THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE INOT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision of the then Court of First
Instance of Cebu, Bogo Branch,^[1]
in Criminal Case No. BO-105, finding the accused Felipe Inot
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay complainant Flora Noveranes
the sum of P2,000.00, by way of moral damages, without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

The Information alleges:

“That on the 29th day of August, 1971, at 11:00 o’clock in the
evening, more or less, in the barrio of Nailon,
Municipality of Bogo, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused entered the house of Flora Noveranes
without permission and once inside, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously have sexual knowledge with the said complainant, Flora Noveranes while the latter was unconscious being alone
asleep at the time, and against her will and without her consent.

“That in the commission of the crime, the following circumstances
were present: (1) the offense was committed at night time and (2) with the use
of superior strength.

“In violation of Article 335, Sec. 2, in relation to Article 14 of
the Revised Penal Code.”

The facts, as found by the trial court, are as follows:

“That both the complainant and the accused are residents of barrio Nailon, Bogo, Cebu. On August 29, 1971, the complainant after taking her supper
went to sleep. Her husband, Bienvenido, was earlier
fetched by the accused for a drinking spree at about 6:00 P.M. She took her supper at 7:00 P.M. After she took her supper, she went to sleep
alone. At about 11:00 while she was
already asleep, something unusual happened. A man got on top of her and while
he was on top of her, she found out that the man’s penis was already inside her
vagina. She believed that the man was her husband and so she responded when the
man ejaculated. She also ejaculated because of her belief that the man was her
husband. It took him about five minutes before he could ejaculate. Then the man
sat by her right side. She called the name of her husband believing it was he.
She told the man to light the lamp because she would urinate. She called the
man twice. The man did not answer. Because he did not answer, her breast
trembled and so she stood up and she noticed that the man was in a squatting
position. She embraced him to find out why he did not answer. She discovered
that the right arm of the man was cut off from the elbow. She said
“Felipe, so it is you.” The man said “Flor,
keep quiet.” She held his collar so he could not escape, saying
“Help, there’s a man.” She shouted twice. When she shouted, the man
pushed her chin. She staggered backwards to the wall. Then Felipe ran towards
his house. She went down, picked a paddle on the stairs and chased him. She was
not able to catch him. He proceeded to and went up his house but went down in
the kitchen. She did not anymore follow him because the back of their house was
dark. She went back home, crying. On the way home, she met her husband, that
is, in between the house of Felipe and her house. Her house is just about 20
meters to the house of Felipe. She told her husband that Felipe came up the
house and lied with her. She told her husband that Felipe was able to have
sexual intercourse with her. Then Bienvenido got up
the house to get some bolo with the intention to go to the house of Felipe.
When she (Flora) told her husband that Felipe was no longer in his house, Bienvenido just brandished his bolo and shouted,
“Pare, you come out.” They are compadres.
Felipe did not come out. She (Flora) told her husband not to look for him. She
suggested to her husband that they should go to the municipal building of Bogo. In effect, they went to the municipal building of Bogo at about past 11:00
already that same evening. Once in the municipal building, they reported the
matter to Braulio Toring
and Vicente Canama and Pael
Ruiz. Felipe was apprehended actually at past 12:00.
It was raining. She reiterated that the man who had carnal knowledge of her was
Felipe Inot. He is there (witness pointing to Felipe Inot). She recognized his voice on that evening and felt
his right arm which is cut.”^[2]

On appeal, appellant has raised the following assignment of
errors:

1. The lower court erred in admitting without qualification the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite the fact that from the
evidence adduced, said testimonies are not only full of inconsistencies but
biased as well.

2. The lower court erred in not giving credence to the defense of
alibi of defendant-appellant Felipe Inot.

3. And finally, it was grievous error for the court a quo to
convict defendant-appellant for rape in the absence of direct positive evidence
to show his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Appellant contends that, contrary to the findings of the lower
court, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cannot be the basis of his
conviction because they are allegedly replete with inconsistencies. As proof,
appellant made a comparison between the testimony of the complainant during her
direct examination and during her cross-examination. Appellant states that on
direct examination, complainant testified that it was only after a man had
sexual intercourse with her and after she embraced that man, when she
discovered him to be wearing a sweater and his arm amputated from the elbow. But
on cross-examination, complainant declared that, during the sexual act, the man
having sexual intercourse with her, supported his body with his two hands. It
is appellant’s contention, therefore, that complainant was not telling the
truth and that what she related to the court was a mere fiction.^[3]

