PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RENATO ALFONSO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

A prosecution for Rape before
the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, which
adjudged the accused, Renato Alfonso, guilty and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

The facts, according to
the prosecution, follow:

“The 13 year old minor Laila Indita y Alfonso had known the appellant Renato Alfonso as a relative and neighbor in Santiago,
Isabela since she was nine years old.

“With her mother’s permission, she went to Manila
alone to take her vacation at the house of her uncle Mario Alfonso, her
mother’s brother, who lives in Balic-Balic, Sampaloc, Manila.  Taking the Pantranco
bus from Isabela, she arrived at the Pantranco terminal, Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City about 4:00 o’clock
early in the morning of April 3, 1982.  It
was still dark outside, so she decided to wait for the morning light before
proceeding to her uncle’s place in Balic-Balic.

“While passing time inside the waiting station at the bus
terminal, she was approached by appellant Renato
Alfonso who offered to accompany her to Balic-Balic
as it was still dark.  Recognizing and
knowing him to be a relative, she accepted the invitation.  Appellant guided her to a dark place still
inside the terminal compound leading to Roosevelt
Avenue which according to him, was a short cut.

“In the said dark place behind one of the buses, a place where
buses are cleaned, appellant made his move. 
He pushed Laila and she fell face up.  While in that position, she noticed that
appellant was beside her.  She shouted
for help but appellant covered her mouth with a handkerchief using his left hand.  He then knelt between her legs and forcibly
took off her skirt and panty with his right hand.

“Laila resisted by boxing the
appellant, so that he was only able to pull her skirt and panty down to her
knees.  But appellant who is definitely
stronger, succeeded in removing completely her skirt and panty.  Now kneeling again between her legs, he
pulled down his brief and pants to his knees. 
At this point, Laila was already feeling weak
and could not move anymore because one of her hands was pinned down by the left
hand of the appellant and her other hand was under her legs.  It was her first experience with a man that
she was so afraid, stunned by it and became immobile.  Appellant, using his right hand, mashed her
breasts and then inserted his penis into her vagina.

“When the left hand of the appellant covering her mouth with a
handkerchief loosened, she shouted for help. 
Appellant was on top of her then and he took something from his side and
pressed it against her throat, threatening to kill her if she would shout.

“After having carnal knowledge with Laila,
appellant put on his pants and brief, and then left.  It was only that time that the handkerchief
was removed from the mouth of the minor. 
Then she put on her panty and skirt and ran to a bright place.”^[1]

After the incident, Laila testified that she proceeded to her uncle Mario’s
house at Balic-Balic and immediately upon her arrival
she took a bath because her clothes were dirty. 
She did not reveal the outrage on her person to her uncle whom she just
greeted.  It was only when her mother
arrived in Manila three days later that she disclosed the
whole truth to her.

Accompanied by her mother
and aunt, Laila was taken to the Camp Crame Laboratory on April 7, 1982 where she underwent medical examination.  The Medico-Legal Report, dated April
13, 1982, gave the
following findings:

“General and Extrageneral:

“Fairly developed,
fairly nourished and coherent female subject. 
Breasts are canonical with pale brown areola and nipples from which no
secretion could be pressed out.  Abdomen
is flat and tight.  There are no external
signs of recent application of any form of trauma.

“Genital:

“There is scanty
growth of pubic hair.  Labia majora are full, convex and captated
with the pale brown labia minora presenting in
between.  On separating the same are
disclosed a slightly congested vulvar mucosa and an elastic fleshy-type hymen with
shallow, healed lacerations at 4 and 8 o’clock. 
External vaginal orifice offers strong 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 with scanty amount of mucoid
secretion.  Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for gram-negative diplococci and for spermatozoa.

“Remarks:

“Subject is in non-virgin state physically.”
(Exhibit “C”).

On April
16, 1982, Laila executed a statement before the police reporting the
incident (Exhibit “B”).

On May 28,
1982, a Complaint
(Exhibit “A”) sworn to by Laila before the
Assistant City Fiscal, was filed in Court after a preliminary investigation
conducted by the latter the day before.

Upon arraignment, the
accused entered a plea of “not guilty”.

