377 Phil. 656
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
“The undersigned Regular Special Counsel hereby accuses GERRY PEREZ y NAGSAGARAY, of the crime of RAPE, at the instance, relation and written complaint of MARIFE TICUAN y MANUIT, a minor, five (5) years of age. Copies of her statement are hereto attached and made an integral part of this Information, committed as follows:Upon his arraignment on November 25, 1992, accused duly assisted by his counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.[3]
That on or about the 12th day of August, 1992, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and by means of force or intimidation, have carnal knowledge of the said complainant, MARIFE TICUAN y MANUIT, against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
“On August 12, 1992, Federica Ticuan left her three (3) minor children in the house of her sister, Jane Pilis, (sic, should be Catalina dela Pena) under the care of her blind mother, Agnes Manuit, to tend her store. Federica’s store was about 250 meters from the house of her sister (Pages 3-7, TSN Feb. 18, 1993). Federica’s children are Marife, Myra and Myleen, who were respectively aged five (5), three (3) and one (1) at the time of the incident in question (Pages 3-7, TSN, Jan. 18, 1993).For his defense, accused testified that at around 12:00 P.M. of August 12, 1992, he was cooking in his rented house owned by the complainant; At around 1:00 P.M. he bade goodbye to Agnes Manauit (the victim’s grandmother) and told her that if ever his Uncle, Rogelio Nagsagaray, would look for him he will be at Hillside, Baguio; He said that he went to Hillside because he had work the next day and Hillside was quite far.[5] That in the evening of the same day, his Uncle and the victim’s father came to Hillside and instructed him to go with them to substation 5 where he saw the complainants typing their complaint. Later, he was placed inside a van and they proceeded to the police station where he was detained.[6] On cross-examination, he testified among others that from Bakakeng Norte where he lives up to the Hillside, he had to take 2 rides, i.e. from Bakakeng Norte to City Proper would take 10 minutes and another 5 minutes from City Proper to Hillside. He was able to reach Hillside at about 1:20 o’clock in the afternoon and he stayed there the whole day. On re-direct, he further claimed that he had a misunderstanding with the mother of alleged victim Marife Ticuan as Mrs Ticuan accused him of stealing plywood and having often influenced her husband to join in a drinking spree.[7]
About 1:00 P.M. on the day in question, appellant, who was then a boarder at the first floor of the house of Catalina, went upstairs and asked permission from Agnes if he could come in and play with her granddaughters. Agnes inquired who he was and appellant responded that he was “Gerry” (Page 8, TSN, July 23, 1993). Thereafter, Marife and Jimmy dela Peña (cousin of Marife) asked permission from Agnes to play outside. After a while, appellant told Agnes that he would also go down.
Subsequently, Marife and Jimmy proceeded to the “bodega” adjacent to the house of Catalina where they played “sipa” together with their younger sisters (Pages 4-5, TSN, June 2, 1993).
While the children were playing, Jimmy suddenly went upstairs to repair his “sipa” toy (Page 2, TSN, June 9, 1993). At this point, appellant went inside the bodega (Pages 4-5,TSN, June 30, 1993).
Meanwhile, Agnes did not allow Jimmy to open the stove to repair his “sipa” toy. Thus, Jimmy just went downstairs to resume playing (Page 2, TSN, June 9, 1993). He saw Marife crying inside the structure where they prepare food for the pigs. He saw appellant “raping” Marife while the latter was standing near the pile of woods. He also saw appellant’s penis discharging white fluid (Pages 6-8, TSN, June 2, 1993).
Thereafter, Marife went to her grandmother to complain. Marife was crying and telling that her private part was painful because appellant placed his penis inside her vagina (Page 4, TSN, June 30, 1993). Agnes asked why Marife did not shout, Marife replied that appellant was covering her mouth with his hand. Agnes was about to call Federica to tell what happened when Federica arrived (Pages 16-17, TSN, July 23, 1993).
