People vs. Joya

A rape conviction may stand on the victim’s positive and credible testimony, corroborated by medical findings and prompt complaint, despite minor inconsistencies; alibi cannot prevail over positive identification absent physical impossibility, and a retraction concerning a co-accused does not exonerate the appellant. Only one conviction for rape may be entered where the information charges a single offense, even if the evidence shows multiple acts.

Maria Benneth C. Tolentino was a 14-year-old student in Cavite, and Romeo Joya, Joselito Arbolante, and Ismael Cervania were her neighbors. Aurora Tolentino, Maria’s mother, was a laundrywoman who also ran a store in front of their house in Bucal, Tanza, Cavite. The store was about fifteen meters from the Tolentino house.

In March 1984, Maria Benneth Tolentino, 14 years old, was living with her mother Aurora Tolentino, a laundrywoman, her sister, cousin, aunt, and two nephews in their house at Bucal, Tanza, Cavite; a store operated by her mother fronted the house. On April 28, 1984, classes having closed for vacation and Aurora having left to wash clothes for a household in Parañaque, Maria began tending the store at around 8:00 a.m.

Around 7:00 p.m., Joya arrived at the store with Joselito Arbolante, Ismael “Maeng” Cervania, George Aricayo, Jun Nepona, and Antonio Murillo, all Maria’s neighbors, carrying a bottle of gin. They sat in front of the store and had a drinking spree until 9:00 p.m. Upon the advice of neighbor Felicidad Sosa, Maria closed the store and waited for her mother inside. After some time, she heard a commotion from the direction of their house; worried for her sister and nephews because her aunt was also out, she went to the house, found nothing unusual, and, because she was told to sleep in the store whenever her mother was out, returned there at about 11:00 p.m.

At the store, Maria saw Joya inside. Without warning, he boxed her on the stomach, causing her to sit on the folding bed, ordered her not to shout, and threatened to kill her. He forced her to lie down, removed her shorts and panty, held her hand, placed himself on top of her, and tried to insert his private organ into hers. Maria struggled, but Joya immobilized her hands; she tried to shout but no voice came out, and she kicked him in vain. Joya eventually succeeded in raping her, and Maria could only cry while blood oozed from her private part. She then noticed Arbolante and Cervania at the door of the store; they stood as guards at Joya’s instruction.

After Joya’s sexual assault, Cervania entered, held Maria’s hands, lay on top of her, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. Arbolante then replaced Cervania and repeated the sexual violation. After Arbolante’s turn, Joya again sexually assaulted Maria. The devastated girl quietly suffered the repeated abuse; after the three were through, they left Maria, who could only cry until the following morning of April 29, 1984.

The next day, Maria and her neighbor Felicidad Zabala Soma went to Barangay Captain Magno Dulce of Bucal, Tanza, Cavite to complain. The matter was not attended to at the barangay level, so Maria and her mother went to the NBI for physical examination as suggested by the barangay captain; no doctor was available that day, but they returned the next day and the examination was conducted. They later went to the Tanza police station to give statements. Seeing Maria acting strangely, her mother brought her back to the NBI psychiatrist, who referred her to the National Mental Hospital. Dr. Nieto Salvador’s NBI medical certificate dated April 30, 1984 showed an abrasion on Maria’s left forearm and a healing hymenal laceration. Dr. Alfredo Felix’s May 7, 1984 tests described her as fairly clean but with uncombed hair, tearful, complaining of epigastric and hypogastric pain, depressed but compliant, with retarded gait. Dr. Lolita de Guzman’s August 20, 1985 report stated that Maria suffered from brief reactive psychosis characterized by depressed mood, auditory and visual hallucinatory experiences, ideas of reference, and insomnia, triggered by severe psychosocial stress, in this case the rape, although she was in social remission and treatment was recommended; Dr. de Guzman reiterated this in court and said on cross-examination that frustration in love may bring about such disturbance, but this was highly unlikely. Before the incident, Maria was a first year high school student at Tanza National Comprehensive High School; after the incident she could no longer continue her studies and refused to stay in Cavite, transferring residence to Marimar Village in Parañaque.

