PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDWIN TAYAG Y SANTOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Our fundamental law presumes an accused innocent until proven
guilty. To overthrow this presumption,
the prosecution must establish his guilt by proof beyond reasonable doubt, or
that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Thus, the weakness of his defense or even
the lack of it would not necessarily bring about his conviction. So must it be on appeal. This Court is duty bound to carefully
scrutinize and closely examine the prosecution’s evidence that the accused indeed
committed the crime notwithstanding the fact that the trial court found no difficulty
in this case in giving full faith and credit to the story of Mylene Rueda and
in discrediting that of the accused.

The information filed
with the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga (Branch 42) charging
Edwin Tayag y Santos with the crime of rape, reads as follows:

“That on or about the 13th day of September, 1991, in barangay del
Pilar, province of Pampanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused Edwin Tayag y Santos, without
justifiable purposes whatsoever, with lewd designs, by means of force, threats
and intimidations, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
sexual intercourse with Mylene V. Rueda, against her will.

Contrary to law.”^[1]

Upon arraignment, the accused Edwin Tayag entered a plea of not
guilty. Trial on the merits ensued and
on May 28, 1992, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion
of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Edwin Tayag y Santos guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentences him to serve the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim in the amount of
P100,000.00 as damages.

SO ORDERED.”^[2]

Dissatisfied with the above-mentioned decision, the accused
interposed this appeal with the following assignment of errors:

I

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED BASED ON THE
TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM WHICH WAS FRAUGHT WITH SERIOUS DOUBT, AND THEREFORE,
CLEARLY APPEARS TO BE INCREDIBLE AND UNBELIEVABLE.

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING EDWIN SANTOS TAYAG DESPITE LACK
OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT.^[3]

The facts established by the prosecution reveal that on September
13, 1991, at around 6:30 in the evening, 12-year old private complainant, Mylene
Rueda, was with her family in their house located at Del Pilar, Paralaya, San
Fernando, Pampanga. She was sent out
for an errand to buy sugar from a nearby store. After buying sugar, she went home. When dinner was about to start, Mylene took her place at the
table, put her viand on her plate but suddenly asked permission to buy banana.

On her way to the store, Mylene crossed the street and passed by
the house of the accused, Edwin Tayag. The accused called for her so Mylene approached him. The accused then grabbed her hand and forced
her to enter a closed store. Inside the
store, the accused kissed Mylene’s face, lips and cheeks. Mylene tried to push the accused and hit him
with her hands to thwart his advances but to no avail. She also tried to shout, but everytime, the
accused covered her mouth and threatened her that she will be in a pitiful
state if she attempts further to shout. He made her lie down on a table
where he inserted a finger in her organ. He repeatedly kissed her lips and cheeks and mashed her breasts. Thereafter, the accused tried to insert his
sex organ into Mylene’s and despite her resistance, he succeeded in doing so
causing her to cry in pain. Whereupon,
the accused removed his sex organ and Mylene felt something sticky in her
organ.

The accused stood up upon hearing the voice of Mylene’s
father. Mylene continued to cry so
accused covered her mouth and repeated his threat not to shout or she will be
sorry. They both dressed up but only
accused went out of the room leaving Mylene locked inside. She was allowed to leave at around 2:00
o’clock a.m. when the place was already quiet and nobody was looking for her
anymore.