Upon seeing Marife crying, Federica immediately inquired what happened, Marife told Federica that appellant abused her. Forthwith, Federica went down and asked Rudy Nagsagaray, uncle of appellant, regarding the latter’s whereabouts. Rudy replied that he did not know where appellant was. He suggested that they look for him at Hillside, Baguio. Federica’s father-in-law accompanied Rudy while Federica, together with Mrs. Quiño and Catalina dela Peña, brought Marife to the Baguio Hospital for examination (Pages 8-11, TSN, Feb. 18, 1993).
Dr. Frances Jane P. Kiat-Ong examined Marife and found out that there was reddening of her labia majora (Pages 4-9, TSN, Feb. 5, 1993).
After the examination, Federica, together with Marife and their companions, proceeded to the police station near the hospital because they were informed that appellant was already at the police station at Campo Sioco for investigation (Pages 11-15, TSN, Feb. 18, 1993).”
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, GERRY PEREZ y Nagsagaray GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the offended party the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.Accused has appealed from the judgment of conviction, submitting the following assigned errors:[9]
And the word of the law, it is thundered:“Dura lex, sed lex, meaning,SO ORDERED”
The law is harsh, but that is the law.”
Accused-appellant faults the trial court for finding him guilty of the crime of rape based on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which he alleges to be replete with flaws and improbabilities. He alleges that there exists inconsistencies between the sworn statements of victim Marife Ticuan and also of Jimmy dela Pena and their declarations in court. In trying to cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, accused–appellant points out the following:I
THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.II
THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND UNBELIEVABLE TESTIMONIES OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND HER WITNESSES.
(1) Victim Marife Ticuan and his cousin Jimmy dela Peña testified that they were in the company of other children, namely: Myra, Mylen and Gladys playing sipa and that the place where the alleged rape took place was a one- room place. Accused claims that if it was true that he molested the victim, it could have been seen by the other children who in the ordinary way of things would have come to Marife’s succor or go out to report the unusual incident; that raping Marife when the playmates were around would be highly improbable and runs contrary to human nature and experience because the mere presence of other people deters a person from committing a crime more so the rape of a child;We find no merit in this appeal.
(2) Jimmy testified that from the bodega where they were playing, he ran upstairs to light his sipa; when her grandmother forbade him from doing so, he immediately rushed down again to the bodega. Accused-appellant claims that considering Jimmy’s youthfulness and energy it took Jimmy only a minute to do this, leaving the accused a very short time to enter the bodega, look for Marife, remove her panty, put out his penis and have intercourse with her. Accused-appellant claims that in Marife’s testimony, she said that after he inserted his penis inside her vagina, it took a long time thereafter before he removed his sexual organ, but from Jimmy dela Peña’s testimony, it took Jimmy a very short interval to run from the bodega and return back;
(3) The actuation of Federica Ticuan , the victim’s mother, elicits suspicion. After learning of her daughter’s ordeal, she chose to look first for the accused and not finding him, looked for the uncle of the accused instead of immediately bringing her daughter to the hospital;
(4) In Marife’s sworn statement, she stated that she was made to lie on a table and was violated, and in her direct examination, she even said that accused went on top of her. However, on cross-examination, Marife declared that she was standing when accused removed her panty and inserted his penis inside her vagina. Accused-appellant claims that it would take a great deal of resourcefulness and creativity to imagine how this could happen considering that he is a full grown man of 20 years, standing 5 feet 6 ½ inches in height whereas the victim is but a child of a little more than 5 years old. Accused-appellant further contends that the medico legal findings negate the commission of rape since not a tiniest injury appear, and there was no hematoma and no lacerations;
(5) The “de-virginization” of a woman causes pain on her genitals, and yet the victim’s actions after the alleged rape, i.e. she was able to run upstairs to where her grandmother was, walk to the jeepney which brought them to the hospital and also walk her way inside the hospital where she was examined, are contrary to human nature which only indicate the absence of any injury on her person;
(6) If accused-appellant had committed the alleged rape, he would not have informed the victim’s grandmother of his whereabouts i.e., that he was going to the Hillside, on that fateful day;
(7) The Ticuan family has an axe to grind against him; before the alleged incident the victim’s mother, Federica, accused him of stealing plywood and of being a bad influence upon her husband.