Joya denied the charge and relied on alibi. He testified that he was at Maria’s store from 6:00 p.m. to about 8:00 p.m. on April 28, 1984 with Cervania, Benjamin Opena, Bobby Aricayos, and Tony Murillo; after leaving the store he went directly to the house of his employer to see Marietta Garido, the girl he was courting, stayed there until around 9:00 p.m., then proceeded to the farm of his brother-in-law Ricardo Riginding at Biga, Tanza, Cavite, where he was staying overnight to help watch the plants. He denied knowledge of the rape and said that at around 11:00 p.m. he was no longer with Arbolante and Cervania because he was the first to leave the store. Barangay tanod Senando Dulce testified that he conducted the “ronda” with Alejandro Senica and Francisco Cases from 9:00 p.m. to about 2:00 a.m., passed the store at least four times, and noticed no unusual incident; they received no report that night and learned of something the following morning. Mateo Cesa, a neighbor, testified that after arriving home around 8:00 p.m., he had supper and looked for his three cows to remove cow lice until around 11:00 p.m.; the distance from where he tended the cows to Aurora Tolentino’s store was about twenty meters, and he did not see any person in the store or notice any untoward incident, though he saw the barangay tanod pass by the store. Ricardo Riginding testified that he arrived at his farmhouse before 10:00 p.m. and Joya was already there; when he entered the farmhouse Joya was already sleeping, and Joya helped him oversee the plants and used to go there almost every night. Arbolante testified that he went home about 11:45 p.m. on April 28, 1984 and did not notice anything unusual when he passed Maria’s house. Teresita Gatdula, Arbolante’s sister, testified that Maria’s mother had a personal grudge against her, not against her brother, because of a debt to the store.

Maria later executed an affidavit on September 15, 1988 retracting her testimony in Criminal Case No. TM-89 with regard to Cervania’s participation in the crime; in September 1988, the RTC dismissed the case against Cervania for lack of evidence. During the pendency of the case before the SC, Arbolante moved to withdraw his appeal, stating that he had lost contact with his counsel of record and believed the action would be favorable to him; the SC granted the motion on June 28, 1993, and appellate review proceeded only as to Joya.

• Credibility of Complainant: Petitioner-appellant Romeo Joya argued that the complainant’s testimony contained inconsistencies on why she left the store and went to their house, the time she closed the store and returned, the length of time each rapist ravished her, and the illumination inside the store, which should undermine her credibility.
• Physical Impossibility of Penetration: Joya argued that it was well-nigh impossible for a man to insert his penis into a woman’s vagina when her panties were down only to her thighs, and that even if her panty and shorts were brought down to her knees, the rape could not have been consummated.
• Delay in Reporting: Joya argued that the complainant unduly delayed her revelation of the incident.
• Motive to File Charge: Joya argued that the complainant’s mother had a personal grudge against Teresita Gatdula arising from a disputed P146.00 debt, which was the motive for filing the rape charge.
• Alibi: Joya argued that at the time of the rape he was at the farm of his brother-in-law Ricardo Riginding in Biga, Tanza, Cavite, where he slept the whole night; the distance between the store and the farm was only half a kilometer or a 20-minute walk, and Riginding corroborated his presence.
• Retraction as to Cervania: Joya argued that the complainant’s retraction regarding Ismael Cervania’s participation entitled him to acquittal because the lower court reached different conclusions as to Cervania, on one hand, and Joya and Arbolante, on the other, on essentially the same set of countervailing evidence.

• Retraction Limited to Cervania: Respondent, through the Solicitor General, argued that the complainant’s retraction referred only to Ismael Cervania and not to Joya, so Joya had no reason to invoke it; the affidavit did not retract the charge against Joya and even confirmed his culpability.

