People vs. Gecomo

G.R. No. 115035-36 (February 23, 1996)

Facts:

In Criminal Cases Nos. 92-108024 and 92-108025, accused-appellant Percival Gecomo y Osit was charged with two counts of rape against complainant Regina Rapuzon y Fuenteblanca. The charges stemmed from incidents that occurred on June 20, 1992, and July 3, 1992, in Manila. The complainant and the accused were co-employees at Kim Hiong Restaurant, where they worked the night shift.

On June 20, 1992, at approximately 6:30 PM, while walking to work, Regina was accosted by Percival, who threatened her with a knife and forced her to accompany him to the Mansion Hotel. Inside the hotel room, he assaulted her, threatened her life, and raped her. After the assault, he sent her home, warning her not to tell anyone.

On July 3, 1992, Regina attempted to resign from her job. Percival again intercepted her, brandishing a knife, and forced her to his home. He repeated the assault, tying her up and threatening her before raping her again. After the second incident, Regina confided in her mother about the assaults, leading to a police report and subsequent medical examination, which confirmed signs of sexual assault.

During the trial, Regina testified about the assaults, while Percival denied the charges, claiming they were in a consensual relationship. He presented witnesses to support his defense, asserting that the sexual encounters were consensual and that Regina was his girlfriend.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving full credence to the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant.
2. Whether the trial court failed to scrutinize the details of the complainant's testimony for inconsistencies.
3. Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the accused's testimony and the corroborating witness.
4. Whether the judge's decision was valid despite not presiding over the trial.
5. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the elements of rape.

Arguments:

For the Accused-Appellant:

• The testimony of the complainant was uncorroborated and inconsistent, raising doubts about its credibility.
• The accused presented evidence and witnesses to support his claim of a consensual relationship with the complainant.
• The trial court failed to consider the accused's detailed memorandum explaining the circumstances of the incidents.
• The judge who rendered the decision did not preside over the trial, which could affect the integrity of the judgment.

For the Prosecution:

• The complainant's testimony was credible, consistent, and detailed, providing a clear account of the assaults.
• The absence of corroborating evidence is not unusual in rape cases, as the victim's testimony is often the primary evidence.
• The complainant's behavior post-assault, including her delay in reporting, can be explained by fear and trauma, which does not undermine her credibility.
• The judge's decision was based on a thorough review of the records, and the presumption of regularity in judicial functions applies.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the complainant's testimony credible and consistent. It emphasized that in rape cases, the victim's testimony can be sufficient for conviction if found credible. The court noted that the complainant's reluctance to report the incidents immediately was understandable given the threats made by the accused and the societal stigma associated with rape.

The court also addressed the accused's claims of inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, stating that variations in a victim's account do not necessarily indicate fabrication, especially under the stress of trauma. The court reiterated that the law does not require the victim to demonstrate physical resistance to establish rape; the presence of intimidation and fear suffices.

The court dismissed the argument regarding the judge's lack of direct involvement in the trial, stating that a judge can render a decision based on the records and transcripts of the proceedings. The court found no merit in the accused's claims of a consensual relationship, asserting that love does not justify coercion or violence.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

• The credibility of the victim's testimony is paramount in rape cases, and conviction can be based solely on the victim's account if credible.
• The law does not impose a burden on the victim to prove resistance; intimidation and fear are sufficient to establish the crime of rape.
• Delays in reporting incidents of sexual assault do not inherently discredit the victim's testimony, as they may stem from fear and trauma.