People v.

Sarcia
G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009

FACTS: Sometime in 1996, five year old AAA together with her cousin and two other playmates were
playing in the yard of Saling Crisologo near a mango tree. Appellant Richard Sarcia, 18 or 19
years old at the time appeared and invited AAA to go with him to the backyard of Saling
Crisologo’s house, whereupon appellant removed AAA’s shorts and underwear, made her lie on
her back and after removing his own trousers and brief laid on top of AAA and made up-and-
down movements which caused AAA to feel pain in her genital area and in her stomach.
Unknown to appellant, AAA’s cousin followed them and watched the whole incident from a
distance. AAA’s cousin reported such AAA’s mother but was rebuffed. AAA’s father was working
in Manila at the time. On July 7, 2000, AAA’s father filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness
which upon review of evidence was upgraded to rape by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Ligao, Albay. Medico-legal findings reported absence of introital vulval laceration nor scars but
with perforated hymen.

On January 17, 2003, the RTC Branch 13 of Ligao City found accused-appellant guilty of rape
and fined PHP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 50,000 as moral damages and cost of suit. The CA
affirmed the RTC’s decision but modified the penalty to death and increased fines of civil
indemnity to PHP 75,000, PHP 25,000 as exemplary damages and PHP 50,000 as moral
damages.

ISSUE: Is the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape?

RULING: Yes, the Court ruled that inconsistencies in testimonies of witnesses which refer only to minor
details do not affect the veracity of their testimonies when the principal occurrence and positive
identification of accused is made and indeed proves that such inconsistencies speaks of
spontaneity and the unrehearsed nature of such undertaking. Inability of the victim, AA, to recall
the exact date of the incident cannot discredit credibility of victim since it is not an essential
element of the crime. Neither is the delay in filing the crime a stain on the credibility of witnesses
since it is common for rape victims to prefer silence for fear and lack of courage. Furthermore, the
employment of force, threat, intimidation are not elements of statutory rape, only “carnal
knowledge” must be proven to have taken place. Alibi or denial is the weakest defense as it is
easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.

The Court affirms the decision of the CA with the following modifications: (1) death penalty is
reduced to reclusion perpetua, (2) PHP 75,000 as moral damages, PHP 30,000 as exemplary
damages, and PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity and remanded to the court a quo for disposition in
accordance with Section 51 of RA 9344.