THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 141782. December 14, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RENATO FLORES a.k.a.

ATONG, and PATERNO PARENO a.k.a. PATTER, accused.
RENATO FLORES a.k.a. ATONG, appellant.

DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

In a rape case, the force or intimidation employed need not necessarily be shown to be
objectively irresistible. Rather, it must be viewed from the victims perception that unless she
yielded to the ravishers demand, some injury or evil would befall on her during the commission of
the offense or even thereafter.

The Case

On appeal before this Court is the Decision,[1] dated November 16, 1999, issued by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City (Branch 171)[2] in Criminal Case No. 6367-V-97,
in which Renato Flores, also known as Atong, was convicted of rape.
The Information[3] filed against appellant and his co-accused, Paterno Pareno, also known as
Patter,[4] reads as follows:

That on or about February 2, 1997 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together
and mutually helping one another and by means of force and intimidation employed
upon the person of REMEDIOS RENORIA y BANDOJO, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with her, against her will and
without her consent. [5]

During the arraignment, Appellant Renato Flores pleaded not guilty.[6] His co-accused, Paterno
Pareno, was at large.[7] After trial in due course, the lower court rendered its Decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, accused RENATO FLORES alias Atong, [having been found g]uilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. x x x is hereby sentenced to reclusion
perpetua and to pay the costs.

He is ordered to indemnify the minor complainant [in] the amount of P50,000.00. [8]

The Facts
Prosecutions Version

In its Brief,[9] the Office of the Solicitor General presents the prosecutions version of the facts
as follows:
On February 2, 1997, around 9:00 oclock in the evening, Paterno (Pater) Pareno
arrived at the house of Remedios Renoria in Ulingan St., Lawang-Bato,
Valenzuela. Immediately upon his arrival, Paterno Pareno asked Remedios Renoria to
accompany him to the nipa hut located about fifty (50) meters away from
their (Remedios Renorias) house. Remedios Renoria acceeded because she [knew]
Paterno.

When Paterno Pareno and Remedios Renoria reached the place, appellant was already
inside the nipa hut obviously waiting for them. Paterno Pareno suddenly dragged
Remedios Renoria inside the nipa hut. Then, appellant and Paterno Pareno
immediately covered her mouth and removed her clothing. However, it was appellant
who removed her underwear. This was quickly followed by appellant discarding his
own underwear.

Remedios Renora was then made to lie down on a wooden bed. Thereafter, appellant
positioned himself on top of her and immediately inserted his penis inside her
vagina. She felt pain. Afterwards, appellant grasped her breasts. She could not cry for
help because appellant and Paterno Pareno were covering her mouth.

Having satisfied his lust, appellant left immediately. Remedios Renoria, thereafter,
stood up, got dressed and went home.

On April 24, 1997, Remedios Renoria went to see her uncle, Larry Frias, to report the
ordeal she suffered in the hands of appellant. In turn, Larry Frias told Remedios
Renorias mother [about] the incident. Thereafter, Remedios Renorias mother asked
Larry Frias to do what [was] best for her daughter.

Out of genuine concern for his niece who was only thirteen (13) years old at the time
she was ravished, and because Remedios Renoria and her [were] both unlettered Larry
Frias took the initiative to go to the Office of the Bantay Bata in Quezon City to ask
for help.

At the Office of the Bantay-Bata, Larry Frias narrated what happened to Remedios
Renoria. He was then given referral letters to the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Larry Frias and Remedios Renoria went to the Valenzuela Police Station on April 28,
1997. PO2 Virginia Viacrusis took the statement of Remedios Renoria.

The following day, or on April 29, 1997, they went to the NBI for medico-legal
examination. Dr. Armie Soreta-Umil, an NBI Medico-Legal Officer, conducted a
physical examination on the victim and submitted a medical report which reads:

Living Case No. MG-97-626

Findings

Conclusions:

1. No evident sign of extra-genital physical injuries noted on the body at the time of
examination. Hymen, intact but distensible and its orifice wide (2.5 cms. in diameter)
as to allow complete penetration by an average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full
erection without producing any genital injury. (Citations omitted)
[10]

Defenses Version

Appellant, on the other hand, argues that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt. His statement of facts is as follows:[11]

