PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DEMETRIO SULTE Y NULLEN ALIAS “ETENG”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Charged with the commission of rape in an Information reading as
follows:

That sometime in July 1989 at Luna Street, Municipality of Liliw,
Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused with lewd design and by means of force, threat, violence
and intimidation, while conveniently armed with a fan knife (balisong), did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with
one LAILANIE A. SULTE, a minor, eleven (11) years of age, against her will and
consent, to her damage and prejudice.

(p. 2, Rollo.)

accused-appellant, upon arraignment,
pleaded not guilty. Such plea
notwithstanding, and of course following trial, the court a quo, found accused?appellant
guilty of the misdeed, disposing, a bit ungrammatically, in its decision of
April 15, 1993:

WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the Court finds the
accused DEMETRIO SULTE guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime
of Rape defined and punished under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code and
hereby imposed upon him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay
jointly the offended party Lailanie Sulte and complainant-mother Cereniza Sulte
the sum of P50.000 as MORAL DAMAGES, P25,000.00 as EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, P3,000.00
as CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES and to pay the cost

(p. 34, Rollo.)

Accused-appellant, unwilling to accept such perdition, has
interposed the instant appeal urging reversal on the general allegation that
the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the charge.

The facts of the case, as established by the evidence and as
summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General, are as follows:

Sometime in July,
1989, Lailanie Sulte, an eleven-year old Grade 4 student was inside the comfort
room of their house at Luna Street, Liliw, Laguna, when she noticed appellant
Demetrio Sulte (the brother of her grandfather) peeping at her through a hole
in the door. When she saw the face of
appellant, she shouted “Hoy!”, and appellant left. (tsn, July 23, 1992, pp. 4-5)

After several weeks, appellant told Lailanie to go down to the
basement of their house. When she asked
why, appellant just told her to go, to which she acceded. When she reached the basement, appellant
pointed a fan knife on her neck and told her not to scream. Appellant then told Lailanie to remove her
short pants and panty, which she did out of fear (tsn, July 23, 1992, pp. 6-7).

When she had removed her short pants and panty, appellant removed
his pants, took out his penis and inserted it in Lailanie’s vagina while they
were both in a standing position. Aside
from inserting his penis into her vagina, Lailanie testified that appellant
also kissed her neck and breasts and licked her vagina (tsn, July 23, 1992, pp.
8-10).

After a few weeks, appellant again commanded Lailanie to go to the
same basement. Lailanie again went to
the basement out of fear because appellant had threatened to kill her and her
parents if she refused. After arriving
at the basement, appellant kissed Lailanie’s breasts while masturbating
himself. Appellant told Lailanie not to
tell anyone about what happened because he would kill her if she did (tsn, July
23, 1992, pp. 12-13).

Again, after a few weeks, appellant commanded Lailanie to go to the
same basement. Again, he told Lailanie
to remove her short pants and panty, which she did out of fear. Appellant told Lailanie to sit on a chair
placed across the basement door. While
she was sitting on the chair, appellant sat opposite her and placed his legs on
top of her legs. Appellant then moved
closer to Lailanie, placed his penis inside her vagina, and moved it (the
penis) in and out of her vagina. At the
same time, appellant was mashing Lailanie’s breast (tsn, July 23, 1992, pp.
13-15).

When appellant was through with his bestial act, appellant gave
Lailanie some money and told her not to tell anyone about what happened. During the said incident, Lailanie testified
that appellant had a knife in his possession (tsn, July 23, 1992, pp. 15-16).

Lailanie further testified that appellant had been able to perform
this hideous act on her repeatedly. She
further stated that it could have been more than twenty (20) times (tsn, July
23, 1992, p. 17).

Lailanie finally told her mother and grandmother about the
incidents with appellant because she could no longer bear what appellant was
doing to her and she was very afraid of him (appellant). Lailanie also testified that the incidents
with appellant affected her studies to the extent that she stopped schooling
because she felt that everybody in Liliw, Laguna was talking about her (tsn,
July 23, 1992, pp. 19-20).

