SYNOPSIS occasions.

The sweetheart theory was but a mere fabrication of Monfero to

exculpate himself from the rape charges filed against him. There was no
Thirty-one year old Monfero was indicted for three counts of convincing proof to support the same and, in any case, a love relationship will
rape. Monfero, however, insisted that he and the victim; 13-year old Mary not necessarily rule out force. Hence, the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
Jane, were sweethearts, and whatever sexual relations they had were each of the three counts of rape is affirmed with modification that victim is also
purely voluntary and consensual. Further, the complaints for rape were entitled to P50,000 as civil indemnity, and P50,000 as moral damages for each
filed because Mary Jane was driven by jealousy, suspecting that he was count.
having an affair with another woman.
SYLLABUS
The Court found no cogent reason to reverse the conviction. Mary Jane
vividly narrated how Monfero raped her against her will on three
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; RAPE CASES; GUIDING PRINCIPLES; 4. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY; NOT
JUSTIFIED CONVICTION IN CASE AT BAR. Worth recalling are the AFFECTED BY FAILURE TO IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE CASE. The
three guiding principles in rape prosecutions. First, an accusation for failure of the complainant to immediately report the rapes to her family or
rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more difficult to to the police authorities does not detract from her credibility, her hesitation
disprove. Second, in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the being attributable to her age, the moral ascendancy of the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost accused-appellant and his threats against the former.
caution. And third, the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its
own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the 5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT AFFECTED BY MINOR INCONSISTENCIES IN
evidence of the defense. With these principles in mind, this Court finds TESTIMONIES. Regarding the alleged inconsistencies in the statements
no cogent reason to reverse accused-appellants conviction. As shown made by Mary Jane before and during trial, the same refer only to minor
in the transcripts of her testimony, on direct and cross-examination, details that are not at all related to the incidents complained of. The
Mary Jane vividly narrated how accused-appellant raped her on three Court has held that the credibility of a witness is not impaired where there
occasions. Well-settled is the rule that when an alleged victim of rape is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive
says she was violated, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to show identification of the accused. Inconsistency on minor details is
that rape has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets insignificant. Rather than eroding the credibility of the witness, such
the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis difference in fact constitutes a sign of veracity.
thereof. Certainly, no woman, especially one who is of tender age, 6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT, RESPECTED. From the
would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private records, there is also nothing that would reveal that Mary Jane had a
parts and thereafter permit herself to be subjected to a public trial if she motive other than to bring her rapist to justice and vindicate her honor.
is not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended Worth noting is the fact that when Mary Jane testified that her mother at
and punished. As for Mary Janes mother, it is unnatural for a parent to first acquiesced to settle the case, she cried on the witness stand. Her
use her offspring as an engine of malice if it will subject her to tears clearly evinced her frustration over her mothers willingness to come
embarrassment and even stigma. Moreover, as the Court ruled in a to a settlement. Besides, Mary Janes sincere, straightforward and candid
similar case, (n)o mother would stoop so low as to subject her daughter statements regarding the details of her rape by the accused-appellant
to the hardships and shame concomitant to a rape prosecution just to hardly indicate that she was just weaving a tall tale to secure a
assuage her own hurt feelings. It is unthinkable that a mother would conviction. It is doctrinal that the evaluation by the trial court of the
sacrifice her daughters honor to satisfy a grudge, knowing fully well that testimony of a witness is accorded the highest respect because it has the
such an experience would certainly damage her daughters psyche and direct opportunity to observe the witness demeanor on the stand and
mar her entire life. A mother would not subject her daughter to a determine if she is telling the truth or not. The decision of the trial court is
public trial with its accompanying stigma on her as the victim of rape, if bereft of any finding that Mary Jane is a girl of loose morals as the
said charge is not true. accused-appellant holds her out to be.
2. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; CONSUMMATED EVEN BY THE 7. ID.; ID.; RAPE CASES; DEFENSE OF SWEETHEART THEORY; NOT
SLIGHTEST PENETRATION. Considering that Mary Jane is obviously APPRECIATED. On accused-appellants sweetheart theory, but the trial
an ingenue barely out of puberty and considering also their relative court did not give credence to the same and we find no reason to hold
positions at that time, it is understandable that she was unable to otherwise. All told, it appears that the alleged love affair between
categorically state whether or not accused-appellant was able to Monfero and Mary Jane is but a mere fabrication by the former to
penetrate her fully. One thing she was sure about though was that exculpate himself from the rape charges filed against him. In a similar
Monferos penis touched her vagina as he attempted to insert it into her case where the sweetheart theory was also used as a defense, the Court
genital. Well-settled is the rule that full penetration of the vaginal canal ruled that the absence of love notes, mementoes or pictures casts doubt
is not an essential element of rape. The slightest introduction of the on the accuseds claim that he and the victim were sweethearts. Being an
male organ into the labia of the victim already constitutes rape. affirmative defense, the allegation of a love affair must be supported by
3. ID.; ID.; PHYSICAL RESISTANCE NOT NECESSARY WHERE convincing proof. This accused-appellant failed to do. In any case,
INTIMIDATION IS PRESENT. In rape cases, it is not necessary that being sweethearts does not prove consent by the complainant to the
the victim should have resisted unto death. Physical resistance need sexual act. A love relationship, even if true, will not necessarily rule out
not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the force.
victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapists 8. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; PROPER PENALTY. In view of the
embrace because of fear for life and personal safety. Actual circumstances of this case, we find that the accused-appellant is guilty of
resistance on the part of the victim is not an essential element of all the charges under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code: When and
rape. What the victim should adequately prove is the use of force or how rape is committed Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of
intimidation by the alleged rapist. In any case, from Mary Janes a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or
testimony during trial, it is clear that she tried to stop Monferos intimidation; x x x. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion
advances during each of the three assaults but her efforts proved futile perpetua. x x x.
as her strength was no match to his.
9. ID.; ID.; MORAL DAMAGES AND CIVIL INDEMNITY. As regards the
civil liability of the accused-appellant, the award of P30,000 in moral
damages should be increased to P50,000 for each count of rape in line
with current jurisprudence. In People vs. Prades, we held that the fact
that complainant suffered the trauma of mental, physical and
psychological sufferings which constitute the bases for moral damages
are too obvious to still require the recital thereof at the trial by the victim,
since the Court itself even assumes and acknowledges such agony on
her part as a gauge of her credibility. What exists by necessary
implication as being ineludibly present in the case need not go through
the superfluity of still being proved through a testimonial charade.
Moreover, accused-appellant is likewise liable to pay his victim P50,000
as civil indemnity for each rape committed.