PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SERGIO PARAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

 This is an appeal from the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
finding Sergio Paras guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Paras was also ordered
to recognize the child Troy Paul Canonigo as his
natural child, to support him at the rate of P50.00 a month until he reaches
the age of majority or until further orders of the court, to indemnify the
offended party Jean Paul Canonigo the sum of
P3,000.00 and to pay the costs.

In the information against him, Sergio Paras
was charged with wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously having carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse through intimidation,
threat, and violence with Jean Grace Paul Canonigo, a
girl barely thirteen (13) years old at the time. The information further
alleged that the accused took advantage of nighttime to perpetrate the crime
but the court rejected this as an aggravating circumstance.

The facts adduced by the prosecution to prove the
accused-appellant’s guilt are summarized in the People’s brief as follows:

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

“Jean is the adopted daughter of the spouses Antolin and Pura Canonigo who are residing at the interior of Junquera St., Cebu City
(pp. 113-114, tsn). She was taken to their care when
she was only one month old, and they reared her as their own child, spending
for her education and all her needs (pp. 114- 115, tsn).

“Sergio Paras, the appellant, was a
very close friend of Antolin Canonigo
(p. 182, tsn). In the evenings he frequented their
store located along Junquera Street, where he used
to see Jean tending the same (pp. 60-61; 207-208, tsn),
and he also went often to their house to watch television (p. 60, tsn).

“In short, the appellant saw the complainant grow up through
the years and develop into young womanhood (pp. 200-201, tsn).

“In the evening of Sunday,
February 25, 1968, the Canonigos were
away visiting relatives in Lawaan, Cebu City
(p. 18, tsn), and they did not return until 11:30 o’clock at night (p. 54, tsn). Jean was left behind with her elder brother Boy, and
two maids, to tend to the store and their house (pp. 12 & 14, tsn).

“At 7:30 o’clock
that evening Jean ate her supper, and at 8:30
p.m., she went to their store to relieve the two maids, Vising and Gabring, so they could
eat their supper too (pp. 78-79, tsn). Jean was in
their store with her brother Boy (p. 14, tsn). In
less than an hour, the two maids returned, so Jean went home, as no one was
left in their house. Their residence is located somewhere behind their store,
around ten to fifteen meters away (pp. 14-15, & p. 18, tsn).

“When Jean reached their kitchen door (Exhibit D-3, p. 60, rec.),
and as she was about to enter the same, she heard someone calling her, thus: ‘Jean,
come here for a while because I have something to tell you’ (p. 16, tsn.). She turned her head, and she saw the appellant who
was just one step behind her, standing inside the bathroom of their adjacent
neighbor, Mr. Santos (Exhibit E-2, p. 62, rec.; pp. 29-30, tsn.).
Terrified, the complainant started to open the door in order to get inside
their house, but immediately, the appellant held her right hand and twisted her
arm behind her, at the same time, covering her mouth with the palm of his left
hand (pp. 27 & 32, tsn.). Then, in said position,
he pulled and dragged her several paces backward until they came to an
enclosure (Exhibit D-5, p. 60, rec.) in front of the banguera
of Mr. Santos (Ibid; Exhibit F-1, p. 61, rec.; pp. 32-36, & 37-38, tsn.). There, the appellant pinned the complainant against
the cement wall (Exhibit F-2, p. 61, rec.) and warned her not to make any
noise, otherwise, she would die (pp. 38 & 40, tsn.).

“With the complainant trembling and helpless (pp. 43-44), the
appellant then raised her dress and pulled her panty down. Then he pushed her
downward and forced her to lie down on the cement floor (pp. 45-46, tsn.). With his feet, the appellant pushed her panty off
her feet (p. 101, tsn.), then spread her thighs with
his knees, and mounted on her. His left palm was still covering her mouth so
she could not shout. At this juncture, the appellant, once more threatened the
complainant, telling her, thus: ‘Don’t move Jean or else I will kill you,’ and
this, the appellant subsequently repeated many more times (pp. 44-47, tsn.), as he ‘jerked’ on top of the complainant, ‘moving
his hips up and down’ (untol­-untol) (pp. 45-49, tsn.).