“Second, grati argumenti that there were persons present at the time the accused performed his bestial act on the young girl, how would one expect a 3-year old Myra and 11/2 year old Myleen to know what the accused was doing upon their 5 year old sister Marife? They still do not know what is sex. If these two young children had observed what the accused was doing to their sister, still they are not aware whether or not such actuation of the accused is against the laws of man and of God. Rape can be committed in any place, says the Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Remota, supra.”Accused-appellant next claims that when Jimmy went upstairs to fix his sipa and immediately came down after her grandmother forbade him from lighting his sipa, only a short interval of time had elapsed and the rape could not have taken place in such a short time. The argument is not tenable. While it may be true that the act of Jimmy in going upstairs and talking to her grandmother who did not allow him to light the stove to repair his sipa would not take a long time to accomplish, it is not impossible for the accused to accomplish his dastardly act on Marife in such a short time. The victim is only an innocent girl of very tender age whereas the accused-appellant is a mature 20-year old man who stands about 5 feet six inches tall. It has been held that rape may be consummated in one minute.[15]
Testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. It is simply inconceivable that Marife, at 5, with all her childhood naivete and innocence would make up the story of sexual molestation and tell her grandmother that she was raped by the accused if it was not true. Marife’s straightforward testimony cannot be discredited by the mere denial of the accused. It is a well-settled rule that an affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony, especially so when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[17]
“PROS. CARANTES: Q: Now, I will ask you Marife, do you know the accused in this case, Jerry Perez? A: Yes, I know. Q: Why do you know him? A: He stays in the house of my auntie. Q: Why, where is the house of your auntie? A: At Bakakeng. Q: Where is this Bakakeng located, is it here in Baguio City? A: Yes, Sir. Q: What about you, where do you live?
A: At Bakakeng.’ Q: How far is your house from the house of your auntie where Jerry Perez lives, is it just near or far away? A: Near. Q: If that Jerry Perez is inside the Courtroom, will you please point him out to the Court? CLERK OF COURT V: Witness pointing to a person inside the Courtroom who when asked answered by the name Jerry Perez. PROS. CARANTES: Q: How long have you known this Jerry Perez? A: Before yet. Q: When was the last time you saw this Jerry Perez?
A: I do not know, Sir. Q: When was the last time you saw Jerry Perez in Bakakeng? A: Before. Q: Now, when you saw Jerry Perez in the last time in Bakakeng, what was he doing then? A: Nothing. Q: Is there a bodega near the house where you live? A: There is. Q: Did you have occasions to see Jerry Perez inside that bodega? ATTY. SAGSAGO: We object, Your Honor.
COURT
Witness may answer.
WITNESS: A: I saw him. PROS. CARANTES: Q: When you saw him inside the bodega, did he do anything to you? A: There is. Q: What did this Jerry Perez do? A: He inserted his penis to my vagina. Q: Would you be able to describe to this Court how this Jerry Perez inserted his penis to your vagina?
A: I know. Q: How did he do it? A: I do not know Q: Did you see Jerry Perez take off his pants inside the bodega before when he had inserted his penis to your vagina? A: I saw him. Q: Now, after he took off his pants, what did he do to you if he did any? A: He inserted his penis in my vagina. Q: Before that, did he make you lie down? A: No. Q: Did he go on top of you?
A: Yes. Q: What did you feel when this Jerry Perez went on top of you and inserted his penis inside your vagina? A: Nothing. Q: Why, did you not feel pain? A: I felt pain. Q: Did you cry when this Jerry Perez went on top of you? A: No. Q: What did you do when this Jerry Perez went on top of you? A: Nothing. Q: Now, what happened after this Jerry Perez went on top of you?
A: He inserted his penis to my vagina. Q: Did he eventually take out his penis from your vagina? A: Yes. Q: After he did that, what then did he do? A: He went home. Q: Did he put his pants back? A: Yes. Q: What about you, what did you do after Jerry Perez put his pants on and back for work? A: I cried. Q: After crying, what did you do?
A: I do not know. Q: Did you not tell anyone what had happened to you? A: There was. Q: Who was this person to whom you related what happened to you? A: My grandmother. Q: Why, where does your grandmother stay? A: Upstairs. Q: Is it near your house?
