CASE No.

64 (Rape)
G.R. Nos. 141773-76

January 22, 2003

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROSENDO LAYOSO @ SENDONG, accused-appellant.
-------- ======== // ========-------FACTS:
Rosendo Sendong Layoso was charged with four counts of rape for sexually assaulting Marlene B.
Nitoya, who was 14 years old when the first three incidents of rape happened and just turned 15
when that last incident happened.
***This paragraph may be excluded. (The first sexual assault happened in October 22, 1998 when
Marlene was about to by kerosene on a store about 15 meters away from their house. Sendong,
who was drunk, grabbed, kissed and threatened to kill her if she shouts. The accused dragged her
into a bamboo grove at the back of the store and raped her. The same happened on the next month
at the same time and place. The third incident happened on the 14th of December 1998, when
Marlene was washing her face by the water pump at her grandmothers house. Sendong came
suddenly, threatened to kill her, and forcibly kissed her. She was compelled to lie at the base of the
pump and take off her clothes then Sendong raped her once more. The last incident occurred on
February 23 the following year, when Marlene was again about to buy kerosene from the same
store, Sendong grabbed her towards a secluded place in front of the store, threatened to kill her with
a bamboo stick, took off her clothes and had carnal knowledge with her. When her parents came
home that night, she told them that Sendong had raped her four times. They went to the Police to
report the incident and had her examined in the hospital.)
During the trial, Marlenes parents and uncle corroborated her accusations against Sendong. The
results of the physical examination and the statements of the attending physician was also
presented as evidence in court. The accused presented alibis that he was not at the crime scene
when the rape incidents happened and that Marlenes family accused him of the rape to avenge an
incedent that happened between him and Marlenes cousin. The trial court, however, found Sendong
guilty on all four counts of rape charged against him. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay indemnity and exemplary damages.
On appeal, the defense questioned the inconsistencies on the time and dates of the rape incidents
stated by the victim and those stated by other witnesses including conflict on the date and time of
the last rape incident and the time when the report was made to the Police. Accused also makes
issue on the victims failure to make adequate resistance considering that the incidents happened
near inhabited places.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the failure of the victim to exert adequate resistance and the inconsistencies as to
the place, date and time of incident on the statements of the victim and other witnesses are material
in a rape case.

RULING:
The Court held that Marlenes failure to shout or offer adequate resistance against accusedappellant is of no moment. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is
exercised upon the victim and she submits herself against her will to the rapists lust out of fear for
her life and personal safety.
Furthermore, the alleged inconsistencies of prosecution witnesses do not in any way detract from
the fact that Marlene was raped by accused-appellant. These alleged inconsistencies are diminimis
in nature and in no way destroy their credibility. What is important is that the prosecution witnesses
were consistent in relating the significant and indispensable components of the principal occurrence
of rape.
Rape, by its very nature, is committed with the least possibility of being seen by the public. More
often than not, this crime is committed in the presence of only the victim and her defiler. The
commission of the four acts of rape were established by the testimony of Marlene Nitoya herself. In
the face of his positive identification by Marlene, accused-appellants self-serving denial and alibi
cannot prevail. The testimony of the victim, who is a minor, deserve full credence and should not be
so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication especially that she has absolutely no motive to testify
against the accused.
Thus, the Court does not hesitate to uphold the conviction of the accused on the basis of the lone
testimony of the private complainant who testifies in no uncertain terms that Sendong was the author
of the acts of rape committed upon her person.
Sendong was nevertheless found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on four counts of rape and is also
sentenced to pay Civil Indemnity and Moral Damages for each count. Exemplary Damages is
deleted for lack of factual and legal basis.