PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO ALIB, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Claiming that she had been sexually abused by accused Roberto Alib
on 11 April 1986, Elsa F. Gustilo filed on 11 September 1986 a criminal
complaint for rape against the latter before the 13th Municipal Circuit Trial
Court (MCTC) of Sta. Barbara-Pavia, Iloilo.^[1]
After conducting the preliminary examination, the MCTC issued a warrant for the
arrest of the accused. The said warrant
was duly served on him. Thereupon, Alib
applied for bail; his application was granted and he was ordered released upon
the filing of the bond.^[2]

Upon the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, the MCTC
found a prima facie case against the accused — the latter not having
submitted any counter-affidavits — and forthwith transmitted the records of
the case to the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo for appropriate action.^[3]

On 11 December 1986, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of
Iloilo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo, 6th Judicial
Region, the corresponding information for rape against the accused which reads,
in part:

“That on or about April 11, 1986, in the municipality of Pavia,
Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the
abovenamed accused, armed with a knife, by means of force and intimidation
employed upon the person of Elsa Gustilo, a minor, 15 years of age, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with
said Elsa Gustilo against her will and consent.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[4]

The case was raffled off to Branch 36 of
the said court.

Arraigned on 23 July 1987, the accused entered a plea of not
guilty.^[5]
Trial on the merits then ensued.

The witnesses presented by the prosecution were Dr. Teresita Lim,
Azucena Mirador and complainant Elsa Gustilo. The witnesses for the defense were the accused himself, Baltazar
Garillos and Conrada Mirador Alib. On
26 February 1991, the court a quo promulgated its decision,^[6]
dated 31 December 1990, the dispositive portion of which provides:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, this
Court hereby:

1. Finds the accused, ROBERTO ALIB, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as charged and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of an
(sic) imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua;

2. Orders the accused
Roberto Alib to pay the complainant Elsa Gustilo the amount of P30,000.00 as
civil indemnity; and,

3. To pay the costs of
this suit.

SO ORDERED.”^[7]

Accused seasonably appealed his
conviction.

The facts of the case, as established by the prosecution’s
evidence, and upon which the judgment of conviction is based, are summarized by
the trial court as follows:

“That, Elsa Gustilo, only 15 years of age by then, stayed at
the house of her aunt, Azucena Mirador, at Brgy. Jibao-an, Pavia, Iloilo from
May 1985 until September 1986 as a house help.

On the night of April 11, 1986, Elsa Gustilo folded the newly washed
clothes while watching the television together with her aunt’s two young
children. Roberto Alib watched the
television with them. At that time,
Elsa’s aunt, Azucena Mirador and the latter’s husband were away busily tending
their store situated 50 meters away from their house since on that night there
was a benefit dance being held in their barangay. At about 11:00 o’clock of the same night, Roberto Alib told Elsa
Gustilo that he would go upstairs to light a cigarette. He went upstairs to the kitchen. Elsa also went upstairs to bring the newly
washed clothes inside the room of the children which was situated approximately
a meter away from the kitchen. Then she
went to see whether Roberto really lit a cigarette but was startled when she
saw him getting a knife. Roberto then
covered Elsa’s eyes and mouth and pointed the knife at her throat. He pushed her backwards towards the room and
forced her to lie down. Then he removed
her underwear and he also removed his underwear. Then he raped her. She
was not able to manifest any resistance because he was holding the knife at her
neck. After Roberto consummated the
rape, he threatened Elsa that if ever she would tell anybody, he would kill
her. Elsa felt pain in her vagina which
was bleeding.

Elsa did not tell anybody about the incident. (TSN, April 8, 1988) From the month of April
up to August of 1986, Azucena Mirador noticed that Elsa was vomiting and was
always dizzy and that her stomach and breast (sic) were growing. On July of 1986, Azucena brought Elsa to a
quack doctor for treatment and she learned on the 7th day of treatment that
Elsa was already pregnant. Aside from
the quack doctor, Azucena also brought Elsa to a ‘hilot’ or ‘paltera’. During this period and after recovering from
the shock she had been suffering from, Elsa related the rape incident to her
aunt, Azucena Mirador. Azucena brought
Elsa to her Lola’s house in Molo so that she could be examined. At the Provincial Hospital, a pregnancy test
was conducted on Elsa Gustilo on August 16, 1986 by a certain Lourdes Deloviar,
a medical technologist in the said hospital, who found that Elsa was positive
for pregnancy. (see Exh. “B”)
On September 6, 1986, Azucena brought Elsa to Dr. Teresita Lim for a physical
examination. Dr. Lim confirmed the
findings of the pregnancy test and wrote down her own findings which revealed,
among others, that Elsa has a mass felt above her ‘symphesis pubis’ which meant
a product of conception. Dr. Lim
estimated that at the time of the said examination, Elsa could be three months
pregnant. (Excerpts, TSN, March 2,
1988) When asked who impregnated her, Elsa replied, ‘Berting’ and pointed at
Roberto Alib. (TSN, July 21, 1988).”^[8]