“The complainant felt something very hard enter her organ
which caused her pain, and then, she lost consciousness (p. 50, tsn.).

“A short while thereafter, the appellant pulled the
complainant and helped her to stand. The latter could not do so on her own,
because her private part was still painful. Before she left, the appellant gave
her panty, cautioning her with the following words: ‘Don’t tell anybody about
this. Do not tell your parents or your brothers or else I will kill them’ (p.
51, tsn.).

“Forthwith, the complainant went away — through their kitchen
door, and then up the stairs. On her way, she felt some fluid oozing out of her
organ. She, therefore, proceeded to the bathroom to wash herself, and there,
she found that the fluid was reddish with blood (pp. 51-52, tsn.).

“Aside from her organ, the complainant felt a stinging pain on
several other parts of her body, such as her right hand, her mouth, and her
buttocks, which was pressed hard on gravel where she was forced to lie down
(pp. 52-53, tsn.). She then went to her room and
cried (p. 53, tsn.).

“The complainant did not report the incident to her family,
because of her fear of what the appellant had warned her (pp. 54-55, tsn.). She kept her secret to herself — until August 5, 1968.

“On said date, complainant’s mother, Mrs. Canonigo,
was on her way to the bank, when Mrs. Filoteo, a
close friend of hers, also residing at Junquera
Street, asked her to drop by at her dress-shop as they had ‘something important
to talk about’ (pp. 116-117, tsn.). Mrs. Filoteo then told her about some gossip which she had heard
in the neighborhood regarding her daughter, Jean — to the effect that the child
was apparently pregnant (pp. 118-121, tns.). Mrs. Canonigo was taken aback, but at the same time she recalled
that the first and last menstrual period of Jean was sometime in January 1968,
and that her second menstruation was supposed to have come on February 8, 1968,
but that, she particularly remembered, it did not arrive on said date or in the
succeeding months thereafter, because her youngest daughter had been asking her
why Jean was no longer having her menstruation (pp. 121-122, tsn.).

“Mrs. Canonigo did not proceed to
the bank anymore. She went to their store where she found her husband and
informed him of what she had heard (p. 123, tsn.). He
was mad. He told her to bring the child to a doctor for verification of the
report (pp. 125-126, tsn.). Since Jean was still in
school and Mrs. Canonigo’s transaction in the bank
was very important, she went first to the bank. When she returned home, the
child was already there, eating ice candy (pp. 125 & 127-128, tsn.).

“Mother and daughter had a talk, and the former inquired from
the latter whether or not she was pregnant. Jean was surprised, but she would
not tell. She only answered by asking ‘Why?’ (pp. 128-129, tsn.).

“In the afternoon of the same date, August 5, 1968, Jean and her mother went to the Fornolles Clinic. While waiting for their number to be
called, Mrs. Canonigo held Jean by the hand and asked
her, ‘Do you know what happened to you Jean, were you disgraced?’ Jean asked
her in return, ‘what is disgraced Ma?’ Her mother explained (p. 132, tsn.).

“Jean became uneasy. She stared at the door of the doctor’s
clinic, then looked back at her mother. Then she said,
‘Come Ma let us go down’ (p. 133, tsn.).

“When they reached the foot of the stairs, Mrs. Canonigo asked her again. Jean was confused. She would look
towards the sky then look down, and then she would scratch her nape. And all
the time, she was sweating. Finally, she said ‘No, I won’t.’ When her mother
asked her what it was, she answered, ‘No I won’t tell Ma because I would be
killed’ (pp. 133-134, tsn.). When her mother asked
who would kill ha she added, ‘I would be killed and something one day would
happen to you also’ (pp. 134-135, tsn.).

“Upon the proddings and assurances
of her mother, telling her not to be afraid to name the person who abused her,
as they are her parents and would help and protect her, Jean bowed her head
down and uttered the name, ‘Sergio’ (p. 135, tsn.). They
called a taxi and proceeded home, because by this time, Jean was perspiring
profusely (p. 137, tsn.).

