THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CLEMENTE GANADO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is a case of rape. The Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch I, convicted the
accused Clemente Ganado in Criminal Case No. 23 and sentenced him “to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, with the accessories of the law, to
indemnify the offended party in the amount of P5,000.00 for moral damages,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the
costs.”

The testimony on which the finding of guilt was based did show
that about 9:00 in the evening of December 10, 1969, Concordia Estabillo, 27
years old, was lying down on the floor of their house at Barrio Wacal, Solano,
Nueva Vizcaya, together with her three children, namely: Fernando, 7 years old; Antonio, 4 years old;
and Paulino, Jr., 2 years old; and her 12-year old sister-in-law, Lolita
Estabillo. Complainant’s husband was
away, having gone to harvest palay in Isabela since November 12, 1969.

That evening, December 10, 1969, the accused Clemente Ganado
entered the house of the complainant who was able to recognize him by the light
of a kerosene lamp, about two yards away from her. This light, the accused put off and, immediately thereafter, he
held and went on top of the complainant who was then lying flat on her back,
very much frightened. The accused used
his right hand in holding a scythe pointed at her breast while his left hand
embraced and held her neck. The complainant
resisted and took hold of the scythe pointed at her breast and this injured her
finger. Her blouse and panties were
torn as they were kicked downward by the accused who succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her.

After the accused had left, complainant began shouting for help
from her neighbors and when no one came she went to Julita dela Cruz whose
house was some seven meters away.

The testimony of Concordia Estabillo was corroborated by her
sister-in-law, the twelve-year old Lolita Estabillo. She saw the accused grab, embrace and go on top of the
complainant. She saw the face of the
accused by the light of the kerosene lamp which was about three yards
away. She knew the accused, he being a
neighbor. She could not shout for help
when the accused and complainant were struggling, because she was afraid. The children were awakened by the struggle
and all were crying.

The next day, December 11, 1969, about 7:00 in the morning, the
complainant went to report the matter to the Barrio Captain who, however, was
not at home. She then went to her uncle
Esperidion Duro who accompanied her to the police at Solano town proper.

She was investigated and after she had signed the complaint, she
was medically examined at the Provincial Hospital at Bayombong by Dr. Gaudencio
Acosta.

The prosecution also presented Julita dela Cruz who testified
that about past nine o’clock in the evening of December 10, 1969 she heard the
complainant’s shouts while one of the children screamed for help. Moments later, the complainant and her
children arrived at her (Julita’s) house, afraid and scared. Concordia narrated to her that Clemente
Ganado went up their house and abused her.

The medical certificate issued by Dr. Acosta enumerated his
findings on the complainant, as follows:

“Physical Injuries:

1.  INCISED
WOUND, involving skin, right forefingers.

2.  PUNCTURED
WOUND, mid-sternum between the mammary region.

Vaginal smear – Negative for spermatozoa

“Conclusion:

1.  Physical
injuries were noted on the person of Concordia Estabillo.

2.  Under normal condition and with­out subsequent
complication and or deeper involvement but not clinically apparent at the time
of examination the described physical injuries will require medical attendance
not more than 9 days.”

The defense is alibi. Accused-appellant Ganado alleged that at the time of the incident in
question he was in Barrio Aggub, Solano, attending the wake of his
mother-in-law, who died on December 10, 1969. He left his residence at Bo. Wacal in the morning of December 8,
together with his wife and children. It
was only on December 13, 1969 when he returned to Wacal to get some papayas to
serve as food for the people who were attending the vigil of his
mother-in-law. On the way he was
arrested in connection with the case at bar.

Rodolfo Dumalanta and Remedios Parucha testified that the accused
and his wife, Flocerfida Doles, were in the house of Anunciacion Antolin in Bo.
Aggub, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya because the latter was very sick, as in fact she
died on December 10, 1969; that they saw the accused in that house every
evening from December 8 to December 12, 1969.

The defense also presented one Rosalina Valdez who declared that
she was at the house of Julita dela Cruz that night of December 10, 1969 when
Concordia Estabillo arrived. Concordia
was complaining that a man she was not able to recognize because there was no
light went up their house; that when the man went near her she shouted and this
made him jump out of the window; that her companions in the house did not see
the man because they were all asleep.