On the other hand, the accused’s version is condensed by the
trial court as follows:

“On April 11, 1986 Roberto was at Alimodian, Iloilo. As a matter of fact, he had been at
Alimodian from April 5, 1986 and he stayed there continuously. He arrived at Alimodian in the afternoon of
April 5, 1986 and slept at the house of his father, Felix Alib. Roberto together with Baltazar Garillos, had
a contract with Nicanor Albelar to cut the bamboos (sic) of the latter near his
house at the Ulay-Bugang, Alimodian, Iloilo at P5.00 per piece and thereafter
to repair the hut of the latter near his house at P20 per day with free
meals. Roberto and Baltazar started to
cut bamboos (sic) at Brgy. Ulay-Bugang in the morning of April 6, 1986 and they
brought these bamboos (sic) to the town’s Poblacion. By April 7, 1986, they finished the job. They cut and took around thirty (30)
pieces. From April 8, to April 12,
1986, they repaired the hut of Nicanor Albelar. They finished the job late in the afternoon of April 12, 1986 so
that he was not able to return home at Brgy. Jibao-an, Pavia, Iloilo. Because of the job and because his parents’
house was also in Alimodian, he was not able to go home between the period of
April 6, 1986 to April 13, 1986. It was
only in the morning of April 13, 1986 that he was able to go home.

On April 11, 1986 at around 7:30 in the evening, Roberto was at the
house of Nicanor Albelar together with Baltazar and the grandchildren of
Nicanor Albelar. After supper, they
viewed the television. Thereafter,
Roberto chose to sleep and as usual he slept at the house of his father which
was five (5) meters from the house of Nicanor Albelar. Baltazar remained watching at (sic) the
television. The movie had Lito Lapid as
the protagonist. It was finished late
in the night. Baltazar went to sleep
also at the house of the parents of Roberto and he noticed that Roberto was
already asleep.

Roberto has a wife named Conrada Mirador Alib. Conrada is the sister of Agusto Mirador the
husband of Azucena Mirador. Aside from
this, these two (2) couples are neighbors.

In 1983, Conrada and Azucena quarreled. The two had been in constant quarreling so that the relationship
between them was not good. As a
consequence, Roberto and Azucena were not also in good terms. Roberto was no longer going to the house of
Azucena. Ugly incidents happened on
June 15 and 16, 1986 between Conrada, on one hand, and Azucena and her
daughter, Ma. Luisa, on the other hand. Bitter (sic) exchange of ugly words happened. After the quarrel and in the afternoon of June 16, 1986, Ma.
Luisa was brought to the hospital. On
June 17, 1986, unfortunately, she died. Azucena swore that she will not stop to pester Conrada. On June 22, 1986, Agusto stoned the house of
the couple, Roberto and Conrada and said that Conrada was the cause of their
daughter’s death.

On September 25, 1986, Roberto was arrested for the alleged rape of
Elsa Gustilo, the domestic helper of Azucena.”^[9]

The trial court gave full faith and credit to the victim’s
testimony and discredited the accused’s defense of alibi and his theory that no
rape had been committed because the victim did not get pregnant. It further made the following observations
and findings:

“Elsa’s testimony was far from being impeccable. But considered under the surrounding
circumstances, it has etched in the mind of this Court not only a mere
possibility but a certainty that she was raped and that the accused is the
culprit.

The medical certificate (Exh.”A”) issued by Dr. Teresita
Lim and corroborated by her testimony affirmed the fact that Elsa has undergone
sexual contact and was in fact pregnant. The disparity between Dr. Lim’s finding that Elsa was three (3) months
pregnant and the theory that on September 6, 1986 when she was examined, Elsa
could have been four (4) months pregnant if she was actually raped on April 11,
1986, is not entirely irreconcileable. Even medical experts could miss. At any rate, it is the opinion of this Court that a month’s difference
is not substantial.