Prosecution witness Cereniza Sulte, mother of Lailanie, testified
that appellant Demetrio Sulte is her uncle. She found out that appellant had raped Lailanie when she (Mrs. Sulte)
went to the house of her mother-in-law, Nene Mistica to tell her (Mistica) that
Lailanie was being peeped at by appellant. When Mistica asked Lailanie why she was still going upstairs to the
comfort room when she knew that appellant was peeping at her, Lailanie did not
answer but instead cried. Lailanie then
informed Cereniza and Mistica that she had already been raped by appellant since
she (Lailanie) was ten (10) years old. Lailanie also reported that she did not reveal the truth at once
because appellant threatened to kill her (tsn, July 13, 1992, pp. 4-7).

After such revelation, Cereniza returned home and informed her
husband Edgardo Sulte. Thereafter, the
spouses Sulte had Lailanie examined by a doctor and filed a complaint for rape
against appellant (tsn, July 13, 1992, pp. 10-14).

Prosecution witness, Dr. Amy Virina, testified that on November 25,
1991, she examined a patient by the name of Lailanie Sulte. After conducting the physical examination of
Lailanie, Dr. Virina noted that her (Lailanie’s) vagina was lax and easily
admits two fingers; that the labia mejora and menora were gaping; and that
there was a healed laceration noted at the 9 o’clock position (tsn, July 14,
1992, pp. 6-7). According to Dr.
Virina, the cause of the above findings was frequent sexual intercourse and the
insertion into the vagina of a foreign body like the male sexual organ (tsn,
July 14, 1992, p. 9).

(pp. 3-8, Appellee’s Brief.)

Accused-appellant contends that it is highly unlikely for a man
to consummate rape on an 11-year old virgin while in a standing position or in
a sitting position as allegedly performed during the second assault. May be so. But the evidence on record clearly runs counter to the contention of
accused?appellant. Prosecution
witness Dr. Amy Virina, who conducted a physical examination of complainant
Lailanie Sulte, positively testified that Lailanie’s vagina was lax and easily
admitted two fingers, that the labia mejora and menora were gaping, and that
there was a healed laceration at the 9 o’clock position. Dr. Virina concluded that said physical
findings were caused by frequent sexual intercourse. There is, therefore, no room for doubt that Lailanie had been
subjected to sexual intercourse. And
Lailanie unequivocably identified accused-appellant as the malefactor who
ravished her. We have painstakingly
scrutinized the testimony of Lailanie and we find the same to be candid,
positive, and categorical, unsullied by any inconsistencies, contradictions,
tergiversations, or mendacities; and, therefore, Lailanie’s testimony deserves
utmost weight and credit. She was less
than 12 years old when she was first sexually assaulted and this Court usually
lends credence to the testimony of young girls especially where the facts point
to their having been victims of sexual assault (People vs. Abuyan, Jr.
211 SCRA 662 [1992]). It is difficult
to believe that Lailanie fabricated the sexual assault committed against
her. The testimony of a rape victim is
credible where she has no motive to testify against the accused (People vs.
Cabilao, 210 SCRA 326 [1992]).

Further, accused-appellant argues that the fact that it took
Lailanie more than 2 years to reveal the rape to her mother, grandmother, and
sister renders her testimony incredible. Under the circumstances of the case, we are not persuaded by
accused-appellant’s argument. It is to
be recalled that Lailanie and accused-appellant lived in the same house and
accused-appellant had threatened Lailanie every time he abused her that he
would kill her and her family if she reports the rape. Such threats sufficiently cowed the girl
then barely past her first decade to silence. Delay in filing the case is justified where such is due to death threats
against the victim or her family (People vs. Lim, 206 SCRA 176
[1992]). Lailanie being then of very
tender age and utterly innocent of the ways of the world, her temporary and
initial silence is understandable (People vs. Alvarez, 213 SCRA 722
[1992]).

In the final analysis, the issue raised by accused-appellant may
be reduced to one of credibility. This
Court has time and again cleaved to the precept that the findings of fact of a trial
court are not to be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court has overlooked,
ignored, or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance
which if considered would have altered the case (People vs. Martinez,
205 SCRA 666 [1992]), for verily, the trial court is in a better position to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying (Collado vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 206 SCRA 206 [1992]). We have closely scrutinized the
record and we find no such fact or circumstances warranting the reversal of the
findings of the trial court.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with
cost against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

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