PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE DE GUIA Y SALES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision of the then Court of First Instance
of Manila (now Regional Trial Court), Branch XXIII, finding the accused Jose de
Guia y Sales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
felony of rape.

The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Jose de Guia
y Sales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged against him in the
information and hereby sentences him to reclusion perpetua,
together with the accessories
(sic) penalties, to indemnify the offended patty in the amount of P5,000.00,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to support the offspring, if any, and to pay the
cost.  He could not be sentenced to
acknowledge the offspring it any because he is a married man, according to his
civil status appearing in the booking sheet and arrest report marked Exhibit
“C”.

For purposes or Art.
27 of the Revised Penal Code, he shall be credited in the service of his
sentence with the full time of his preventive imprisonment having signed a
prisoner’s manifestation voluntarily agreeing to abide by the same disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners pursuant to Rep. Act No. 6127.

SO ORDERED.^[1]

Earlier, on November 3, 1977, the complainant, Ana Puyong, 16, single, a housemaid, and residing at 2488 Juan
Luna Street, Manila, filed a complaint under oath in the then Court of First
Instance of Manila (CFI) accusing Jose De Guia y
Sales, 34, married, laborer, and a resident
of Makati, of the
crime of rape, committed as follows:

That on or about November 1, 1977, the City of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused, conspiring and confederating with others whose true names,
identities and present whereabouts
are still unknown and helping one another, by means of force and violence, to
wit:  by then and there forcibly laying
one Ana Puyong y Mosquera
on the ground, covering her mouth to prevent her from shouting, holding both
her legs and taking off her pants and panty, did then and there wilfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
intercourse with the undersigned complainant against her will.

Contrary to law.^[2]

Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.^[3]

The facts as summarized by the trial court are as follows:

On November 1, 1977, at around 8:45 o’clock in the evening, Ana Puyong, the complainant in this case and her boy friend Nardy
Caliso were lying on the grass facing each other at
the Muni Golf Links, Intramuros,
Manila conversing.  All of a sudden, the
accused with three companions came upon them and pretending to be policemen
scared them, said accused uttering “you are here, we will arrest you and
bring you to the precinct.” Forthwith, the four started to undress her,
holding her and covering her mouth to prevent her from shouting.  The complainant was then wearing a T-Shirt,
pants and panty.  While doing this, Nardy Caliso ran away.  Thinking that he was going to call for a policeman, two of the malefactors chased
him, leaving behind the accused and another companion.  After removing her pants and panty, they laid
her on the ground, the accused putting himself on top of her after sliding down
the zipper of his pants and using his left hand to cover her mouth, while his
companion positioned himself behind him holding the legs of the complainant
that were drawn apart.  She cannot move
her hands because they were pinned under her body.  The accused was able to consummate the
dastardly act.  After he was through, he
left but the companion remained and wanted to take his turn.  The complainant fought him using her wooden
shoes to hit him and while undressing himself, she was able to grab her pants
and even it half-naked, ran away from him. 
Crying, she approached a cigarette vendor to seek his help and told him
her predicament.  Pointing to the accused
as her rapist, said cigarette vendor stopped him and required him to exhibit
his ID which he did.  The same cigarette
vendor then stopped a bicycle rider and asked him to call for a policeman.  Patrolman Telesforo
Villaluz, detailed at the Rizal
Park responded and brought the accused and the complainant to the Luneta Police Headquarter. 
Not falling within its jurisdiction as the offense did not take place at
Rizal Park, they were brought to the general
Assignment Section, Station 5 of the Manila Police Department and the case was
assigned to Pfc. Salvador Villena for
investigation.  Villena
confronted the complainant with the accused and she positively identified him
as the person who raped her.  Thereafter,
he took the statement of the complainant marked Exhibit “A”.  In said statement, she narrated the incident
substantially, the same as testified by her. 
In question No. 2 thereof, marked Exhibit “A-1”, she pointed
to the accused as the person against whom she was complaining.  When asked to give a statement and explain
his side, the accused refused and stoutly denied the charge.  When pointed to, however, by the complainant,
he made no comment or did anything to deny the imputation.

The complainant was medically and physically examined by Dr. Marcial Ceñedo, Medico-Legal
Officer of the Manila Police Department. 
He rendered his report marked as Exhibit “B” containing his
findings.  He opined that based on said
findings there is possibility of the alleged rape to have been committed on
November 1, 1977 at about 8:45 P.M.

