PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO NOGPO, JR. a.k.a. TANDODOY, Accused -Appellant. G.R. No.

184791 April 16, 2009 THIRD DIVISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: FACTS: On 20 August 2001, the Asst. Prov. Prosecutor of Camarines Sur filed rape charges against accused-appellant Pedro Nogpo, Jr. alias Tandodoy, before the RTC of Naga City based on an information filed against accused -appellant which stated, among others, that on the dawn of March 2009, said accused-appellant, using force, threats and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the private complainant against her will, to her damage and prejudice, which was contrary to law. Said rape occurred at the house of private complainant, with her three (3) months old baby in the same room, while her other five (5) minor children were sleeping in the kitchen and her husband was transporting coconuts to Naga City. Private complainant was medically examined after said rape and the testimonies of the two (2) medical experts attest to the fact that private complainant was indeed sexually assaulted. In his defense, accused-appellant interposed the sweetheart theory, claiming that what occurred on the above date of rape was consensual and was corroborated by his sister. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of rape, sentencing him with a penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and ordering him to pay the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity, and another Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as moral damages to the complainant. An appeal to the CA was made and the RTC decision was affirmed. ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision that found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether or not the award of civil indemnity and moral damages is proper. HELD: 1. No. The CA did not err in affirming the RTC decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Private complainant narrated on the witness stand how accused-appellant sexually abused her in a manner reflective of honest and unrehearsed testimony. Furthermore, Accused-appellants defense, based on the much abused sweetheart theory in rape cases, so blandly invoked in the instant case, rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience. A sweetheart defense, to be credible, should be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of the relationship, which is patently absent here. And as correctly found by the trial court, private complainants version of sexual violence upon her by accused -appellant is more credible and sounds more real, because it is more in accord with human experience, unlike accused-appellants sweetheart theory. The Court concludes, after a thorough and intensive review, that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the rape committed by accused-appellant on private complainant, through her credible testimony corroborated by the medical conclusions of the expert witness for the prosecution, as well as by the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses. 2. Yes. The order of civil indemnity and moral damages is proper. This is in line with prevailing jurisprudence that civil indemnification is mandatory upon the finding of rape. On the other hand, moral damages in rape cases are awarded without need of showing that the private complainant experienced trauma or mental, physical and psychological suffering.