The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Rolando Cabungan for rape, underscoring that a delay in reporting the crime does not automatically discredit the victim’s testimony. This decision reinforces the importance of considering the victim’s reasons for delayed reporting, such as fear or intimidation, and emphasizes that inconsistencies in minor details do not invalidate the overall credibility of the testimony. The court’s ruling aims to protect victims of sexual assault and ensure that their voices are heard, even if they do not come forward immediately. This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to providing justice for victims of rape, despite challenges in proving the crime.

Silence Isn’t Acquiescence: How Fear Shields Victims in Rape Cases

In People v. Cabungan, the accused was charged with the rape of his step-daughter, “AAA”. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Cabungan guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a decision which the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modifications. The Supreme Court (SC) then reviewed the case, focusing on whether the lower courts erred in their assessment of the evidence, particularly the credibility of the victim’s testimony, and the impact of her delay in reporting the incident. Central to the defense was the argument that “AAA’s” delayed report and alleged inconsistencies undermined her credibility. However, the prosecution argued that “AAA’s” fear of the accused explained her silence, and her testimony, supported by medical evidence, was credible.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of delayed reporting, acknowledging that it is not uncommon for rape victims to conceal the assault due to fear and threats from the assailant. The Court cited People v. Domingo, stating:

“[I]t is not uncommon that a rape victim conceal for some time the assault against her person on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant.”

This legal precedent validates that the psychological impact of rape often prevents victims from immediately reporting the crime. The Court emphasized that a rape charge only becomes doubtful when the delay in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained.

Furthermore, the defense argued that “AAA’s” continued presence in the house where the alleged rape occurred contradicted normal human behavior. The Court refuted this, explaining that not all victims react in predictable ways, and “AAA” had limited options as the house was her home, and her brother lived far away. The SC also dismissed the claim that “AAA” did not resist, pointing to evidence showing she tried to resist but was overpowered. The Court clarified that the law does not require a victim to prove resistance, especially when intimidation is involved.

Regarding the inconsistencies between “AAA’s” affidavit and her testimony, the Supreme Court found them to be minor and inconsequential. The Court cited People v. Tolentino, noting that trivial inconsistencies do not warrant rejection of the entire testimony.

“[D]o not warrant rejection of the entire testimony nor the reversal of the judgment. Accuracy in account ha[s] never been [used] as a standard [against] which the credibility of witnesses are tested since it is undeniable that human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions x x x.”

The Court deemed these inconsistencies irrelevant to determining Cabungan’s guilt or innocence.

The Supreme Court also addressed the defense’s attack on Dr. Sanchez’s credibility. The defense argued that the doctor’s conclusion that “AAA” was raped was based on “AAA’s” narration and that the physical findings were not conclusive. The Court countered that the doctor’s conclusion was based on her examination, not solely on “AAA’s” story. It also cited People v. Jacob:

“[T]he mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the pudendum is sufficient to consummate rape.”

The Court further clarified that a medical examination and certificate are corroborative and not indispensable for conviction.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings that the victim’s testimony was credible. The Court also considered the fact that the appellant did not present any clear or convincing evidence to overturn the findings of the trial court. The Court noted that like the defense of alibi, a denial crumbles in the face of positive declarations. Additionally, the findings of trial courts involving credibility are given respect when there are no glaring errors. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the CA’s decision convicting Cabungan of rape.

Regarding the penalty, the Court agreed that Cabungan was guilty only of simple rape, as the prosecution failed to prove the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. The CA’s affirmance of the penalty of reclusion perpetua was deemed appropriate. The Court also upheld the CA’s reduction of the civil indemnity from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 and the award of moral damages of P50,000.00. Furthermore, the Court awarded exemplary damages of P30,000.00 to “AAA”, as the crime was committed with an aggravating circumstance, AAA’s minority.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the delay in reporting the rape and minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony undermined her credibility, thereby affecting the accused’s conviction.
Why did the victim delay reporting the rape?	The victim delayed reporting due to fear of the accused’s threats, which prevented her from immediately disclosing the assault. The court recognized that fear is a valid reason for delaying the report of a rape.
Did the court consider the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony?	Yes, but the court found the inconsistencies to be minor and not significant enough to discredit her testimony. These inconsistencies did not pertain to the central elements of the crime.
What was the role of the medical examination in the case?	The medical examination served as corroborative evidence, supporting the victim’s claim of rape. However, the court clarified that a medical examination is not indispensable for conviction in rape cases.
What is the significance of the finding that the accused is only guilty of simple rape?	The finding of simple rape means that the special qualifying circumstance of relationship was not proven, impacting the penalties and damages awarded. Although the information alleged that victim is the step-daughter of the appellant, there is nothing on record to support the same.
What damages were awarded to the victim?	The victim was awarded civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00, and exemplary damages of P30,000.00. Interest at 6% per annum was also imposed on all damages from the date of finality of the judgment.
Can a rape conviction be secured without the victim showing resistance?	Yes, resistance is not required, especially when the victim is intimidated or fears for her life. The key is whether the victim submitted due to force, threat, or intimidation.
What is the court’s view on the victim continuing to live in the same house as the accused after the incident?	The court found that the victim’s continued presence in the house did not negate the rape, as she had limited alternatives and a right to live in her home.

This case underscores the importance of considering the totality of circumstances in rape cases, particularly the victim’s credibility and the reasons behind any delay in reporting the crime. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that fear and intimidation can significantly affect a victim’s behavior, and that minor inconsistencies should not automatically discredit their testimony.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Cabungan, G.R. No. 189355, January 23, 2013