When this Court asked Elsa how many times more did Roberto make
sexual contact with her, she replied, ‘Three times.’ (TSN, July 21, 1988) This
revelation was not disputed by the defense at all. Because of this revelation, this Court has dared to make two
logical inferences: first, that if not
on April 11, 1986, Elsa may have conceived anytime during the subsequent sexual
contacts, and second, that by reason of these subsequent sexual contacts, Elsa
had given up further protestations and accepted her sad plight with silent
resignation.

At any rate, Roberto Alib was positively identified by Elsa as the
one who assaulted her. Nowhere in the
record was Elsa shown to be morally debased now (sic) was she shown to have an
intimate relationship with a man other than Roberto. In fact, Elsa testified she (sic) felt pain in her vagina after
she was assaulted which simply shows that she was either sexually inexperienced
or it was the first time she has had sexual intercourse.

As the record shows, force was not employed. However, intimidation took its place when
Roberto poked a knife at Elsa’s neck. Moreover, because of Elsa’s tender age and the fact that she was
presumably tired from the day’s work and was very sleepy considering that at
the time of the alleged rape incident it was almost midnight compounded further
by the element of surprise and the ascendancy in age which Roberto wielded over
her, Elsa must have been overwhelmed with awe and confounded by fear so that to
resist the assault and to think rationally was the least she could muster.

While the story of the defense may have a shade of truth,
nonetheless, the same can not entirely preclude the possibility that on April
11, 1986, Roberto Alib, consumed by a burning desire to possess Elsa’s youth
and virtue, went home to Brgy. Jibao-an and sneaked like a rat while the cats
were away into the house of the Miradors to execute his evil plan. For the aging Roberto, Elsa was simply too
good a temptation to resist.”^[10]

In this appeal, the accused asks this Court to reverse the trial
court’s verdict because according to him, the latter erred:

“I

X X X IN GIVING CREDENCE THAT (sic) THE COMPLAINANT WAS PREGNANT;

II

X X X IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSE-APPELLANT RAPED THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT.”^[11]

We find no merit in the appeal. The challenged decision must be affirmed.

1. For his first
assigned error, the accused advances the theory that in rape cases, the
prosecution must establish that the victim had become pregnant. Such a theory is outlandish and wholly
unacceptable. Under Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:

“(1) By using force or intimidation;

(2) When the woman is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

(3) When the woman is under twelve years of
age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next
preceding paragraphs shall be present.”

It is therefore quite clear that the pregnancy of the victim is
not required. For the conviction of an
accused, it is sufficient that the prosecution establish beyond reasonable doubt
that he had carnal knowledge of the offended party and that he had committed
such act under any of the circumstances enumerated above. Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a
man having sexual bodily connections with a woman; sexual intercourse.^[12]
Ordinarily, this would connote the complete penetration of the female sexual
organ by the male sexual organ. In
cases of rape, however, proof of the entrance of the male sexual organ into the
labia of the pudendum,^[13]
or lips of the female organ,^[14]
is sufficient for conviction. Elsewise
stated, the slightest penetration of the female’s private organ is sufficient
to consummate the crime of rape.^[15]
In fact, the emission of semen is not even necessary;^[16]
without such an emission by the offender, it is unlikely that the victim could
get pregnant. And yet, We have held
that in such instances, rape may still be consummated. In the case at bar, it was sufficiently
established by the testimony of Dr. Teresita Lim that Elsa Gustilo had lost her
virginity and had become pregnant.^[17]
Unfortunately, however, Elsa did not deliver her child because she suffered a
miscarriage on 2 November 1986.^[18]

2. In support of his
second assigned error, the accused contends that (a) neither the offended party
nor her father and grandmother have exhibited interest in this case; on the
contrary, the person who has been keenly pursuing the case is Azucena Mirador,
the victim’s aunt, who has an ax to grind against the accused allegedly because
the latter’s wife, Conrada Mirador Alib, was blamed for the death of Azucena’s
daughter; (b) the testimony of Elsa Gustilo should not have been given credit
because it is “full of inconsistencies;” (c) the evidence does not
likewise establish his guilt with moral certainty considering that the supposed
rape was committed on a bed which is only a meter wide and which was then
occupied by Azucena’s two (2) children; besides, Elsa herself admitted that she
neither kicked nor pushed him; after the incident, he did not threaten her and
she was not afraid at all; moreover, she even admitted that she was not angry
at him; (d) the prosecution did not present Azucena’s two (2) children as
witnesses; (e) Elsa was “coached” by Azucena, an angry woman who had
vowed to avenge the death of her daughter; and (f) granting arguendo
that he had sexual intercourse with Elsa, it is nevertheless “far from
impeccable” that he had “raped” her.^[19]

We are not convinced.

