vagina?

A: Five to ten minutes, sir.

Q: And he did that repeatedly, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did you consent to what the accused was doing to you?

A: No, sir.

Q: Did you try to stop the accused from what he was doing to you?
A: Yes, sir, but he was too strong.

Q: After five to ten minutes, what did the accused do?

A: He stood up and then threw my jogging pants and my panty to me
and said, "Wag kang magsasabi kahit kanino kundi papatayin ko
kayo."

Q: After the incident, what happened next, if any?

A: I woke up my sister again, sir.

Q: After waking up your sister, what happened next, Ms. Witness?

A: I washed my body and I felt something bleeding, sir.

Q: What was that bleeding? Where was the bleeding coming out
[sic], Ms. Witness?
A: In my vagina, sir.

xxxx

Q: What was the threat which you are afraid of, [AAA]?
A: "Wag kang magsasabi kahit kanino kung hindi papatayin ko
kayo."

Q: And that specific statement came out of the accused, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.94

Once again, AAA was able to narrate in a clear and straightforward manner
the rape that had transpired. AAA testified that accused-appellant inserted
his penis into her vagina—thereby satisfying the first element of carnal
knowledge. For the second element, it can be gleaned from the testimony
that accused-appellant again employed force and intimidation to perform the
rape. AAA stated that accused-appellant covered her mouth and that she
tried to fight back, but to no avail because of his strength. Further, she
recalled that accused-appellant again uttered threats of killing her and her
family. And notably, she clearly stated that she did not consent to having
sexual intercourse with accused-appellant. Thus, the Court is convinced that
the elements of rape through sexual intercourse are present in the second
charge.1âшphi1

With regard to the third charge, which is again sexual assault, the RTC was
once again accurate in finding AAA a credible witness. The relevant portions
of her testimony regarding the third incident are as follows:

Atty. Arellano

xxxx

Q: Also, [AAA], on September [2,] 2006 at around 2 o'clock in the morning,

can you please tell us where were you?
A. In my room, sir.

xxxx

Q: Do you remember anything unusual which happened during such date

and time?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Can you please tell us what was that?

A: Someone kissed my lips, sir.

Q: Who was that person who kissed your lips?

A: It was the accused, sir.

Q: How were you able to know that it was the accused who kissed you?
A: There was light coming from the window, sir.

Q: Where was that light coming from?

A: From the tower guard, sir.

Q: After kissing your lips, [AAA], what happened next, if any?

A: He kissed my neck also, sir.

Q: What else happened, Ms. Witness?

A: He also smashed [sic] my breast, sir.

Q: After kissing and touching you in your private parts, [AAA], what
happened next, if any?
A: He inserted his finger in my genital, sir.

Q: What specific genital is that, [AAA]?

A: My vagina, sir.
Q: Did you feel the finger of the accused inserted in your vagina?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Why do you know that the finger was inserted in your vagina?
A: I felt his hands, sir.

Q: After inserting his finger into your vagina, Ms. Witness, what happened
next, if any?
A: Someone knocked at the door, sir.95

xxxx

Q: And [sic] ibig sabihin ba nun willing ka mag-suffer na ginagawa sa iyo

without even revealing or without even telling them na ganito na pala ang
nangyayari sa iyo?
A: Syempre nagpapadala ako sa threat nya.

Q: Sa threat?
A: Opo.

Q: Ano ba iyong threat na sinasabi mo?

A: Na kapag sinabi ko kahit kanino baka patayin kami.

Q: Ibig mo bang sabihin na tuwing mangayayari [sic] ito meron

parating threat o meron parating pananakot na tinatawag?
A: Opo.

Q: Pero ibig sabihin kung ito ay hindi mo plinanong sabihin pansamantala at

ito ay gusto mong ireserba ibig sabihin pagsabi nung pangyayari sa iyo gusto
mong gawin some other time nalang kung kelan [sic] kumpleto kayo, ibig
sabihin ba nun na willing kang isakripisyo ang sarili mo?
A: Hindi naman po.

Q: Willing ka na pagdaanan yung pinagdadaanan mo na hindi mo man lang

sinasabi sa magulang mo kung ano na talaga nangyayari sa iyo?

A: Hindi naman.
Q: Hindi naman ganun, eh ano yun?

A: Natatakot lang talaga ako sa threat na binigay nya.96

xxxx
The Court:
xxxx
Q: Pag-ginagawa nang [sic] akusado nung unang pangyayari ano yung mga
exact words na sinabi nya sa iyo?
A: Sabi nya kapag magsasalita daw ako o magsasabi nang [sic]
nangyari papatayin nya kami.

Q: Okay, and sa second time, anong sabi nya ulit?

A: Ganun din po.

Q: And the third time?

A: Ganun din po.

Q: Bakit ka naglakas ng loob nung third time na nag-report?

A: Nahuli na po kasi sya.

Q: Dahil sa nahuli na sya?

A: Opo.97

Here, AAA was again able to narrate that accused-appellant inserted his
finger into her vagina—thereby satisfying the first element of performing
sexual assault through insertion of an object into a person's genital. Notably
for the second element, there was no narration during the direct testimony of
the offended party regarding the employment of force or intimidation.
However, it can be gleaned during the cross-examination and questioning by
the trial court that accused-appellant indeed continued to threaten her
during the third incident. It was clarified that accused-appellant employed
threats even during the third incident. AAA answered in the affirmative when
the counsel for the accused-appellant asked her during cross-examination if
accused-appellant threatened her during each of the incidents (including the
third time). AAA also answered in the affirmative when asked by the RTC
regarding the third incident. Thus, the Court is satisfied that the second
element of employing intimidation is present in the third charge.1âшphi1

In sum, the Court affirms the RTC's assessment of the witness, AAA,
regarding the narration of the events that transpired during those three
nights. In addition, it must be remembered that a child's testimony on sexual
abuse deserves great respect, thus:

x x x 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. Errorless recollection of a harrowing
incident cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting
details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape. What is
important is that the victim's declarations are consistent on basic matters
constituting the elements of rape and her positive identification of the
person who did it to her.98

Further, AAA's account was corroborated by the medico-legal report issued

by PSI Ebdane. The report stated that AAA's vagina suffered deep healed
lacerations at the five and seven o'clock positions of the hymen, which show
clear evidence of blunt penetrating trauma.99 It is settled that when the
offended party's testimony is corroborated by physical findings of
penetration (which in this case are the fingers and the penis), there is
sufficient basis to conclude that sexual intercourse (and sexual abuse) had
occurred.100

On accused-appellant's defense of denial, the Court finds it feeble. The

defense of denial is inherently weak due to the ease with which it can be
concocted; it cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by
the victim.101 Case law provides that "mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear
and convincing evidence, is [a] negative self-serving evidence which cannot
be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining
witness who testified on affirmative matters."102

Accused-appellant claimed that as to the first two alleged incidents, he was

not in AAA's room because he was sleeping in his quarters. However, the
defense failed to substantiate or corroborate this claim. No one saw him
sleeping in his quarters during those times. Thus, it is not impossible for
accused-appellant to not be in AAA's room at those times.

As for the third incident, accused-appellant admitted that he was inside the
room. He claimed, however, that he did not assault AAA and that he was
merely checking in on her asthma. Again, his assertion remains
uncorroborated. In fact, his admission that he was inside the room is
altogether inconsistent with his denial. Also, CCC corroborated that accused-
appellant was indeed inside the room. While CCC did not have personal
knowledge of the sexual assault itself, she had personal knowledge of
accused-appellant's presence inside the room as she saw that he was sitting
on CCC's bed when the door was opened. More importantly, AAA's positive
identification of accused-appellant on all three incidents defeats the latter's
weak defense of denial.

The Court likewise finds that the other contentions raised by accused-
appellant do not cast reasonable doubt on his guilt.
On the issue on the non-presentation as witnesses of AAA's parents and
sisters, it is settled that "a conviction for rape may be upheld based on a
complainant's testimony when it is credible, natural, convincing, and
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things."103 As
already shown, the Court here finds AAA's testimony sufficient to be the
primary basis of accused-appellant's conviction for all charges.

Accused-appellant also raised the behavior of AAA during and after the
incidents. To recall, the offended party failed to report the incidents to her
mother or other housemates until the third incident. Further, accused-
appellant claimed that AAA's squeals, even if her mouth was covered, should
have been heard by her parents (whose room is next to hers) and her sister
(with whom she shares the room), and that there was a "window of
opportunity" for her to scream before he covered her mouth. In this regard,
there is no standard form of behavior for a rape victim. A victim's behavior
and reaction cannot be predicted accurately; people react differently to a
given situation.104 Not all rape victims can be expected to act according to
the usual expectation of the majority.105

Considering all the foregoing, the Court affirms accused-appellant's guilt

beyond reasonable doubt on all two counts of Rape through sexual assault
and one count of Rape through sexual intercourse.

At this juncture, the Court deems it necessary to correct the nomenclature of

the crimes charged and to impose the proper penalties.

It is undisputed that AAA was 14 years old at the time of the commission of
the three offenses. This fact calls for the application of RA 7610.

In People v. Tulagan106 (Tulagan), the Court summarized the applicable laws

and penalties for the crimes of Acts of Lasciviousness or Lascivious Conduct
and Rape through sexual intercourse or sexual assault, depending on the age
of the victim, in view of the provisions of paragraphs one and two of Article
266-A and Article 336 of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, and Section 5(b)
of RA 7610.107

In instances where the lascivious conduct committed against a child covered

by RA 7610, and the act is covered by sexual assault under paragraph two
Article 266-A of the RPC, the offender shall be liable for violation of Section 5
(b) of RA 7610.108 Tulagan, citing People v. Caoili,109 provides for the
proper nomenclature of the crime of Rape through sexual assault and the
imposable penalty if the victim is more than 12 years of age but below 18
years of age: