3Republic of tbe Jlbilippines

~upreme <ltourt
rJjaguio QCitp
THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 219240

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,

BERSAMIN,
- versus - LEONEN,
MARTIRES, and
GESMUNDO, JJ

BRYAN GANABAy NAM-AY, Promulgated:

Accused-Appellant.

-~ ..~ -~~ x
1
x-------------------- ----------

DECISION

MARTIRES, J.:

This resolves the appeal of accused-appellant Bryan Ganaba y

Nam-ay (accused-appellant) assailing the 27 August 2014 Decision 1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA), Seventh Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06030
affirming, with modification as to the award of damages, the 9 January 2013
Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 172, Valenzuela City,
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under
Article (Art.) 266-A3 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). M
Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting and concurred in by Associate Justices
Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez.
Records, pp. 76-78. Penned by Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones.
Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. - Rape is committed:
I) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge ofa woman under any of the following circumstances:
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.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit
an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 219240

THE FACTS

Accused-appellant was charged with rape in an Information docketed

as Criminal Case No. 429-V-09, the accusatory portion of which reads as
follows:

That on or about July 1, 2009 in Valenzuela City, Metro Manila

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation employed
upon the person of AAA, 16 years old (DOB: June 16, 1993), did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with
the complainant, against her will and without her consent, thereby
subjecting the said minor to sexual abuse which debased, degraded, and
demeaned [her] intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being.

CONTRARY TO LA W. 4

When arraigned, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the

charge against him; 5 hence, trial proper ensued.

To establish its case, the prosecution presented the victim, AAA, 6 and
P/Supt. Bonnie Y. Chua (Dr. Chua), a medico-legal officer of the Northern
Police District Crime Laboratory (crime laboratory).

PO 1 Archie P. Castillano (PO 1 Castillano) was no longer put on the

witness stand after the parties stipulated that he would be testifying on his
affidavit7 relative to the arrest of the accused-appellant.

To prove his defense, the accused-appellant testified.

Version of the Prosecution

AAA had been working at the house of the accused-appellant since

1 June 2009, as nanny to his four-month-old child. On 1 July 2009, at about
2:30 p.m., while AAA was inside the room feeding the child, the accused-;;.;

Records, p. I.
Id. at 16.
6
The true name of the victim has been replaced with fictitious initials in conformity with Administrative
Circular No. 83-2015 (Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and
Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious
Names/Personal Circumstances). The confidentiality of the identity of the victim is mandated by
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act); R.A. No. 8505 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998); R.A. No.
9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003); R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and
Their Children Act of 2004); and R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006).
Index of Exhibits, p. 8; Exh. "B."
Decision 3 G.R. No. 219240

appellant sneaked in and closed the door and window. AAA did not notice
that the accused-appellant, who was supposed to enter the room only when
the child's mother was around, was behind her wearing only his shorts. 8

When AAA turned, the accused-appellant held both her arms and
mounted her. AAA kicked the accused-appellant who in tum pinched her
left shoulder. When AAA kicked again, the accused-appellant stood up and
got a knife. AAA stood up also and tried to open the door but was unable to
do so as it was locked. The accused-appellant poked the knife at AAA,
threatened he would kill her, dragged her to the bed, mounted her, parted her
legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina. 9

When his friend arrived at the house, the accused-appellant went out
of the room and proceeded right away to the restroom. AAA immediately
left for her brother's house and there confided what had happened to her. 10

That same afternoon, AAA proceeded to the barangay where she was
advised to report the incident to the police station. After AAA narrated 11
what had happened to her at the Valenzuela City police station, POI
Castillano and two other police officers arrested the accused-appellant at his
res1'dence. 12

At around 5:45 p.m. on the same day, AAA was physically examined
by Dr. Chua.

Version of the Defense

On 1 July 2009, at about 2:30 p.m., the accused-appellant was at home

with his wife Jane, their son Edison, and a boarder named Erickson. He was
watching television. 13

The accused-appellant claimed that the accusation against him was

not true and that he was implicated by AAA to ask for money. He was told
by Jane that AAA asked for P200,000.00 in exchange for dropping the case
against him. Although the accused-appellant and Jane were only factory
workers, that amount of money could be raised by his relatives; but the /JI!

TSN, 19 May 20 I 0, pp. 5-9; TSN, 17 November 20 I 0, p. 2.

