PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PETRONILO ABAPO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from
the decision^[1] of the court a quo finding herein accused-appellant
Petronilo Abapo guilty of two (2) crimes of rape alleged to have
been committed as follows:^[2]

“In Criminal Case No. 133(90) –

The Undersigned Offended Party accuses PETRONILO ABAPO of the crime
of Rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

That sometime in January, 1989, in Digos, Davao del Sur,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused
aforenamed, after covering the mouth of said offended party who was then
sleeping with his hand and after warning her not to shout, otherwise he would
kill her, her mother, and her brother and sisters, did, then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of said Offended
Party, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

xxx xxx xxx

“In Criminal Case No. 136(90)

The Undersigned pursuant to a complaint signed by Cherry Lyn M.
Navalon, herein Offended Party, and attached hereto as Annex ‘A’, accuses
PETRONILO ABAPO of the crime of Rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, committed as follows:

That sometime in late September and/or early October, 1989, in
Digos, Davao del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused aforenamed, by means of force or intimidation
exerted upon the aforenamed offended party, a minor of 11 years of age, did,
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of
said Cherry Lyn M. Navalon, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

When arraigned, accused pleaded not guilty. A joint trial of the two (2) cases on the
merits ensued, after which a decision was rendered, the dispositive part of
which reads:^[3]

“WHEREFORE, premises considered and in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused Petronilo
Abapo guilty of the 2 crimes of rape and hereby punishes him to suffer two (2)
life sentences as follows:

In Criminal Case No. 133(90) an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua
or life sentence and to pay the victim Merlyn Navalon the following amounts:

1)      P100,000.00 for moral
damages;

2)      P100,000.00 for
corrective or exemplary damages to serve as warning and stern lesson to others
in the future for the public good;

3)      P20,000.00 in the
concept of actual or compensatory damages;

4)      P30,000.00 as
attorney’s fees; and

5) P10,000.00 for expenses of litigation.

In Criminal Case No. 136(90) an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua
or life sentence and to pay the victim Cherry Lyn Navalon the following
amounts:

1)      P100,000.00 for moral
damages;

2)      P100,000.00 for
corrective or exemplary damages to serve as warning and stern lesson to others
in the future for the public good;

3)      P20,000.00 in the
concept of actual or compensatory damages;

4)      P30,000.00 as
attorney’s fees; and

5)      P10,000.00 for
expenses of litigation.

In both cases, to pay the costs of suit.”

The accused is now before the Court and assigns the following as
errors allegedly committed by the trial court:

“ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I.                    
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE HEREIN TWO
(2) CASES OF RAPE AGAINST THE ACCUSED WERE MERELY FABRICATIONS.

II.                  
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT BELIEVING THAT BERNARDO
NAVALON, JR., THE FATHER OF THE TWO COMPLAINANTS IS NOT A GOOD FATHER AND HAS
THE CAPACITY TO DO THE EVIL DESIGN, WITH NENITA DONATO (HALF SISTER) AND CESAR
NAVORRA (HALF BROTHER) OF FABRICATING CHARGES AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND THE TWO
(2) COMPLAINANTS COLLABORATED WITH THEM.

III.                 
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED WAS
ILLEGALLY ARRESTED, INVESTIGATED AND LOCKED UP IN JAIL WITHOUT A WARRANT OF
ARREST AND HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
VIOLATED. HE WAS NOT INFORMED AND
EXPLAINED OF HIS RIGHTS. FORCE WAS USED
AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND YET THE ACCUSED WAS NOT ARMED AND THE ARRESTING OFFICER
WAS ARMED, WORST [sic] THE ARRESTING OFFICER PATM. GERARDO DIAMANTE AND THE
COMPLAINANTS TRIED TO EXTORT MONEY FROM THE ACCUSED SO THAT THE CASE WOULD BE
WITHDRAWN.

IV.               
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE GUN,
BULLETS, LEATHER BAG, ETC. ALLEGEDLY USED BY THE ACCUSED IN THREATENING THE TWO
(2) PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS WERE PLANTED AND WAS PART OF THE FRAME UP. THEY WERE NOT TAKEN FROM THE ACCUSED BUT IN
THE HOUSE OF A STRANGER WHILE THE ACCUSED WAS IN JAIL AND WORST [sic] THEY WERE
TAKEN WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT. HENCE
INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE ESPECIALLY THAT THE OFFER OF EXHIBITS WERE PROPERLY
AND SEASONABLY OBJECTED.