• Credibility of Complainant: Whether the complainant’s testimony, despite inconsistencies on minor details, was credible enough to sustain Joya’s conviction for rape.
• Sufficiency of Penetration: Whether rape was consummated despite the complainant’s panty and shorts being lowered only to her thighs or knees.
• Delay in Reporting: Whether the complainant’s delay in revealing the incident affected her credibility.
• Motive to File Charge: Whether the alleged grudge of the complainant’s mother against Arbolante’s sister provided a motive to falsely charge Joya with rape.
• Alibi: Whether Joya’s alibi could prevail over the complainant’s positive identification.
• Retraction: Whether the complainant’s retraction regarding Ismael Cervania’s participation entitled Joya to acquittal.
• Aggravating Circumstance of Dwelling: Whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be appreciated where the rape occurred in a store about fifteen meters from the complainant’s house.
• Number of Convictions: Whether Joya could be convicted of more than one rape where the information charged only one act of rape despite evidence of multiple sexual assaults.
• Damages: Whether moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00.

• Credibility of Complainant: Yes. Minor inconsistencies on details did not destroy credibility; the complainant’s positive identification, emotional condition, and corroborating medical evidence sustained the rape charge.
• Sufficiency of Penetration: Yes. Full penetration is not required; the slightest penetration of the labia or pudendum consummates rape, and lowering the panty and shorts only to the thighs or knees did not make penetration physically impossible.
• Delay in Reporting: No. The complainant reported the incident the very next morning; any delay was negligible and did not affect her credibility.
• Motive to File Charge: No. The alleged P146.00 debt was too nominal to motivate a public rape charge and did not explain why Joya, who was not involved in the supposed grudge, was included.
• Alibi: No. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification absent physical impossibility, and the short distance between the store and the farm did not prevent Joya from committing the crime and returning.
• Retraction: No. The retraction concerned only Ismael Cervania, not Joya; it did not retract the charge against Joya and even confirmed his culpability.
• Aggravating Circumstance of Dwelling: No. The crime was committed in a store about fifteen meters from the complainant’s house, and the store was not a dwelling or a dependency of the home.
• Number of Convictions: One only. The information charged only one act of rape, so Joya could not be convicted of more than what was charged even if the evidence showed multiple acts of forcible intercourse.
• Damages: Yes. Moral damages were increased to P50,000.00 considering the complainant’s age and the grave consequences of the multiple rapes on her present plight and future prospects.