Romeo Dizon Rueda, Mylene’s father testified that she was born on
February 19, 1979 per her birth certificate which he presented in court. She was the fourth of his five
children. On September 13, 1991, while
eating dinner, Mylene asked permission to buy banana. Noticing that Mylene did not return, he went out to look for her
but he did not find her. The other
members of the family, including his nieces and nephews, joined in the search
for Mylene around the neighborhood and in the houses of her classmates. Not finding her in any of her classmates’
houses, he walked towards the market and the plaza and searched for about an
hour. He did not find her there so he
went home. He saw his wife and children in front of their house still
waiting for Mylene so he returned to the plaza. On his way, he saw the accused in front of what used to be a
store. The accused asked him who he was looking for. After answering him, the accused told him that Mylene was not
there. He proceeded to the plaza but
still failed to find her. At home, he was told that Mylene had not returned. For the third time, he went to the plaza. Along the way, he saw accused again in front
of the fence of their house. Feeling
tired after a futile search, he went home at about 12:00 midnight. Since Mylene was still not there, he decided
to rest for a while and go back to the plaza to report his missing
daughter. At around 2:00 o’clock a.m.,
an older sister of Mylene reported to him that Mylene had returned. He saw Mylene looking scared, her lips
quivering. She was pale and crying
while she was being interrogated by his wife. At first, she refused to answer but after much prodding, she finally
revealed that she had been locked inside the defunct store of Apung Kika by the
accused. She narrated everything that was done to her by the
accused. While his daughter was
recounting her experience, he recalled that he felt so bad, he cried. He fumed with anger but his wife prevailed
upon him not to be carried away by his anger and to just report the matter to
the police.

Dr. Maria Luisa D. del Rosario, Chief Resident Physician of Jose
B. Lingad Memorial Hospital, testified that on September 14, 1991, she examined
Mylene Rueda. She discovered fresh deep
lacerations in the hymen at 4:00 o’clock and 8:00 o’clock positions without
mucoid discharge. She also declared
that her smallest finger could hardly penetrate into Mylene’s vaginal opening
which is still tight and elastic but clarified that sexual penetration is
possible in such state as long as force is exerted. She found the patient negative for presence of spermatozoa, which
stays alive for about twenty-four (24) hours to forty-eight (48) hours.

The defense presented the following story negating rape. Accused claimed that on September 13, 1991,
he was with his family inside their house. He proceeded to the store which
for sometime had ceased to be operational and since then had become his
sleeping quarters. He switched on the
light by tightening the bulb and found Mylene standing inside the store. He asked her why she was there and she
replied that her two (2) sisters always maltreated her. He told her that maybe, she was not obedient
to them and told her to go home. Later,
he left her and proceeded to play “pusoy” with his neighbors. At about 7:30 p.m., while playing
“pusoy,” he saw Mylene’s father and approached him to ask him who he
was looking for. Upon learning that he
was looking for Mylene, he told him that Mylene had gone home.

He also testified that the door of the store has no lock. When he returned to the store at about 10:30
p.m., he again turned on the light and found Mylene still there. He asked her why she had not gone home but
she did not answer. Thereupon, he slept
on the bench while Mylene remained seated on the table. When he woke up at 1:00 o’clock in the
morning, he still saw Mylene in his room. He saw her leave at about 2:00 o’clock a.m.

Accused’s mother, Araceli Tayag, took the witness stand to prove
that Mylene fell from a bicycle owned by one Abel Liñgat a few hours before the
alleged incident on September 13, 1991. She said that while cooking, she chanced upon her son and Mylene talking
at around 5:00 o’clock p.m. Later, she
heard a thud and when she looked out to see, she saw that Mylene had fallen
from a bicycle. She helped and brought
her in front of her house. She learned
from her that her buttocks were hurt but she was requested not to reveal to
anyone what happened to her.

Accused’s aunt, Carmelita de la Cruz, was presented to show that
Mylene went inside the store even before the arrival of the accused. She testified that between 5:00 to 6:00
o’clock p.m. she saw Mylene conversing with the sister of one Cristine
Liñgat. She saw Mylene go home at
around 6:30 o’clock and saw her again buying sugar. After bringing home the sugar, Mylene returned and asked for
accused’s mother. She proceeded to
enter the store although the accused was not there. The witness also said that she did not notice Mylene leave the
store and that she was used to seeing Mylene go in and out of their place.

On rebuttal, Catherine Rueda and Marlene Rueda, older sisters of
Mylene, denied maltreating the latter. For her part, Mylene denied that she ever borrowed a bike from Abel Liñgat as she does not know how to
ride a bike. She also denied that she
fell from said bike.