V.                 
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT AT THE TIME OF THE
ALLEGED RAPES IN APLAYA AND 4th BONIFACIO ST., DIGOS, DAVAO DEL SUR, THE TWO
PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS WERE NO LONGER IN THOSE TWO PLACES MAKING THE ALLEGATIONS
OF RAPE IMPOSSIBLE.

VI.               
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE CLAIM OF
RAPE BY MERLYN NAVALON THAT AT THE TIME SHE WAS RAPE [sic] HER ELDER BROTHER
MELCHOR, SISTER ARGELYN, WERE BESIDE HER AND ANOTHER SISTER CARMELYN JUST
NEARBY IS INCREDIBLE AND NOT BELIEVABLE.

VII.              
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE TWO PRIVATE
COMPLAINANTS, MERLYN AND CHERRY LYN LOST THEIR VIRGINITY AS PER MEDICAL
CERTIFICATE BECAUSE BOTH HAD A SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH THEIR ELDEST BROTHER,
BERNARDO NAVALON III, WHICH EXPLAINS THE LOSS OF VIRGINITY AND FREE ENTRY IN
THE VAGINA OF THE TWO PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS.

VIII.            
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT BELIEVING THAT THE ACCUSED
AND CARMINIA MANLICLIC ARE NOT AMOROUSLY RELATED.”

The evidence for the prosecution was summarized by the Solicitor
General in the following manner:^[4]

“Merlyn and Cherry
Lyn Navalon are two (2) of the eight (8) children of Carmenia Manliclic with
common-law husband Bernardo Navalon, Jr., with whom Carmenia lived from 1971 to
1987. Merlyn was born on June 10, 1977
(Exh. ‘C’, Birth Certificate) while Cherry Lyn was born on June 28, 1978 (Exh. ‘D’, Birth
Certificate; TSN, Oct. 29, 1990, pp. 13-­14, Carmenia Manliclic). Sometime in 1987, Carmenia left the family
abode in Bob, Magsaysay, Davao del Sur bringing with her the two younger
children, Melchor and Argelyn. Together
with appellant, they lived as husband and wife in Bonifacio 4th Street, Digos
and later transferred to Aplaya, Digos in April 1989 in a house they rented
from Magdalena Romero. Carmenia’s other
children, namely Bernardo III, Alquin, Carmelyn, Merlyn and Cherry Lyn joined
and lived with their mother at one time or another (TSN, Oct. 29, 1990, pp.
17-18, Carmenia Manliclic; Sept. 23, 1991, pp. 6-7, Magdalena Romero; Sept. 25,
1991, pp. 5-6, Merlyn Navalon).

In January, 1989, Merlyn was living with her mother and appellant
in Bonifacio 4th, Digos, Davao del Sur. As appellant was the one who shouldered the family expenses, the
children in return cared for him, washed his clothes, cleaned the house, and in
the case of Merlyn and Cherry Lyn, even plucked appellant’s mustache. The house they lived in had only one bedroom
for Carmenia and appellant, while the children slept in the sala (TSN, Sept.
25, 1991, pp. 6-7, Merlyn Navalon). One
night in January, 1989 (near midnight), while Merlyn was sleeping, appellant
crawled towards her and started touching her private parts, her nipples and
kissed her face and removed her panty. When Carmenia moved in her room, appellant hurriedly went back
inside. Merlyn tried to stay awake but
unfortunately fell asleep. She was
awakened with appellant already on top of her. She tried to free herself but was warned by appellant who threatened to
kill her and her younger brother and sisters. A gun was placed beside her. Appellant succeeded in having intercourse with her (TSN, Sept. 25, 1991,
pp. 13-16, Merlyn Navalon; Sept. 26, 1991, p. 9, Merlyn Navalon).

In the case of Cherry Lyn, sometime in the first week of October,
1989 in their house in Aplaya, Digos, Davao del Sur, appellant requested her to
pluck his mustache. Appellant further
asked Cherry Lyn to kiss him which she complied with as appellant gets angry if
Cherry Lyn fails to obey any command. Afterwards, appellant started touching her body, her face and
nipple. He also succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with Cherry Lyn. During that time, Cherry Lyn’s brothers and sisters were around but was
(sic) ordered by appellant to go to another room and sleep. Carmenia Manliclic was attending a meeting
in the school but she arrived at the house when Cherry Lyn and appellant were
still in a compromising situation. A
quarrel ensued between appellant and Carmenia (TSN, Oct. 9, 1991, pp. 9-10, 14,
Cherry Lyn Navalon).

