423 Phil. 687
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"That on or about February 2, 1997 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another and by means of force and intimidation employed upon the person of REMEDIOS RENORIA y BANDOJO, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with her, against her will and without her consent."[5]During the arraignment, Appellant Renato Flores pleaded not guilty.[6] His co-accused, Paterno Pareno, was at large.[7] After trial in due course, the lower court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, accused RENATO FLORES alias Atong, [having been found g]uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. x x x is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the costs.
"He is ordered to indemnify the minor complainant [in] the amount of P50,000.00."[8]
"On February 2, 1997, around 9:00 o'clock in the evening, Paterno (Pater) Pareno arrived at the house of Remedios Renoria in Ulingan St., Lawang-Bato, Valenzuela. Immediately upon his arrival, Paterno Pareno asked Remedios Renoria to accompany him to the nipa hut located about fifty (50) meters away from their (Remedios Renoria's) house. Remedios Renoria acceeded because she [knew] Paterno.
"When Paterno Pareno and Remedios Renoria reached the place, appellant was already inside the nipa hut obviously waiting for them. Paterno Pareno suddenly dragged Remedios Renoria inside the nipa hut. Then, appellant and Paterno Pareno immediately covered her mouth and removed her clothing. However, it was appellant who removed her underwear. This was quickly followed by appellant discarding his own underwear.
"Remedios Renora was then made to lie down on a wooden bed. Thereafter, appellant positioned himself on top of her and immediately inserted his penis inside her vagina. She felt pain. Afterwards, appellant grasped her breasts. She could not cry for help because appellant and Paterno Pareno were covering her mouth.
"Having satisfied his lust, appellant left immediately. Remedios Renoria, thereafter, stood up, got dressed and went home.
"On April 24, 1997, Remedios Renoria went to see her uncle, Larry Frias, to report the ordeal she suffered in the hands of appellant. In turn, Larry Frias told Remedios Renoria's mother [about] the incident. Thereafter, Remedios Renoria's mother asked Larry Frias to do what [was] best for her daughter.
"Out of genuine concern for his niece who was only thirteen (13) years old at the time she was ravished, and because Remedios Renoria and her [were] both unlettered Larry Frias took the initiative to go to the Office of the Bantay Bata in Quezon City to ask for help.
"At the Office of the Bantay-Bata, Larry Frias narrated what happened to Remedios Renoria. He was then given referral letters to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
"Larry Frias and Remedios Renoria went to the Valenzuela Police Station on April 28, 1997. PO2 Virginia Viacrusis took the statement of Remedios Renoria.
"The following day, or on April 29, 1997, they went to the NBI for medico-legal examination. Dr. Armie Soreta-Umil, an NBI Medico-Legal Officer, conducted a physical examination on the victim and submitted a medical report which reads:Living Case No. MG-97-626Findings
Conclusions:
1. No evident sign of extra-genital physical injuries noted on the body at the time of examination. Hymen, intact but distensible and its orifice wide (2.5 cms. in diameter) as to allow complete penetration by an average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any genital injury."[10] (Citations omitted)
"Evidence for the defense shows that on February 2, 1997, at about 7:00 in the evening, accused-appellant Renato Flores was ordered by his father to get the latter's salary in Ulingan, Valenzuela City. His father worked for Rudy Frias, private complainant's grandfather. He testified that private complainant [was] his girlfriend and that their marriage was being arranged by her mother and her uncle. On the night the crime charged allegedly occurred, accused-appellant recalled that it was private complainant's mother, Rowena Frias, who invited him to sleep in their house. He slept in the sofa together with private complainant. The following morning, accused-appellant's parents were summoned by Rowena Frias and Larry Frias. Private complainant's mother asked accused-appellant if he love[d] her daughter to which he an[s]wered in the affirmative. Thereafter, they talked about their plan of getting married and Rowena even allowed her daughter to go with accused-appellant the following day, bringing with her a bag of clothes. Since then, the couple lived together as husband and wife for more or less three months until May 28, 1997 when private complainant was fetched by her mother. She never returned since then. The next time they saw each other was when private complainant visited him in jail. She informed him that she was in fact merely forced by Larry Frias to file a complaint."