After a careful review of the records, we find no scintilla of doubt that
indeed accused-appellant had raped complainant with the use of force and
intimidation at the time and place and in the manner described by the
latter. The prosecution’s version of
the incident rings true all throughout. Every detail in the complainant’s testimony is credible. We adopt as our own the trial court’s
evaluation of said testimony, to wit:

“Going over the testimony of the victim, the Court believes
that as a witness she is very credible. Mylene Rueda, a sixth grade who is only twelve years old, innocent
looking and inexperienced in earthly pleasures, could not have contrived a tale
of her ravishment without rhyme or reason. It is difficult to believe one so young and innocent ‘would tell a story
of defloration, allow the examination of (her) private parts, and thereafter
permit (herself) to be (the) subject of a public trial, if (she was) not
motivated by an honest desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished’
(People vs. Selfaison, 1 SCRA 235). How
can she spin a tale of rape on her person, tell it to the public and suffer the
consequences of its stigma from adolescence till death? There is no logic to such a proposition
especially in view of the fact that the defense has not offered any plausible
reason for the victim to blatantly lie. Her story bears the earmark of credibility. Despite her youth, she did not contradict herself in the material
points of her story. She testified in a
straightforward manner. The Court was
impressed by her courage as she narrated the violation of her honor with tears
streaming down her cheeks. Yet, she did
not stop, hesitate, stutter or stammer. She went on with her narration with total focus on revealing to the
Court the manner of how she was raped. How could she do so if it had not happen. For it is only when it really does happen that the manner of its
execution is indelibly etched in the memory of the poor victim, creating a
lasting impression that will haunt her for the rest of her life. ‘No woman in her right senses would concoct
such a tale repugnant to her virtue and undergo the rigors of a public trial
concerning her honor. But these
self-inflicted indignities are for the sake of the truth……’ (People vs. Flores,
L-17077, April 29,
1968).”^[4]

We find accused-appellant’s desperate attempts to cast doubt on
the credibility of the prosecution evidence not convincing at all. He argues that the testimony of complainant
that she was shouting for help while being abused is incredible or unbelievable. If indeed the complainant was shouting, he
argued, she should have been heard by
the neighbors or at least by anyone of the accused­-appellant’s family
considering that the houses in the neighborhood are very close to each other
and the store where the incident happened is a portion of the house where the
family of the accused-appellant is living.

We reviewed complainant’s
testimony on the matter and found that her shouts and cries were mere attempts since the accused-appellant succeeded
in covering her mouth with his hands. Considering that the store where the accused-appellant locked and raped
the complainant is small and
enclosed with no windows open at that time except for the opening of about
three (3) inches between the wall and the roof, the muffled shouts and cries of
the complainant would have been impossible for anyone to hear.

Accused-appellant also contends that the testimony of the
complainant that she heard him talking to his father after the sexual assault
and yet, she remained inside the store and did nothing is unnatural. She should have accordingly opened the door
of the store and ran out to seek his
father’s help.

Again, accused-appellant must have overlooked the fact that
complainant explained in her testimony that she was not able to seek her
father’s help because the door of the store was locked and she had been threatened by the
accused-appellant not to shout. The
pertinent portion of said testimony is as follows:

“Q. Will you please tell us when Edwin went out and talked to your
father, will you please tell us why
you did not go out while your father was there talking with Edwin Tayag?

“A.   I wanted to go out but I could not since the door was
locked, sir.

“Q.  Did
you try to push that locked door in order to go out?

“A.            Yes, sir.

“Q. And you did not even shout and called your
father because the door was locked?

“A. I
wanted to shout but I remember
of (sic) what he told me and I got
frightened, sir.”^[5]

As a twelve-year old girl, she cannot be expected to think and
act as a mature person who would know what to do under extraordinary
circumstances. Finding the door locked,
it was not unnatural for her to feel helpless. Coupled with the threats of accused-appellant, it was understandable
when she simply obeyed his order to remain silent. Any girl of her age would easily be subdued and cowed to obey in
fear.