On October 10, 1989, Cherry Lyn’s uncle Cesar Navora (her father’s
half-brother) came to the beach in Aplaya. Cherry Lyn decided to leave Aplaya and go with her uncle. She first stayed in her father’s house in
Bob, Magsaysay but was later transferred by her aunt, Nenita Donato (her
father’s half-sister) and enrolled at Bansalan (TSN, Oct. 9, 1991, p. 5, 17,
23, Cherry Lyn Navalon). It was only
during the first week of March 1990 that Cherry Lyn was able to tell her aunt
about what happened to her and to her sister Merlyn and requested her aunt to
get her two younger sisters who might be victimized by appellant. She did not tell her mother what really
happened not only because of appellant’s threat to kill them but also because
she felt that her mother knew about the rape as she was able to witness the
tail-end of the incident (TSN, Oct. 9, 1991, pp. 9, 12, 15, Cherry Lyn Navalon;
Oct. 11, 1991, p. 5, Nenita Donato).

Nenita Donato brought Cherry Lyn to the police station to complain
about the incident. She was also
subjected to a medical examination (TSN, Oct.
9, 1991, p. 12, Cherry Lyn Navalon; Oct. 11, 1991, p. 6, Nenita
Donato). Dr. Asuncion Z. Tajon,
Municipal Health Officer of Digos, Davao del Sur, found as follows: pelvic examination – vulva, no abrasion, no
swelling x x x. Vagina admits middle
finger freely (Exh. ‘A’, Medical Certificate dated March 8, 1990; TSN, July 30,
1991, p. 6, Dr. Asuncion Tajon).

Nenita Donato proceeded to Monkayo, Davao to talk to Merlyn about
Cherry Lyn’s story. Merlyn was earlier
taken by her elder sister Novilla from Aplaya to Monkayo when Novilla, who was
visiting from Tagum, Davao del Norte where she was studying, found her inside
the room with appellant and suspected an untoward incident happened (TSN, Oct.
11, 1991, p. 8, Nenita Donato; Sept. 26, 1991, pp. 14-15, Merlyn Navalon). She brought Merlyn to the health center for
examination and Dr. Tajon, who also conducted the examination, found that ‘no
physical injury noted, vulva-no sign of inflammation or injury, vagina admits
middle finger freely without pain or resistance’ (Exh. ‘B’), Medical
Certificate, March 12, 1990; TSN, July 30, 1991, p. 7, Dr. Asuncion Tajon).”

The defense, on the other hand, presented an entirely different
narrative. It vehemently denied the
charges and averred that the two (2) rape cases were mere fabrications of
Bernardo Navalon Jr., Nenita Donato, Cesar Navorra, Cherry Lyn Navalon and
Merlyn Navalon because (1) they were jealous of the accused whom they suspected
to have an illicit relation with Carmenia Manliclic, and (2) they wanted to
take vengeance against the accused for having financially supported Carmenia
Manliclic in her case for support against Bernardo Navalon, Jr. which resulted
in the award of portions of the Navalon rice land to Carmenia Manliclic and her
children.

The defense further alleged that Joan Narvasa, a Navalon relative
and a school teacher of Barayong, Magsaysay, Davao del Sur, conspired with the
Navalons and falsified the school register to evidence that Cherry Lyn and
Merlyn were not in Barayong, Magsaysay, Davao del Sur nor in Bansalan, Davao
del Sur, but rather in Digos, Davao del Sur at the time they were raped. As testified to by Carmenia Manliclic,
Merlyn was taken by Novilla Navalon and brought to Monkayo in March 1989, while
Cherry Lyn was taken by Cesar Navorra in August 1989. Cherry Lynn herself testified that she was attending school at
Bansalan Central Elementary School, a place very far from Digos, Davao del Sur,
from June 1989 to March 1990.

The defense likewise presented Bernardo Navalon III, the eldest
brother of Cherry Lyn and Merlyn, who admitted having sexual intercourse with
the two (2) private complainants (his sisters). He also claimed that Pat.
Gerardo Diamante, a prosecution witness, was overzealous in filing the case
against the accused for the purpose of extorting money from the accused. Lastly, the defense averred that the accused
was arrested without a warrant of arrest and was not informed, under the
circumstances, of his constitutional rights.

The principal issue in this appeal is anchored on the credibility
of the witnesses.

It is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that where the issue
is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts give great weight to the
findings of fact by the trial courts as they are in a better position to
examine real evidence, as well as observe the demeanor of the witnesses.^[5]

We find the testimonies of Merlyn and Cherry Lyn to be
credible. It is an accepted rule that
the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in
her testimony. In fact, such
inconsistencies are to be expected if a witness is unrehearsed and testifies
spontaneously. The fact also stands out
that the results of the medical examination show that the complainants had
previous sexual intercourse, since they were no longer in a virgin state. We seriously doubt that two (2) young inexperienced
girls who were below twelve (12) years when they were raped, would concoct such
a ghastly story about the physical abuse done to them, if this did not actually
happen.

The appellant contends that the charges against him are mere
fabrications of the complainants, their father and some relatives. He alleges that he is a frame-up
victim. And yet, these allegations
cannot outweigh and invalidate the positive identification of the
accused-appellant by the complainants. Further, and no matter how hard the appellant tries to convince this
Court that the complainants’ father, along with his relatives, have the
capacity to do evil, we are not convinced that a father would subject his two
(2) young daughters to the humiliation and trauma of a rape trial simply
because he had allegedly lost a case which resulted in an award of some
portions of land to his common-law wife and their children (including
complainants herein). Moreover, no
amount of coercion from their father could have prepared the complainants for
the rigors of a rape trial and convince the trial court of their honesty and
integrity, if no rape had been committed against them. As observed by the trial court:

“The denial by the accused is dwarfed by the positive
identification by the victims of the rape (sic) whose declarations were all
ringing with earmarks of sincerity. x x
x The idea of vengeance arising from a land conflict would not inspire any
belief, for nobody would invent rape for an alleged loss of a piece of land in
a court decision. Why will two (2)
young women, who are minors, agree to expose their virtues as women and subject
themselves with loss of honor as women for love of a small estate? Besides, one-half of such land was in fact
given to the children by amicable settlement. x x x”

We likewise cannot lend credence to the assertion of the
appellant that it was the brother of the two (2) complainants who abused them
resulting in the loss of their virginity. This we see as an utterly desperate attempt to distract the Court and focus
on some other person who could be suspected of abusing the two (2)
complainants. Merlyn and Cherry Lyn
vehemently denied having sexual intercourse with their brother, Bernardo
Navalon III. And even if we were to
assume arguendo that the above imputation were true, the same would just
be the basis of an entirely different criminal case, without any bearing on the
present suit because, here, we speak of two (2) incidents where the appellant
has been positively identified as having sexually abused Merlyn and Cherry
Lyn. It just amazes us to see the power
that the appellant and Carmenia Manliclic (the mother) have over Bernardo
Navalon III to have effectively convinced the latter to confess to such a crime
in order to exculpate and save the skin of the appellant. As regards the contention that the appellant
and Carmenia Manliclic are not paramours, this circumstance, in the light of
the present charges, is trivial and not fatal to the prosecution’s case. Neither does the fact that the brother and
sister of Merlyn were beside her at the time of her rape render the accusation
of rape against appellant incredible and not believable. As earlier stated, the fact of rape and the
supporting medical findings have been clearly established in this case^[6]
and we find no reason to doubt their veracity.

We now come to the contention that at the time of the alleged
rapes, the two (2) complainants were no longer in Digos, Davao del Sur, thus
making the allegations of rape
incredible. We agree with the
observation of the Solicitor General:

“Appellant contends that it was impossible for him to have raped the
victims since at the time the crimes were allegedly committed, both the victims
were no longer residing with their mother either in Bonifacio 4th, Digos or in
Aplaya.

Thus, as regards Cherry Lyn who was allegedly raped on the first
week of October, 1989, she was already studying in Bansalan, Davao del Sur and living with an aunt. But Cherry Lyn categorically stated that she
left her mother on October 19, 1989, which was corroborated by the testimony of
her aunt. The reliance of appellant on
Exhibit ‘J’ or ‘3’ which is Cherry Lyn’s report card is misplaced. Cherry Lyn is a transferee from another
school and her records from one school are simply carried to another and
reported in the report card of the issuing school.

More importantly, Cherry Lyn could no longer remember the exact
date when she was raped by appellant but it was during the time when she was
staying with her mother who was then living together with appellant. That she had been living with her mother is
admitted by Carmenia herself and Joan Narvaza who testified that Cherry Lyn was
unable to finish her studies in Barayong Elementary School as she was taken by
her mother on November 28, 1988 (TSN, July 30, 1991, pp. 19-20).