The defense put up by the
accused was one of denial and alibi, as follows:

“On April 3, 1982,
he was at the Philippine Heart Center of Quezon City,
because his wife was confined thereat for operation.  Due to the condition of his wife at the said
hospital, he did not leave from April 3, 4 and 5, 1982.  After his wife was operated on, Mario Alfonso
and his wife visited her sometime on April
12, 1982, and they were happy. 
During the time that the couple were in the hospital, they never
mentioned of the crime of rape.  On May 24, 1982, after lunch, he saw the
wife of Mario Alfonso and they even exchanged greetings.  Not long after, the mother of Laila arrived, with a person who showed a badge, and
invited him outside.  He identified
himself as a policeman and thence brought him to Precint
IV at Baler, Quezon City.  He asked the police why, and the policeman
told him to explain everything in the precint.  While in the precint,
he also asked the desk officer why, and he said he is being charged of
rape.  He answered that he never
committed any crime.  He also told the
mother of the minor that he did not have anything to do with his (sic)
daughter.  He gives the reason for Laila and her father in filing the case as his failure to
give money to Mario Alfonso when the latter was borrowing money from him to go
abroad.  When he did not give any, the said Mario Alfonso menacingly warned that he will
harass him.”^[2]

Maura Samin, a 51-year old widow, laundry woman, resident of Barrio Rosario, Santiago, Isabela,
corroborated the accused’s alibi by declaring:

“That the accused Renato Alfonso and
his wife were her neighbors; that in the last week of March and the first week
of April 1982, Renato Alfonso and his wife Teresita were in the hospital; that she was keeping watch
over her; that Renato’s schedule in watching over her
was 6 o’clock in the evening up to 1 o’clock in the morning; that on April 3,
1982, she watched over Teresita Alfonso from 1 o’clock at dawn to 6 o’clock in the morning;
that during that time Renato was sleeping in the sofa
at the hospital; that Renato never left the hospital
from 1 o’clock at dawn of April 3, to 6 o’clock in the morning of that
day.”^[3]

Teresita Alfonso, 38-year-old wife of
the accused, corroborated the latter’s presence in the hospital on the date and
around the hour of the incident, thus:

“That on April 3, 1982,
she was at the hospital; that she was going to have a heart operation; that her
husband Renato Alfonso did not leave her; that during
that time she was very sick and very weak x x x.”^[4]

After trial, the lower
Court* rendered a verdict of guilty, and decreed:

“Wherefore, after analyzing with care and circumspection, the
evidence adduced, the court finds, that the prosecution has established the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape, and therefore,
imposes, upon Renato Alfonso the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua, and to pay the costs.

“He is likewise ordered to indemnify the minor in the sum of
P20,000. by way of moral damages, plus the further sum of P10,000 as exemplary
damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

“SO ORDERED.”^[5]

In this appeal, the
accused attributes the following errors to the Trial Court:

I

“The Court a quo erred in finding that
the crime of rape as described by the complainant could have been committed in
a public place, like the Pantranco Terminal in Metro
Manila.

II

“The Court a quo erred in finding the
girl was frank in reporting the matter to her mother and the doctor, indicative
of the probability of the commission of the crime of rape.

III

“The Court a quo erred in holding that
the girl being from Santiago, Isabela would not
fabricate and state publicly that she was raped, if that were not the truth.

IV

“The Court a quo erred in holding that
the failure of the accused in lending money to Mario Alfonso, uncle of the
complainant, is not enough reason for the fabrication of the case even under
the circumstances that subsequently happened.

V

“The Court a quo erred in holding that
from the Heart Center
for Asia to the Pantranco
Terminal does not preclude the happening of the alleged incident complained of.

VI

“And the Court a quo erred in finding
that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.”

The assigned errors are
bereft of basis.

