G.R. No. 135402-03 - People vs. Gonzaga

The case arose from two separate criminal informations filed on February 4, 1998, charging the accused with rape under Republic Act No. 8353 in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, as amended.
The first information charged Ian Gonzaga, Roy Fernandez, and Elmer Castillon for an incident on January 25, 1998, involving the rape of Grenalyn Narbasa, a 12‑year‑old minor, in a store located at Sitio Candarong, Pulambato, Cebu City.
The second information charged Ian Gonzaga and Roy Fernandez for a subsequent incident on January 30, 1998, also implicating the rape of the same victim in the same locale.

At about 8:00 p.m., Grenalyn Narbasa, accompanied initially by a friend (Frenalyn Colina), went to a neighborhood store where Frenalyn eventually left her unattended.
Accused Ian Gonzaga, accompanied by Roy Fernandez and Elmer Castillon, entered the store; when Grenalyn attempted to leave, she was blocked and forcibly restrained.
The accused employed physical force and intimidation:

Ian Gonzaga pushed and punched the victim, removed her clothing, and initiated penetration.
Roy Fernandez and Elmer Castillon assisted by holding the victim’s hands and legs respectively as the assault proceeded.

During the assault, the use of weapons (a knife and later a pair of scissors) was invoked by Ian Gonzaga to silence Grenalyn and to prevent disclosure of the crime.
Despite her resistance and attempts to escape, the superior force of the accused overpowered the victim.

Grenalyn, while with her cousins, was left alone in the store when Frenalyn and another cousin departed.
The victim encountered accused Ian Gonzaga and Roy Fernandez again, who blocked her exit and forced her into a storeroom.
In the confined space, the accused subjected her to further sexual assault; her cries for help went unheeded.
Weapons were again used—with Ian Gonzaga pointing a pair of scissors—to intimidate her into silence.

Grenalyn provided a detailed, though at times confused, testimony recounting the events of both incidents, including the sequence of violence and the identities of the accused.
A medical examination conducted at the Cebu City Medical Center revealed multiple healed lacerations on the victim’s hymen and sufficient vaginal capacity for two fingers, despite no evidence of spermatozoa.
The victim’s delay in reporting was explained by her fear and the intimidation tactics exercised by the accused, including death threats.

Accused Elmer Castillon testified that on January 25, 1998, he was with his girlfriend and her cousin at a mass and later at a rented house, denying any participation in the assault.
Accused Roy Fernandez asserted that he was attending a local fiesta in Mansawa, a location merely five kilometers from the crime scene, and maintained a separate account for the January 30 incident with corroboration from his girlfriend.

Defense witnesses attempted to discredit the victim by alleging she had a history of engaging in prostitution, a claim refuted by the context of her tender age and the detailed narrative of the assault.
Additional testimonies from friends, relatives, and other witnesses provided corroborative evidence regarding the whereabouts and actions of the accused, though some were discredited due to bias or partiality.

On June 9, 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, rendered a decision convicting:

Ian Gonzaga for two counts of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
Roy Fernandez for two counts of rape, and Elmer Castillon for one count, with penalties adjusted given the minors’ status, imposing indeterminate sentences ranging from prision mayor to reclusion temporal.

The court further ordered the accused to indemnify the victim with moral damages of P50,000.00 per count.
On appeal, the accused challenged the credibility of the victim and the medical evidence, as well as the sufficiency of the alibi presented.

Whether the trial court erred in finding the victim’s testimony credible and reliable despite her apparent confusion regarding dates and the frequency of prior incidents.
Whether the absence of spermatozoa and recent lacerations in the victim's genitalia sufficiently negated the occurrence of rape, given that penetration—rather than ejaculation—is the operative element.
Whether the accused’s defense of alibi, including testimonies placing them away from the scene, was adequately substantiated given the proximity of alleged locations and the corroborative discrepancies.
Whether the delay in reporting the rape, influenced by intimidation and familial pressure, undermined the victim’s account and the integrity of the prosecution’s case.
Whether the imposition of penalties properly accounted for the accused’ ages and the mandatory nature of awarding both moral damages and civil indemnity in rape cases under the applicable laws.