9
ld.atll-14.
10
Id. at 9-I I.
11
Index of Exhibits, pp. 6-7; Exh. "A."
12
TSN, 19 May 2010, pp. 14-17; TSN, 26 February 2010, pp. 2-4; Index of Exhibits, p. 8; Exh. "B."
13
TSN, 8 May 2012, pp. 6-9.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 219240

accused-appellant did not give in to AAA's demand because nothing

14
happened between him and AAA.

The Ruling of the RTC

The RTC held that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of

AAA by using force and intimidation. According to the RTC, AAA gave
details of her ordeal that took place on 1 July 2009, and that she positively
identified the accused-appellant as the person who raped her. Moreover,
AAA's testimony, coupled with the medical findings, confirmed the truth of
her charges. 15

The RTC found the accused-appellant's denial without merit. It ruled

that his denial was negative and self-serving which pales in comparison with
AAA's clear and convincing narration and positive identification of the
accused-appellant. 16

Thefallo of the RTC decision provides:

WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused BRYAN GANABA y

NAM-AY guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of rape
and in the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstance, he is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to
pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P75,000.00 as moral
damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED. 17

Not satisfied with the RTC's ruling, the accused-appellant appealed to

the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

The CA ruled that the prosecution had indubitably established that the
accused-appellant raped AAA. It held that the accused-appellant's act was
consummated through force, threat, and intimidation. Moreover, AAA's
unrelenting narration of what transpired, accompanied by her categorical
identification of the accused-appellant as the malefactor, established the case
for the prosecution. On the one hand, it held that the defense of denial and
alibi offered by the accused-appellant was weak since he failed to prove that~

14
Id. at 9-10.
15
Records, p. 78.
16 Id.
17 Id.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 219240

it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of
its commission. 18

While the CA affirmed the penalty imposed by the R TC upon the

accused-appellant, it found the need to modify the award of damages; hence,
it ruled as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision dated

9 January 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 172,
Valenzuela City is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Accused-
appellant Bryan Ganaba y Nam-ay is found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of RAPE and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and ordered to pay the victim AAA P.50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P.50,000.00 as moral damages, and P.30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The award of damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. Costs against
accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED. 19

ISSUES

I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING ILL MOTIVE ON
THE PART OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AS THE REASON
FOR THE FILING OF THE CRIME OF RAPE AGAINST THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. 20

OUR RULING

The appeal has no merit.

The testimony of AAA

deserves weight and
credence.

Jurisprudence has emphatically maintained that the trial court's

evaluation and conclusion on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are /I'/
18
Rollo, pp. 8-10.
19
Id. at 13-14.
°
2
CA rollo, p. 41.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 219240

generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality,
especially after the CA, as the intermediate reviewing tribunal, has affirmed
the findings; unless there is· a clear showing that the findings were reached
arbitrarily, or that certain facts or circumstances of weight, substance or
value were overlooked, misapprehended or misappreciated that, if properly
21
considered, would alter the result of the case.

The Court has amply elucidated on the reason for according weight to
the findings of the trial court, viz:

It is well-settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses

and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because
of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to note
their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. These
are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in
unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. For,
indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in
ascertaining the witness' credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity
and can take advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in the
record so that all that the· appellate court can see are the cold words of the
witness contained in transcript of testimonies with the risk that some of
what the witness actually said may have been lost in the process of
transcribing. As correctly stated by an American court, "There is an
inherent impossibility of determining with any degree of accuracy what
credit is justly due to a witness from merely reading the words spoken by
him, even if there were no doubt as to the identity of the words. However
artful a corrupt witness may be, there is generally, under the pressure of a
skillful cross-examination, something in his manner or bearing on the
stand that betrays him, and thereby destroys the force of his testimony.
Many of the real tests of truth by which the artful witness is exposed in the
very nature of things cannot be transcribed upon the record, and hence
they can never be considered by the appellate court. " 22

Consequently, it was incumbent upon the accused-appellant to present

clear and persuasive reasons to persuade the Court to reverse the lower
courts' unanimous determination of her credibility as a witness in order to
resolve the appeal his way. 23 The onus is upon the accused-appellant to
prove those facts and circumstances which the lower courts allegedly failed
to consider and appreciate, and that would fortify his position that they
seriously erred in finding him guilty of the crime charged. The accused-
appellant, however, miserably failed to discharge his burden"P1

21
People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 225743, 7 June 2017.
22
People v. Primavera, G.R. No. 223138, 5 July 2017, citing People v. Sapigao, 614 Phil. 589, 599
(2009).
23
People v. Domingo, supra note 21.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 219240

By the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction usually rests solely

on the basis of the testimony of the victim; provided that such testimony is
credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things. Thus, the victim's credibility becomes the
primordial consideration in the resolution of rape cases. 24 Noteworthily, both
the RTC and the CA found the testimony of AAA credible and persuasive.

In conjunction thereto, jurisprudence has firmly upheld the guidelines

in evaluating the testimony of a rape victim, viz: first, while an accusation
for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult
for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; second, in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
caution; and lastly, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its
own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence of the defense. 25 The Court has meticulously applied these
guidelines in its review of the records of this case, but found no reason to
depart from the well-considered findings and observations of the lower
courts.

The Court notes that the testimony of AAA was full of convincing
details which, in her young age, could not have been known to her unless
these were the truth. "When the offended party is of tender age and
immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what
transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame
to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not
true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity." 26

A catena of cases sustains the ruling that the conduct of the victim
immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance in
tending to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape. 27 In this case,
after the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her, AAA immediately
left his house and proceeded to her brother's house where she narrated what
had happened to her. On that same day, AAA went to the barangay to report
the incident, then to the police station to give her statements, and
subsequently to the crime laboratory to submit herself to physical
examination. The act of AAA in wasting no time in reporting her ordeal to
the authorities validates the truth of her charge against the accused-appellant. /).f

24
People v. Palanay, G.R. No. 224583, 1 February 2017.
25
People v. Garrido, 763 Phil. 339, 347 (2015).
26
People v. Descartin, G.R. No. 215195, 7 June 2017.
27
People v. Cadampog, 472 Phil. 358, 378 (2004).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 219240

AAA's positive and categorical statement that the accused-appellant

had carnal knowledge of her was reinforced by the testimony and medico-
legal report of Dr. Chua. The pertinent findings of Dr. Chua were as follows:

LABIA MINORA: Hyperemic with abrasion at 6 o'clock position.

HYMEN: Deep healed laceration at 5 and 6 o'clock positions.

POSTERIOR FOURCHETTE: Congested.

CONCLUSION: Clear evidence of penetrating trauma/force to the hymen
with recent penetration trauma to the Labia Majora and
Minora. 28

Dr. Chua testified that, based on her findings, her conclusion was that
29
AAA was sexually abused. Of significance in this case is the legal teaching
that while it is settled that a medical examination of the victim is not
indispensable in the prosecution of a rape case, and no law requires a
medical examination for the successful prosecution of the case, the medical
examination conducted and the medical certificate issued are veritable
corroborative pieces of evidence, which strongly bolster the victim's
testimony. 30 Together, these pieces of evidence produce a moral certainty
that the accused-appellant indeed raped the victim. 31

To prove that the R TC erred in according credence to AAA' s

testimony, the accused-appellant offered the absurd contention that AAA's
testimony can only prove that she had shared an intimate moment with
someone else and not with him. Accused-appellant anchored his contention
in his testimony on the witness stand, viz: that on 1 July 2009, he was at
home watching television with his wife; that AAA was not in his house that
day; that he was told by his wife that AAA had asked P200,000.00 in
exchange for her dropping the case against him; and that he did not give in
to the demand of AAA because nothing happened between him and AAA. In
contrast, according to the accused-appellant, was the testimony of AAA
where she admitted that nothing happened between them. 32

Accused-appellant's contentions have no basis. When AAA affirmed

33
her sworn statement before the RTC, she clarified and firmly maintained

/i4
that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her. Her testimony was
as follows:

28
Index of Exhibits, p. 1; Exh. "F."
29
TSN, 26 February 2010, pp. 11-12.
30
People v. Palanay, supra note 24.
31
People v. Deniega, G.R. No. 21220 I, 28 June 2017.
32
CA rollo, pp. 44-47.
33
Index of Exhibits, pp. 6-7; Exh. "A."
Decision 9 G.R. No. 219240

Q. What happened next after he pinched you on your left shoulder?

A. I kicked him again and he stood up. He took a knife, threatened to
kill me. And after that his friend arrived.

Q. And he went out?

A. I went out of the room, got my slippers, told the matter to my
brother and we went to the barangay but the barangay referred us
to the police.

