Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 114183 February 3, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JESUS BORJA y SONSA, accused-appellant.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
EVELYN SALONGA TUMBAGA, 12 years old, a sixth grade pupil, went to court on 12 May 1993 and, assisted by her mother Elsa, charged her neighbor Jesus Borja y Sonsa with rape. In the trial that lasted for five (5) months the accused repeatedly professed his innocence by filing a Motion for Reinvestigation, a Motion to Dismiss and a Demurrer to Evidence all of which were however denied by the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila. On 2 December 1993 the trial court found the accused guilty of rape and imposed upon him a prison term of reclusion perpetua. It also ordered him to indemnify the complaining witness in the sum of P20,000.00 and to pay the costs.
Accused-appellant is now before this Court imputing four (4) errors to the court a quo: (a) giving undue weight and credence to the implausible, inconsistent if not contradictory, testimonies of complainant and her mother anent the incident in question; (b) concluding that complainant was sexually abused by appellant considering that she did not offer any tenacious resistance plus the fact that she did not sustain any genital injuries; (c) disregarding the evidence put up by appellant; and, (d) rendering a verdict of conviction despite the fact that appellant's guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 1
The evidence for the prosecution shows that on the night of 1 May 1993, the eve of the town fiesta of Valenzuela, Evelyn Tumbaga was visiting at a friend's house four (4) or five (5) meters away from where she lived. As she and her friend Daisylyn were conversing, the lights went off plunging the area into darkness. Daisylyn invited her for supper but she declined. When Daisylyn left to eat, Evelyn stayed behind. While she was alone appellant Jesus Borja, who was standing by the door of the house, called her. Responding, the girl approached him believing that he would send her on an errand. However, as soon as she got near, appellant pulled her and dragged her into the toilet located at the back of the house. There Borja undressed her and laid her on the cement floor, pulled down his own pants, and placed himself on top of her. He mashed her breasts and put his penis inside her organ. She felt pain; she cried. During the sexual molestation Borja threatened to kill Evelyn if she divulged the incident to anyone.
A little later, someone knocked at the toilet door. Borja quickly withdrew his penis from complainant's genitalia and hurriedly left passing through a hole in the toilet. Evelyn opened the door and saw the woman knocking. The woman asked her what she was doing inside the toilet and she replied that she was just urinating. Thereafter Evelyn left for home and went to sleep. She did not tell anyone about the sexual assault.
The following morning, as Evelyn bathed with the help of her mother, Elsa noticed that there was something unusual in the shape of her daughter's vagina. Elsa asked what happened but Evelyn could only keep mum. A few days later Elsa consulted a fortune teller on the suspicion that her daughter was a victim of witchcraft. Upon arriving home she spanked Evelyn, slapped her, which forced her to reveal what happened to her. She told her mother that their neighbor Mang Jesus2 raped her.
On 11 May 1993 Elsa Tumbaga reported the rape of her daughter to the police authorities and caused the arrest of appellant Jesus Borja. She also brought her daughter to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for physical and genital examination.
The Living Case Report No. MG-93-4403
prepared by NBI Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Maximo L. Reyes who examined Evelyn Tumbaga contains the finding that there was no evident sign of extra-genital physical injury on the body of the complainant at the time of the examination. It also stated that Evelyn's hymen was intact and its orifice was small (1.5 cm. in diameter) as to preclude complete penetration by an average-sized adult male organ in full erection without producing hymenal laceration.
Jesus Borja denied the charge and interposed alibi to extricate himself from criminal culpability. He claimed that on 1 May 1993 he was out the whole day selling puto and returned home only at almost six o'clock in the afternoon. Since his wife was cooking supper he took care of their baby. After supper he went to bed. That was already eight o'clock in the evening. Ten days later he was arrested by the police.