Ganado contends that   the trial court erred: (1) in not finding absence of violence
and resistance; (2) in refusing to take cognizance of the serious and vital
contradictions of the prosecution witnesses, namely, the complainant and her
sister-in-law, as well as the inherent improbability and physical impossibility
of how the crime was committed; (3) in refusing to appreciate the insufficiency
of evidence with respect to the identity of the accused; and, (5) in not
acquitting the defendant-appellant.

The medical certificate,
Exhibit D, shows the injuries sustained by the complainant, to wit: (1) incised wound in the right forefingers;
and, (2) punctured wound between the breast. Dr. Acosta testified that both wounds could have been produced by a
scythe. This unbiased evidence from the
doctor corroborates the testimonies of the complainant and her twelve-year old
sister-in-law as to how the accused, armed with a scythe, grabbed the
complainant and abused her after a struggle. The brute force employed by the accused upon the hapless complainant
before raping her and against her will could be no other than violence. In the case of People vs. Eguac, 80 SCRA
665, this Court held that “in order to consider the existence of the crime
of rape it is not necessary that the force employed in accomplishing it to be
so great or of such character as could not be resisted; it is only necessary
that the force used by the guilty party be sufficient to consummate the purpose
which he had in view.” In the case at bar, it is quite obvious that the
complainant was subjected to physical force.

With respect to the alleged inconsistency in the testimonies of
the complainant and her sister-in-law, suffice it to say that discrepancies in
the testimonies of witnesses, which refer to minor details and are not of
sufficient magnitude as to denote a deliberate intent to utter falsehoods, show
that there had been no coaching. It is
natural that two or more persons witnessing the same occurrence are likely to
disagree in the narration of events. Inconsistency in the testimonies of wit­nesses, if only in minor
details, reinforces rather than weakens their credibility, for it is usual that
witnesses to a stirring event would see differently some details of a startling
occurrence (People vs. Garcia, 18 SCRA 197).

And, contrary to appellant’s contention, We find no contradiction
in complainant’s testimony that he made a “discharge” inside her
vagina and the doctor’s testimony that he found no spermatozoa in her vaginal
canal. Complainant was medically
examined the following day and it is possible that she washed her private parts
sometime after the incident and before the examination if only to avoid
pregnancy. At any rate, the absence of
male spermatozoa is not incompatible with the con­summation of the crime of rape. The absence of spermatozoa does not disprove
the consummation of rape, the important consideration being not the emission of
semen but penetration (People vs. Jose, 37 SCRA 450). In the consummation of the crime of rape neither perfect
penetration nor rupture of the hymen are essential (People vs. Oscar, 48 Phil.
527).

Likewise, there is no merit in the contention that complainant
was not able to identify the accused. There was light coming from the kerosene lamp and, aside from the fact
that they were neighbors, it is a natural reaction of victims of criminal
violence to strive to know the identity of their assailants. The manner in which the crime was committed
creates a lasting impres­sion which cannot easily be erased in their memories
(People vs. Selfaison, 1 SCRA 235). On
this point, the trial court found herein appellant to have been positively
recognized by the complainant and her twelve-year old sister-in-law. Quoting from the decision of People vs.
Villamala, 78 SCRA 145, this Court held that “on the question of the
credence to which the conflicting ver­sions of the prosecution and defense are
entitled, the answer given by the trial court is generally viewed as correct
and thus entitled to the highest respect.” Besides, it has not been shown
that complainant, a barriomate of the accused, had evil motive to charge him of
the grave crime of rape. It is hard to
believe that a woman from the barrio, married and with children, would publicly
admit that she had been criminally abused, unless that is the truth.

On the other hand, the defense of alibi cannot be sustained in
the face of positive identification of the accused. Assuming that as early as December 8, 1969 appellant and his
family went to stay in the house of his mother-in-law in Barrio Aggub which is
about seven kilo­meters from Barrio Wacal, he could have gone easily to Wacal
in the evening of December 8 and then returned immediately to Aggub. It is not enough to prove that the accused
was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but he must demonstrate that
it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at
the time it was committed (People vs. Cortez, et al. 57 SCRA 308).

The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is
in accordance with Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

WHEREFORE, the lower court’s judgment is affirmed with
costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., no part.

Makasiar, J., on leave.