G.R. No. 239892 - People vs. Mendoza y Gaspar

At approximately 7:00 p.m., private complainant AAA, a 13-year-old girl, used an unlit restroom at the back of her three-storey house where she lived with her family members.
In the restroom, due to the absence of proper lighting, AAA could not adequately secure the makeshift door of the cubicle.
While AAA was pulling up her underwear after urinating, appellant Roger Mendoza y Gaspar, a neighbor, suddenly entered the cubicle.
The appellant prevented AAA from dressing by obstructing her attempt to pull up her underwear and pants, promising her P100.00.
Appellant proceeded to remove his shorts and inserted the tip of his penis into AAA’s vagina, also engaging in kissing her neck, breasts, and lips.
Despite AAA’s attempt to push him away, the assault continued for approximately 10 minutes before the appellant departed after giving her P100.00.
AAA returned to the house without disclosing the incident to anyone initially.

Around 7:00 p.m., AAA was alone on the third floor of the house watching television while her father, BBB, was away.
The appellant unexpectedly appeared inside the house and found AAA.
The appellant physically overpowered AAA by placing himself on top of her and engaging in further acts of sexual assault which involved kissing her neck and breasts, followed by the removal of both his and her clothes.
The appellant inserted the tip of his penis into AAA’s vagina once again, despite her efforts to fight back.
AAA's father, upon arriving at the scene, discovered the appellant with his zipper undone, which led to a confrontation and escalation of tensions, including a physical altercation initiated by the appellant.
The police were eventually called after AAA’s grandmother, CCC, intervened upon learning of the incident, and the appellant became untraceable at that moment.

The incident came to the notice of the authorities only after AAA disclosed what had happened on December 25, 2011, during a police report.
On January 2, 2012, AAA was examined by Dr. Paul Ed C. Ortiz at the police station, whose genital examination report described her findings as “grossly normal.”
More than a year later, on May 15, 2013, the appellant was arrested in Nueva Ecija.
Two separate Informations were subsequently filed against the appellant under Criminal Case Nos. GL-Q-13-180860-61 and GL-Q-13-180861, charging him with two counts of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 8353.

During arraignment on June 26, 2013, the appellant, aided by counsel, pleaded not guilty.
The pre-trial and trial on the merits saw the prosecution presenting testimonies of the victim AAA, her father BBB, her grandmother CCC, and the medico-legal officer Dr. Ortiz.
The appellant offered an alibi stating that on December 25, 2011, he was intoxicated at a friend’s house and on January 1, 2012, he was engaged in activities with his family and later at a friend’s house.
The appellant’s version of events contradicts the coherent and detailed statements given by the victim.

On November 17, 2016, the Regional Trial Court rendered a judgment finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape, sentencing him to Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordering the payment of civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages.
On January 22, 2018, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appellant’s appeal, affirming the RTC’s judgment while modifying the award amounts for damages (increasing the awards for civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages).

The appellant contended that the conviction was tainted by clear improbabilities and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s witnesses’ testimonies.
He further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the crime of rape, including lack of evidence regarding forced penetration and the absence of demonstrable physical injuries.
The appellant maintained that his mere denial and lack of corroborative evidence should lead to an acquittal.

Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in finding the appellant guilty on two counts of rape, in light of the alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities in the victim’s testimony.

The appellant argued that the inconsistencies in the victim’s statement (e.g., the exact nature of penetration and the duration of the act) should have undermined the credibility of the testimony.
He contended that the absence of screaming or overt resistance, as well as the lack of physical injuries, weaken the prosecution’s case.

Whether the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements constituting the crime of rape.

The appellant maintained that there was no clear evidence of force, intimidation, or full penile penetration as required for consummation of the crime.
He argued that his defense of denial and alibi, despite being weak on their own, should raise reasonable doubt given the minor discrepancies in testimonial details.