THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILFREDO LISONDRA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I, at General Santos City, dated January 7,
1977, convicting Wilfredo Lisondra of the crime of rape, sentencing him
“to RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify Janilyn Diosana and her parents,
Gabriel Diosana and Lucrecia Diosana, in the sum of P12,000.00,
as actual, moral and exemplary damages, and to pay the costs.”

The People’s brief quoted the lower court’s finding of facts as
follows:

“Janilyn Diosana, 8 years old, born to spouses Gabriel Diosana
and Lucrecia Diosana on April 13, 1968 at Basak, Pardo, Cebu City and formerly
a pupil of West Elementary School of General Santos City, is the victim.

“Wilfredo Lisondra, 23 years old, single, a parolee (having
been convincted by this Court of Qualified Seduction and Consented Abduction in
a final judgment dated June 10, 1974 in Criminal Cases Nos. 660 and 661
where Maria Fe Arcito, 12 years old, was the victim), is the indictee.

“At about 4:00 o’clock
in the afternoon of January 26, 1976,
Janilyn, with her younger brother, Danilo, and friends, Juddy and Cecilia, was
gathering star apples in the backyard of Our Lady of Peace and Good
Voyage Church
at Dadiangas, General Santos
City.  Her parents were then residing at the Parish
Center near the church as workers
thereof.  While doing so, a man about
‘four feet and 11 inches in height, regular built, crusty hair, with brown complexion,
round face, using sandals, wearing a checkered red shirt with long sleeves and
a dirty maong pants, and about 25 to 26 years old, watched them and asked for a
star apple.  Then, with the use of a
bamboo stick, he himself tried to gather star apples.  When they heard the church bell ring, the
children ran towards the church on its western side, where they ate the star
apples, when that man came, telling them not to throw the peelings around as it
was tiresome to clean.  Few minutes
later, Janilyn was called by her mother and was given P5.00 to buy rice at a
nearby store.  Before she could comply
with that errand, the man called her, gave her P0.15 to buy Champion cigarettes,
who obliged by going to the store at the Parish
Center, tended by Marlyn
Molina.  It was that man who received the
two sticks of cigarettes from Marlyn. 
The man convinced Janilyn to go with him towards the back of the church
because a sister of the church will give her a dress.  She went with him to the back of the church,
passing thru the door at the right side of the church, entering the same,
crossing it from one side to the other door, passing by the Our Lady of Peace
Center at the back, then, taking the route along Nuestra Sr. de la Paz,
Naranjita, Laurel, and Champaca Streets, and further walking along National
Highway.  She complained that they were
going far and reminded him of the dress promised to be given her as well as the
errand of her mother to buy rice, but was told to keep quiet.  They entered the Marin Compound, followed a
trail until they reached the house of Rogelia Asero, where the man asked
Rogelia if they have a carabao and when answered none, they went back to the National
Highway. 
They turned left towards Dadiangas
Heights and before reaching the
Elma Grape Farm, they turned left follow­ing a road of the Stanfilco.  After negotiating a distance of 50 meters, he
asked her to follow him as he was defecating. 
After passing thru a small trail on the right, crossing the canal, and
five meters from the road, they reached a ‘camachile’ tree.  It was under that tree where he undressed her
and removed her pantie, followed by his removing his pants and underwear.  When both of them were already naked, she was
made to lie down on the ground face up, after which he spat on her private part
and inserted his penis into it as he was on top of her.  She felt the pain in her vagina and after the
sexual assault was consumated, blood oozed therefrom.  Thereafter, her abuser stood up, put on his
pants and told her to wait because he will get a tricycle.  Her attacker, however, never returned; thus,
she stood up, put on her dress (her underwear could not be found then) and ran
home until she reached the Iglesia ni Kristo
Church at Dadiangas (Exh.
“C”).  Meeting a woman, she
asked the way towards the Catholic Church, and she was directed to pass by the
plaza.  In the public plaza in front of the
City Jail, she felt blood oozing from her vagina.  So, she looked for a piece of paper and wiped
her legs.  From the plaza, she crossed
the road and upon reaching the Parish
Center, she leaned on its wall as
she was already very weak.  It was at
this time when her mother, Lucrecia Diosana, who has been looking for her since
4:30 in the afternoon, found her and
asked her what happened.  After answering
her that she was abused by a man, she became unconscious.  She was brought immediately to the General Santos
City Doctor’s Hospital in a tricycle by Salvador Gonzales, where she was
attended by Dr. Venancio Yap who submitted the following findings:  ‘Laceration deep into vagina and cervix.’ She
was confined in the Doctor’s Hospital from January 26 up to February 2, 1976 (Exh. “B”);
see also Exh. “6” where the same doctor had the following
findings:  ‘Blood clots coming out from
vagina, lacerated wounds wall of vagina right half down to a cervix (irregular
and stellate shape) and right fourchet’. 
(pp. 1-4, Decision)” (Brief, 3-7.)

On February 24, 1976,
Wilfredo Lisondra was charged before the Court of First Instance of South
Cotabato of the crime of rape in a criminal complaint signed by Janilyn
Diosana, assisted by her mother Lucrecia Diosana.  The complaint states:

“That sometime between 5:00 and 7:00 o’clock in the evening of
January 26, 1976 at Stanfilco Banana Plantation, City of General Santos,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have sexual intercourse with the undersigned, a minor seven years of age,
against her will and without her consent.

“CONTRARY TO LAW with aggravating circums­tance in that the
accused is a recidivist having been previously convicted by final judgment of
the crime of Abduction with consent and Simple Seduction.”

Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.  After trial he was convicted and sentenced as
above stated.  In his appeal he claims
that the lower court committed the following errors:

“I

IN NOT HOLDING APPELLANT’S ACTS AFTER THE
INCIDENT INDICATIVE OF HIS INNOCENCE OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

“II

IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE APPELLANT AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE
CRIME CHARGED.

“III

IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE WITNESSES WHO SAW THE MAN ON THE DAY OF THE
INCIDENT ARE BIASED OR PREDISPOSED TO CONNECT APPELLANT WITH THE CRIME CHARGE,
THEY HAVING BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE ACTS OF THE CHURCHMEN UNDER WHOM THEY SERVED
OR ARE RELATED.

“IV

IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE TESTIMONIES OF PATROLMAN
PATAYAN AS WELL AS THE OTHER PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARE INCREDIBLE.”

It is claimed that the appellant’s acts subsequent to the rape
indicate that he did not commit it.  It
is claimed that barely nine days after the crime was committed in General Santos
City on January 26, 1976,
he, as a parolee, duly reported to his parole officer, Executive Judge Emigdio
H. Lopez of the City Court of General Santos on February 6, 1976. 
Likewise, on February 11, 1976,
he gave statements to the police of General
Santos City
and signed the statements before City Fiscal Franklin Gacal.  And he claims to have remained in Katangawan,
General Santos
City, until his arrest on February 21, 1976.  From the foregoing, it is argued that if he
were indeed guilty of the crime, he would have fled from General
Santos City
and would not have reported to the judge, the police and the fiscal of said
city.

The foregoing circumstances do not necessarily prove the
appellant’s innocence.  For, while flight
might be the immediate impulse of a first offender, We
are dealing with an appellant who had already been convicted by final judgment
of qualified seduction and consented abduction of a 12-year old girl and who
was required to reside in the place stipulated in his parole.  Moreover, the appellant might have thought
that no one was interested in filing a case against him, or that his victim who
was a child of tender years could not identify him.

The second assignment of error that the lower
court erred in not holding that the evidence of the prosecution is not
sufficient to establish the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator of the
crime, is also untenable.  For the
appellant was positively identified by Janilyn as her rapist.  This cannot be doubted because she was with
him for about two hours, that is from 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon to around 6:00 o’clock in the evening when the horrifying
incident took place.  Moreover, there
were witnesses who saw him with his innocent victim immediately before the
commission of the rape:  Primadona
Terrado who was only a few meters from him while he was with Janilyn and her
group in the premises of the Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage Church; Marlyn
Molina, who identified him as the man who received the two sticks of cigarettes
from her; and Rogelia Asero, who saw him with Janilyn in their house in the
afternoon of January 26, 1976.

The appellant also set up the defense of alibi.  He claimed that since January 10, 1976, shortly after he was paroled,
he lived in barrio Katangawan and had never gone to General
Santos City
proper.  The alibi must fail not only
because he was positively identified by Janilyn and her witnesses but also
because Judge Pedro Samson C. Animas who knows the physical geography of General
Santos City
for he has stayed there since he was appointed judge many, many years ago has
this to say:

“3. 
His defense of alibi did not conclusively show that it was
impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission.  His Monthly Report of
Parolee readily shows that his place of residence is Balite, Lagao, General
Santos City, for which, this court takes judicial notice as only four kilometers
from the Catholic church situated at Dadiangas, General Santos City (Exh.
“7”).  Granting arguendo
that on said date, he was in Katangawan, General Santos City, said barrio is
only about ten kilometers from the city where there are several means of
transportation and will take only a few minutes ride (People vs. Diaz, 55 SCRA
114; People vs. Baylon, 57 SCRA 114; People vs. Manahan, 59 SCRA 153).”

The appellant also claims that the medical certificate – Exhibit
6 – which was issued by Dr. Venancio C. Yap states that the rape was com­mitted
by a tricycle driver and since it had not been proved that he was a tricycle
driver, the identity of the rapist was not sufficiently established.  Suffice it to say that the statement in
Exhibit 6 to the effect that the rapist was a tricycle driver is mere hearsay
and cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the witnesses identifying the
appellant as the rapist.

The appellant also claims that he does not smoke and so he could
not have asked Janilyn to buy cigarettes for him.  It could be that the appellant did not smoke
but such circumstance is not sufficient to exculpate him in the light of the
positive identification made by Janilyn and her witnesses.  It could also be that his asking Janilyn to
buy cigarettes was part of his scheme to abuse her.

Anent the third assignment of error, it is claimed that Janilyn
and her witnesses were under the influence of Father Carl Schmitz; that
Janilyn’s parents worked for Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage Church; that
Marlyn Molina resides at the convento; that Rogelia Asero used to see Father
Joseph who invited her to testify; that Father Joseph paid the hospital
expenses of Janilyn; and that Father Carl in the Parish Bulletin of February
22, 1976, announced that Janilyn’s case was over for the suspect had been identified
and apprehended.

We fail to see how the above facts could prejudice the
appellant.  It was not unnatural for
Father Carl and Father Joseph to take an interest in the rape of Janilyn.  She was not only a member of their flock but
more than that she was the child of a couple employed by them.  Since there is no iota of evidence that the
two priests had induced or persuaded anyone to testify falsely in the case, the
influence attributed to them is baseless.

The fourth assignment of error is merely corollary to the
previous ones and need not be discussed for it can be dismissed by the rule
that the credibility of witnesses is best ascertained by the trial court who saw them testify and noted their demeanor.  There is nothing in the record of this case
which will warrant a deviation from the rule.

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the appealed judgment, the
same is hereby affirmed in toto. 
Costs against the appellant.

The rape of a child committed by the appellant shows his extreme
perversity.  Considering that he had been
previously convicted of two crimes against chastity, We
recommend that he should not be granted any form of executive clemency.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De
Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.