Evidence for the defense shows that on February 2, 1997, at about 7:00 in the evening,
accused-appellant Renato Flores was ordered by his father to get the latters salary in
Ulingan, Valenzuela City.His father worked for Rudy Frias, private complainants
grandfather. He testified that private complainant [was] his girlfriend and that their
marriage was being arranged by her mother and her uncle.On the night the crime
charged allegedly occurred, accused-appellant recalled that it was private
complainants mother, Rowena Frias, who invited him to sleep in their house. He slept
in the sofa together with private complainant. The following morning, accused-
appellants parents were summoned by Rowena Frias and Larry Frias. Private
complainants mother asked accused-appellant if he love[d] her daughter to which he
an[s]wered in the affirmative. Thereafter, they talked about their plan of getting
married and Rowena even allowed her daughter to go with accused-appellant the
following day, bringing with her a bag of clothes. Since then, the couple lived
together as husband and wife for more or less three months until May 28, 1997 when
private complainant was fetched by her mother. She never returned since then. The
next time they saw each other was when private complainant visited him in jail. She
informed him that she was in fact merely forced by Larry Frias to file a complaint.

Ruling of the Trial Court

After a careful study and a judicious assessment of the evidence submitted by both parties, the
RTC ruled that the guilt of appellant was proven with moral certainty. It added that his denial could
not prevail over the victims positive assertions, which were convincing and credible.[12] It brushed
aside his defense that he and the victim were sweethearts, and that they lived together as husband
and wife.
Hence, this appeal.[13]

The Issue

Appellant assigns a sole alleged error for our consideration:

The Court a-quo gravely erred in finding that the guilt of the accused-appellant for the
crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the insufficiency of
the evidence presented by the prosecution. [14]

The Courts Ruling

The appeal is devoid of merit.

 Main Issue: Sufficiency of Evidence

In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (1) to accuse a man
of rape is easy, but to disprove the accusation is difficult, though the accused may be innocent; (2)
inasmuch as only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the
complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution
must stand or fall on its own merit and should not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness
of the evidence for the defense. Corollary to the foregoing legal yardsticks is the dictum that when
a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that
rape has been committed against her. So long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the
accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[15]
Based on the foregoing principles, we have carefully scrutinized the testimony of Remedios
Renoria, who was 13 years old at the time the rape was committed, as follows:
Q: Now, Madam Witness, when Renato Flores removed his brief and after he removed your panty, what
did he do?
A: He inserted, sir.
Q: What did he insert?
A: His penis, sir.
Q: Where did he insert that?
A: [Into] my vagina.
Q: Now, madam witness, what was your position when the accused Flores inserted his penis into your
vagina?
A: I was lying, sir.
Q: On what part [were] you lying?
A: [O]n a wooden bed.
Q: What about the accused Flores, what was his position when he inserted his penis into your vagina
while you were lying?
A: He was standing.
Q: While you were lying?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What do you mean standing, was he on top of you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was he able to have his penis penetrated into your vagina?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was the movement of the accused when he was inserting his penis into your vagina, particularly
his buttocks, was he pumping it?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was your feeling when he inserted his penis into your vagina, did you feel pain?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What happened to your vagina, did it bleed?
A: No, sir.
Q: Now, how long did he do that to you?
A: It was quite a long time, sir.
Q: Now will you kindly tell this court the reason why you were able to go to that nipa hut?
 A: I was dragged by Pater.
xxxxxxxxx
Q: Now when Pater dragged you inside the nipa hut, was Renato Flores already inside?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what was he doing, was he waiting for you?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x x x x x x[16]
A careful review of the evidence adduced by both parties leads us to the conclusion that the
RTC did not err in finding appellant guilty of rape. The lone testimony of the victim, if credible,
is sufficient to sustain a conviction. This is so because, from the nature of the offense, her sole
testimony is oftentimes the only evidence that can be offered to establish the guilt of the
accused.[17] As correctly observed by the lower court:

x x x. Minor complainant was forthright. She narrated how she was sexually abused
by accused Renato Flores. She was straight forward in pin pointing to the accused as
her abuser. There [are] no facts and/or circumstances from which it could be
reasonably inferred that the minor complainant falsely testified or she was actuated by
improper motive. The absence of clear and convincing evidence of the existence of
improper motive sustain[s] the conclusion that no improper motive exist[s] and her
testimony should be given full faith and credit. The Court is persuaded by the
sincerity and c[a]ndor of minor Remedios Renoria. She showed no sign of hostility
but interest to bring the malefactor to justice. [18]

Well-settled is the rule that the trial courts assessment of credibility of witnesses is accorded
great respect, owing to its direct opportunity to observe their demeanor during trial.[19]

Force and Intimidation

We disagree with appellants contention that the prosecution failed to prove the force and
intimidation inflicted upon the offended party.
Well-established is the rule that for the crime of rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force
employed be so great or be of such character that it could not be resisted; it is only necessary that
the force employed by the guilty party be sufficient to consummate the purpose for which it was
inflicted. In other words, force as an element of rape need not be irresistible; as long as it brings
about the desired result, all considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible are beside the
point.[20]
Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the perception of the victim at the time of the
commission of the crime, not by any hard and fast rule; it is therefore enough that it produced fear
-- fear that if she did not yield to the bestial demands of her ravisher, some evil would happen to
her at that moment or even thereafter.
The fact that complainant bore no physical evidence of any force used against her person is
of no moment. The absence of any external sign of injury does not necessarily negate the
occurrence of rape, proof of injury not being an essential element of the crime.[21] What is important
is that because of force and intimidation, the victim was made to submit to the will of
appellant.[22] As stated in People v. Maglente,[23] the test is whether the threat or intimidation
produces fear in the mind of a reasonable person -- that if one resists or does not yield to the desires
of the accused, the threat would be carried out.
 In the present case, the victim narrated how, with the use of threat, she had been coerced by
appellant into submitting to his carnal desires. Pertinent portions of her affidavit are reproduced as
follows:
08.T. Paano ang [nangyaring] pang-aabuso sa iyo o pang re Rape?
S. Ganito po iyon noong Feb. 2, 1997, sa ganap na ika 9:00 ng gabi ay pinatawag ako ni Atong alias
Renato Flores at may sasabihin daw po siya sa akin, noon pong pumunta ako ay nasa loob daw po
siya ng kubo, sabi ni Patter punta daw sa kubo at doon daw ko usap ni Atong, punta ako kubo hila
ako sa kamay ni Atong tulak ako Patter, at takip bibig ko ng kamay ni Atong at sama panyo kamay
at tali panyo sa lbibig, higa ako sa papag ni Atong (referring to Renato Flores) at tanggal lahat ng
damit ko, pag katapos ay kiss niya ako sa labi at dede ko at pagkatapos ay pasok niya ang titi niya
sa pek-pek ko taas baba siya at -- pagkatapos ay parang pagod na pagod siya at dagan siya sa dibdib
ko at tanggal niya ang tali sa bibig ko, at sabi niya ay [sinabihang H]uwag kang magsusumbong at
papatayin kita naiintindihan mo ba[?]
09.T. Ano po ang mga sumunod na pangyayari?
S. Kinabukasan ay pinatawag ako uli kay Patter at punta daw ako sa kubo February 3, Lunes sa ganap
na ika 9:00 ng gabi at punta daw ako [kay] Atong (Renato Flores) at iwan ako uli ni Patter at sabi
ni Atong pag hindi ako payag patay ako, kaya x x x higa nalang ako papag at hubad ni Atong ang
damit ko at pasok uli niya ang Titi niya sa pekpek ko, at pagkatapos sabi ni Atong (Renato Flores)
o baka magsusumbong ka kahit kanino, at sabi niya ay kung magsusumbong daw ako ay papatayin
daw niya ako kaya hindi ako [nagsusumbong] kahit kanino, pinauwi niya ako.[24]
Undisputably, the sexual act was committed with force and intimidation as shown by
prosecution evidence. Moreover, the victim could not have shouted for help, as her mouth was
covered by the accused. She testified thus:
Q: Now after the accused inserted his penis into your vagina, what happened next?
A: He h[e]ld my breast, sir.
Q: Did you shout or [ask] for help?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why?
A: They were covering my mouth, sir.[25]
Indeed, it is inconceivable how a 13-year-old girl could muster enough strength to resist two
men in their prime. It would be incongrous to assume that she could overcome the superior strength
of appellant and his cohort, Paterno Pareno.

Lack of Resistance

Appellant likewise contends that complainants lack of physical struggle shows that she
consented to the sexual assault. We are not persuaded.
In a long line of cases, we have held that different people react differently to different
situations. There is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with
a frightful experience. While the reaction of some women who are faced with the possibility of
rape is struggling or shouting for help, still others become virtually catatonic because of the mental
shock they experienced.[26]
To the depraved mind of appellant, complainants failure to resist or to shout may have been a
sign of consent. But in the crime of rape, what is given paramount consideration is the state of
mind of the victim, not of the perpetrator.[27]

Sweethearts Theory
 While appellant interposed the defense of denial, he additionally alleged that he and Remedios
were sweethearts, and that they had lived as husband and wife from February 3, 1997 until May
28, 1997. To support this contention, he presented several witnesses who testified that they had
seen the victim in his house. These are unavailing, however, because they did not have personal
knowledge of the fact. Moreover, there is no sufficient evidence on record that would support this
defense. A sweethearts defense should be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence
of the relationship -- like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[28] Appellant presented
only a bag of clothes allegedly belonging to complainant.
We believe that the bag of clothes and the presence of complainant in the house of appellant
do not establish their alleged amorous relationship. As correctly observed by the trial court:

Defense[s] claim that the minor complainant is his sweetheart and they lived together
as husband and wife cannot be given serious consideration. There was not even a
letter or photograph of the minor-victim to show that the accused and she (Remedios
Renoria) [were] sweethearts. The bag of clothes is not concrete proof that the clothes
[belong] to minor complainant.

x x x [I]f it is really true that Remedios Renoria and the accused lived as husband and
wife in the house of the accused and left only on May 28, 1997 when fetched by the
sister, why was she able to give her written statement to the police on April 28, 1997
charging the accused [with] rape and [to submit] herself [to] physical and genital
examination before the NBI on April 29, 1997. [29]

Appellants claim of love relationship is belied by the concurrence of the following actuations
of complainant: (1) disclosing the rape incident to her uncle, (2) seeking help from police
authorities, (3) subjecting herself to medical examination, (4) filing a Complaint for rape and
recounting in court the details of her horrible experience.
Further, the sweethearts defense does not necessarily preclude rape. Even if it were true, such
relationship would not, by itself, establish consent, for love is not a license for lust.[30] A love affair
could not have justified what appellant did -- subjecting complainant to his carnal desires against
her will.[31]

Inconsistencies

In his vain attempt to discredit the testimony of complainant, appellant cites two
inconsistencies. First, he concedes that she was forcibly brought by Pareno to the nipa
hut. Prosecution Witness Larry Frias testimony, however, allegedly showed that Pareno
merely instructed her to go to the nipa hut with him. This circumstance allegedly raises the
possibility that she consented to the sexual intercourse. Second, appellant submits that, while the
victim avers that her mother went to the police station with her, Larry Frias testified that only he
had accompanied private complainant to the NBI, the DSWD and the Municipal Hall to file a
Complaint.[32]
The solicitor general correctly debunks appellants contentions in this wise:

A careful review of Remedios Renorias testimony reveals that on February 2, 1997,

Paterno Pareno arrived at their (Remedios Renoria[s]) house and asked her to
accompany him to the nipa hut located at Ulingan, Lawang-Bato, Valenzuela; that
when they reached the place, Paterno Pareno dragged her inside the nipa hut where
appellant was obviously waiting; and that appellant and Paterno Pareno covered her
mouth and undressed her.
In other words, Paterno Pareno used force on Remedios Renoria only when they
finally reached the nipa hut, the place where the crime was committed.

Anent the issue of who really was with Remedios Renoria at the time she went to the
police station to report the incident, Remedios Renoria clarified during her cross
examination that it was Larry Frias who accompanied her to the police station

Demonstrably, the alleged inconsistences pointed out by appellant do not actually

exist. Assuming that they do exist, the same are very trivial in nature [and] cannot
impair the essential integrity of the prosecution evidence as a whole. (Citation omitted)
[33]

Further, the aforecited inconsistencies, even if true, are minor in character and do not impugn
the credibility of complainant. Indicative of an unrehearsed testimony, slight contradictions even
serve to strengthen credibility. Indeed, the Court cannot expect a rape victim to remember every
ugly detail of the sexual assault.[34] A witness who is telling the truth is not always expected to give
a perfectly concise testimony, considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory.[35]

The Delay in Reporting the Incident

Complainants failure to report the incident immediately, according to appellant, belies her
claim of rape. This contention is untenable.
There is no standard form of behavior when a person is confronted by a shocking, harrowing
and unexpected incident. The workings of the human mind, when placed under emotional stress,
are unpredictable. Rape is a traumatic experience, and the shock concomitant with it may linger
for a while. Oftentimes, the victim would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private, rather
than reveal her shame to the world or risk the rapists carrying out his threat to harm her.[36]
In sum, the credibility of the complainants testimony is not diminished by the delay in
reporting the incident or by the lack of strong resistance. One cannot expect a 13-year old girl to
act like an adult or a mature and experienced woman who would have the courage and intelligence
to disregard a threat to her life and complain immediately that she had been sexually assaulted.[37]

