PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENITO SALINAS Y SILLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In seeking the reversal
of his conviction for the rape of a 13-year old girl, the appellant raises only
questions of credibility and invokes the constitutional presumption of
innocence in his favor. This does not
necessarily mean that the appeal should be automatically rejected on the basis
of the settled doctrine that the factual findings of the trial court are as a
rule received with respect and even as conclusive by the appellate court. What it does mean is that the accepted
exceptions to this principle must be established by the defense if the appeal
is to succeed and the judgment of the court a quo is to
be set aside.

The appellant is a
25-year old neighbor of the alleged victim, Merly Alonzo, who was living just
across the street from his house in Pandacan, Manila, at the time of the
incident in question.^[1] She claimed that at about half past two in
the early morning of December 19, 1991, while she was sleeping alone in her
bedroom, she was awakened by the sound of the closing of the door leading to
the terrace on the second floor of her house. As she sat up, Benito Salinas, whom she recognized immediately by the
light in her room, covered her mouth with one hand and pointed a fan knife at
her neck, threatening her to keep quiet. Shirtless, he completed his nakedness by pulling off his short pants and
briefs. He ordered her to lie down,
yanked off her short pants and panty and lay on top of her. He mashed her breasts and kissed her lips
and other parts of her body. She was
struggling all the while, and when he came down to her vagina she pulled his
hair. He tried to penetrate her vagina
with his penis but succeeded not even halfway because she kept resisting him
and turning on her side to prevent entry. Only the head of the penis could force its way. Even so, she felt intense pain. Frustrated in his blunt efforts to engage
her, Salinas withdrew. After repeating
his threat to kill her if she reported the attack, he put on his short pants
and while holding his briefs jumped down from the terrace.^[2]

The girl kept quiet until
two days later, when she finally told her brother, Alexander, what had
happened.^[3] The two of them then related the outrage to
their parents, who lost no time in reporting it to the authorities.^[4] That same day, Merly underwent a medical and
physical examination made by Dr. Ma. Cristina B. Freyra of the Crime Laboratory
in Camp Crame.^[5] In due time, the corresponding information
for rape was filed against Salinas before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.^[6]

The evidence for the
prosecution consisted of the testimonies of Merly herself and the examining
physician, who also submitted a written report.^[7] While affirming that there was no external
sign of violence on Merly’s person, particularly her vagina, the doctor
also said it was possible for this organ to be penetrated without tearing of
the hymen.^[8]

In his defense, Salinas pleaded alibi, claiming that at the
precise time of the alleged rape, he was sleeping in his house when he was
awakened by the knocking on their door of his sister Glenda, who was returning
from a party with a friend.^[9]
Glenda corroborated this statement and added that Salinas was still sleeping on
the sofa when she left at 4:00 a.m. to hear a misa de gallo.^[10] Salinas also suggested that he was
charged with rape by Merly because she had earlier unjustly suspected him of
peeping at her.^[11]

After considering the evidence of the parties, Judge Domingo D.
Panis rendered judgment on August 14, 1992, finding Benito Salinas guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
accused was also ordered to indemnify Merly Alonzo in the sum of P20,000.00,
“and the further sum of P30,000.00 as and by way of moral damages.”^[12]

In his brief, the appellant now faults the trial court for
disbelieving his alibi and giving credence instead to Merly’s testimony despite
its many inconsistencies. He stresses
that his whereabouts at the time of the alleged incident were clearly
established by him and his sister and that, by contrast, Merly’s testimony had
no corroboration, not even from the physician who examined her after the
claimed rape.

The defense also emphasizes that during the supposed attack,
Merly offered no resistance and made no outcry although her brother and sister
were sleeping in the other rooms on the same floor and her parents were with
their niece and nephews downstairs. Incredibly, it took all of two days before it occurred to her to report
the outrage to her parents. Most
importantly, the lack of any sign of external violence on her vagina and her
intact hymen belied her claimed defilement.