"The Court a-quo gravely erred in finding that the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the insufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution."[14]
A careful review of the evidence adduced by both parties leads us to the conclusion that the RTC did not err in finding appellant guilty of rape. The lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. This is so because, from the nature of the offense, her sole testimony is oftentimes the only evidence that can be offered to establish the guilt of the accused.[17] As correctly observed by the lower court:
"Q: Now, Madam Witness, when Renato Flores removed his brief and after he removed your panty, what did he do? A: He inserted, sir. Q: What did he insert? A: His penis, sir. Q: Where did he insert that? A: [Into] my vagina. Q: Now, madam witness, what was your position when the accused Flores inserted his penis into your vagina? A: I was lying, sir. Q: On what part [were] you lying? A: [O]n a wooden bed. Q: What about the accused Flores, what was his position when he inserted his penis into your vagina while you were lying? A. He was standing. Q: While you were lying? A: Yes, sir. Q: What do you mean standing, was he on top of you? A: Yes, sir. Q: Was he able to have his penis penetrated into your vagina? A: Yes, sir. Q: What was the movement of the accused when he was inserting his penis into your vagina, particularly his buttocks, was he pumping it? A: Yes, sir. Q: What was your feeling when he inserted his penis into your vagina, did you feel pain? A: Yes, sir. Q: What happened to your vagina, did it bleed? A: No, sir. Q: Now, how long did he do that to you? A: It was quite a long time, sir." Q: Now will you kindly tell this court the reason why you were able to go to that nipa hut? A: I was dragged by Pater.x x x x x x x x x
Q: Now when Pater dragged you inside the nipa hut, was Renato Flores already inside? A: Yes, sir. Q: And what was he doing, was he waiting for you? A: Yes, sir. x x x x x x x x x"[16]
"x x x. Minor complainant was forthright. She narrated how she was sexually abused by accused Renato Flores. She was straight forward in pin pointing to the accused as her abuser. There [are] no facts and/or circumstances from which it could be reasonably inferred that the minor complainant falsely testified or she was actuated by improper motive. The absence of clear and convincing evidence of the existence of improper motive sustain[s] the conclusion that no improper motive exist[s] and her testimony should be given full faith and credit. The Court is persuaded by the sincerity and c[a]ndor of minor Remedios Renoria. She showed no sign of hostility but interest to bring the malefactor to justice."[18]Well-settled is the rule that the trial court's assessment of credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect, owing to its direct opportunity to observe their demeanor during trial.[19]
"08.T. Paano ang [nangyaring] pang-aabuso sa iyo o pang re Rape?Undisputably, the sexual act was committed with force and intimidation as shown by prosecution evidence. Moreover, the victim could not have shouted for help, as her mouth was covered by the accused. She testified thus:
S. Ganito po iyon noong Feb. 2, 1997, sa ganap na ika 9:00 ng gabi ay pinatawag ako ni Atong alias Renato Flores at may sasabihin daw po siya sa akin, noon pong pumunta ako ay nasa loob daw po siya ng kubo, sabi ni Patter punta daw sa kubo at doon daw ko usap ni Atong, punta ako kubo hila ako sa kamay ni Atong tulak ako Patter, at takip bibig ko ng kamay ni Atong at sama panyo kamay at tali panyo sa lbibig, higa ako sa papag ni Atong (referring to Renato Flores) at tanggal lahat ng damit ko, pag katapos ay kiss niya ako sa labi at dede ko at pagkatapos ay pasok niya ang titi niya sa pek-pek ko taas baba siya at -- pagkatapos ay parang pagod na pagod siya at dagan siya sa dibdib ko at tanggal niya ang tali sa bibig ko, at sabi niya ay [sinabihang "H]uwag kang magsusumbong at papatayin kita naiintindihan mo ba[?"]
"09.T. Ano po ang mga sumunod na pangyayari?
S. Kinabukasan ay pinatawag ako uli kay Patter at punta daw ako sa kubo February 3, Lunes sa ganap na ika 9:00 ng gabi at punta daw ako [kay] Atong (Renato Flores) at iwan ako uli ni Patter at sabi ni Atong pag hindi ako payag patay ako, kaya x x x higa nalang ako papag at hubad ni Atong ang damit ko at pasok uli niya ang Titi niya sa pekpek ko, at pagkatapos sabi ni Atong (Renato Flores) o baka magsusumbong ka kahit kanino, at sabi niya ay kung magsusumbong daw ako ay papatayin daw niya ako kaya hindi ako [nagsusumbong] kahit kanino, pinauwi niya ako."[24]
Indeed, it is inconceivable how a 13-year-old girl could muster enough strength to resist two men in their prime. It would be incongrous to assume that she could overcome the superior strength of appellant and his cohort, Paterno Pareno.
"Q: Now after the accused inserted his penis into your vagina, what happened next? A: He h[e]ld my breast, sir. Q: Did you shout or [ask] for help? A: No, sir. Q: Why? A: They were covering my mouth, sir."[25]
"Defense['s] claim that the minor complainant is his sweetheart and they lived together as husband and wife cannot be given serious consideration. There was not even a letter or photograph of the minor-victim to show that the accused and she (Remedios Renoria) [were] sweethearts. The bag of clothes is not concrete proof that the clothes [belong] to minor complainant.Appellant's claim of love relationship is belied by the concurrence of the following actuations of complainant: (1) disclosing the rape incident to her uncle, (2) seeking help from police authorities, (3) subjecting herself to medical examination, (4) filing a Complaint for rape and recounting in court the details of her horrible experience.
"x x x [I]f it is really true that Remedios Renoria and the accused lived as husband and wife in the house of the accused and left only on May 28, 1997 when fetched by the sister, why was she able to give her written statement to the police on April 28, 1997 charging the accused [with] rape and [to submit] herself [to] physical and genital examination before the NBI on April 29, 1997."[29]
"A careful review of Remedios Renoria's testimony reveals that on February 2, 1997, Paterno Pareno arrived at their (Remedios Renoria['s]) house and asked her to accompany him to the nipa hut located at Ulingan, Lawang-Bato, Valenzuela; that when they reached the place, Paterno Pareno dragged her inside the nipa hut where appellant was obviously waiting; and that appellant and Paterno Pareno covered her mouth and undressed her.Further, the aforecited inconsistencies, even if true, are minor in character and do not impugn the credibility of complainant. Indicative of an unrehearsed testimony, slight contradictions even serve to strengthen credibility. Indeed, the Court cannot expect a rape victim to remember every ugly detail of the sexual assault.[34] A witness who is telling the truth is not always expected to give a perfectly concise testimony, considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory.[35]
"In other words, Paterno Pareno used force on Remedios Renoria only when they finally reached the nipa hut, the place where the crime was committed.
"Anent the issue of who really was with Remedios Renoria at the time she went to the police station to report the incident, Remedios Renoria clarified during her cross examination that it was Larry Frias who accompanied her to the police station
"Demonstrably, the alleged inconsistences pointed out by appellant do not actually exist. Assuming that they do exist, the same are very trivial in nature [and] cannot impair the essential integrity of the prosecution evidence as a whole."[33] (Citation omitted)