PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO DIAZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appellant Danilo Diaz was charged with the crime of rape
committed against the complainant, Dionisia Binag, in Criminal Case No. 4655 of
the Regional Trial Court of
Dumaguete City, Branch 33. The amended information reads as follows:

“The undersigned complainant, [Dionisia Binag] accuses DANILO
DIAZ, a resident of Barangay Abante, Pamplona, Negros Oriental, of the crime of
RAPE, committed as follows:

“That on the 9th day of January, 1981, at about 11:00 o’clock
in the evening, inside the nipa hut of
the Binag’s family, at Sitio Olango, Barangay Dobdob, Valencia, Negros Oriental,
and within the preliminary jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused after having been allowed
by the complainant to pass the night at their nipa hut, and by means of force
and intimidation with the use of a hunting
knife, did then and there, willfully, feloniously, unlawfully, and
criminally have carnal knowledge with the undersigned complainant and against
her will.

“That with aggravating circumstances that the crime of RAPE
has been committed during night time and that with an abuse of confidence
whereby it has been committed in the nipa hut of the complainant after the
accused has been granted to pass the night thereat.

“ACT CONTRARY TO LAW: Art. 335, Revised Penal Code.

“Valencia, Negros Oriental, March 13, 1981.”
(Underscoring ours; p. 36, Rollo.)

Assisted by counsel, appellant was arraigned and entered a plea of “Not Guilty” on
July 31, 1984.

On March 27, 1991, after trial on the merits, the trial court
rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“The element of rape in this case having been fully
established by the prosecution to the satisfaction of the Court and finding,
therefore, the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime as charged
in the complaint/information, the accused is hereby sentenced to a single
indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the
offended party the sum of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos, and Ten Thousand
(P10,000.00) Pesos as moral and exemplary damages respectively.

“The bond put up by the accused for his temporary liberty is
hereby ordered cancelled.” (p. 50, Rollo.)

The antecedent facts are summarized in the People’s brief as
follows:

“Complainant Dionisia Binag knew appellant Danilo Diaz since
she was a Grade I student or for more than twenty (20) years (TSN, July 31,
1984, p. 7). Appellant was Dionisia’s
classmate in Grade I and they were then neighbors at Barrio Amante, Pamplona,
Negros Oriental (Ibid.).

“At around 6:30 in the evening of Janaury 9, 1981, Dionisia
was in her house at Sitio Olango, Dobdob, Valencia, Negros Oriental, together
with her thirteen year old brother, Isaac Binag (Id., p. 9), when
appellant arrived and sought permission to stay overnight at Dionisia’s house
since it was raining and he had a headache at the time (Id., p.
11). Appellant was allegedly on his way
to a sitio, known to Dionisia only as Kaidyokan, about eight (8) kilometers
away, where his family owns a farm and a house (Id., pp. 12-13). Initially, Dionisia refused to allow
appellant to stay since her parents were away and she was alone with her
younger brother. But eventually, she
acceded to appellant’s request to sleep at their house (Ibid.).

“Appellant went to sleep at the upper portion of the house
while Dionisia and her brother slept downstairs, on the floor (Ibid.). Dionisia was awakened when she felt
appellant touch her breast. She shouted
at her brother to light up the lamp. The latter obeyed and lit the lamp above
his head, about one fathom away (Id., June 3, 1985, p. 9). Dionisia then clearly saw appellant who hugged
her immediately. Thereafter, appellant
turned off the light, took his hunting knife and went back to Dionisia (Id.,
July 31,1984, p. 16).

“After threatening to kill Dionisia and her brother if they
made an outcry, appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge with Dionisia,
against the latter’s will (Id., p. 7).

“After satisfying his lustful desires, appellant gave a stern
warning to the victim and her brother not to report what happened to their
parents or he would kill them all, and left the house (Id., p. 22). The next morning, Dionisia went to her
parents at their house in Abante, Pamplona and reported the horrendous fate she
suffered in the hands of appellant (Id., pp. 32-33). The matter was brought to the attention of
the barangay captain in Abante, Pamplona who, claiming that he could not
amicably settle the case, advised Dionisia to see a doctor for physical
examination (Id., p. 34).

“On January 27, 1981, the victim was physically examined by
Dr. Ernesto de Guia, Municipal Health Officer of Abante (Id., p.
16). Upon securing a medical
certificate from Dr. de Guia, the victim lodged a complaint with the Philippine
Constabulary at Camp Leon Kilat, Tanjay (Id., p. 37) and thereafter,
with the judicial authorities (Id., p. 39).” (pp. 4?7,
Appellee’s Brief.)