Salinas’ alibi was corroborated only by his own sister, whose
credibility would naturally be suspect. Moreover, assuming she was telling the truth, we do not find it
impossible for Salinas to sprint to the house across the street at 2:30 a.m.,
rape Merly, and return to his sofa before 4 a.m., when Glenda found him still
sleeping there. That kind of alibi
cannot stand against his positive identification by the victim herself, who had
known him since childhood^[13] and
saw him clearly by the light in her room that morning.^[14]

It is not true that she did not resist Salinas’ attack for the
record shows that she tried to push him away and pulled his hair and averted
her face from him. She kept turning on
her side to avoid his penis. If she did
not cry out for help, it was because of the knife he was carrying to command
her submission and silence. Even if he
might have laid the weapon down as he attacked her, it was still there within
his reach to daunt the 13-year old girl, who could have been intimidated enough
by the mere strength and presence of the unwelcome man in her room.

As for the intact hymen, this is no proof that no rape had been
committed. A broken hymen is not an
essential element of rape, not even where the victim is an innocent child like
Merly. As the trial court correctly
observed:

The fact that the hymen has not been lacerated is of no
moment. The victim being of tender age,
the penetration of the male organ could go only as deep as the labia. In any case, for rape to be committed, full
penetration is not required. It is
enough that there is proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia or
pudendum of the female organ. Even the
slightest penetration is sufficient to consummate the crime of rape. Perfect penetration, rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina are not essential for the offense of consummated
rape. Entry, to the least extent, of
the labia or lips of the female organ is sufficient. Remaining a virgin does not negate rape (People vs. Castro, 196
SCRA 679, 685).

In rape cases, there are no half measures or even quarter
measures nor is their gravity graduated by the inches of entry. Partial penile penetration is as serious as
full penetration; the rape is deemed consummated in either case. In a manner of speaking, bombardment of the
drawbridge is invasion enough even if the troops do not succeed in entering the
castle.

The claimed inconsistencies in Merly’s testimony do not vitiate
it but only stress her difficulties in estimating time and distance, as when
she said the incident took place at about 2:30 a.m. when it could have been
earlier or later; or that Salinas inserted his penis in her vagina for ten
minutes when it could have been for a shorter period; or that he stayed in her
room for one and a half hour although a half hour or less was more believable;
or that he jumped down from a height of ten meters when it was actually about
only ten feet. These flaws, if flaws
they are, would only stress the believability of Merly’s unrehearsed and
imperfect testimony and, in any case, do not impair its essential veracity and
consistency.

Finally, we hold that the cases of People v. Villarin^[15]
and People v. Dulay,^[16]
where the accused were acquitted, are not applicable to the case at bar. In both cases, an amorous relationship was
established between the parties to negate the charge of intimidation and
violence upon the complainants. No such
relationship was shown to exist between Salinas and Merly.

We are satisfied that sufficient evidence has been established
against the appellant to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence
in his favor and establish his guilt of the crime charged beyond reasonable
doubt. We shall therefore sustain the
appealed judgment except only as to the monetary award.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the challenged
decision is AFFIRMED. The award of
civil indemnity and moral damages is, however, hereby reduced to
P30,000.00. Costs against the
appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Quiason, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
TSN, July 20, 1992, p. 3.

^[2]
TSN, February 26, 1992, pp. 5-15; TSN, March 2, 1992, pp. 6-24.

^[3]
TSN, February 26, 1992, pp. 11-12.

^[4]
Ibid., pp. 13-14.

^[5]
Id., p. 14.

^[6]
Original Rec., p. 1.

^[7]
Ibid., p. 5.

^[8]
TSN, March 9, 1992, pp. 6-7.

^[9]
TSN, July 20, 1992, pp. 4-5.

^[10]
TSN, July 21, 1992, pp. 3-5.

^[11]
TSN, July 20, 1992, p. 9.

^[12]
Rollo, p. 19.

^[13]
TSN, February 26, 1992, p. 5.

^[14]
Ibid., p. 6.

^[15]
218 SCRA 165.

^[16]
217 SCRA 132.