In assailing the alleged failure of the prosecution to sufficiently establish his guilt appellant leans heavily on the three (3) overriding principles invoked in rape cases: (a) 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; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two (2) persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and, (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.4
Appellant bewails the failure of the trial court to consider the aforecited guidelines in the assessment of the evidence for the prosecution. He contends that no evidence at all was offered to prove that he had actual carnal knowledge of complainant and that he employed force and intimidation in assaulting her womanhood. Citing the Living Case Report No. MG-93-440 (Exh."D") submitted by the prosecution, he argues that since the examination conducted on Evelyn revealed the absence of extra-genital physical injury, that her hymen was intact and that its orifice was too small to preclude complete penetration, this can only indicate that he did not sexually assault her. He also expostulates that the major inconsistencies that abound in the testimonies of complainant and her mother merely demonstrate the inherent weakness of the case against him.
We have conducted a meticulous and painstaking examination of the records as well as the transcripts of stenographic notes and we find no cause to overturn the findings of fact and the conclusion of the court below. Verily, appellant raped complainant. With all the characteristic naivete' of a 12 year old girl, fortified by her sincerity and candor, the complaining witness recounted in detail her horrifying experience —
Q. Now, did you obey or did you approach the accused when he called you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what happened when you approached him?
A. He pulled me.
Q. To what portion were you pulled?
A. He pulled me to an unoccupied house.
Q. And where is that an unoccupied house?
A. Located near the house where Daisylyn is living.
Q. And when you were pulled to an unoccupied house, in what portion of the house were you brought? Is it in the kitchen? In the toilet or in the bedroom?
A. Inside the toilet.
Q. Now, when you were inside the toilet, what happened?
A. He undressed me.
Q. And after undressing you, what did the accused do to you, if any?
A. He placed himself on top of me.
Q. And while the accused was on top of you, what did the accused do, if any?
A. He mashed my breast, sir.
Q. And what else, if any?
A. He put his penis in my private organ.
Q. Why did you say that it was the penis of the accused that was inserted to your private organ?
A. Because I suffered pain.5
Then again —
Q. Now, Madam Witness, you stated that when the accused's penis was inserted into your vagina, you suffered pain. Now, how long did he insert his penis into your private part?
A. For a short time, sir.
Q. And what did you do when this accused inserted his penis into your vagina?
A. I cried.
Q. Why did you not fight back?
A. Because he was threatening me and I did not fight back because he was threatening me.
Q. Why did you say that he was threatening you? What did he tell you, if any?
A. He told me that he will (sic) kill me.
Q. And how was he dressed?
A. He is (sic) wearing a polo shirt.
Q. What about the lower portion?
A. He was wearing shorts.
Q. Now, Madam Witness; . . . after inserting his penis into your private organ what happened . . .?
A. Somebody knocked at the door and it is (sic) the time when he removed his penis.
Q. Someone knocked at the door, what door?
A. Door of the toilet, sir.
Q. Now, when you and the accused heard knocking at the door, what happened?
A. He immediately left and went into hiding.
Q. And the accused was frightened?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, when the accused left the place, what did you do?
A. I just bowed my head.
Q. You were crying then?
A. Yes, sir.6
The Court finds it difficult to believe that this narration could have been cleverly conjured out of thin air by this 12-year old guileless country lass. Her starkly simple and straightforward answers negate a wicked and malicious mind neatly weaving a tapestry of deception and falsehood. As the trial court observed —
Evelyn's testimony is clear, positive and convincing. Full faith and credence was accorded on the narration of the complainant who was only twelve (12) years old at the time of the incident. A girl of tender age would not publicly disclose that she had been raped thereby practically foreclosing the probability of a blissful married life and subject her private parts to examination and expose herself to the ordeal and embarrassment of a public trial unless she was really molested, and motivated by strong desire to bring to justice the culprit who wronged her (People v. Aboy, L-37678, 30 April 1976; People v. Bacone, G.R. No. 48319-2, 25 July 1983; People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 49601, 30 August 1983).7
We need not belabor the doctrine that the assessment by the trial judge of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect on appeal and that the findings of the judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal unless there are substantive facts and circumstances which have been overlooked and which if properly considered might affect the result of the case.ℒαwρhi৷8
The defense also exploits the findings of the medico-legal expert that no extra-genital injury was found on the victim and that it was possible that the organ of the accused may not have touched the organ of the alleged victim.9 It conveniently ignores the fact however that the physical examination of Evelyn took place ten (10) days after the rape and that the examining physician emphasized in his report that his findings were based on what he observed on the body of complainant at the time of the examination, not soon after the rape. It is not therefore highly improbable that whatever signs of extra-genital physical injury there were may have already disappeared at the time Evelyn was physically examined. These nonetheless do not alter the fact that the young girl felt pain when the accused mounted her and placed his penis inside her organ, and that the morning after her vagina was observed by her mother to be tabingi.10 While we grant that complete penetration may not have been accomplished as the girl's hymen was shown to have remained intact and the orifice too small to preclude full penetration, jurisprudence recognizes that slight penetration of the labia by the male organ still constitutes rape. It is sufficient that there be entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum. 11 Appellant makes much of the statement of the NBI Medico-Legal Officer that he could not conclusively say, on the basis of his examination, that there was rape. But this statement does not amount to anything of import inasmuch as, conversely, he cannot also conclusively say that there was no rape. The fact remains that the complaining witness convinced the trial court with her positive testimony that the accused inserted his penis into her vagina and withdrew it only when a stranger knocked at the toilet door.
There is not a modicum of doubt that Evelyn was intimidated by the accused and coerced into submission to his momentary lust. The shock of being dragged by appellant into a dark and secluded place, coupled with a very real threat to take her life should she squeal on him, was more than sufficient to unnerve her tender mind and immobilize her frail frame into stupor and inaction and thus deaden her feminine instinct to ward off the sexual aggression.
Inconsistencies are raised by the defense in the testimonies of Evelyn and her mother relative to the exact place, date and time of the commission of the offense. But we find these alleged flaws to be of little consequence, being easily explainable, as they are, when considered in the light of the entire evidence submitted by the prosecution. At any rate, no palpable nor hidden evil motive existed on the part of private complainant and her mother to charge accused-appellant in court and bear false witness against him. For a victim who says she has been raped almost always says all there is to be said. It is most improbable that a victim of tender years especially one unexposed to the ways of the world would impute a crime as serious as rape to any man if it were not true; and no mother would possibly wish to stamp her child falsely with the stigma that follows a rape only for the purpose of punishing someone against whom she has no grudge whatsoever. 12
In fine, the evidence adduced by the prosecution has successfully met the degree of proof required by the Constitution and the law to validate a conviction. Upon this premise we find, as the trial court did, the accused Jesus Borja guilty of rape.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo finding accused-appellant JESUS BORJA y SONSA guilty of RAPE and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion petpetua is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the indemnity awarded to the complainant Evelyn Salonga Tumbaga is raised from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00. Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Appellant's Brief, Rollo, pp. 53-60.
2 Identified by complaining witness Evelyn Salonga Tumbaga as appellant Jesus Borja, TSN, 16 June 1993, p. 6.
3 Exh. "D."
4 People v. Teves, G.R. No. 97435, 14 July 1995, 246 SCRA 236, citing People v. de los Reyes, G.R. No. 85771, 19 November 1991, 203 SCRA 707.
5 TSN, 16 June 1993, pp. 7-8.
6 TSN, 16 June 1993, pp. 9-11.
7 Decision, 2 December 1993, p. 6.
8 People v. Yambao, G.R. No. 77778, 6 February 1991, 193 SCRA 571.
9 TSN, 2 August 1993, p. 5.
10 Disfigured; deformed; misshapen.
11 People v. Velasco, No. L-31922, 29 October 1976, 73 SCRA 574.
12 People v. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 105720, 8 December 1995, 251 SCRA 77.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
