Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 90390 October 31, 1990

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
RODANTE FELIPE, defendant-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for defendant-appellant.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

In this appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 63 of Calauag, Quezon, the accused-appellant
seeks a reversal of the judgment of conviction dated August 21, 1989. The decision has the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE and considering the foregoing, the Court finds the accused
RODANTE FELIPE y BUSTAMANTE guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, indemnify (sic)
ROSALIE REVILLA in the amount of twenty five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) and
pay (sic) the costs of the suit. (RTC Decision, pp. 7-8; Rollo, pp. 24-25).

The accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape upon complaint by the offended party's
father, Rolando C. Revilla in an Information dated September 30, 1987 which reads:

INFORMATION

The undersigned, upon complaint filed by Rolando C. Revilla, father of the offended
party, Rosalie Revilla accuses Rodante (Dante) Felipe of the crime of rape,
committed as follows:

That on or about the 20th day of June 1987, at Barangay Villa Gomez, Municipality of
Luzon, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threats, violence and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of said Rosalie Revilla, a minor, 12 years of age, against her will.

Contrary to law.

Lucena City for Gumaca, Quezon.

September 30, 1987.

 (SGD)
DANTE
H.
DIAMA
NTE
Provinc
ial
Fiscal
(Recor
ds, p.
5)

The pertinent facts as summarized by the Solicitor-General in his brief are as follows:

On June 18, 1987, Rolando Revilla, father of private complainant Rosalie Revilla,
together with his wife, left his house in Villa Gomez, Quezon, Quezon, to seek
medical treatment in Lucena City. They left behind their two (2) daughters, namely
private complainant Rosalie, twelve (12) years old, and Rosana, nine (9) years old, in
the care of daughter-in-law, Erlinda Gonzales Revilla (p. 3, tsn June 28, 1989; p. 13,
tsn, July 18, 1988).

The following evening, June 19, 1987, private complainant and her younger sister
went to sleep at 6:00 o'clock p.m. on the floor of their hut. In the early morning of
June 20, 1987, private complainant was awakened when she felt pain her private
parts. She saw a man on top of her with his organ inserted in her own organ. Private
complainant shouted and struggled. She kicked the man on his organ. The man was
thrown near the door of the house which was illuminated by a gas lamp. Private
complainant recognized appellant, a long-time neighbor (pp. 3-5 and 17, tsn, July 18,
1988; pp. 2-3, tsn, June 21, 1989).

After freeing herself from appellant, private complainant tried to escape by running to
the door. Her sister-in-law, Erlinda, who was then in her house three (3) arms length
away, heard private complainant shouting for help. Appellant caught private
complainant, boxed her on the stomach, slapped her on the face and started
strangling her. Private complainant lost consciousness (pp. 5-6, tsn, July 18, 1988; p.
4, tsn, June 21, 1989; pp. 9-10, tsn, supra).

Erlinda lighted a gas lamp and immediately went to private complainant's house. At
the door of the house Erlinda saw appellant coming out. Appellant recognized Erlinda
and ran away. Erlinda found private complainant unconscious on the floor, her
private parts bloody and her panty pulled down on one of her legs. Erlinda shook
private complainant who regained consciousness. When asked what happened to
her, private complainant answered Pinag-iyot-iyot ni Dante. Erlinda then brought
private complainant and her younger sister to her house (pp. 9-13, tsn, June 21,
1989).

That afternoon, private complainant's father arrived and was informed of what
happened. They filed a complaint for rape against appellant at the police station in
Quezon, Quezon. Prior to that, private complainant submitted herself to a medical
examination by Dr. Amador G. Nanola, the Municipal Health Officer of Quezon,
Quezon. The physician issued a medical certificate dated June 21, 1987 (Exhibit A)
containing the following findings:
 "Redness and congestion around vaginal opening, hymen, absent,
admits one finger and can admit two fingers with pain. Vaginal canal
contains whitish fluid. "(Exhibit "A-4") (pp. 4-7, tsn, June 28, 1989; pp.
3-4, tsn, February 9, 1988)" (Appellee's Brief, pp. 3-6, Rollo, p. 57)

The accused-appellant, in denying the unlawful act imputed to him, claimed as follows: that he could
not have possibly committed the alleged rape against the offended party since at the time of the
incident he was in the high seas near Balisin Island fishing together with a certain Ricardo Menle
and the latter's son; that they left Quezon, Quezon at around midnight of June 20, 1987 and it took
them about 2 1/2 hours to reach the place where they fished; and that they returned back to Villa
Gomez, Quezon at about 9:00 o'clock in the morning of the following day, June 21, 1987.
(Appellant's Brief, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 39-40)

Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant, assisted by his counsel from the then Citizens' Legal
Assistance Office, entered a plea of not guilty.

After trial ensued and the verdict of conviction was rendered, the instant appeal was interposed with
a lone assignment of error, to wit:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE
PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO MEET THE TEST OF MORAL CERTAINTY OF
APPELLANT'S GUILT AND TO OVERCOME THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN HIS FAVOR.(Appellant's Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p.
37)

The accused-appellant submits that the trial court assailed his testimony instead of scrutinizing with
utmost care the story told by the alleged rape victim as required in cases of this nature thereby
basing its conviction not on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution but rather on the
weakness of the defense. The accused-appellant points out that the alleged victim's account of the
imputed crime furnished few details by which her story can be tested and that her story was tainted
with improbabilities which rendered it highly doubtful.

The improbabilities referred to by the accused-appellant are as follows: (1) that private complainant
Rosalie felt pain only after the accused-appellant had forcibly inserted his penis to her vagina and
was already on top of her and making the coital movements when logic dictates that she should
have been awakened when the accused-appellant initially laid on top of her and made his entry into
her private part; and (2) that the said complainant was able to free herself from the accused-
appellant by kicking his private part when it is inconceivable how a twelve-year old girl managed to
do so with the size and weight of the accused-appellant on top of her and making the push and pull
movement as claimed by the alleged victim. (Appellant's Brief, pp. 5-6, Rollo, pp. 41-42)

We find the contentions of the accused-appellant devoid of merit.

It is an axiomatic rule of law that "credibility" is the province of the trial court. (People v. Januario
dela Cruz y Hurado, G.R. No. 84714, October 5, 1990 citing People v. Caringal, 176 SCRA 404
[1989]). Premised on the fact that the crime of rape, more often than not, is witnessed only by the
offended party and the accused, the trial judge's evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses who
appeared before him deserves our utmost respect in the absence of any showing that such
evaluation is tainted with arbitrariness considering the trial judge's advantage of directly examining
the witnesses' demeanor in court. (People v. Romenaldo Murallon, G.R. No. 85734, September 13,
1990 citing People v. Alvarez, etc., 163 SCRA 745 [1988]; People v. Rondina, 149 SCRA 128 [1987]
citing People v. Ancheta, etc., 148 SCRA 178 [1987]).
A careful perusal of the records of the case at bar discloses that the trial court's finding that the
accused-appellant's guilt is beyond any indicia of doubt merits our unqualified concurrence. The
victim's straightforward and spontaneous testimony clearly establishes the fact of rape and its
author, the accused-appellant. She stated in Court that:

xxx xxx xxx

Q In the early morning of June 20, 1987, do you recall or remember

where were you? (sic)

A I was in the house, sir.

Q Where is this house of yours located?

A In Villa Gomez.

Q And what were you doing there at the time?

A We were sleeping, sir.

Q While you were sleeping in the early morning of June 20, 1987, do
you recall or remember any unusual incident that happened?

A Yes, sir.

Q What was that unusual incident?

A When I was awaken there was somebody on top of me, sir.

FISCAL:

We want to make on record that the witness is crying.

COURT:

Place that on record.

FISCAL:

Q You said that on the said date and hour you were awaken that (sic)
somebody was on top of you, did you recognize who was on top of
you?

A Yes, sir. Rodante Felipe, sir.

Q How long have you known him.

A I have known him for a long time in Unisan, Quezon.

Q If the said person who was on top of you on the said date and hour
and according to you Rodante Felipe is in the courtroom, will you be
able to identify him?

A Yes, sir. (WITNESS pointing to a person in the courtroom

answering by the name of RODANTE FELIPE).

Q You said that he was on top of you when you were awaken, what
was he doing then at the time while he was on top of you?

A When I was awaken he was already on top of me and he was

making a coitus movement and I felt pain on my private parts.

Q Why what is the cause of the pain?

A Because when he was making the coitus movement I felt pain and I
was struggling.

Q Do you know what kind of pain was it when you felt pain when
according to you your private part was very painful?

A It was very painful, sir.

Q And what was the cause of that pain?

A Because he inserted his organ to my private part so I felt pain.

Q Do you mean to say that the male organ of Rodante Felipe

penetrated to your private part?

A Yes, sir,

Q And what did you do if you did anything when you felt pain because
of that private part inserted to your vagina?

A I was struggling and I was shouting.

Q Were you able to release yourself from him?

A When was able to release from him (sic) and I tried to fun away
from him, he caught me and he slapped me and boxed me.

Q How where you able to release yourself from him, by what means?

A I kicked him. sir.

Q When you kicked him did you hit him?

A Yes, sir. I was able to kick him in his organ and he felt pain so I was
able to release myself.
 Q And you said the accused boxed you, where in your body did he
box you?

A In my stomach and he slapped me on my left face, and strangled

me.

Q When the accused boxed you, slapped you and strangled you what
happened to you?

A I lost consciousness, sir. (TSN July 18, 1988, pp. 20-23)

xxx xxx xxx

The medical findings made by the municipal physician who conducted the physical examination of
the victim and who testified as to his findings in court coupled with the corroborative testimonies of
the victim's father and sister-in-law strongly confirm the fact that the accused-appellant sexually
abused Rosalie.

The improbabilities and lapses pointed out by the accused-appellant in Rosalie's narration of what
the former did to her on that fateful day in June 1987 are indeed, more apparent than real as the
prosecution opined because of a clear showing that all the essential elements of the crime of rape
under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code are present. The accused-appellant would like to make
us believe that the veracity of the victim's narration is questionable since she was not awakened by
the accused-appellant's act of getting on top of her and making the initial thrust of his penis into her
vagina. It is not at all unusual that the 12-year old girl would wake up only when the pain of the
man's organ being forced inside her vagina was felt. The man did not have to bear down with his
entire weight upon the poor victim before trying to do the sexual act. In this regard, our
pronouncement in the case of People vs. Romeo Camasis, G.R. No. 87083, September 14, 1990
citing People v. Tolentino, 140 SCRA 411 [1985] bears repeating. We stated that:

... [I]f the complainant was indeed fabricating a story, it would have been easier for
her to say that she was awake when she was assaulted.

When the sister-in-law arrived in the house, Rosalie was unconscious on the floor. Her panty was
pulled down and her private part was bloody. There can be no doubt as to who boxed and strangled
Rosalie after raping her.

In fine, the accused-appellant's defense of alibi must fail since alibi is unavailing as a defense where
there is positive Identification of the perpetrator of the crime, most especially, when the said
identification is made by the victim of the rape herself in the absence of any motive to implicate the
assailant. (See People v. Restituto Bravo, G.R. No. 68422, December 29, 1989 citing People v.
Nolasco, 163 SCRA 623 [1988]; People v. Sato, 163 SCRA 602 [1988]; People v. Patong-og 155
SCRA 675-[1987]; People v. Malabad, 133 SCRA 392 [1984]; see also People v. Ernesto Santos
alias "Kariba", G.R. No. 77912, March 6, 1990 citing People v. Valdez, 150 SCRA 405 [1987])

In the light of the circumstances of the instant case, we hold that the degree of moral certainty
required to convict the accused-appellant is substantiated by the evidence on record.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the modification that the amount of
indemnification is increased to P50,000.00 in view of our recent pronouncements on indemnity,
Fernan, C.J., (Chairman) and Bidin, J., concur.

Feliciano, J., is on leave.