A: Yes. Q: How far away is it from the bodega where this Jerry Perez inserted his penis inside your vagina? A: Only downstairs. Q: Do you remember the time of the day when you underwent that sad experience inside that bodega? A: No. Q: Do you remember also the day when this Jerry Perez did what he did to you inside the bodega? A: No. Q: Before that happened, what are you doing?
A: Nothing. Q: Were you not playing with your friends? A: I was playing with them. Q: Now, you said that you related to your grandmother what happened to you inside the bodega, how did you do that, did you run to her house? A: Yes. Q: And were you able to see your grandmother? A: Yes, I saw. Q: What did you tell your grandmother when you saw her?
A: I told her “lola Jerry Perez inserted his penis in my vagina.” Q: And what did your grandmother say when you told her that? A: Nothing. Q Did not your Lola get angry? A: She got angry. Q: And what did she do when she got angry? A: She said she is going to call my mother. Q: Was she able to call for your mother?
A: No because at that time my mother was arriving already. Q: Did your mother arrive at that time? A: Yes. Q: When she arrived, did your grandmother talk to her? A: Yes. Q: What did they do after they talked with each other? A: They brought me to the hospital. PROS. CARANTES: Q: When you were at the hospital, were you examined by a doctor? A: Yes.”
“While it is true that Marife testified in direct examination that she was standing when appellant raped her. However, she did not mention the relative position of appellant when he raped her. Thus, appellant could have bent or knelt or positioned himself in such a way as to effectively perpetrate his bestial objective. Surely, Marife, being an innocent 5-year old girl when ravished, could not be expected to notice the fine details of her forcible defloration by appellant (People v. Gabris, 258 SCR 663 [1196]).The Court has consistently adhered to the rule that inconsistencies on minor details of the testimony of a witness serve to strengthen his credibility as they are badges of truth rather than an indicia of falsehood.[19] A rapist cannot expect the hapless object of his lechery to have the memory of an elephant and the cold precision of a mathematician because total recall of an incident is not expected of a witness, especially if it is the victim herself who is on the witness stand.[20] She is not expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone.[21] This is particularly true in this case where the rape victim is only five years of age, it being improbable for a young girl like her and one not exposed to the ways of the world to impute a crime as serious as rape to any man if it were not true.[22]Thus, the trial court correctly ruled, viz:
There might have been a discrepancy on the testimony of the offended party. This could be expected to a child who was only 5 years old at the time of the commission of the offense and testified ten (10) months after the act complained of happened. But granting that she declared that at the time the accused was standing, there is no statement of the child that the accused did not bend or kneel. But the fact remains that the sex organ of the accused was inserted or at least kissed the lips of the pudendum of the victim. The unexplored forest of happiness of the young girl has been the object of intrusion by sexual ferdelance.
By the way, what could we expect from a young girl who does not even know what is good or bad, what one is doing in a church and does not even know the consequences of one who tells a lie? T.S.N., June 9, 1993, M. Ticuan) But such kind of a person, young as she is, has the gospel truth in her declaration.”
“Third, it is really crystal clear on the findings of the medical witness that no injuries, abrasions, hematoma, lacerations, fresh bleeding and the fourchette is smooth. However, there is “slightly erythematous” or reddening on the labia of the sex organ of the young girl. The doctor who examined the victim elucidated on her finding “slightly erythematous” that the door of the pudendum of the child had been touched caused by a rough or hard object as it resulted to its reddening, and this must have been caused by the penis being rubbed on the said labia majora of the vagina of the young victim. The accused might have been afraid in fully inserting his sex organ as it might cause rupture or injuries on the vagina of the child. As in masturbation, he just enjoyed satisfying his libidinous desire by putting his hardened instrument of life on the lips of the girl’s sex organ, rubbed it and imagining the most beautiful and sexy woman on earth.”[27]Neither are we persuaded by accused-appellant’s argument that defloration of a woman causes pain on her genitals and yet victim Marife did not show such suffering when she went upstairs to her grandmother, rode in a jeepney and walked her way to the examination room of the hospital.