THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. POLICARPO CAMPESINO, EFREN MORENO, AND FEDERICO VISTAR, ACCUSED, FEDERICO VISTAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Bohol at Tagbilaran (now Regional Trial Court) finding appellant
Federico Vistar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and
sen­tencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party the sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay one-third of the costs.

In a criminal information filed by the 3rd Assistant City Fiscal of the
City of Tagbilaran upon the criminal complaint filed by the offended
party, Ebelia Dopiño, dated April 1, 1975, appellant together with
Policarpo Campesino and Efren Moreno were charged with the crime of rape
as follows:

“That, on or about the 6th day of March, 1975, in the City of
Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and
mutually helping one another, with the used of force and by intimedation
and personal violence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have sexual intercourse with one Ebelia Dopina against her
will, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the amount to be
proved during the trial of the case.”

Since two of his co-accused were at large at the time of the trial and
up to the present, only accused-appellant Federico Vistar was brought to
trial. When arraigned on July 26, 1976, he entered a plea of not
guilty. After due hearing, the trial court rendered the above-mentioned
decision, convicting Federico Vistar for the crime of rape.

The prosecution’s evidence which the lower court relied upon to make its
finding of guilt beyond reason­able doubt is narrated in the People’s
Brief, as follows:

“On the morning of March 6, 1975 at Tagbilaran City, Evilia
boarded the M/V Sweet Hope, an inter-island vessel plying the
Tagbilaran-Cebu sea route. The boat was scheduled to leave at 10:00
o’clock that same morning. Since the time was too short for Evilia to
see her brother, a worker in another boat, the M/V Sweet Home, she
decided to go down and went to the ‘Lolly B’ store located at the wharf
(pp. 4-5, tsn, Aug. 31, 1976).

While Evilia was sitting at said store, she met a certain Yaning
de la Cruz who was passing by. Evilia asked for her destination and
Yaning answered she was fetching water. As Evilia wanted to relieve
herself, she walked with Yaning and went up the M/V Sweet Town, another
vessel making trips between Cebu and Tagbilaran, while Yaning proceeded
to fetch water. Two men, namely: Poli­carpio Campesino and herein
appellant, followed her. When she came out of the comfort room,
Campesino and appellant asked her if she was the younger sister of
Verano, their co-worker at the M/V Sweet Home. She replied in the
affir­mative. They then invited her to take lunch as it was already
noontime. She just refused the offer, afraid and apprehensive, but was
prevailed upon to accept it on their assurance that they would pay for
the lunch and that they were truly friends of her brother (pp. 5-8,
29-30, id.).

Evilia dined in a cabin or ‘camarote’ of the M/V Sweet Town. There
Campesino and appellant led her. After she had her lunch, a third man,
Efren Moreno, joined them in the cabin which Campesino then closed.
Fear came to Evilia. She wanted to run but they held her and forced her
to lie on a cot. Campesino removed her dress while appellant and
Moreno took off her panties. Then Campesino placed himself on top of
her, covering her mouth with his right hand, and inserted his penis into
her vagina until something warm came out of it. During the sexual act,
appellant and Moreno held her thighs. Next to ravish her was appellant
who likewise gagged her mouth with his hand, while Campesino and Moreno
were holding her. Moreno took his turn, sexually assaulting her with
the aid of his two companions (pp. 9-14, 31-33, id.). Evilia could not
shout, much as she wanted to, since her mouth was ‘chocked’ by them
(id.).

After satisfying their carnal lust, the trio went out of the cabin
leaving their dizzy, naked victim lying on the cot. Evilia remained
lying until about 2:00 o’clock p.m. when she felt better, her dizziness
having disappeared. She wore her panties which was left on her right
lap, already torn and smeared with her own blood (Exh. A) and put on
another dress she got from her luggage. She did not bother to pick up
from under the cot the dress she wore earlier placed there by her
tormentors (pp. 14-16, 28-29, 37-38, id).

Once out of the cabin Evilia pro­ceeded to the passengers’
quarters where few passengers were already boarding. She lay on bed,
crying and emotionally shaken. She did not tell anybody of her fate.
Nor did she disembark to report the matter to the police as she was
alone, fearful of reprisal. She remained lying until the boat hoisted
anchor for Cebu at midnight (pp. 16-17, 34-36, id.).

The boat arrived Cebu early the following morning. Evilia did not
go down yet, but waited for the M/V Sweet Faith to arrive, where
another brother was working. She met her brother when the M/V Sweet
Faith docked at the pier. But she did not tell him of her tribu­lation
due to fear (pp. 17-18, 36-37, id.).