The offended party in this case was, at the time of the incident,
a 15-year old girl working as a household helper of her aunt Azucena
Mirador. She alone signed the criminal
complaint for rape which she had subscribed and sworn to before the MCTC Judge,
and which was filed on 11 September 1986 with the MCTC of Sta. Barbara-Pavia,
Iloilo.^[20]
Notwithstanding the fact that she was then a minor, she still had the preferred
right to initiate the complaint.^[21]
Having done just that, it was no longer necessary for her father (her mother
was already dead), grandparents or guardians to file it in her behalf. That it was Azucena Mirador who was
interested in the filing of the case to wreak vengeance on the accused, just
because the former blamed the latter’s wife for the death of a daughter, should
not change Our posture as this ascribed motive is purely speculative. In the first place, there is absolutely no
evidence to show that Azucena — Conrada’s sister-in-law (being the wife of
Agusto Mirador, Conrada’s older brother)^[22]
— had sought to inflict vengeance upon the accused or had used Elsa as an
instrument for revenge. Nor was there
any showing that the latter testified falsely to perpetrate Azucena’s alleged
evil plan. There is, as well,
absolutely no credible proof that would reveal that Azucena’s alleged ill
feelings against Conrada moved her to the extent of plotting against the life
or liberty of the accused or his wife. In the second place, the cross-examination of Elsa by the counsel for
the accused failed to suggest that she had just been manipulated by Azucena. We have carefully evaluated Elsa’s testimony
and find no reason for her to have falsely imputed upon the accused the
commission of the heinous crime of rape. Well-entrenched is the rule that the testimony of a rape victim is
credible where she has no motive to testify against the accused.^[23]
In People vs. Molina,^[24]
this Court stated, after a review of past decisions involving rape, that:

“x x x Moreover, if there is anything apparent from our past
decisions on rape cases, with the offended parties being young and immature
girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, it is that there is considerable
receptivity on the part of this Tribunal to lend credence to their version of
what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the
shame and embarrassment to which such a gruelling experience as a court trial,
where they are called upon to lay bare what perhaps should be shrouded in
secrecy, did expose them to. This is
not to say that an uncritical acceptance should be the rule. It is only to emphasize that skepticism
should be kept under control.” (citations of authorities omitted).

We have explicitly declared that no young Filipina of decent
repute would publicly admit that she has been criminally abused and ravished
unless that is the truth. This is
because it is her natural instinct to protect her honor.^[25]
Consequently, We find it improbable that a naive 15-year old provincial lass,
who because of poverty was not in school but worked as a househelp, would
concoct a story of defloration if it were not true.^[26]
Elsa Gustilo’s lack of sophistication, coupled with the simple and direct
manner in which she described her ordeal, are indicia of truthfulness; her
having to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a full-blown trial — where
she had publicly disclosed the heinous act of defloration — could have been
inspired by nothing short of the desire to bring to justice the person who had
abused her and who had inflicted upon her an excruciatingly painful chapter in
her life, leaving her psychologically and emotionally scarred forever.

The alleged inconsistencies capitalized on by the accused are on
minor and trivial matters, and are therefore insignificant. Minor inconsistencies strengthen rather than
weaken the witness’ credibility,^[27]
indicate that the responses given were honest and unrehearsed^[28]
and even erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.^[29]
Besides, this Court cannot, in rape cases, expect the poor victim to give an
accurate account of the traumatic and dreadful experience that she had
undergone.^[30]

Although there was no resistance on the part of the victim when
she was raped by the accused, the submission of her womanhood still does not
exempt the latter from liability. It
cannot be denied that the accused poked a knife at the victim’s neck to force
her to submit to his bestial acts. Such
intimidation was enough to have rendered Elsa Gustilo incapable of offering any
resistance because of fear for her life and personal safety.^[31]

The victim’s failure to immediately report to her aunt and the
police authorities the outrage committed against her honor cannot be construed
as an implied consent and condonation of what the accused had done to her. This Court has consistently ruled that it is
not uncommon for young girls to conceal for sometime the assaults on their
virtue because of the rapist’s threats on their lives.^[32]

WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision of Branch 36 of the
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo in Criminal Case No. 30048, being in accord with
the facts and the law, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against
the accused.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Original Records (OR), 4.