Q. Let us go back to the holding of the knife and his friend has not yet
arrived. What happened when Bryan got that knife?
A. He threatened to kill me if I would tell it to anybody (Papatayin
kita pag nagsumbong ka).

Q. What happened next?

A. His friend arrived. When his friend arrived he proceeded to the c.r.
Bryan followed him. I immediately went out of the room and got
my pair of slippers and proceeded to our house and reported the
matter to my brother.

Q. So nothing happened, there was no sex?

A. None, sir.

Q. You gave your sworn statement to the police marked as Exh "A." I
will read your sworn statement to the police given on July 2, 2009
wherein you stated: "Una po, nagpadede po ako ng bata, four
months old na anak ng amo ko, tapos isinarado niya po iyong
pintuan at tsaka iyong bintana. Dapat kami lang ng bata sa higaan,
tsaka lang siya pupunta sa higaan pag dumating iyong asawa niya,
tapos tumabi siya sa akin. Ako po ang umalis, tapos sinampal niya
aka, bakit daw ako umaalis e umiiyak yung bata. Pinabalik niya
aka sa higaan, bumalik aka noong umalis siya, pumunta siya sa
higaan sa kabila. Bumalik aka, pinadede ko iyong bata, wala akong
kamalay-malay na nandyan na pala siya sa tabi ko. Paglingon ko
nakahubad na siya, hinawakan niya ang kamay ko binanda aka sa
pader malapit sa higaan, sinabi kong huwag mong gawin sa akin
kasi hindi ako ang asawa mo, katulong lang aka. Pero ginawa niya
pa rin. Hinubaran niya aka, hinawakan niya ang dalawang kamay
ko tapos sinampal pa niya ako. Tapos pinatungan niya po ako,
tapos dun, tinadyakan ko siya, pag pangalawang tadyak kinurot
niya aka dito sa may balikat ko. Lumaban aka, tapos pagtayo niya
tumayo na rin aka, bubuksan ko iyong pinto pero hindi mabuksan
iyong pinto pag walang susi. Tapos kumuha siya ng kutsilyo,
tinutukan niya ako ng kutsilyo, tinutok niya dito sa noo ko, sinabi
niya sa akin 'sige, sige anong gusto mo papatayin kita ngayon,'
hinila niya ako sa higaan. Lumaban po aka pero hindi ko siya kaya.
Tapos pinabuka niya iyong paa ko, pinasok na niya iyong oten niya
sa pekpek ko. Sinampal pa niya ako, napasok niya iyong oten niya,
nilabas pasok niya ... " Is that not true?
A. That is true. " " '
Decision 10 G.R. No. 219240

Q. So before the friend arrived, was Bryan able to have sex with
you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why did you not say before when I asked you? You went once
to the friend?
A. When he was already naked, he was able to pin my both hands
on the wall, and he parted my legs and inserted his penis in my
vagina and after that he kicked me and he pinched me on my
shoulder. 34 (emphasis supplied)

The Court emphasizes that it has been its consistent declaration that
inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony are generally
35 .
expect ed , vzz:

Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered

in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a person's achievement
or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is
something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma
upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and
subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be
expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the
traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. 36

Moreover, since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of

emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a
standard in testing the credibility of a witness. 37 To the Court, what is
essential is that AAA's testimony meets the test of credibility
notwithstanding the gruelling cross-examination by the defense, and that it
persuasively conformed to the evidence on record.

In the same vein, the assertion of the accused-appellant that AAA had
ill motive in filing the present charge, i.e., demanding P200,000.00 in
exchange for dropping the case against him, fails to convince. Notably, it
would be the accused-appellant's wife, Jane, who would be in the best
position to testify on this matter considering that AAA allegedly had
demanded the P200,000.00 from her. Jane, however, never took the witness
stand to corroborate the claim of the accused-appellant. Likewise, the record
is bereft of any showing as to any documentary evidence that would
substantiate AAA's demand for P.200,000.00/f*f

34
TSN, 19 May 2010, pp. 9-14.
35
People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 773 (2014).
36
People v. Saluda, 662 Phil. 738, 753 (2011), cited in People v. Pareja, id. at 774.
37
People v. Pareja, supra note 35 at 774.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 219240

The legal teaching continuously invigorated by our jurisprudence is

that motives have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the
testimony of a minor rape victim. 38 A young girl's revelation that she had
been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination
and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give
out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as
mere concoction. 39

The defense pro/erred

by the accused-appeUant
was inherently weak.