The accused defended on total
denial.  His story as may be
culled from his testimony runs as follows: 
In the evening of November 1, 1977, at around 8:45, while on his way
home coming from the Quirino Grandstand, he was held
by a member of the Barangay.  Then the complainant approach (sic) him and
told him “Iyan ho, iyan
ho.” She did not say that he raped her. 
The Barangay member questioned him why he
molested his friend (referring to the complainant) and he required him to show
his ID which the accused did.  He
answered “paciencia na
lang kung sila ay nadistorbo co”. 
Prior to this, however, he claimed he passed by a woman and a man lying
under a tree and then they ran.  But he
did not notice that the woman was the complainant.  The companion of the Barangay
member called for a policeman while holding him and a policeman came.  Without asking why he was being held, said
policeman brought the accused and the complainant to the Luneta
Police Headquarters.  Nothing happened
there.  Then they were brought to the
police precinct where she complained of raping her.  He denied the charge and said he did not know
why, since he has not even met or knew her before.^[4]

On appeal, the accused-appellant assigns only one error:

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY AS CHARGED WITH RAPE.^[5]

In the appreciation of the evidence in a prosecution for the
crime of rape, we have been invariably guided by three well-known
principles:  (1)  that an accusation for rape can be made with
facility; it is difficult for the complainant
to prove it, and even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent,
to disprove it; (2) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of
rape where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost
caution; and (3) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or tall on
its own merits, and can not draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for
the defense.^[6]

The liberty or a man hangs critically in the balance, thus we
have painstakingly considered the stated standards in deciding the appeal
before us.

Prosecution witness Marcial Ceñido, Medico-Legal Officer, Western Police District,
Metropolitan Police Force. testified that on November 2, 1977, he conducted a physical examination of
Ana Puyong.^[7]
His medical report states:

Upon the request of pfc. Salvador B. Villena of the General Assignment Investigation Division,
WPD-MPF and the party presenting herself for examina­tion, subject ANA PUYONG Y
MOSQUIERA (sic), 16 years of age and residing at 2488 Juan Luna, Tondo, Manila was examined physically by the undersigned in
this office on November 2, 1977 at 10:30 a.m. with the following findings:

1) Breasts are hemispherical in shape,
fairly developed and with small brownish nipples and areolae;

2) Abdomen is firm, flat and without striae of pregnancy;

3) Hymen is distensible and with
indentation at 3 and 9 o’clock
positions and intact:

4) Presence of reddening and abrasions on
the mucosa of the labia minora on the posterior half;

5) Introitus
vagina admits one (1) examining finger with ease;

6) Vaginal wall is lax and with less prominent rugosities;

7) Vaginal smear taken was negative for
the presence of spermatozoa:  and

8) Last menstrual period – October 24, 1977 for 4 days.

O P I N I
O N:

The above findings would suggest the possibility of the alleged
rape to have been committed on her person on November 1, 1977 at about 8:45
p.m.^[8]

Despite the findings that the complainant’s hymen is intact and
distensible with indentation at 3 and 9 o’clock,
rape is not precluded.  Penetration of
the penis by entry into the lips of the female organ even without rupture or
laceration of the hymen suffices to warrant conviction for rape.^[9]
Likewise, the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina or thereabouts does not
negate the commission of rape because the important consideration in rape
is penetration and not emission.^[10]
In the case at bar, the medical findings affirm the actualization of the rape
charged and testified on by the victim and the other prosecution witnesses.

But the main thrust of the accused-appellant’s appeal is that he
had not been sufficiently identified as the rapist.  Aside from claiming that he did not know the
complainant and that the first
time he met her was only when he was arrested,^[11]
accused Jose de Guia also vehemently argues that it
was impossible for her to have recognized him as the malefactor because there
was no light in the vicinity where the crime was committed.

As the accused-appellant stated in his brief:

x x
x According to the complainant, on November 1, 1977, at around 8:45 o’clock in the evening when she and her
boy friend.  Nardy
Caliso, were lying
on the grass facing each other at the Mini-Golf Links, Intramuros, Manila,
there was no light.  (TSN July 19, 1978,
page 2).  In other words, it was dark in that area and
it is of common knowledge that because of that the place was being used by
sweethearts as “lovers’ nests,” as in other portions of Luneta.  On cross-examination, the complainant
testified as follows:

ATTY.
GENATO:

Q.     In that place of the incident, will you
please tell us whether there was any light in the vicinity?

A.      None Sir.

(TSN page 2, hearing of July 19, 1978)

It is clear that the
place was dark.  How then could she
identify the author of the alleged crime. 
How then could she pinpoint the responsibility on the accused in this case. 
The complainant never knew the accused.”^[12]

The complainant admitted there was no electric light which directly illuminated the spot where she
was sexually abused, but that does not suggest that there was total darkness in
the area, preventing her from identifying her assailants.  In tact she could still see some people who
were far from them.^[13]

Complainant Ana Puyong positively
identified the accused-appellant and described clearly the physical features of
his confederates.  The four men did not
conceal their identities with masks or the like when they announced to the
lovers:  “You are here.  We will arrest you and bring you to the precinct.”^[14] In spite of the physical superiority of Ana Puyong‘s male assailants and the fact that she was
outnumbered, she bravely put up a
fierce fight and was able to hit
one of the men with her wooden shoes.^[15] It was during this struggle that she
was able to recognize the faces of the four men, their
physical built, and the clothes they wore. 
Indeed the complainant was able to describe and identify to the police
and later to the trial judge with specificity the accused-appellant as wearing a polo shirt with multi-colored
flower prints and a zipper in front, black pants, and a pair of shoes.^[16] As regards the appellant’s three companions,
Ana testified:

16.  T – Maari mo bang ibigay sa amin
iyong description noong lalake na tinakpan
ang iyong bunganga?

S – Siguro 5’1” and taas, 21 taong gulang, brown complexion,
regular built.

