been pulled by the accused.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether AAA's lack of physical resistance and failure to shout for help undermine her credibility as a rape victim.

  2. Whether the absence of threat or intimidation at the waiting shed disprove accused-appellant's commission of rape.

  3. Whether the alleged inconsistencies in AAA's claims regarding the number of times she was raped affect the credibility of her testimony.

  4. Whether the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony regarding the number of times she was raped affect her credibility.

  5. Whether the filing of only one case of rape against the accused-appellant undermines the victim's credibility.

  6. Whether the accused-appellant's defense of alibi and denial can prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of the complainant.

  7. Whether the alleged conflict between the accused-appellant's wife and BBB is a credible motive for AAA to falsely accuse the accused-appellant.

RULING:

  1. The lack of physical resistance and failure to shout for help does not undermine AAA's credibility as a rape victim. The law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance because it is not an element of rape. The Court recognizes that there is no uniform behavior expected from victims of sexual assault, as people will react differently under emotional stress. Some may shout or physically resist, while others may be shocked into insensibility or freeze in fear.

  2. The absence of threat or intimidation at the waiting shed does not disprove accused-appellant's commission of rape. Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, rape can be committed by force, threat, or intimidation. Thus, proof of any of these means, satisfactorily proven by the prosecution, is enough to warrant a conviction. In this case, AAA credibly testified that accused-appellant used force by dragging her to the coconut plantation and pushing her to the ground. Accused-appellant's threat to kill AAA's mother and siblings if she revealed the incident also demonstrates intimidation.

  3. The alleged inconsistencies in AAA's claims regarding the number of times she was raped do not affect the credibility of her testimony. The number of times AAA was raped is immaterial to this case, as it is neither an issue nor a material element for the successful prosecution of rape. Moreover, the inconsistency can be explained by AAA's state of disarray and confusion at the time she was confronted by her mother and her fear of accused-appellant's threats. During the trial, AAA displayed courage and testified that the sexual assaults occurred even when she was only nine years old.

  4. Inconsistencies on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance, truth, or weight of the victim's testimonies. The court considers that when the victim is of tender age and immature, her account is generally given credit, recognizing her relative vulnerability and the shame she would be exposed to if her testimony is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.

  5. The fact that there was only one case filed against the accused-appellant does not negate the possibility that he had carnal knowledge of the victim. It is the task of the prosecutor, and not the victim, to file a criminal case before the court. Moreover, the evidence on record established the elements of rape, providing sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge. The number of cases filed does not necessarily reflect the truth of the victim's claims.

  6. The defense of alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of the complainant. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime. On the other hand, denial is an inherently weak defense and cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by a credible witness. In this case, the accused-appellant failed to present any evidence to prove his alibi and denial, and his claim easily crumbled in the absence of any evidence that it was improbable for him to be at the scene of the crime.

  7. The alleged conflict between the accused-appellant's wife and BBB is not a credible motive for AAA to falsely accuse the accused-appellant. It is implausible that BBB would go through the process of reporting the incident, submitting to a medical examination, and undergoing a public trial if her sole purpose was to get even with her sister. Moreover, the details narrated by AAA were known to her because they were the truth, and the alleged motives of family feuds, resentment, or revenge have never swayed the court from giving full credence to the testimony of a complainant, especially a minor.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lack of physical resistance or failure to shout for help does not undermine the credibility of a rape victim, as there is no uniform behavior expected from victims of sexual assault.

  • In a rape case, rape can be committed through force, threat, or intimidation. Proof of any of these means, satisfactorily proven by the prosecution, is enough to warrant a conviction.

  • The exact number of times a victim was raped is not a material element for the successful prosecution of rape and does not affect the credibility of the victim's testimony. Inconsistencies in the victim's claims can be explained by their state of disarray and fear of the perpetrator.

  • In rape cases, the credibility of the victim is of utmost importance and should be scrutinized with caution. The accusation of rape is difficult to prove, but it is even more challenging for the accused, though innocent, to disprove.

  • Inconsistencies in a victim's testimony, especially regarding minor details, do not necessarily affect the credibility of the witness, especially if the witness is of tender age and immature.

  • It is the task of the prosecutor to file a criminal case in court, not the victim. The number of cases filed against the accused does not necessarily prove or disprove the victim's claims.

  • When a rape victim's testimony is corroborated by a physician's findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of carnal knowledge.

  • The trial court's observations and conclusions on witness credibility deserve great respect and are accorded finality, unless the records show facts or circumstances of material weight and substance that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated, which would alter the result of the case.

  • The positive and categorical testimony and identification of the complainant can lead to the conviction of the accused.

  • The defense of alibi and denial is weak and cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the complainant.

  • In considering the credibility of a witness, the court looks for credibility, naturalness, convincingness, and consistency with human nature and the normal course of things.

  • Alleged motives of family feuds, resentment, or revenge are common defenses but do not diminish the credibility of the complainant's testimony.