People vs Amigable : 133857 : March 31, 2000 : J. Bellosillo : Second Division

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 133857. March 31, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEY AMIGABLE, accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

BELLOSILLO, J.:

JOEY AMIGABLE appeals from the decision of the court a quo finding him guilty of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify his victim the amount of P50,000.00.[1]

In an Information dated 23 April 1997 accused-appellant was charged with rape by thirteen (13)-year old Olivia Gallo with the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength. Joä spped

The evidence shows that Olivia resided in Barangay San Andres, Tanay, Rizal, in a house a portion of which was a store selling bread and liquor owned by her grandmother. Adjoining the store was a room occupied by Olivia together with a younger brother aged ten (10), younger sisters aged five (5) and seven (7), and a fifteen (15)-year old cousin Maricel. Some twenty-five (25) meters away was a separate structure where her mother Melencia Dino and her husband, Olivia's stepfather, lived. Maniâ kx

On 26 January 1997 at around 8:30 in the evening while Olivia was reading a book after closing the store, accused-appellant Joey Amigable arrived with Allan Ga and Kuya Badong. They prevailed upon Olivia to open the store as they wanted to buy gin. Olivia acceded. Joey and his companions then started to drink at the pahulog or extension of the house outside the store.

After consuming five (5) bottles of gin at around midnight, the "guests" stopped drinking but continued to converse until 2:00 in the morning. Thinking that they had already left, Olivia went out of the house to answer the call of nature. It turned out that she was mistaken as accused-appellant stayed behind and stood near the door. When Olivia passed by he pulled her by the hand and told her that his brother Boboy, who was courting her, wanted to talk to her. Olivia did not oblige him because, according to her, it was already late in the night. Accused-appellant then pulled Olivia again and covered her mouth with his hand. Olivia struggled and fought back to free herself from Joey's grasp, but he forcibly dragged her to a small half-finished unoccupied house belonging to a certain Joseph situated about twenty (20) meters from the store. Sppedâ

As they entered the house Joey threw Olivia down the concrete floor and told her not to move otherwise he would kill her. Then he started removing her dress. She resisted and fought hard but Joey told her not to shout and threatened to kill her and her family should she disobey. He impressed Olivia that he was pulling a weapon from his pocket to keep her in check. He then removed her shorts and panty, kissed her on the cheeks and breasts until he was able to insert his penis into her vagina. Olivia continued to push Joey away but her efforts proved futile.

Meanwhile, Olivia’s mother was awakened by Maricel who told her that Olivia was missing. Melencia and her husband instinctively proceeded to the house of Olivia’s grandmother but did not find her there. They searched the neighborhood and when they saw the unfinished house they decided to look for Olivia inside. As they pushed the door open they saw Olivia lying on the floor half naked while Joey was already wearing his shorts. Olivia ran to her mother crying and embraced her. When confronted by Melencia, Joey replied that he was terribly embarrassed for what he did, and Melencia could only curse him. MisÓ spped

Olivia revealed on the witness stand that even before the incident on 27 January 1997 she had already been raped twice by Joey, first at the back of the school house when she was only ten (10) and was a fourth grader, and the second rape took place at the same unfinished house before the wedding of Olivia’s older sister on 20 January 1997.

On the same day Olivia was raped for the third time, for which Joey now stands charged, Melencia went to the Tanay Police Station to file a complaint against him. The following day, Olivia was brought to Camp Crame for medical examination where the Medico Legal Officer and Police Senior Inspector Emmanuel M. Reyes found Olivia's hymen with "deep healed lacerations at 4 and 11 o’clock." Dr. Reyes further observed that Olivia had menstruation at the time she was raped on 27 January 1997.

Accused Joey Amigable denied the charge and invoked alibi. He testified that between 8:00 and 11:00 in the evening of 26 January 1997 he was in front of Olivia’s store together with Allan Ga and Badong Arayat waiting for the bulldozer that would repair Samlay road; while waiting, they ordered and drank three (3) bottles of beer; at 11:00 in the evening Joey Amigable and his companions left for home; after his companions left, he and his wife went to sleep. This story of Joey was corroborated by his wife Lolita Amigable.

Assailing his conviction, accused-appellant Joey Amigable contends in his Brief that no rape was committed on 27 January 1997 in view of the finding of the medico-legal officer that (a) he found healed, not fresh, lacerations on the victim one day after the incident; (b) if there was any sexual intercourse, it must have occurred more than a week prior to the medical examination; and, (c) it is very remote that there was sexual intercourse on 27 January 1997. He argued that complaining witness was at the time of the incident barely thirteen (13) years old; the absence of fresh lacerations in her sex organ despite her declaration that she was hurt when appellant abused her for half an hour makes her story incredible and not in accord with human experience and the natural course of things. MisÓ sc

We cannot sustain accused-appellant Amigable, as we affirm the finding of the court a quo that his guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, there exists no cogent legal basis to disturb the finding of the trial court upholding the credibility of Olivia Gallo whose demeanor when she testified was carefully observed by the trial court and found to be sincere, honest and worthy of belief. Our own perusal of the records yields no reason to disturb the factual findings of the court a quo which by well-established precedents are given weight and accorded high respect by the appellate court which cannot be in a better position, by simply reading the cold transcripts, to decide the question of credibility.[2]

Complaining witness Olivia Gallo gave a thorough narrative of what transpired and so found to be credible by the trial court and this Court, thus -ScmisÓ

Q: When this Joey Amigable was pulling you you did not try to shout?

A: He covered my mouth.

Q: And after he covered your mouth what else did he do?

A: He brought me to a house near our house where there is no one living.

Q: How did he bring you (to) that place?

A: He covered my mouth and pulled me.

Q: How far is that house, uninhabited house from your store?

A: Around 20 meters, sir x x x x

Q: After he brought you inside that room, what else happened?

A: That is where "ginalaw niya ako."

Q: What do you mean by "ginalaw?"

A: He raped me x x x x

Q: What happened to your dress when you were brought (to) the room.

A: He removed it.

Q: What did you do if any while Joey Amigable was removing your dress?

A: I was struggling x x x x

Q: And when you said rape, what do you mean by that?

A: He kissed me. Scä

Q: Where did he kiss you.

A: In the lips, sir.

Q: What else did he do?

A: He sucked my breast.

Q: And after that what did he do?

A: He inserted his organ into mine

Q: What did you do if any while Joey Amigable was kissing you, sucking your breast and inserting his private organ into your private organ?

A: I was fighting back x x x x

Q: Did you try not to shout at that time?

A: He threatened me that if I shout he is (sic) going to kill me.

Q: How did he threaten you? xä law

A: He told (me) that if I shout, he is (sic) going to kill my family.

Q: And why are (sic) you intimidated when he made those threats to you?

A: He might do it, sir.[3]

The testimony of Olivia about how she was raped was positive, categorical, straightforward and free of any serious flaw. No sufficient evidence was adduced to show that she had any ulterior motive to prevaricate and implicate accused-appellant in a fabricated charge. As it has been repeatedly said, no woman in her right mind, especially a very young provincial girl like complaining witness, will cry rape, allow examination of her private parts or subject herself and her family to humiliation unless the story is true and she is motivated solely by the desire to have her honor avenged and the culprit to meet his just punishment.[4]

The argument that no rape could have been committed on 27 January 1997 as shown by deep healed lacerations instead of fresh lacerations will not exculpate accused-appellant from his criminal liability. The presence of old lacerations in her private organ was explained by her disclosure that prior to the rape incident in question, she had already been sexually abused twice by accused-appellant, i.e., the first time, when she was ten (10) years old, and the second time, a couple of weeks before 20 January 1997, the date of the wedding of her older sister. Accused-appellant did not deny having committed the first two (2) sexual abuses against complainant. The fact that complainant was no longer a virgin when she was raped for the third time could be the reason for the absence of fresh lacerations when she was examined one (1) day after the incident in question.[5] Despite the absence of fresh lacerations on the hymen of complainant, Dr. Reyes found certain injuries on the labia minora of her sex organ which could have been produced by the rubbing of a finger or penis against it, thus -

Q: You mentioned that on separating labia minora, you found a disclosed congested vestibule.

A: Vestibule is the medial part of the labia minora. It was found congested at the time of examination.

Q: What is the significance of these findings that the vestibule is congested?

A: Something was rubbed to produce redness against it.

Q: What could have probably caused the redness?

A: Probably, Sir, finger or penal (penile?) organ.[6]

Lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. For that matter, in crimes against chastity, the medical examination of the victim is not an indispensable element for the prosecution of the crime as her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused as in this case. The fact that complainant had old healed hymenal lacerations only gives credence to her testimony that she had been raped before by accused-appellant.[7]

The evidence having more than sufficiently established that the rape was committed with the use of force and intimidation, the Court finds the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua to be in accord with Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659. ScÓ lex

We also find the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 consistent with prevailing decisions of this Court,[8] hence, we affirm. In accordance further with recent jurisprudence, which grants moral damages to rape victim without need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof, we are constrained to modify the ruling of the trial court by adding another P50,000.00 for moral damages.[9]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo finding accused-appellant JOEY AMIGABLE GUILTY of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay his victim Olivia Gallo the amount of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is AFFIRMED with the modification that accused-appellant is further ordered to pay her another P50,000.00 for moral damages, and to pay the costs. Sclawä

SO ORDERED.

Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

[1] Decision penned by Judge Alejandro A. Marquez, Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 79, Morong, Rizal.

[2] People v. Padilla, G.R. Nos. 111956 and 111958-61, 23 March 1995, 242 SCRA 629.

[4] People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 129339, 2 December 1999.

[7] People v. San Juan, G.R. No. 105556, 4 April 1997, 270 SCRA 693.

[8] People v. Ignacio, G.R. No. 114849, 24 August 1998, 294 SCRA 542.