17.  T – Maari mo bang ibigay sa amin iyong description noong dalawang tao na naghubad
ng pantalon mo at panty?

S – lyong isa ay siguro
5’3″ tall. 23 taon gulang, brown complexion, regular built.^[17]

Moreover, it would not be difficult for the complainant to
recognize the accused-appellant because the rape itself lasted fifteen minutes.^[18]
Such a relatively long period was sufficient time for the complainant to get a
good look at her violator.  It was therefore easy for her to recognize and positively
identify the accused-appellant De Guia during the trial as
the one who sexually abused her. 
Even earlier, when she was narrating her sexual abuse to the cigarette
vendor, she immediately noticed the appellant and instantaneously pointed to
him as the culprit.  The facility by
which she identified De Guia as the one who raped her
even while she was running away from
the threat of a second assault and although she was half-naked convinces the Court that she indeed recognized the accused as
the one who raped her.  As earlier adverted to, she fortified this recognition with her statement
to I the police authorities to whom she complained with promptitude and culminating in her positive
identification before the trial court of the accused-appellant as the one who raped
her.

We agree with the trial court’s finding that the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of the complainant, deserve more
credence than the denial of the
accused-appellant.  The accused in a rape
case may be convicted based on the sole testimony of the offended party, we
have ruled time and again. 
The trial court is in the best position to assess the demeanor of the
witnesses and such an assessment is entitled to the highest respect by the
Court.^[19] Well-settled is the rule that where the
issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court will generally
not disturb the findings of the trial court unless certain facts of substance
and value have plainly been overlooked and if considered might affect the
result of the case.^[20] None has been shown here.

We agree that there are some inconsistencies in the testimony of
the complainant on the witness stand as well as in her written statement before
the police constituting Exhibit A.  Be that as it may, we consider such
inconsistencies as minor and do not detract from the credibility of the
complainant on the material points of her accusation.  We believe her as the trial court
did.  Hence, we find that the evidence on record, which we examined painstakingly,
constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused-appellant
of the crime charged.

We must add a little postscript to this ugly interlude.

The romances of chivalry have died long ago along with the vanishment of the knights in shining armor.  But one does not have to be a knight to be
gallant.  Truly we are dismayed by the lack of
gallantry of Nardy Caliso.  He abandoned his loved one leaving her alone
in the clutches of the rogues.  Instead or defending with all his might his damsel in distress,
he fled in cowardice.  Not only that, the
cad that he was never appeared to testify in court.  Verily, he does not deserve the love of his
own inamorata.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court a is AFFIRMED with the modification
that the accused is ordered to indemnify the complainant in the sum of P20,000.00.  Costs against
the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Decision rendered by Judge Jaime R. Agloro (later
Justice of the Court of Appeals), Crim. Case No.
34684, promulgated on December 20,
1978, 5-6; rollo, 45-46.

^[2]
Criminal complaint sworn to by complainant before Manila Assistant Fiscal
Victoria T. Asis; Original Record, 1.

^[3]
Original Record, 3.

^[4]
Decision of Judge Jaime R. Agloro, 1-3; rollo, 3-5.

^[5]
Brief for the Accused-Appellant, 1; rollo, 28.

^[6]
People vs. Quintal, No. L-49656, November 25, 1983, 125 SCRA 734.

^[7]
T.s.n., May
29, 1978, 2.

^[8]
Folder or Original Exhibits,
Exhibit “B”.

^[9]
People vs. Abonada,
G.R. No. 50041, January 27, 1989, citing People vs. Tabago,
No. 69778, November 8, 1988, 167 SCRA 65; People vs. Estrebella,
No. 71464, August 4, 1988, 164 SCRA 114.

^[10]
People vs. Abonada, supra.

^[11]
T.s.n., Sept. 29, 1978, 8.

^[12]
Brief for the Accused-Appellant, 3-4:  rollo, 30-31.

^[13]
T.s.n., July
19, 1978, 2.

^[14]
Tsn., March
30, 1978, 4.

^[15]
Rollo, 41-42.

^[16]
T.s.n., July
19, 1978, 13-14.

^[17]
Folder of Original Exhibits, Exhibit “A”.

^[18]
T.s.n., March
30, 1978, 11.

^[19]
People vs. Almenario, G. R. No. 66420.  April
17, 1989.

^[20]
People v. Abonada, supra.