With respect to Merlyn, it was alleged that she was brought to
Monkayo, Davao in March, 1989. As the
crime was committed in January, 1989, its commission is not improbable, as
claimed by appellant. Carmenia, in a
futile attempt to save her paramour, claimed that Merlyn had not lived with
her. Yet, her testimony is debunked by
her statement in a complaint against Bernardo,
Jr. for support claiming that her children, including Merlyn, were
staying with her and in her custody. Such inconsistent claims, arrayed against the positive statement of
Merlyn that she lived with her mother, and the testimonies of other witnesses,
could not be given any credence.”

Thus, the discrepancy in the report
card of Cherry Lyn^[7]
has been satisfactorily explained. As a
transferee, her records were simply carried over to the new school. This fact is further bolstered by the
testimony of Joan Narvasa^[8] who
affirmed that Merlyn and Cherry Lyn indeed dropped out of their classes at
Barayong Central Elementary School in November 1988 in order for them to stay
with their mother at Digos, Davao del Sur. The lame attempt of the defense to discredit the testimony of Narvasa
(due to an alleged distant relation to an aunt of the two (2) complainants)
cannot be given credence because the mere relationship to a party does not
militate against the credibility of the witness.^[9] As
shown by the records of the case at bench, the evidence provided by Merlyn and
Cherry Lyn Navalon is positive, clear and exhibited no sign of exaggeration or
inconsistency despite the rigorous cross-examination they underwent.

Besides, the defense itself showed inconsistencies in its
arguments when, first, it claimed that the allegations of rape were impossible
because Merlyn and Cherry Lyn were no longer in Digos, Davao del Sur at the
time the rapes were allegedly committed, and then, on the other hand, it
claimed that the allegations of rape on Merlyn were incredible and not
believable because at the time she was allegedly raped, her brother and two (2)
sisters were just nearby. The defense
should have taken the time to reconcile the two (2) conflicting theories or
simply should have stuck to one theory and then supported the same. As it stands, the theory of the facts
proferred by the defense only becomes seriously impaired by such
inconsistencies.

Further, the appellant argues that the court a quo erred
in not finding that his rights under the Constitution were violated in view of
his illegal arrest and the lack of a search warrant over the evidence offered
against him, and that the arresting officer and the complainants tried to
extort money from the appellant so that the case against him could be
withdrawn.

On the matter of the illegal arrest, it is well-settled that the
filing of a petition for bail should be considered as a waiver of any
irregularity attending the arrest.^[10] The
appellant cannot likewise attempt to exculpate himself by alleging that the
evidence (i.e. gun, bullets) were planted as part of the frame-up against him
and that, nonetheless, they were taken without a search warrant. We emphasize that the crimes charged in the
present cases are statutory rapes, that is, having carnal
knowledge of a woman under twelve (12) years of age. All that is necessary to convict the accused of such charge is
the fact of carnal knowledge, which has been more than adequately proven in
this case. All other matters bear
little significance to the case.

Finally, neither are we inclined to consider the allegation of
extortion as the same is self-serving and without basis. The appellant has raised too many extraneous
issues which only serve to convince this Court all the more of his guilt.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed
decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the clarification that the penalty imposed on
appellant is RECLUSION PERPETUA (not Life Imprisonment) in each of the two (2)
cases.

The award for moral damages is reduced from P100,000.00 to
P50,000.00 for each rape victim. The
award of P100,000.00 for exemplary damages is deleted, but the award of
P20,000.00 for each of the victims as actual damages stands, while the awards
for attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation are reduced from P30,000.00 and
P10,000.00 respectively to P15,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively for each of
the victims.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Penned by Hon. Dominador F. Carillo, Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur,
Branch 19.

^[2] Rollo, pp.
23-24.

^[3]
Ibid., p. 37.

^[4]
Ibid., pp. 162-167.

^[5]
People v. Rodriguez, 172 SCRA 742 (1989).

^[6]
TSNs, 25 September 1991, pp. 12-16; 9 October 1991, pp. 8-10; 30 July 1991, pp. 6-10.

^[7]
Exhibits “J” and “K”.

^[8]
TSN, 30 July 1991, pp. 19.

^[9]
Primero v. Court of Appeals, 179
SCRA 542 (1989).

^[10]
Harvey vs. Defensor-Santiago, 162 SCRA 840 (1988).