Accused-appellant next questions the lack of any finding in the
medical certificate issued that force was used on the victim. He points to the fact that no bruise was
found on her body. We find this
argument bereft of merit. The doctor
who conducted the medical examination testified that “lacerations are
compatible with force and vigorousness of attack” since the complainant in
this case suffered fresh deep lacerations on the hymen at 4:00 o’clock and 8:00
o’clock positions. Besides, it is a
well-settled rule that in rape cases, it is not necessary that there must be
marks of physical violence on the victim’s body^[6]
because the exertion of irresistible force by the accused is not an element of
the offense. The force or violence
required in rape cases is relative, it need not be overpowering or
irresistible.^[7]
Also it is not required that the victim should have resisted to death.^[8]

Considering the mature physical built of the accused-appellant
who is 23 years of age, stands 5’11” and weighs 120 lbs.,^[9]
as opposed to the small frame of the complainant who was a mere 12-year old
girl, it could readily be seen that the age, size and strength of the accused-appellant
outmatched the complainant. The threats
he made, therefore, may be regarded as an intimidation of such a moral kind
which induced fear in the mind of the complainant. These threats in some measure take the place of violence and
offer of resistance required in rape cases.

Neither does the absence of spermatozoa in complainant’s vagina
negate the commission of rape. Proof of
presence of spermatozoa is not a prerequisite for conviction of rape.^[10]
In fact, even a medical examination is not an indispensable element in rape
cases.^[11]
Any penetration whether reaching to the hymen or not is sufficient to
constitute the crime of rape.^[12]

In recapitulation, there is nothing in the prosecution’s evidence
that could cast doubt on the commission of the offense of rape by the accused-appellant on the complainant. The prosecution successfully discharged the
burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

By contrast, the evidence of the defense appeared contrived and
implausible. To begin with, accused-appellant
attempted to convey the idea that he was complainant’s confidant to whom she
confided her problems but aside from failing to establish beforehand that they
were close to each other, he further betrayed himself when he allegedly left
her alone in his room to play “pusoy” with his friends and later, to
uncaringly sleep notwithstanding the presence of complainant. Revealingly, the aforesaid acts do not show
even at the very least, cordial relationship between them. Secondly, accused-appellant’s claim that he
discovered complainant in his room when he turned on the light is
incredible. Even more unbelievable is his claim that when he
returned at 10:30 p.m. after playing “pusoy” he still found Mylene
inside his room without the light on despite the fact that he did not turn it
off when he left. He himself admitted
that the light, which was seven feet high, had no switch and can be turned on
by tightening the bulb and switched off by loosening it. It is therefore improbable that Mylene
turned the light off herself. The
improbabilities in the tale of accused-appellant exposed its nature as a mere
concoction or fabrication and rendered it highly doubtful.

The affirmance of accused-appellant’s conviction in this case is
inevitable. He should, however, be
sentenced to pay P50,000.00 indemnity to the complainant instead of
P100,000.00. This Court awards
indemnity in rape cases ranging from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 depending on the
circumstances of the case. The
appalling degree of sexual aberration committed or the tender age of the victim
are considered special circumstances in the determination of the amount awarded
as damages. In People v. Felipe,^[13] where the
victim was a twelve-year old girl, this Court awarded P50,000.00 as
damages. In the case at bar, the victim
is likewise a twelve-year old girl.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision finding
accused-appellant Edwin Tayag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape is AFFIRMED with the modification that the civil indemnity be reduced to
P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Puno, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Records, p. 2.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 23.

^[3]
Ibid., pp. 38-39.

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 21-22.

^[5]
TSN, February 11, 1992, p. 41.

^[6]
People v. Soronio, G.R. No. 94362,
204 SCRA 742 (1991).

^[7]
People v. Ramos, G.R. No.
92626-29, 197 SCRA 523 (1991).

^[8]
People v. Aquino, G.R. No.
83214, 197 SCRA 578 (1992).

^[9]
TSN, February 11, 1992, p. 9.

^[10]
People v. Aquino, supra.

^[11]
People v. Hangdaan, G.R. No. 90035,
201 SCRA 568 (1991).

^[12]
People v. Mayoral, G.R. Nos.
96094-95, 203 SCRA 528 (1991).

^[13]
G.R. No.
90390, 191 SCRA 176 (1991).