332 Phil. 870
FRANCISCO, J.:
"At the instance of the offended party thru her father Arturo Banay who has subscribed and sworn to a complaint attached to the records of this case, the undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses Ferdinand Balisnomo of the crime of rape committed as follows:Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits ensued. During trial, the prosecution presented Ardel Banay, her father, Arturo Banay and the medico-legal expert, Dr. Deogracias Solis, as witnesses. On direct examination, Ardel narrated the perpetration of the crime against her as follows:
"That in or about the 17th day if May, 1983, in the Municipality of Patnoñgon, Province of Antique, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of force and intimidation and with lewd designs, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the said Ardel Banay against the latter’s will.
"Contrary to the provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code."[1]
"FISCAL ORCAJADA:Arturo Banay testified that: On May 17, 1983 at around three o’clock in the afternoon, he was at their house in La Rioja when he saw his daughter, Ardel, at the faucet with blood oozing down her thighs. He asked her what happened but the latter refused to answer. Arturo summoned his wife who asked Ardel the same question, and after several proddings, Ardel told them that she was raped by the appellant. The couple then brought Ardel to the Helath Center for examination. At the Health Center, Ardel was examined by a nurse who confirmed that she had indeed been sexually abused. Because of the continuous flow of blood from Ardel’s private parts, the couple was advised to bring her to the hospital for treatment. They immediately proceeded to the Antique Provincial Hospital where Ardel was attended to by Dr. Deogracias Solis.[3] The latter’s medical findings show that Ardel suffered the following injuries:
Q Last May 17, 1983, at 8:00 (sic) o’clock in the afternoon, could you remember where you where? A I was in the house of Lolo Viong. Q Where is that house located? A Larioja. Q Patnoñngon, Antique? A Yes, Sir. Q Now, on that date, place and time, could you tell this Honorable Court if anuthing (sic) happened to you? A Yes, Sir. Q What happened to you? A I was brought by Ferdinand Balisnomo? Q Where did he bring you? A In the house of Lolo Viong Q Is that Lolo Viong the owner of the house you said a while ago? A Yes, Sir. Q In the house of your Lolo Viong, what did Ferdinand Balisnomo do to you? A He let me lie down. Q If this Ferdinand Balisnomo is here in Court, could you kindly point at him? A That one (witness pointed to the accused Ferdinand Balisnomo). Q After Ferdinand Balisnomo let you lie down, what did he do further, if any? A He undressed me. Q What did Ferdinand Balisnomo do if he did anything? A He undressed himself also. Q After Ferdinand Balisnomo had undressed, what did he do to you? A He lay on top of me. Q When he layed (sic) on top of you, what did Ferdinand Balisnomo do to you? A He inserted his penis into my vagina. Q And what did you feel? A Pain."[2]
"1. Wound, lacerated, superficial, 2mm x 3mmAnd her testimony in open court is to the effect that these lacerations could have been caused by the penetration of a male organ into the vagina.[5]
hymen, 4:00 o’clock
"2. Wound, lacerated, superficial, 1mm x 2mm,
fourchet.
xxx xxx xxx
REMARKS: Laceration, fresh; bleeding and blood clots
In vaginal canal, slight."[4]
"A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness. As in the case of other witnesses, acceptance of his testimony depends on its nature and credibility or, otherwise put, the quality of his perceptions and the manner he can make them known to the court. Thus, in People v. Gerones, the Court accepted the testimony of a rape victim notwithstanding that she had the mentality of a nine or ten-year old ‘because she was able to communicate her ordeal" clearly and consistently."[14] [Underscoring supplied]The determination of the competency of witnesses to testify rests largely with the trial court.[15] As reiterated by this Court, the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses’ testimonies are accorded great respect on appeal in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge who has the advantage of actually examining both real and testimonial evidence including the demeanor of the witnesses as they present the same.[16] A careful review of the records of the case before us reveals no cogent reason to warrant a departure from the findings of the trial court with respect to Ardel’s credibility. It is the trial court that had the unequalled opportunity to observe the "quality of Ardel’s perceptions and the manner she can make them known to the court." And as found by the trial court, "she clearly narrated in detail how she was sexually assaulted by the accused, Ferdinand Balisnomo. Her story is impeccable and rings true throughout and bears the stamp of absolute truth and candor."[17]
There are two houses, three armslegth in distance from each other, that are both known to be owned by Silverio. One was occupied by him and the other by his son and the latter’s family. Thus, when Ardel testified that shewas raped in "Lolo Viong’s"[19] house, she could have been referring to either of these two houses. True, Silverio stayed in his house the whole day of May 17, 1983 and did notsee Ardel nor the appellant therein. However, the foregoingtestimony is also categorical to the effect that he does not actually know if the other house was unoccupied on the said date and time when Ardel was raped. Unable to leave his house and check on the other house, he merely presumed that his son’s wife remained therein.[20]
"Q And Arturo Banay in his direct testimony said that you have two houses located at La Rioja, is that not correct? A Yes, sir, the house of my child. Q Which of these two houses do you stay (sic) permanently? A In my own house, sir Q And where is that house which you said you very (sic) own? A At La Rioja, Patnongon, Antique. Q Now, you have already admitted that you have another house. Who is staying in the other house? A That house is owned by my child. Q And what is the name of that child? A Ramon. Q And how old is this Ramon? A 29 years old. Q Is he living in that other house with somebody else? A Yes, sir, because that house is owned by him. Q Now, because your child Ramon was staying there and how far is this house of yours from this house where Ramon and his wife stay? A Approximately 3 armslength, sir. xxx xxx xxx Q Now, on direct testimony or examination, you said that you have never seen Ardel Banay in the afternoon of May 17, 1983. How about Ferdinand ? Balisono (sic), the accused in this case, have you also seen him during that time? A I have not seen him, sir. Q How far is this house of Ferdinand Balisnomo from your own house? A Approximately half kilometer. Q So, do I understand from you that in the afternoon of May 17, 1983 you did not know of the whereabouts of your son Ramon and his companion in that other house? A Because this son of mine, Ramon, I told him to go to the farm to attend to my carabao and he just went to my house during night time. Q While your son Ramon attends to your cattle and to your vegetable garden, is there any one left your other house? A No, sir. xxx xxx xxx Q Mr. Witness, you said that on May 17, 1983 you were suffering from pain because of your swolen knee due to rheumatism and that you could hardly walk or move around your house, such that you were not able to get out of your house that day, May 17? A Yes, sir. Q So therefore, you have no way of knowing whether in your other house there were still occupants or not? A There’s none. There is a dog, sir. My house is secured with fence. How can any person enter the house because (sic) it is surrounded with fence? Q And that fence is closed whenever the occupants of that house leaves the house? A It is close, sir, and my house has a door. Q Is that house being occupied by your son Ramon is (sic) enclosed with a fence? A No, sir, only my house is surrounded with fence. Q So you will have no way of knowing because of your sickness whether there were occupants in the house occupied by your son Ramon on that afternoon of May 17, 1983? A It might be that the house of Ramon has occupants during that time, sir. Q Meaning to say, you presumed that there were occupants in that house? A Yes, sir."[18] [Underscoring supplied]