1. Laila was categorical about the
place where she was ravished at the Pantranco
terminal.  It was a dark place behind
parked buses which were to be cleaned.^[6]
It was not impossible for the crime to have been committed thereat, as alleged
by the defense, since the concurring circumstances of time – around 4:00 o’clock
in the morning, and place – when there was very little mobility in the area –
afforded adequate opportunity for the crime to have been committed.  That there were hardly any people around is
shown by the fact that although Laila shouted for
help before the accused gagged her, no one came to her rescue.^[7]

2. t is true that Laila did not report
the incident to her uncle upon her arrival at the latter’s home but did so only
to her mother three (3) days later.  The
three-day delay cannot affect her credibility.  It was perfectly natural for her to have had
qualms about revealing a humiliating episode in her life to her uncle, a man,
who was only collaterally related to her compared to her mother in whom she
could repose full trust and confidence and who could listen to her sad and
delicate plight with fuller understanding and deeper compassion.

3. In this third assigned error, the accused assails Laila’s credibility and insists that just because she hails
from Santiago, Isabela,
which is not a far-flung municipality but an urbanized community, is no
assurance that she is telling nothing but the truth.

Even assuming this to be
so for the sake of argument, it was not that factor alone which swayed the
judgment of the Trial Court.  It
found Laila’s testimony candid, straightforward and
convincing, free from any serious contradiction.  The cross-examination to which she was
subjected did not make her waver.  She
said all that was needed to signify that the crime had been committed.^[8] Besides, it is, in fact, unthinkable
that a 13-year old provincial lass would falsely impute the offense of rape
against one whom she had known as a relative, expose herself to the shame and
humiliation of a public trial, and to
an examination of her private parts at an age when she was just flowering
into womanhood, if her purpose were other than to bring before the bar of
justice the villain who had wronged her.

There may be some inconsistencies between her statement to the
police and her testimony in Court.  For
example, in her statement she stated that the accused removed his pants and
brief but on the witness chair she said that the accused merely pulled them
down.  These, however, refer to minor
matters and do not affect her overall credibility.  A witness
whose testimony is perfect in all aspects, without a flaw and remembering even
the minutest details which jibe beautifully with one another, lays herself open
to suspicion of having been coached or having memorized statements
earlier rehearsed.^[9]

4. The accused asserts that Laila was
motivated to file the complaint only because he had refused to lend money to
her uncle, Mario Alfonso.  The statement is unworthy of credence just as it is
logically unsound.  For one, it is not
borne out by the records.  For another, the
failure to lend money to an uncle has no connection at all with the indignity
committed on Laila’s person.  It is incredible that a 13-year old girl
would claim in public that she was the victim of sexual assault simply to
settle a score which an uncle, a collateral relative, has with the accused.

5. The only defense of the accused is that of alibi and
denial.  He claimed that he was at the
Philippine Heart Center for Asia ministering to his wife
who was confined thereat from March 15 to April 15, 1982.  For
the defense of alibi to succeed, however, an accused must establish physical
impossibility and improper motive of prosecution witnesses.^[10]
The accused has been unsuccessful in either. 
As Maura Samin, the other watcher at the
hospital, testified, on April 3, 1982,
the date of the incident, her “duty” was from 1:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M.,
during which time interval, the accused was sleeping on a sofa outside his
wife’s hospital room.^[11]
The accused himself admitted that he slept outside the room because starting at
1:00 o’clock A.M., visitors were no
longer allowed to go inside.  In other
words, the accused was not on watch on April
3, 1982 at around 4:00 A.M.  And since he slept outside the room, he could
have easily slipped out of the hospital at that time without Maura’s nor his
wife’s knowing about it.  For, as the
Trial Court had found, and in this it did not err, the distance between the
Philippine Heart Center and the Pantranco Terminal is
only short so that it was not physically impossible for the accused to have
been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.

More, a defense of alibi
cannot prosper where the accused has been positively identified as the
assailant, as in this case.^[12]

And as far as improper
motivation of prosecution witnesses is concerned, this has not been shown, but
on the contrary, as pointed out above, Laila and her
family could not have been impelled by any other motive except to seek redress
for the shame and dishonor brought on Laila and the
wrong done to all of them.