“Mrs. Canonigo knew at once that
Jean was referring to the appellant Sergio Paras. There
was no other Sergio in their place (p. 36, tsn.). There
was no other Sergio Paras who was standing by in
their store, and who is also notorious for defaming women in their
neighborhood. They had several maids who went home because of him (p. 138, tsn.).

“On August 12, 1968,
Jean was finally examined by Dr. Fe Sison of the
Southern Island Hospital who recommended an X-ray examination. She was X-rayed
by Dr. Romeo Murillo of the same hospital. Said examination revealed that she
was pregnant (Exhibit G, p. 133, rec. pp. 144-148, tsn.).”

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

On the other hand, Sergio Paras denied
that he abused the complainant. He testified that he was a neighbor and friend
of Antolin Canonigo and he
knew Jean Grace to be an adopted daughter of Antolin.
He stated that he and Antolin were like brothers and
that they used to go out together. His defense was a flat denial.

The accused-appellant raised two assignments of errors in this
appeal, namely —

a)     
THE LOWER
COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING AND GIVING GREAT
WEIGHT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OFFENDED PARTY

b)     
THE LOWER
COURT ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OR POSIBILITY THE ACT TO COMMIT THE CRIME OF RAPE

In his first assignment of error, the appellant reminds the Court
that the offense charged is a grave and serious one and, therefore, the
testimony of the offended girl should be considered and weighed with caution. He
suggests that there probably is a party, not the complainant but another one,
who has a motive to charge him with the offense knowing he is not the
perpetrator. However, he leaves the suggestion hanging and does not name who is
behind the charge nor does he state what is the motive.
He admits that the complainant pointed to him as the perpetrator of the crime
but states that this should not be taken as conclusive. The records are
completely bereft of any evidence to even intimate the appellant’s allegation
of sinister motive. Sergio Paras admitted that he was
a close friend of Jean Grace’s adopting parents, almost like a brother. There
can also be no question about the definiteness of his identification as the culprit
by the offended party. The trial court further observed:

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

“The thesis of the defense is a complete negation of all the version given by the offended party. He vehemently
denied having attacked her; he admits, however, that he was a friend of the
family and used to go with Antolin Canonigo to nightclubs.

“From the foregoing conflicting evidence, and after a careful
analysis of the same, the Court is constrained to accept the version of the
prosecution as being more credible and consistent with the facts. Firstly, the
offended party, Jean Grace Paul Canonigo, testified
straightforwardly and naturally. The Court has no reason to doubt sincerity. She
has been reared by a good family; and no motive on her part was proved why she
imputed the evil act to the accused except from a desire to tell the truth. Besides,
the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that a virtuous Filipino woman,
like Jean, would not cast upon herself the dishonor of having been raped and of
bearing the fruit of the evil deed, unless it be a
fact. Then again, as between positive and negative testimonies the former is
stronger.”

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

The lower court also stated in its decision — “Then again,
from the observation of the Court of his manner and behaviour
during his testifying in court, he was not convincing; on the contrary, he
seemed hollow and insincere” — referring to the accused appellant.

The second assignment of error raises questions about the alleged
impossibility of the crime based on (1) the place of its commission, (2) the
way the rape was allegedly performed, and (3) the testimony of the mother.

An examination of the records shows that the complainant never
mentioned a public bath or laundry wherein the attack allegedly took place. According
to the girl’s testimony, the accused-appellant was standing inside a bathroom
behind her when he called her while she was about to go inside the house
through the kitchen door. When she was about to open the door, the appellant
immediately held her hand with his left hand, twisting the same and locking it
behind her back, while at the same time with his right hand, grabbing her left
hand and covering her mouth with its palm. (T.S.N., February 21, 1969, p. 27)
Jean Grace testified that the accused-appellant pulled her away and dragged her
near the place of the water-jar of Mr. Santos, their neighbor. T.S.N., February 21, 1969, pp. 32-33) The appellant’s contention that the place of the commission
of the crime was a public bath or laundry has therefore, no basis.