The first person to whom she con­fided her grief was her mother
who fetched her in Cebu. Upon the advice of her mother, she submitted
herself to a medical examination at the Bohol Provincial Hos­pital on
March 16, 1975. Dr. Violeta A. Patos, the examining physician, issued
the following day a medical certificate which indicates laceration in
Evilia’s vagina and abrasions on her left cheek (Exh. C, p. 2, Folder of
Exhibits). Evilia was also investigated by the PC, the result of which
is embodied in the sworn statement she executed on March 17, 1975 (Exh.
B or Exh. 1, p. 1, id.).” [pp. 18-21, 37, 41-50, tsn, Aug. 31, 1976]

In this appeal, the accused-appellant raises the following assignment of errors:

1. The trial court gravely erred in convicting appellant of the
crime of rape upon complainant’s sole testimony, which is of very
doubtful veracity;

2. The trial court also gravely erred in discrediting entirely the plausible evidence for the defense; and

3. The trial court finally erred in not acquitting appellant, at least, on reasonable doubt of his guilt.

After a careful evaluation of the pieces of evidence presented by both parties, We affirm the holding of the trial court.

Accused-appellant strongly denies his involvement to the crime charged.
He claims that he, being the messboy of M/V Sweet Town, was at the mess
hall serving lunch to the officers of the said ship since his midday
duty was from 11:30 A.M, to 1:00 o’clock P.M.^[1]
He then advances the theory that the offended party merely fabricated
this offense. To substantiate his claim, he argues that: (1) The
offended party was not at the M/V Sweet Town on March 6, 1975 since her
name was not listed in the passengers’ manifest on that day (Exhibit 4).
It was, therefore, improbable for her to be raped therein. Besides,
no incident of rape was reported in the logbook of the said ship on the
aforecited date (Exhibit 3); (2) There were marked inconsistencies on
what she dec­lared in her affidavit (Exhibit 1) as contrasted in her
testimonies on the witness stand (Exhibits 1-A to 1-A-2); (3) If ever
she was raped on March 6, 1975, why did she not report the crime
immediately to the captain of the ship, to the police or to her brother
whom she met the following day? She only informed her mother about her
heinous experience a week after she was abused;^[2]
and (4) The panty (Exh. A) which the offended party wore at the
commission of the offense was presented only for the first time on
August 31, 1976, or about 17 months after the said offense was
committed. Being a simple country girl, the offended party could not
have thought of keeping the same for evidentiary purposes. For this
reason, accused-appellant submits that the said panty was fabri­cated
for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the offended party.

Since the offended party was able to positively identify the accused
including those who abused her as the sexual assault was committed at
12:00 o’clock noon, We rule that the positive identification made by the
former on the accused-appellant as one of those who raped her prevails
over the defense of alibi set up by the latter especially that the
accused-appellant himself admitted that he was at M/V Sweet Town when
the said crime was committed.^[3]
We find the arguments advanced by the accused-appellant, in his
attempt to convince Us that the offended party merely fabricated this
offense, to be without legal merit because: (1) the presumption that an
official duty has been regularly performed is only a disputable
presumption (Sec. 5 (m) Rule 131, Rules of Court). The offended party
has disputed this presumption by having shown that the officers of M/V
Sweet Town failed to register her in the passengers’ manifest despite
her presence therein. The reason why this crime was not listed in the
logbook of the said ship was due to the failure of the offended party
and the accused, who were the only witnesses to the commission of herein
offense, to report it; (2) the inconsistencies in the declarations of
the offended party in her affidavit as compared to her testimonies on
the witness stand do not affect her credibility since they refer to
minor details only (People vs. Bawit, 102 SCRA 797; People vs. de
Gracia, L-21419, Sept. 29, 1966) Such as who was with her when she went
aboard the M/V Sweet Town, who invited her to the cabin, and whether or
not accused Policarpo Campesino was naked when he inserted his penis
into her vagina. On the important and decisive details, she was
consistent in all the statements she made such as she was forced to lie
down on the cot^[4] and was undressed.^[5] Thereafter, the accused took turns in abusing her while they continuously held her thighs^[6] and choked her mouth;^[7]
(3) The offended party did not report the incident to anybody but
waited instead for her mother because a victim of the crime of rape
would like to report the offense done to her to someone of her fullest
confidence and who could look at her plight with sym­pathy and
understanding (People vs. Terrobias, 103 SCRA 321); and (4) The panty
which the offended party wore at the time of the commission of the
offense was pre­sented as an evidence at the request of the fiscal.^[8]
As an officer sworn to uphold the truth, We are not persuaded to
believe that he (the Fiscal) will go to the extent of fabricating pieces
of evidence for the sake of sending the accused to prison. One of the
na­tural reactions of the victim of this heinous crime is to keep the
dress and panty she was wearing at the time she was raped.^[9]