Indemnity and Moral Damages

It has been the policy of the Court to award outrightly to a victim of rape an amount not
exceeding P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto, upon an indubitable showing of the commission
of the crime.[38] When the rape is committed in its qualified form and the death penalty is imposed,
the indemnity given is P75,000.
Moreover, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, appellant should be ordered to pay
the amount of P50,000 as moral damages. It may be awarded without need of independently
showing that the victim suffered mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety and the like.[39] In the crime
of rape, these are assumed by the law.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that an
additional award of P50,000 as moral damages be given to the victim. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.

[1]
Rollo, pp. 18-29.
[2]
Penned by Judge Adriano R. Osorio.
[3]
Signed by Second Assistant City Prosecutor Bayani M. Jamias.
[4]
Also spelled as Pater in other parts of the TSN.
[5]
Rollo, p. 7.
[6]
Assisted by his counsel, Atty. Margarita Rodriguez.
[7]
Assailed Decision, p. 1; rollo, p. 18.
[8]
Ibid., p. 12; rollo, p. 29.
Signed by Asst. Sol. Gen. Carlos N. Ortega, Asst. Sol. Gen. Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and Asso. Sol. Ma. Lilia O.
[9]

De la Rea.
[10]
Appellees Brief, pp. 4-7; rollo, pp. 89-92.
Appellants Brief, pp. 3-4; rollo, pp. 45-46; signed by Attys. Arceli A. Rubin, Amelia C. Garchitorena and Alteza
[11]

A. Aoso of the Public Attorneys Office.

[12]
Assailed Decision, p. 21; rollo, p. 41.
This case was deemed submitted for resolution on August 8, 2001, when the Court received appellants
[13]

Manifestation in Lieu of Reply Brief. Appellants Brief was received by the Court on November 6, 2000, while
Appellees Brief was received on May 16, 2001.
[14]
Appellants Brief, p. 4; rollo, pp. 46-47.
[15]
People v. Marquez, GR Nos. 137408-10, December 8, 2000.
[16]
TSN, July 6, 1998, pp. 4-5.
[17]
People v. Tagaylo, GR Nos. 137108-09, November 20, 2000.
[18]
Assailed Decision p.10; rollo p. 27.
[19]
People v. Garces Jr., 322 SCRA 834, January 20, 2000.
People v. Grefiel, 215 SCRA 596, November 13, 1992, citing US v. Villarosa, 4 Phil. 434, April 19, 1905; People
[20]

v. Plaga, 202 SCRA 53, September 30, 1991; People v. Saldivia, 203 SCRA 461, November 13, 1991.
[21]
People v. Vitancur, GR No. 128872, November 22, 2000.
[22]
Ibid.
[23]
306 SCRA 546, April 30, 1999.
[24]
Exhibit D; records, p. 3.
[25]
TSN, July 6, 1998, p. 5.
People v. Sale, GR Nos. 137978-79, November 22, 2000, citing People v. Rabosa, 273 SCRA 142, June 9, 1997
[26]

and People v. Corea, 269 SCRA 76, March 3, 1997.

[27]
People v. Saladino, GR Nos. 137481-83 & 138455, March 7, 2001.
[28]
Assailed Decision, p.11; rollo, p. 28.
[29]
People v. Garces Jr., supra.
[30]
Ibid.
[31]
Id.
[32]
Appellants Brief, pp. 7-8; rollo, pp. 49-50.
[33]
Appellees Brief, pp. 15-16; rollo, pp. 100-101.
[34]
People v. Lampaza, 319 SCRA 128, November 24, 1999.
[35]
People v. Saladino, supra.
[36]
People v. Pecayo, GR No. 132047, December 14, 2000.
[37]
People v. Malunes, 247 SCRA 317, August 14, 1995.
[38]
People v. Bolatete, 303 SCRA 709, February 25, 1999; People v. Gementiza, 285 SCRA 478, January 29, 1998.
[39]
People v. Tagaylo, GR Nos. 137108-09, supra, citing People v. De Guzman, GR No. 24368, June 8, 2000.