The crime was committed in a narrow place but it does not
necessarily follow that the crime could not have been committed there. The
evidence shows that it could accommodate or allow the commission of rape. As to
the struggle that the appellant points out should have taken place and which
would have necessitated the presence of bruises scratches on the person of the
complainant, Jean Grace described how she was held by the accused-appellant. The
detailed narration negates any successful struggle on her part to repel the
attack. It is not true that she did not suffer injury. The offended party
testified:

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

“Q   After
that position or under that action of push and pull, as you said, did you
recall what happened to you, what was your feeling, how did you feel?

“Witness:

“A    Something
entered which was very hard and as a result I felt pain.

“Fiscal Montecillo:

“Q   What
was entered and where was it entered?

“A    In my organ – something hard.

“Q   Then
after that, did you feel something after that hard thing entered your organ?

“A    I
lost consciousness. I lost strength.

“Q   Did
you have any feeling of any pain after that insertion?

“A    Yes, in my organ.

“Q   After
that, after the insertion, what happened next?

“A    A while after he pulled me up in order to
have me stand.

“Fiscal Montecillo:

“Q   Were
you able to stand with his help?

“Witness:

“A    Not immediately because my private parts
were still painful.

“Q   Were
you able to stand when you were helped by the accused?

“A    Yes,
he helped me in standing up.

“Q   Where
did you go after you stood up?

“A    Not
yet because he first gave to me my panty and at the same time cautioned me in
these words: ‘Don’t tell anybody about this. Do not tell your parents or your
brothers or else I will kill them.’ And after he delivered to me my panty I
went right away.

“Q   Where did you go?

“A    To our kitchen door.

“Fiscal Montecillo:

“Q   Were
you able to enter your house through the kitchen door?

“Witness:

“A    Yes.

“Q   What
did you do while inside the house?

“A    After
entering the door of the kitchen I went up. On the way, I noticed that some
fluid was dropping out. So I went to our bathroom in order to wash and there
found out that the fluids which were oozing out were reddish blood.

“Q   Those reddish blood came from your organ?

“A    Yes.

“Q   Aside
from your organ, did you not suffer anything painful in any other parts of your
body, aside from your organ?

“A    Many
parts of my body were painful like for example my right-hand, also my mouth, it
seems to me that it was held tightly even at that moment, and also my buttox (sic) and my shunk (sic)
because of that gravely place where he forced me to lie.

“Fiscal Montecillo:

“Q   After
you wash yourself, where did you go?

“A    I
went upstairs to my room and cried.” (T.S.N., February 21, 1969, pp.
49-53)

Other factors which would negate a fierce struggle include the
fact that the complainant was a 13-year old girl who stood only 4 feet 10
inches as against the appellant who stood 5 feet 4 inches at the time of trial.
Jean Grace testified that the appellant was bigger and that she was wailer at
the time of the incident. The shock and fear which enveloped the 13-year old
girl and the appellant’s repeated threats not only on her life but also on the
complainant’s family while attacking her have to be considered. The girl
repeatedly stated that she tried her best to repel the assault of the appellant
but then he was too big. (T.S.N., February 21, 1969, p. 40).
She tried to fight the appellant but he would twist her arm and as a result it
gave her an “utmost pain” (T.S.N., February 21, 1969, p. 41).

The evidence on record sustains beyond reasonable doubt the
findings and conclusions of the trial court that the crime was committed by the
appellant.

The fact that the girl’s mother learned of the complainant’s
pregnancy only from a third person does not destroy her credibility as a
witness. Neither does it affect the rape story of the complainant. In fact this
late knowledge of the parents on what happened to their adopted daughter
enhances the latter’s credibility about the appellant’s threats on the whole
family in case she divulged the attack on her. As testified by her mother, Jean
revealed the appellant’s attack only upon the proddings
and assurances that her parents would help and protect her.

 The assigned errors have
no merit. The appellant’s thesis that he was implicated because of a motive
which he did not even elaborate is not well-taken. On the other hand, it is
noted that the record does not show any evil motive at all on the part of the
13-year old complainant and her family so as to implicate him in such a heinous
crime.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED
except for the award of damages which is raised from P3,000.00
to P12,000.00. Costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Plana,
Vasquez, and Relova,
JJ., concur.

Teehankee, (Chairman), J., took no part.