On the other hand, this Court in a long line of cases has held that a
16-year old country girl who barely finished the elementary grades^[10]
will not maliciously impute that she has been raped because: (1) she
does not want herself to be the subject of public ridicule, shame and
dishonor; (2) she will not allow somebody to conduct an examination on
her private parts; and (3) she does not want to go through with the
troubles and humi­liation of a trial (People vs. Selfaison, 1 SCRA 235;
People vs. Baylon, 57 SCRA 115; People vs. Savellano, 57 SCRA 320;
People vs. Olmedillo, 116 SCRA 173; People vs. Manzano, 118 SCRA 705).
With her low education, the offended party would never have thought of
sending a man to prison if not for her desire to bring to justice the
person(s) who had grievously wronged her (People vs. Savellano, supra;
People vs. Francisquite, 56 SCRA 764). This gains strength as the
defense failed to cite any reason why the offended party would fabricate
a story of rape upon herself and impute it to persons who were
strangers to her.^[11] (People
vs. Aleman, 102 SCRA 765; People vs. Boado, 103 SCRA 607). Moreover,
the findings of the trial judge that the victim while testifying showed
no signs of insincerity or falsehood in her actions, manners, and
behavior (People vs. Felipe, 115 SCRA 89; People vs. Reglos, 118 SCRA
344; People vs. Syquioco, 118 SCRA 413), are entitled to full faith and
credit with Us.

The medical officer who conducted a medical examination on the offended
party 11 days after the commission of the offense testified^[12]
that it is probable that the complainant had previous sexual
intercourse because her hymen has been perforated or lacerated and that
the perforation or laceration could have occurred a few weeks or perhaps
a month before the offended party was subjected to medical examination.^[13]
The medical officer further testified that at the time she examined
the offended party, the latter had linear abrasions in her face, near
the mouth which were possibly a week or more old at the time of said
medical examination.^[14] The
offended party testified during her cross-examination that she sustained
the linear abrasions as a result of the continuous choking of her mouth
by the accused while they were abusing her.^[15]
There is a reasonable and sig­nificant proximity of the time when the
offended party suffered a hymenal laceration and her incurring of
abrasions in her face to the time of the commission of herein offense.
Without doubt the testimony of the medical officer further strengthened
the credibility of the offended party.

Based from the foregoing, We hold that accused-appellant is guilty of
having committed the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt. We agree,
however, with the Solicitor General that the accused-appellant, having
committed three crimes of rape in conspiracy and complicity as well as
direct participation in the commission of the two rapes perpetrated by
the other two accused who remain at large, should be sentenced to three
(3) separate penalties of reclusion perpetua. (People vs.
Reglos, 118 SCRA 344; People vs. Vizcarra, 115 SCRA 743; People vs.
Bohos, 98 SCRA 353; People vs. Babasa, 97 SCRA 673; People. vs. Jose, 37
SCRA 450).

WHEREFORE, the decision under review is hereby MODIFIED in the sense
that the accused-appellant Federico Vistar is sentenced to suffer three
(3) separate penalties of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party for moral damages in the increased amount of P30,000.00, and to pay one-third of the costs.
SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Escolin, and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] t.s.n., November 3, 1976, p. 91.

^[2] t.s.n., August 31, 1976, p. 18.

^[3] It is a well-settled
doctrine that for alibi to be acceptable, it must be shown that the
place where the accused was alleged to when the offense was committed
must be located at such a distance that it is well nigh impossible for
him to be at the scene of the crime (People vs. Tirol, 102 SCRA 558.
See also People vs. Alcantara, 126 SCRA 425).

^[4] t.s.n., Aug. 31, 1976, p. 9.

^[5] Ibid., p. 11.

^[6] Ibid., p. 10.

^[7] Ibid., p. 45.

^[8] Ibid., p. 27.

^[9] The other is to know the identity of the assailants. (People vs. Selfaison, supra; People vs. Orteza, 6 SCRA 109)

^[10] t.s.n., Aug. 31, 1976, p. 4.

^[11] The offended party
stated that the first time she met the accused-appellant was on March 5,
1976 when the latter with two others raped her, while the
accused-appellant claimed that the first time he saw the offended party
was when he was invited at the PC headquarters in Tagbilaran in
connection with the complaint filed by the latter.

^[12] A physician in a rape
case is presented not to prove that the victim was raped but to show
only that the latter had lost her virginity (People vs. Opena, 102 SCRA
755).

^[13] t.s.n., Aug. 31, 1976, p. 50.

^[14] Ibid., p. 45.

^[15] Ibid., p. 32.