^[2]
Id., 16

^[3]
OR, 18.

^[4]
Id., 1.

^[5]
Id., 31.

^[6]
Id., 371-379.

^[7]
OR, 379.

^[8]
OR, 372-373.

^[9]
OR, 373-374.

^[10]
OR, 377-378.

^[11]
Appellant’s Brief, 5; Rollo, 72, et seq.

^[12]
Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Ed., 193.

^[13]
People vs. Pastores, 40 SCRA 498 [1971]; People vs. Castillo, 197
SCRA 657 [1991].

^[14]
People vs. Conchada, 88 SCRA 683 [1979]; People vs. Caballes, 199
SCRA 152 [1991].

^[15]
People vs. Alegado, 201 SCRA 37 [1991].

^[16]
People vs. Jose, 37 SCRA 450 [1971]; People vs. Carangdang, 52
SCRA 259 [1973]; People vs. Banayo, 195 SCRA 543 [1991]; People vs.
De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707 [1991].

^[17]
TSN, 17 November 1987, 5-8.

^[18]
TSN, 2 March 1988, 18-19.

^[19]
Brief for Appellant, 6-12.

^[20]
OR, 4.

^[21]
Article 344, Revised Penal Code; Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Court; Tolentino vs. de la Costa, 66 Phil. 97 [1938]; Benga Oras vs.
Evangelista, 97 Phil. 612 [1955].

^[22]
TSN, 30 October 1989, 4.

^[23]
People vs. Rosario, 159 SCRA 192 [1988]; People vs. Nunag, 173
SCRA 274 [1989]; People vs. Borja, 191 SCRA 120 [1990]; People vs.
Fabro, 191 SCRA 386 [1990]; People vs. Lutañez, 192 SCRA 588 [1990];
People vs. Cabilao; 210 SCRA 326 [1992].

^[24]
53 SCRA 495, 500 [1973].

^[25]
People vs. Taño, 109 Phil. 912 [1960]; People vs. Gan, 46 SCRA
667 [1972]; People vs. Gamez 124 SCRA 260 [1983]; People vs.
Ramilo, 146 SCRA 258 [1986].

^[26]
See People vs. David, 177 SCRA 551 [1989].

^[27]
People vs. Barros, 122 SCRA 34 [1983]; Medios vs. Court of
Appeals, 169 SCRA 838 [1989].

^[28]
People vs. Mangalino, 182 SCRA 329 [1990]; People vs. Cantuba,
183 SCRA 289 [1990]; People vs. Palino, 183 SCRA 680 [1990].

^[29]
People vs. Salufrania, 159 SCRA 401, [1988]; People vs. Cabato,
160 SCRA 98 [1988]; People vs. Custodio, 197 SCRA 538. [1991].

^[30]
People vs. Partulan, 156 SCRA 489 [1987]; People vs. Cayago, 158
SCRA 586 [1988] People vs. David, supra.; People vs.
Corrales, 182 SCRA 439 [1990]; People vs. De Guia, 185 SCRA 336 [1990];
People vs. Feliciano, 195 SCRA 19 [1991].

^[31]
People vs. Savellano, 57 SCRA 320 [1974]; People vs. Garcines, 57
SCRA 653 [1974]; People vs. Corrales, supra.; People vs.
Niebres, 178 SCRA 114 [1989]; People vs. Arengo, 181 SCRA 344 [1990];
People vs. Ronquillo, 184 SCRA 236 [1990]; People vs. Villamayor,
199 SCRA 472 [1991].

^[32]
People vs. Hortillano, 177 SCRA 729 [1989]; People vs. Rafanan,
182 SCRA 811 [1990]; People vs. Dalinog, 183 SCRA 88 [1990]; People vs.
Aquino, 186 SCRA 208 [1990]; People vs. Feliciano, supra., People
vs. Banayo, supra.