People vs. Roger Mendoza G.R. No. 239892 FACTS: This case is an appeal of the decision of the CA affirming the judgment of Regional Trial Court of NCR, finding Rogelio Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 2 counts of Rape under Article 266-A Par. 1(a) of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353. The first incident (Dec. 25, 2011; 7:00pm) happened when the complainant, a 13 year old girl, was inside the restroom urinating. Mendoza entered the cubicle and prevented the girl from raising her underwear. Mendoza offered to give the girl P100, then proceeded in committing the act – inserted the tip of his penis into the girls vagina, kissed her neck, breast, and lips. The girl tried to push Mendoza away but failed to do so. The entire incident lasted for about 10 min, then Mendoza gave her the P100 and she went back to the house without telling anyone The second incident happened (January 1, 2012) while the girl was alone in their house, Mendoza appeared inside the house and found the girl in the third floor. Appellant placed himself on top of the girl and proceeded with the act. The girl tried to fight but to no avail. The girl’s father, upon returning to the house, found the appellant lying beside his daughter. Tension ensued. When the police arrived, appellant could no longer be found. The incident was reported to the Barangay where the girl divulged what happened on December 25, 2011. The girl was brought to the Police station for examination where her genital examination results turned out to be “grossly normal” Mendoza was arrested one year after and 2 information for rape were filed against him. . He pleaded not guilty during the arraignment. On Nov. 17, 2016, RTC found Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 2 counts of rape. Mendoza elevated the case to the CA, CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of RTC, hence this case According to the appellant, the testimony of the victim is full of inconsistencies and improbabilities, so, it should not have been afforded full faith and credit. He further claims that in both incidents, the victim did not scream for help. He also argued that there is no evidence to show that there was even a slight penetration of the victim’s genitalia and that force, threat, or intimidation was employed. ISSUE(S): (1) WON the court erred in convicting the accused despite clear improbabilities and inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness (2) WON the court erred in convicting the accused despite the prosecution’s failure to establish the elements of the crime. HELD: For inconsistencies of witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimonies. Xxx what is important is her vivid narration of the rape itself, which the trial court found to be truthful and credible. For failure to report immediately – No merit. Rape victim’s deferral in reporting the crime does not equate to falsification of accusation. (many rape victims prefer to bear the ignominy and pain rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders making their threat to kill or hurt their victim For failure to shout for help – Failure to of the victim to shout or seek help do not negate rape. Different people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience. For lack of evidence of penile penetration in the victim’s genitalia – No merit (worthless). rape does not require full penile penetration of the female – Penetration of a woman’s sex organ is not an element of the crime of rape. Penile invasion of and contact with the labia would suffice. For the lack of force, intimidation or threat – The absence of external signs of physical injuries does not necessarily negate rape. For rape, what is important is that the victim was able to give a clear and credible testimony as to the presence of the intimidation that was employed. Appeal dismissed for lack of merit. Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 2 counts of rape.