On the other hand, appellant testified that the charge was
trumped up; “that he and the complainant were sweethearts; that they had
had sexual relations for more than twenty (20) times in the past, upon their
mutual agreement and on their own free will, sometimes in the house of the
complainant, sometimes in the house of the accused, and sometimes in the
dancing place.” He further alleged:

“that his relation with her lasted only two (2) years when his
attitude towards her changed when he learned that the complainant had another
sweetheart in the person of Toto Omangay so that he stopped seeing the
complainant and did not have sexual intercourse with her anymore; after which
she filed a complaint with the
Barangay Captain of Abante, Pamplona, Negros Oriental, in the person of Miguel
Manso, because she was already pregnant because of the abuse of a man (p. 32,
TSN of Sept. 2, 1985); that when she went to the Barangay Captain, she did not
actually report that she was raped by the accused (p. 35, TSN of Sept. 2, 1985)
but was only abused (among) (p. 55, TSN of Sept. 2, 1985); that the complainant
filed the complaint against the accused because the former wants the accused to
marry her when she was already three (3) months pregnant (pp. 21-23, TSN of June
23, 1986); that while the complainant and the accused were still single, they
were sweethearts (pp. 22-23, TSN of July 18, 1990) and used to go together
during dances and the harvesting of corn.” (pp. 66-67, Rollo.)

In this appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in finding
him guilty of having raped     the
complainant, and asks the Court to acquit him.

The appeal has no merit.

A careful review of the record convinces us that the complainant
had indeed been raped at the time and place and in the manner she
described. As observed by the trial
court, Dionisia recounted her ordeal in a straightforward and spontaneous
manner. On direct examination, she
testified:

“Q – What did he do to you?

“A – He raped me.

“Q – How did he place himself in
relation to you when he raped you?

“A – He hugged me and pointed his
hunting knife to me so that he was able to have sexual intercourse with me.

“xxx                                           
xxx                                               xxx

“Q – If you have that pantie (sic)
on, how did the accused was able to rape you?

“A – He pulled out the pantie
(sic).

“Q – How many times did he pull out
the pantie (sic)?

“A – Three times.

“Q – When he succeeded in taking
out your pantie (sic), what happened to your pantie (sic)?

“A – It was torn.

“Q – When your pantie (sic) was
torn, what did the accused do to you after he was able to take off your pantie
(sic)?

“A – He rode on me.

“Q – What did he do to you?

“A – He had sexual intercourse with
me.

“Q – Did he succeed in having
sexual intercourse with you?

“A – Yes.

“Q – What do you mean by succeeded
in having a sexual intercourse with
you?

“A – He succeeded on his desire to
me because he pointed his hunting knife to me.

“Q – He succeeded in having sexual intercourse with you?

“A – He was on top of me.

“Q – Did you feel anything while he
was having a sexual intercourse with you?

“A – Yes.

“Q – What did you feel?

“A – Pain.

“Q – What part of your body did you
feel the pain?

“A – My front.

“Q – What front?

“A – My vagina.

“Q – Why?

“A – Because he was having a sexual
intercourse with me.

“Q – Can you tell the court if his
penis penetrated your private part?

“A – Yes, it penetrated.”
(TSN, July 31, 1984, pp. 16-18.)

The medical findings of Dr. Ernesto de Guia, the municipal
physician who conducted the physical examination of Dionisia, support the
conclusion of the trial court that the appellant is guilty as charged. It is a cardinal rule of appellate procedure
that the factual findings of the trial court which had all the opportunity to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses and to weigh all the evidence presented,
should be accorded great respect in the absence of a clear showing of
arbitrariness and misapprehension of facts. (People vs. Demecillo, 186 SCRA
161.)

Appellant’s allegation that he and Dionisia were lovers was
denied by Dionisia and belied by her complaint. In any case, we held in People vs. Timbang, 189
SCRA 279 that: “x x x even if they were sweethearts, that fact would not
exempt the man from criminal liability if the sexual intercourse with the woman
was against the latter’s will.”

Defendant’s other allegation that Dionisia falsely accused him of
having raped her in order to compel him to marry her for she was already three
months pregnant, was refuted by Dr. De Guia who testified that at the time he
examined Dionisia, she was menstruating, hence, she could not have been
pregnant, as alleged by the accused.

Appellant pointed out several
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, but as aptly
stated by the Solicitor General:

“It has been ruled that alleged contradictory statements are
not fatal where they refer to relatively minor details as these can be expected
from uncoached witnesses. They do not
affect nor can they prevail over the positive identification of appellant as the rapist. As repeatedly held by this Honorable Court,
discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
which refer to minor details do not impair the probative value of their
testimony (People vs. Barcelona, G.R. No. 82589, October 31, 1990, 191 SCRA 100).”
(pp. 10-11, Appellee’s Brief.)

Neither is it true that there was undue delay in filing the rape
charge against the appellant for the records show that Dionisia lost no time in reporting the incident to
her parents and later, to the barangay captain. What was delayed was the medical examination of the victim by a
doctor. However, this Court has ruled
that “it is not even necessary that there should be a medical examination
of the victim in rape cases” because the same “is not an
indispensable requisite of rape” (People vs. Garcia, 187 SCRA 518).

All told, the trial court did not err in finding the appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Medialdea, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.