Appellant’s contention is without merit. While it is true that
complainant related, during cross-examination, that the man who had sexual
intercourse with her supported his body with his two hands and, while he was on
top of her, she held both of his arms, such statement does not necessarily mean
that the man was not the appellant whose right arm is admittedly lopped off
from the elbow. It is to be noted that complainant did not specify what
particular portion of the man’s right arm she held. Considering that an arm
consists of two parts, the upper-arm which extends from the shoulder down to
the elbow and the lower portion which is from the elbow down to the hand,
complainant could have grasped the man’s upper arms (including the right upper
arm), so that she could not detect during the sexual act the physical deformity
of the accused. Besides, complainant believed that the man on top of her was
her husband and she was very tired that night, having carried boxes in the
daytime.^[4]
She is not expected to discern every detail during the sexual act.

On the other hand, complainant’s identification of the appellant
was not based solely on the latter’s physical defect, but by his voice as well,
when he warned complainant, “Flor, keep quiet.”
Although complainant did not see appellant’s face during the sexual act because
the house was dark, nevertheless, no error could have been committed by the
complainant in identifying the voice of the accused, inasmuch as complainant
and appellant were neighbors; she had acted as a babysitter for appellant’s
child; she used to sell fish to appellant’s wife; and appellant is the compadre of her
husband.

Concededly, complainant’s husband, one of the prosecution
witnesses, made a mistake in testifying that it was he and Corporal Vicente Canama who apprehended appellant in his house in Nailon, Bogo, Cebu. This error,
however, is minor, having no relevance to the proof of the commission of the
offense. And, in any event, appellant does not dispute the fact that he was
indeed apprehended in his house by members of the Bogo
Police Department.

The claim of appellant that he could not have possibly committed
the crime for he was already dead drunk and sound asleep in his house at the
time the offense was committed, has no merit. This Court has repeatedly held
that:

“Alibi is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to
by an accused (People vs. De la Cruz, 76 Phil. 701). To establish it, the
accused must show that he was at some other place for such a period of time
that it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was
committed at the time of its commission. x x x.”^[5]

And, as the Solicitor General in his Brief,
aptly observed:

“In the case at bar, it has been fully established that the
house of appellant where he was allegedly sleeping at the time the incident in
question happened, was only about 20 meters from the house of the complainant.
It was not impossible therefore for appellant to have left his house and
proceeded to complainant’s house and after committing the offense, returned to
his house.”^[6]

Appellant’s assertion that there is absence of direct and
positive evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt cannot be given
much credit. He has been positively identified so that his defense of alibi
must fail.^[7]
Neither can we give weight to the contention that the medical certificate of
the complainant should have been presented, for the reason that medical
certificates are not indispensable in the prosecution of rape.^[8]

Furthermore, the fact that when the rape was committed,
complainant was asleep will not make appellant less guilty. This Court has
already ruled in the case of People vs. Caballero^[9]
that:

“When the offended party awoke, the crime of rape committed by
the appellant was already consumated, having had
carnal knowledge with the offended party while she was unconscious for being
asleep. The offended party’s consent to the act was subsequent thereto and it
was given on the belief that the man lying with her was her husband. It is
evident that the offended party would not have consented to the act, had she
known that the man with her was not her husband, as she in fact expressed her
unwillingness to said act as soon as she discovered that the man whom she thought
to be her husband was the appellant.”^[10]

WHEREFORE, except with
the modification that the civil indemnity to the offended party is raised to P20,000.00, the decision appealed from should be, as it is,
hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Hon. Antonio D. Cinco, presiding

^[2]
Rollo, pp.
158-160.

^[3]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 142.

^[4]
TSN, January 3, 1973, p. 31.

^[5]
People vs. Jimmy Tamba, et al., G.R. No. 71272, January 29, 1987.

^[6]
Brief for the Appellee, pp. 12-13.

^[7]
People vs. Aragona, 138 SCRA 569.

^[8]
People vs. Pielago, 140 SCRA 418.

^[9]
People vs. Caballero, 61 Phil. 900.

^[10]
See the cases of People vs. Dayo, 51 Phil. 102;
People vs. Corsino, 53 Phil. 234.