Appellant questions the weighty trust placed by the trial court on the singular and uncorroborated

testimony of AAA as the basis for his conviction. On this point, we would like to remind appellant that
it is a fundamental principle in jurisprudence involving rape that the accused may be convicted
based solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.13

It is likewise jurisprudentially settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect
all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it
satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused.14 Thus, in this jurisdiction,
the fate of the accused in a rape case, ultimately and oftentimes, hinges on the credibility of the
victim’s testimony.

In this regard, we defer to the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of AAA’s testimony, most
especially, when it is affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In People v. Amistoso,15 we reiterated the
rationale of this principle in this wise:

Time and again, we have held that when it comes to the issue of credibility of the victim or the
prosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect and, generally,
the appellate courts will not overturn the said findings unless the trial court overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will alter
the assailed decision or affect the result of the case. This is so because trial courts are in the best
position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual
observation of the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court. Trial judges
enjoy the advantage of observing the witness’ deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive
glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant
or full realization of an oath" – all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness’
honesty and sincerity. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the
truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Again, unless certain facts of
substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its
assessment must be respected, for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of
the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent
application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.

Anent the inconsistent statements made by AAA in her testimony which were pointed out by
appellant, we agree with the assessment made by the Court of Appeals that these are but minor
discrepancies that do little to affect the central issue of rape which is involved in this case. Instead of
diminishing AAA’s credibility, such variance on minor details has the net effect of bolstering the
truthfulness of AAA’s accusations. We have constantly declared that a few discrepancies and
inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching
upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses because they discount
the possibility of their being rehearsed testimony.16

Notable is the fact that no ill motive on the part of AAA to falsely accuse appellant was ever brought
up by the defense during trial. This only serves to further strengthen AAA’s case since we have
consistently held that a rape victim’s testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has
absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the accused.17 It is also equally important to
highlight AAA’s young age when she decided to accuse her kin of rape and go through the ordeal of
trial. In fact, when she painfully recounted her tribulation in court, she was just at the tender age of
sixteen (16) years old.18 Jurisprudence instructs us that no young woman, especially of tender age,
would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert
herself by being subjected to public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain
justice for the wrong committed against her.19
 The elements necessary to sustain a conviction for rape are: (1) that the
accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was
accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12
years of age or is demented.1

All elements of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code2 were
sufficiently proved through the statement of AAA alone. The offender is a man
who had carnal knowledge of AAA when he forced himself upon the
latter. Appellant accomplished his purpose through the use of (1) force, i.e.
forcibly pulling her and covering her mouth and nose and; (2)threat,
i.e. threatening to kill AAA.

(copy green post it 1st part bracketed)

From above, appellant used force to retrain AAA while he forced himself against
her. After the dastardly act, he threatened AAA not to tell or report anyone the
incident, to wit:

(copy green post it 2nd part bracketed)

Against the overwhelming evidence, appellant could only

muster the defense of denial. In this regard, it has been long
settled that the defense of denial, is an inherently weak defense.
It is self-serving negative evidence that cannot prevail over the
declaration of a credible witness who testified on affirmative
matters.3 Moreover, appellant's denial cannot prevail over the
positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses who were not
shown to have any ill-motive to testify against the former.

1 People v. Quintal, G.R. No. 184170, 2 February 2011.

72 Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. Rape is committed -
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following:
a. Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
3 People v. Watiwat, 457 Phil. 411, 425-426 (2003); People v. Macagaling, G.R. Nos. 109131-33
(October 3,1994).
 Besides, it has been repeatedly held that no woman would go
through the process and humiliationof trial had she not been a victim of abuse
and her only motive is to seek and obtain justice. When she says she has been
raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was, indeed,
committee.4

Defense of denial and alibi cannot prosper

As to appellants defense of denial and alibi, we completely agree with the

ruling of the Court of Appeals, to wit:

In rape cases, while denial and alibi are legitimate defenses, bare
assertions thereof cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the
victim. In particular, the defense of alibi is weak if wanting in material
corroboration, as in this case.[27]

In order to merit credibility, denial must be buttressed by strong

evidence of non-culpability which herein accused-appellant failed to
show. And in order for alibi to prosper, the accused-appellant must prove
not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of
the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the
locus delicti or its immediate vicinity. In the present case, accused-
appellant failed to demonstrate this fact.[28]
Appellant’s defenses of denial and
improper motive fail to persuade.

Appellant denies the rape charges against him and imputes improper motive upon “AAA.” He claims that
“AAA” filed the case because he chastised and slapped her in a fit of anger. Appellant’s contention, however,
is far from being persuasive.

The Court has ruled that a young girl’s revelation that she had been raped cannot be easily labeled as a
mere concoction. In People v. Melivo,45 it was held that:chanRoble svirtual Lawli bra ry

It takes much more for a sixteen year old lass to fabricate a story of rape, have her private parts examined,
subject herself to the indignity of a public trial and endure a lifetime of ridicule. Even when consumed with
revenge, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which
would put her own father for the most of his remaining life to jail and drag herself and the rest of her family
to a lifetime of shame.

It must be added that the defenses of denial and improper motive can only prosper when substantiated by
clear and convincing evidence. There being no such evidence in this case, the said defenses are no more
than self-serving assertions that deserve no weight in law. Certainly, they cannot prevail over “AAA’s”

4 People v. Saludo, G.R. No. 178406, 6 April 2011 citing People v. Alcazar, G.R. No. 186494, 15
September 2010, 630 SCRA 622, 633; People v. Belga, G.R. No. 129769, 19 January 2001, 349
SCRA 678.
positive and categorical testimony. Thus, appellant’s defenses of denial and imputation of improper motive
fail to persuade.

It is settled that the absence of physical injuries or fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and
although medical results may not indicate physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be
established since medical findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential elements in the
prosecution for rape. As held in People v. Campos:14

But a medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. In fact, there can be rape
even if the medical examination shows no vaginal laceration. As we held in People v. Dreu—

It is of no moment either that the medical certificate fails to show that Josephine suffered any
contusion or abrasion. Although the results of a medical examination may be considered strong
evidence to prove that the victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in establishing
accused-appellant’s guilt or innocence. In People v. Docena, we stated:

That there was no medical examination report presented, sign of resistance during the actual
copulation, or proof of violence committed against MARGIE does not detract from our conclusion
that she was raped. A medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Medical
findings or proof of injuries, virginity, or an allegation of the exact time and date of the commission of
the crime are not essential in a prosecution for rape.15(Citations omitted) In People v. Alicante,16 the
Court held that the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone, uncorroborated testimony of
the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things.17 Truly, the absence of lacerated wounds in the
complainant’s vagina does not negate sexual intercourse.18 In fact, as used in our Revised Penal
Code (RPC), "carnal knowledge," unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual intercourse, does not
require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured.19