6.  In claiming that his
guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the accused would vary the
interpretation of the medico-legal report in that the finding of “strong
resistance of the vaginal orifice of the complainant to the insertion of the index
finger and the virgin-sized vaginal speculum” as well as the shallow
laceration of the hymen would negative rape. 
Again, this is without merit.  The
medical certificate clearly concluded “Subject is in non-virgin state,
physically” (Exhibit “C”). 
The doctor’s conclusion, therefore, that Laila
lost her virginity is an incontestable fact.^[13]
The medical finding of “resistance”, far from disproving rape, only
serves to show that Laila was a virgin at the time
she was abused.^[14]
And as to the finding of shallow laceration of the hymen, this neither
negatives rape for, as has been consistently held, the slightest penetration of
the labia consummates the crime of rape.^[15]
Of note also is the fact that medical examination was performed only four (4)
days after the incident, which could account for the shallowness of the
laceration.

Neither does the absence
of a finding in the medical certificate of physical injuries on Laila’s person negate the commission of Rape.  It will be remembered that considering the
petite size of the victim (5′ 1″ in height and 100 lbs. in weight), the
accused, whom the Trial Court described as “tall and bulky”, could
have easily overpowered her without much use of force.  It has also been held that absence in the
medical certificate of external signs of physical injuries and spermatozoa on
the victim does not negate the commission of rape.^[16] Besides, the medical examination is merely
corroborative^[17] and is not an indispensable element
in the prosecution of rape.^[18]

The fact that Laila’s panty and dress
were not presented in evidence cannot
militate against the finding of guilt of the accused.  As aptly held in People vs. Garcia,^[19] the non-presentation of the torn and
blood-stained dress and underwear of the complainant does not destroy the case
for the prosecution, there being sufficient and convincing evidence to prove
the rape charges beyond reasonable doubt. 
Those clothes are not essential, and need not be presented, as they are
not indispensable evidence to prove rape.^[20]

That Laila’s
testimony stands uncorroborated would neither tilt the scales in favor of the
accused.  There is ample jurisprudence
holding that “when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed provided her
testimony is clear and free from contradiction, and her sincerity and
candor, free from suspicion.^[21]
For, by the very nature of the crime of Rape, conviction or acquittal depends
almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony because of
the fact that usually only the participants can testify as to its occurrence.^[22]
In this case, like the Trial Court, we have found no reason to doubt Laila’s credibility. 
The evidence establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed.  Costs against
accused-appellant Renato Alfonso.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, (Chairman), Paras,
Padilla, and Sarmiento,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 2-5.

^[2]
Decision, pp. 4-5; Records, pp. 136-137.

^[3]
T.s.n., pp. 3-4, August 14, 1984.

^[4]
T.s.n., pp. 3-4,
7, August 24, 1985

* Presided by Judge Jose C. de
Guzman.

^[5]
Decision, pp. 10-11, Rollo, p. 59-60.

^[6]
T.s.n., pp. 10-14, September 15, 1982.

^[7]
T.s.n., p. 4, September
15, 1982.

^[8]
People vs. Soterol, L-53498, December 16, 1985, 140 SCRA 400.

^[9]
People vs. lbal, L-66010-12, July 31, 1986, 143 SCRA 318.

^[10]
People vs. Urgel, L-34851, February 25, 1985, 134 SCRA 483

^[11]
T.s.n., August
14, 1984, p. 60.

^[12]
People vs. Sambangan, L-44412, November 25, 1983, 125 SCRA 726.

^[13]
People vs. Gozun, L-66970, February 28, 1985, 135 SCRA 295.

^[14]
People vs. Felix, L-62281-82, July
16, 1984, 130 SCRA 456.

^[15]
People vs. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527 [1925]; People vs. Hernandez, 49
Phil. 980 [1925].

^[16]
People vs. Bawit, L-48116, February 20, 1981; People vs. Dadaeg, L-37798, July
15, 1985, 137 SCRA 500.

^[17]
People vs. Pielago, et al., L-42256, December 19, 1985, 140 SCRA 418;
People vs. Opena, L-34954, February 20, 1981, 102 SCRA 755.

^[18]
People vs. Pielago, et al, supra.

^[19]
L-45280-81, June 11, 1981,
105 SCRA 6.

^[20]
People vs. Budol, July 31, 1986, 143 SCRA 241.

^[21]
People vs. Ervas, May 11, 1984, 129 SCRA 200.

^[22]
People vs. Egot, June 29, 1984, 130 SCRA 134.