The defense proffered by the accused-appellant that he was home with

his wife during the time material to the charge against him, cannot suffice to
reverse his conviction.

Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi

and· denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and
identification of the complainant. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense
which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit
credibility. 40 Alibi, on the one hand, is viewed with suspicion because it can
easily be fabricated. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must
prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that
he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically
present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission. 41 Unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, alibi
cannot prevail over the positive declaration of a victim who, in a natural and
straightforward manner, convincingly identifies the accused-appellant. 42

Accused-appellant's alibi and denial easily came to nothing in view of

his admission that he was actually at the place of the crime at the time of its
commission. Even granting for the sake of argument that there was truth to
the accused-appellant's contention that he was with his wife on that day,
this, however, cannot justify a conclusion that he did not have carnal
knowledge of AAA. The consistent ruling of the Court is that "Rape can be
committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the
roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other
occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family
are also sleeping. It is not impossible or incredible for the members of the
victim's family to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexualf'.11

38
Id. at 786.
39
People v. Descartin, supra note 26.
40 Id.
41
People v. Palanay, supra note 24.
42
People v. Deniega, supra note 31.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 219240

43
assault is being committed. Lust is no respecter of time and place x x x."
More importantly, AAA's unfailing positive identification of the accused-
appellant as the one who had carnal knowledge of her, fastened to the fact
that there was no showing that she had ill motive in filing this charge,
prevails over his defense of alibi and denial.

The dearth of evidence that would corroborate the implausibility that

the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA weakens his defense of
denial and alibi. To stress, not even Jane or Erickson testified to reinforce
his position that he could not have raped AAA on 1 July 2009.

The crime of rape was

proven beyond reasonable
doubt by the prosecution.

For a successful prosecution of rape, the following elements must be

proved beyond reasonable doubt, to wit: ( 1) that the accused had carnal
knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished: (a) through
the use of force and intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of
. demente d.44
age or 1s

The evidence of the prosecution unmistakably validates the

conclusion that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA on
1 July 2009, through the use of force and intimidation. AAA persuasively
narrated that, despite her effort to escape from the room after the accused-
appellant pinned her arms, mounted her, and pinched her shoulder, the
accused-appellant was able to get hold of a knife that he used to threaten her
while he dragged her to the bed and, thereafter, successfully have carnal
knowledge of her.

Jurisprudence imparts that the act of holding a knife by itself is

strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation; and threatening the
victim with a knife is sufficient to bring a woman to submission, although
the victim does not even need to prove resistance. 45 Force, threat or
intimidation, as an element of rape, need not be irresistible, but just enough
to bring about the desired result. ~
4

43
People v. Descartin, supra note 26.
44
People v. Primavera, supra note 22.
45
People v. Neverio, 613 Phil. 507, 516 (2009).
46
People v. Hilarion, 722 Phil. 52, 55 (2013).
Decision 13 G.R. No. 219240

The penalty to be
imposed upon the
accused-appellant

The Court finds that the RTC and the CA were correct in imposing
upon the accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance
with Art. 266-B of the RPC.

As to the award of damages, the Court finds the need to modify the
same to conform with the jurisprudence laid down in People v. Jugueta, 47
viz: civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages at P75,000.00
each. The civil indemnity and the moral and exemplary damages shall earn
interest at the rate of six percent (6o/o) per annum from the date of finality of
this judgment until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The 27 August 2014

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06030, finding the
accused-appellant Bryan Ganaba y Nam-ay GUILTY of Rape and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION as to the award of damages as follows: civil
indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary
damages of P75,000.00. The civil indemnity and the moral and exemplary
damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from
the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITER<yJ. VELASCO, JR.

Ass

47
783 Phil. 806(2016).
Decision 14 G.R. No. 219240

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

PRESBIT=R J. VELASCO, JR.

As ciate Justice
Chairp rson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice