466 Phil. 661
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to both charges. Trial ensued thereafter.Criminal Case No. Q-97-69585
“That on or about the 8th day of December 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously undress one JOVITA SALAS Y YONSON and, at the point of a bolo, put himself on top of her and thereafter have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant against her will and without her consent.
“Contrary to law.”
Criminal Case No. Q-97-69584
“That on or about the 9th day of December 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously undress one JOVITA SALAS Y YONSON and, at the point of a bolo, put himself on top of her and thereafter have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant against her will and without her consent.
“Contrary to law.”
“PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:Dr. Cosidon could not testify as she was transferred to the far-flung province of Cagayan Valley. It was Dr. Ma. Cristina B. Freyra, the PNP Medico-Legal Officer in Kamuning, Quezon City, who took the witness stand and confirmed the findings and results of Dr. Cosidon’s Report. Appellant’s counsel, Atty. Trebonian C. Tabang, admitted the competency of Dr. Freyra.[8] She testified that the deep-healed lacerations at 3:00 o’clock and 9:00 o’clock positions in Jovita’s hymen were sustained about 20 days before the examination, and that such lacerations were caused by the insertion of a hard blunt object like an erect penis. She further declared that Jovita could have been a virgin before her hymen sustained lacerations.[9]
To determine physical signs of sexual abuse.
“FINDINGS:
x x x
“Genital: There is moderate growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated with the pinkish brown labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same, disclosed an elastic fleshy-type hymen with deep, healed lacerations at 3 and 9 o’clock position. External vaginal orifice offers moderate resistance to the introduction of the examining index finger and the virgin-sized vaginal speculum. Vaginal canal is narrow with prominent rugosities. Cervix is normal in size, color and consistency.
“CONCLUSION:
“Subject is in non-virgin state physically. There are no external signs of recent application of any form of trauma at the time of examination.
“REMARKS:
“Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for gram-negative diplococci and spermatozoa.”
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in the following:Appellant, in his brief, ascribes to the trial court the following of errors:“1. In Criminal Case No. Q-97-69584, the Court finds the accused, Arturo Manambay y Diamson, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined in and penalized by Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim, Jovita Salas y Yonson, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages;
“The period during which the accused was detained at the City Jail of Quezon City shall be credited to the said accused in full provided that he agrees in writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and regulations of the said institution.
“2. In Criminal Case No. Q-97-69585, the Court finds the accused, Arturo Manambay y Diamson, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined in and penalized by Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim, Jovita Salas y Yonson, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
“With costs against the accused.
“IT IS SO ORDERED.”[15]
The basic issue for our resolution is whether the prosecution has proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.“I. The court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape.
“II. The court a quo gravely erred in not giving weight and credence to the evidence of the defense.”[16]
“Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:The elements of rape under the above provisions are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim, and (2) such act was accomplished by using force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under 12 years of age.1. By using force or intimidation;
“The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
“Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
x x x.” (Underscoring ours)
The trial court gave full faith and credence to Jovita’s testimony, holding that she narrated her harrowing sexual ordeal at the hands of appellant “in a categorical, forthright, straightforward and clear manner without any pretensions that would tarnish the credibility of her testimony.”[18] It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court which are supported by the records, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in view of its advantage of having directly observed the demeanor of the witness while testifying.[19]
“PROSECUTOR RIO ESPIRITU on Direct Examination: x x x Q On December 8, 1996, do you know where you were at around 8:00 in the evening? A I was in our house, sir. x x x Q Who were present at that time? A I and my brother-in-law (referring to herein appellant). x x x Q What were you doing at that time at around 8:00 in the evening? A I was inside the house, watching T.V. Q While watching T.V., what happened next? A While watching T.V., my brother-in-law approached me, he was drunk and was holding a bolo. Q x x x, what happened next after he approached you? A x x x my brother-in-law x x x told me to follow him. Q How long was that bolo? A (Witness demonstrating two feet including a handle) COURT: As stipulated by the parties, two feet. PROSECUTOR: Q You said that he directed you to go to the room, what else did he tell you? A He further told me not to make noise and obey all his orders. Q While he was giving you the instruction and while he was threatening you, where was the bolo pointed? A It was directed and pointed at my breast. Q What happened next x x x? A He further told me to remove all my clothes. Q Who removed your clothes? A I was the one, sir. Q Why did you follow his order? A I was scared because he might harm me with his bolo. Q Were you able to undress yourself later? A Yes, sir. Q What happened next after you undressed yourself? A He told me to lie down on the bed. Q Why did you follow his order? A I was forced to follow him because he might kill me. Q What happened next after you lied down on bed? A He removed his short pants and brief and after that he went on top of me. While he was pointing the bolo at me, he went on top of me. Q After he went on top of you, what happened next? A He inserted his private organ into my private organ. COURT: Put on record that the private complainant/victim is crying. PROSECUTOR: Q After he was able to insert his private organ into your private organ, what happened next? A After a while, which I cannot tell how long was it, he stood up. Q After he stood up, did he tell you anything? A Yes. he told me to act naturally as if nothing happened. Q After he stood up and threatened you with those words, what did you do? A After he stood up, he ordered me to dress up and not to reveal what happened because if I reveal what happened, he would kill my sister. Q How sure are you, madam witness, that the private organ of this accused was able to penetrate your private organ? A I felt his private organ was inserted into my private organ because I felt pain and he forced his private organ to penetrate my private organ. x x x Q The following day, in the morning of December 9, 1996, do you know whether your sister again reported to work? A Yes, sir. Q At around what time? A 9:00 in the morning, sir. Q After your sister left x x x, what were you doing at that time x x x? A After my sister went out of the house, while I was going out of the house, he prevented me by closing the door. Q After he closed the door, what happened next? A After closing the door, with hands holding a bolo, he again confronted me and told me to again accommodate him (‘Pagbigyan mo uli ako.’). x x x Q When he uttered those words, ‘Pagbigyan mo uli ako’, while holding the bolo, what happened next? A Because of my fear, I obeyed all his orders. Q Aside from those words uttered to you, what was he doing with that bolo? A It was pointed at me. Q What happened next after he pointed that bolo? A He told me to get inside my room. Q Were you able to go to your room? A Yes, sir. Q What happened next? A He again ordered me to undress. Q x x x, did you follow the order? A Yes, because of my fear I followed all his orders. Q You said that you undressed yourself, how about him, what did he do next? A He told me to lie down. Q What did he do next? A After that, he undressed himself and went on top of me. Q x x x, do you know where was the bolo at that time? A He was holding the bolo being pointed at me. Q After he undressed himself, what happened next? A He raped me again. Q You said that he raped you, how sure are you that his private organ was able to penetrate your private organ? A I felt that he inserted his private organ into my private organ. Q Where were his hands at that time when he inserted his private organ? A His right hand was holding the bolo that was being pointed at me, while his left hand was holding my right hand. Q That was the time that his private organ penetrated your private organ? A Yes, sir. Q Then, how long did this rape occasion last? A Around 30 minutes, sir. Q x x x, what happened next? A He stood up and told me not to reveal what happened between us, specifically to my sister. Q After he uttered those words, what happened next? A He further told me to act naturally as if nothing happened. Q If this person whom you said your brother-in-law raped you on December 8 and 9, 1996 is inside the courtroom, can you identify him? A Yes, sir. Q Will you please point to him? A (Witness pointed to a male person wearing yellow shirt, and when asked of his name, he answered ‘Arturo Manambay’).”[17]
Clearly, Jovita was overwhelmed with fear before, during and immediately after the two traumatic events. She was extremely afraid that appellant might kill her and her sister Anita should she report the incidents to the authorities. We hold that her delay in divulging what transpired is reasonably justified and, therefore, cannot by itself diminish the probative value of her testimony.[28]
“Q It did not occur to your mind to revenge by doing anything harm to the accused while the accused was sleeping?
A No, because my fear overwhelmed me. Q On December 9, you mentioned also that you were raped by the accused in this case? A Yes, sir. Q Now, that was 9:00 in the morning, is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q What time did you wake up on December 9, 1996? A 8:00 in the morning, sir. Q What time did you sleep in that evening of December 8? A I already slept in the early morning because I could not sleep during that time. Q Why could you not sleep? A Because I was thinking of what happened and also thinking of the threats that he made. Q You did not think of reporting the incident to the police authority or to your sister while lying on bed? A I also thought of that, but I also thought of the threats he made against me and thought of what he did to me and of what my brothers will do to him. x x x Q Madam witness, you mentioned a while ago that you woke up around 8:00 in the morning and it was one hour that transpired before the incident on December 9, 1996. My question is, why did you (not) flee from the house or go away considering that it was daytime and not night time? A Because during that time, I was very confused, I did not know what to do first, either go away or report the incident to the Barangay. Q Now, you reported the incident to the police, what date? A On December 26, 1996.”[27] (Underscoring ours)
“Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.Here, the prosecution failed to allege in the Informations and prove during the trial any aggravating or mitigating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime. The use of a deadly weapon was alleged in the Informations merely as a qualifying circumstance. Hence, pursuant to the above provisions, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed upon appellant for each count of rape.[35] In People vs. Joel Ayuda,[36] we held: “Where no aggravating circumstance is alleged in the Information and proven during the trial, the crime of rape through the use of a deadly weapon may be penalized only with reclusion perpetua, not death.”
“In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:“1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
“2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
“3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
“4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.” (Underscoring ours)