• Credibility of Complainant: The SC acknowledged contradictions on why Maria left the store and proceeded to their house, the time she closed the store and returned, the length of time each rapist ravished her, and the illumination inside the store. The first part of her direct examination was given on December 17, 1984, less than eight months after the incident; continuation and cross-examination were delayed until May 28, 1985 because she was undergoing psychiatric examination, and the RTC repeatedly deferred her testimony because she was crying or could not stand cross-examination; defense counsel did not oppose and understood her situation. The SC held that the elapsed time, her emotional and mental condition, tricky leading questions, and the nature of rape trauma made perfect consistency unnecessary; inconsistencies do not detract from the vital fact of abuse and may erase suspicion of rehearsed testimony. Positive identification and the manner of rape are essential; crying during testimony is evidence of credibility; medical findings of abrasion on the left forearm and healing hymenal laceration corroborated force and involuntary intercourse; absence of stomach injury did not negate rape; if the testimony is not improbable, conviction may rest on uncorroborated testimony.
• Sufficiency of Penetration: The SC held that full penetration is not required to sustain a rape conviction; proof of entry of the male organ within the labia or pudendum, or the slightest penetration of the labia of the pudendum, consummates the crime. Under the circumstances, the fact that Maria’s panty and shorts were brought down only to her thighs or knees did not make it physically impossible for the male organ to effect penetration. The SC relied on People vs. Tismo, where conviction was upheld although the complainant’s shorts and panty were lowered only to the middle part of her thigh.
• Delay in Reporting: The SC held that the conduct of the woman immediately following the alleged assault is of utmost importance. The day after the incident, Maria and her neighbor Felicidad Zabala Soma went to Barangay Captain Magno Dulce; the matter was not attended to at the barangay level, so she and her mother went to the NBI, returned the next day for examination, later gave statements at the Tanza police station, and were referred to the National Mental Hospital. These persistent efforts showed an aggrieved party seeking redress. The family was not moneyed and would not squander resources except to vindicate a grave wrong. The SC held she did not unduly delay; any delay was negligible; jurisprudence has upheld convictions despite disclosure days or months later, especially where young girls conceal assaults because of threats.
• Motive to File Charge: Teresita Gatdula testified that Maria’s mother had a personal grudge against her, not Arbolante, arising from a P146.00 debt. The SC found the theory absurd: the amount was too nominal to motivate a public scandal, and even if valid, it did not explain why Joya was included because the supposed motive involved only the Arbolantes and Tolentinos. Maria was a simple, ingenuous 14-year-old barrio resident, not a worldly-wise woman who could fabricate an elaborate scheme; no woman in her right mind would publicize rape and risk interrogation unless to vindicate her honor.
• Alibi: Joya claimed he was at Riginding’s farm at Biga, Tanza, Cavite, half a kilometer or a 20-minute walk from the store, and Riginding corroborated that Joya was already sleeping when he arrived before 10:00 p.m. The SC held alibi did not merit serious consideration because Joya was positively identified; alibi cannot prevail over positive identification; it is less plausible when established only by the accused and his immediate relatives; and there was no physical impossibility because the distance was short and Riginding did not state the exact time he first saw Joya, so Joya could have committed the crime at 11:00 p.m. and returned before Riginding noticed.
• Retraction: Maria executed an affidavit on September 15, 1988 retracting her testimony in Criminal Case No. TM-89 with regard to Cervania’s participation; the RTC dismissed the case against Cervania in September 1988. The SC held the retraction referred only to Cervania, not Joya; it did not retract the charge against Joya and even confirmed his culpability. Courts do not look with favor on retractions because recanted testimony is highly questionable and may be secured through monetary considerations; rejecting solemn testimonies because witnesses change their minds would make trials a mockery. The retraction did not mean Maria lied about Joya; her awareness of poor health and the ordeal of testifying against Cervania could explain desistance even if one defiler was spared.
• Aggravating Circumstance of Dwelling: The SC agreed with the RTC that dwelling could not be considered. A dwelling must be a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort. The crime was committed in a store about fifteen meters away from Maria’s house, and the store was not a dwelling or even a dependency of her home.
• Number of Convictions: The records showed Joya and Arbolante conspired and successively raped Maria; she was ravished four times, so Joya should have been charged with four counts of rape, or at least three after the desistance as to Cervania. However, the information charged only one act of rape. The SC held Joya could not be held liable for more than what was charged; there can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows three separate acts of forcible intercourse, citing People vs. Robles.
• Damages: The prevailing jurisprudential policy was to award P30,000.00 moral damages in rape cases, but the SC had awarded P50,000.00 in certain circumstances, such as rape of young girls aged thirteen to nineteen, rape of a mental retardate, forcible abduction with rape, and statutory rape. Considering Maria’s age at the time of the multiple rapes and the grave consequences on her present plight and future prospects, the SC increased moral damages to P50,000.00.

• Credibility of a Rape Victim’s Testimony — Minor inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony do not destroy credibility, especially where explained by youth, emotional condition, lengthy cross-examination, and the trauma of the experience; positive identification of the accused and the manner of the rape are essential, and crying during testimony supports credibility. The SC applied this to sustain Maria’s testimony despite contradictions on minor details.
• Sufficiency of Penetration in Rape — Full penetration is not required; proof of entry of the male organ within the labia or pudendum, or the slightest penetration of the labia of the pudendum, consummates rape. The SC applied this to reject Joya’s claim that rape was impossible because Maria’s panty and shorts were lowered only to her thighs or knees.
• Alibi as a Defense — Alibi must show that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime; it cannot prevail over positive identification and is less plausible when established only by the accused and immediate relatives. The SC applied this to reject Joya’s claim that he was at Riginding’s farm.
• Prompt Complaint in Rape — The conduct of the woman immediately following the alleged assault is of utmost importance; delay is not fatal, especially for young girls who may conceal assaults because of threats. The SC applied this to find Maria’s next-day report to the barangay captain and subsequent NBI and police visits consistent with a genuine charge.
• Retraction — Courts do not look with favor on affidavits of retraction; recanted testimony is highly questionable because it may be secured through monetary considerations, and a retraction concerning one accused does not necessarily exonerate another. The SC applied this to hold that Maria’s retraction as to Cervania did not benefit Joya.
• Aggravating Circumstance of Dwelling — Dwelling requires a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort; a store about fifteen meters from the victim’s house is not a dwelling or a dependency of the home. The SC applied this to reject the aggravating circumstance.
• One Conviction per Information — An accused cannot be convicted of more than what is charged; if the information charges only one offense, only one conviction may be entered even if the evidence shows multiple acts. The SC applied this to limit Joya to one conviction for rape despite evidence of multiple sexual assaults.
• Moral Damages in Rape — The normal award is P30,000.00, but P50,000.00 may be awarded in certain circumstances, including rape of young girls aged thirteen to nineteen, rape of a mental retardate, forcible abduction with rape, and statutory rape. The SC applied this to increase the award to P50,000.00 given Maria’s age and the grave consequences of the rapes.
• Withdrawal of Appeal by Co-Accused — The withdrawal of his appeal by a co-accused expresses not only acquiescence to the judgment of conviction but also affirmation that rape was committed. The SC applied this to Arbolante’s withdrawal, which it granted, leaving Joya’s appeal as the only one reviewed.

• “We have heretofore held, with the verity born out of human nature and experience, that the crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge.” — The SC used this to explain why Maria’s crying on the witness stand supported the truth of the rape charge despite her imperfect narration.
• “The rule is settled that to sustain a conviction for rape, full penetration is not required. Proof of entry of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ consummates the crime; the slightest penetration of the labia of the pudendum is sufficient.” — The SC applied this rule to reject Joya’s claim that rape was impossible because Maria’s panty and shorts were lowered only to her thighs or knees.
• “Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the prosecution witnesses.” — The SC used this rule to reject Joya’s alibi even though the farm was only half a kilometer away.
• “There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows three separate acts of forcible intercourse.” — The SC applied this rule to limit Joya’s liability to one conviction despite evidence of multiple sexual assaults.

• People vs. Tismo, 204 SCRA 535 (1991) — Relied on for the rule that slight penetration suffices and that lowering the complainant’s shorts and panty only to the middle part of her thigh does not make rape impossible.
• People vs. Budol, et al., 143 SCRA 241 (1986) — Relied on for the effect of a co-accused’s withdrawal of appeal as an affirmation that rape was committed.
• People vs. Robles, 170 SCRA 557 (1989) — Relied on for the rule that only one conviction for rape may be entered where the information charges only one offense despite evidence of multiple acts.
• People vs. Babac, 204 SCRA 938 (1991) — Relied on for the rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification.
• People vs. Galicia, 123 SCRA 556 (1983) — Relied on for the rule that courts do not look with favor on affidavits of retraction.
• People vs. Syquioco, 118 SCRA 413 (1982) — Relied on for the rule that the crying of the victim during testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge.
• People vs. Mejias, 168 SCRA 33 (1988) — Relied on for the rule that the conduct of the woman immediately following the alleged assault is of utmost importance.
• People vs. Ramos, 197 SCRA 523 (1991) — Relied on for the award of P50,000.00 moral damages in the rape of young girls aged thirteen to nineteen.

• Article 800, Civil Code — The SC invoked the presumption that every person is of sound mind in the absence of proof to the contrary to conclude that the complainant was mentally healthy before the sexual assault.