Case Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Rolando Cabungan G.R. No.

189355

Del Castillo, j.: Date: Jan. 23, 2013

Doctrine: In a prosecution for the crime of rape, the culpability of the offender often hinges on the story of the offended party.
Courts usually rely on the credibility of the victim or the lack of it as against the bare denials of the accused.

Facts: On April 14, 2003,3 appellant was charged with the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 4398-A before the RTC of Alaminos City,
Pangasinan. On a plea of not guilty,4 he was tried upon an Information which alleges:

That sometime in November, 2002 in Siapar, Anda, Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of his step-daughter (daughter of his wife or common-law wife), "AAA",5 a fifteen (15) yr. old minor, in their own
house to her damage and prejudice.

Contrary to Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code:

The circumstances surrounding the charge are as follows:

Appellant is the uncle of "AAA," he being the husband of the sister of "AAA’s" mother. He lived in the house of "AAA" because he
was supposed to take care of her and her brother while their mother was working abroad. Sometime in November, 2002, at about
10:00 o’clock in the evening, and while "AAA" was alone in her room, appellant suddenly came in. He sat beside "AAA" and then
removed her shorts and panty. Appellant also took off his sando and shorts, mounted "AAA" and inserted his penis into her vagina
while she was lying down. "AAA" tried to push him but to no avail as he was stronger than her. She then felt something come out
from appellant, who thereupon stood up and threatened to kill her if she would report the incident to anyone.

Appellant tries to undermine the credibility of "AAA" as a rape victim. He contends that the belated filing of the Complaint, "AAA’s"
act of still returning to their house even after she was allegedly raped therein by the appellant, her failure to shout and offer
resistance during the rape, and the several material inconsistencies between her affidavit and her open court testimony, tainted her
credibility.

Ruling:
The Court disagrees. This is not enough reason to discredit her. A delay in reporting a rape case for two months or longer, as in this
case, cannot be taken against the rape victim. "Long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape have not always been construed
as indications of a false accusation." "A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay or inaction in revealing its commission is
unreasonable and unexplained."

In People v. Domingo, we held that "it is not uncommon that, a rape victim conceals for some time the assault against her person on
account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant." "Victim’s delay in filing the Complaint is not without a valid reason. Victim
was cowed by accused threats which hindered the victim from immediately reporting her painful ordeal to the authorities.

The fact that "victim" was acting in a manner outside the normal behavior will not result in suspect’s exoneration. Moreover, it bears
stressing that not all victims can be expected to act conformably with the usual expectation of everyone or in the manner suggested
by the accused. The law does not also impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance especially when, intimidation is
exercised upon the victim who submitted herself to the advances of her assailant because of fear for her life.

In People v. Tolentino, we ruled that inconsistencies which are trivial and insignificant "do not warrant rejection of the entire
testimony or the reversal of the judgment. Accuracy in account has never been used as a standard against which the credibility of
witnesses was tested since it is undeniable that human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions. "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."

In the absence of prior sexual intercourse, suffice it to state that "the condition of the woman’s hymen is not conclusive on the
question of whether rape has or has not been committed as the mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the
pudendum is sufficient to consummate rape."
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 9 .. 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
03142 is with AFFIRMED MODIFICATIONS..SO ORDERED.