THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALFONSO QUINEVISTA, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant Alfonso Quinevista, Jr. was convicted by the Regional
Trial Court of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat of the crime of Rape and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the sum of P30,000.00 by
way of indemnification, and costs.^[1]
On appeal, appellant asserts that the trial court erred: (a) in finding accused-appellant Alfonso
Quinevista, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape despite the
evidence to the contrary; and (b) in disregarding the testimony of the defense
witnesses that the complainant was not raped by him but by her former boy
friend.

The record of the case discloses that at about 6:00 o’clock in
the evening of December 1, 1991, the complainant Amelia Torres who was then
only 15 years old was with her brothers and sister in their house at Poloy-Poloy,
Lebak, Sultan Kudarat. The door of the
house was left unlocked for the expected arrival of her parents from their
farm. While she lay awake beside her
already slumbered siblings, she sensed someone push the unlocked door to gain
entry. As a kerosene lamp illumi­nated
the interior of the house, she recognized and identified the intruder as
appellant, a neighbor and incidentally the older brother of her erstwhile
sweetheart Dante Quinevista.

Brandishing a knife while clad merely, in underwear, appellant
threatened to kill complainant if she would refuse his obvious purpose. Appellant put off the lighted kerosene lamp
and poked his knife at her left side, undressed her, mounted himself on top of
her and inserted his male organ in her most private part. With “push and pull” movements
lasting for about a minute causing complainant tremendous pain, appellant
succeeded in gratifying his lust. Thereafter, appellant left but warned her not to reveal to anyone what
had transpired.^[2]

When complainant’s father, Avelino Torres, arrived with Rolando
Corpuz at around 8 o’clock p.m., they noticed her weeping; and despite
appellant’s parting threat, she narrated the incident. On that same evening, Avelino Torres and
Rolando Corpuz brought her to the CAFGU detachment for investigation. A team of CAFGU members including Rolando
Corpuz was then dispatched to arrest appellant in his house.^[3]

Rolando Corpuz corroborated Avelino Torres’ testi­mony, and
further testified that an examination of appellant by the apprehending team of
the CAFGU revealed the presence of blood in appellant’s underwear and on the
tip of his penis. And when appellant
was asked why he raped complainant, he answered that he was tempted.^[4]

Appellant’s defense is denial/alibi. He claimed that he was at his house at around 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of the same day, and never left as he was preoccupied washing and
tying turnips until 10:00 o’clock in the evening. He rose from his sleep at around 11:00 p.m. when Rolando Corpuz,
a CAFGU member himself, suddenly barged in their house and with a threatening
tone, invited appellant to go with him. Appellant likewise claimed that he was severely mauled by Rolando Corpuz
then accompanied by several other CAFGU men on their way to, and at, the
SEABORNE quarters at Tibpuan, Lebak.^[5]

Essentially corroborating appellant’s story is his wife Mary
Grace Quinevista.^[6]

Appellant’s brother Dante Quinevista had his own peculiar story
to tell in an attempt to reinforce the alibi. It was he, and not appellant, who went to the Torres’ residence at
around 7:00 o’clock in the evening of December 1, 1991 to visit complainant,
his sweetheart. While her brothers and
sister were fast asleep and her parents away, she voluntarily had sexual inter­course
with him.^[7]
Dante Quinevista even boasted having about 10 sexual bouts with her in the
past, the last of which was during the night in question,^[8]
although he did not bother to reveal it to anyone and did so only for the first
time at the trial.^[9]

While complainant admits that Dante was her sweet­heart, she,
however, vehemently denied having sexual intercourse with Dante Quinevista and
in fact wrote him a letter dated December 3, 1991 terminating their rela­tionship
after his brother, appellant herein, raped her.^[10]

The twin errors assigned by appellant obviously and exclusively
touch on the issue of credibility, particularly with respect to complainant’s
testimony narrating the details of her ordeal and pinpointing appellant as the
perpetrator.

We have perused the testimony of complainant as against the
exculpatory statements of appellant and his witnesses, and found her positive
declarations beyond falsehood and fabrication. Complainant’s credibility is further bolstered by the physical
examination conducted on her by rebuttal witness Dr. Gaudencio Labian, Chief of
the Medicare Community Hospital of Lebak, on the same evening of the same day,
who found new and fresh lacera­tions in her hymen at “3 o’clock, 6
o’clock, 9 o’clock and 11 o’clock positions”, “secondary to
penetration through vaginal canal with hard object” and “blood oozing
out of the vaginal opening.”^[11]
In this connec­tion, while the complainant was having her menstrual period
during her medical examination which explains the presence of the oozing blood
in her genitalia,^[12]
the fact remains there were new and fresh lacerations in her hymen indicating
that they were inflicted with force or violence. Further, the trial court which had the unmatched opportunity to
actually see and assess the demeanor of complainant on the witness stand
explicitly described her testimony as being “candid and straight­forward”.^[13]
We have consistently upheld, in this re­gard, the well-established rule that
the conclusions and findings of fact of the trial court command great weight
and respect as to the trustworthiness of witnesses for it is in a better
position to appreciate the same, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves
and observed their behavior and manner of testifying during the trial. While there may be exceptions to this rule,
we find that the present case does not fall in any of them.^[14]
In addition, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that rape stigmatizes the
victim worse than the perpetrator since our culture puts premium in purity and
virginity as virtues.^[15]
Considering the modesty and timidity of a typical Filipina specially one from
the rural areas, it is difficult to accept that complainant would fabricate
facts which would seriously cast dishonor on her maidenhood if it were not
true.

Appellant attempts to belittle the credibility of the complainant,
contending that her testimony is not in accord “with the common knowledge
and experience of mankind.” On this point appellant’s counsel offers the
following argument:

“x x x                            x
x x                             x x x

Amelia Torres testified that appellant entered their house by
pushing the unlocked door. She saw him
only in brief who poked a knife at her before undressing her. She struggled against the appellant swinging
both her arms in sidewise movement and close to her side is her younger brother
Charlie sleeping.

From the foregoing, the offended party offered a resistance against
her attacker. In fact she struggled
with her two arms by exe­cuting sidewise movements and close to her side is her
younger brother. But despite her
allegation that she put up resistance, her brother Charlie at her side was
never arose from his sleep were not (sic) awaken despite of her resistance to
the culprit. Clearly, the testimony of
Amelia is not in accord with the common knowledge and experience of
mankind. x x x x x x.”^[16]

We are not persuaded. Jurisprudence abounds dis­proving appellant’s posture of
improbability. In People vs. Villorente,^[17]
appellant’s claim that it was impossi­ble for him to have raped complainant
inside the room where his two sisters were also sleeping was discarded. The Court adhered to the rule that rape can
be committed even in a house where there are other occupants.

In People vs. Rafanan,^[18]
this Court rejected accused-appellant’s defense of improbability despite the
fact that the victim was sleeping beside his eight-year?old daughter in
the same mat and under the same mosquito net and the child not having awakened
despite the strug­gle put up by the victim, and further suggesting that it
would be highly improbable for a man to seek and force himself upon a woman in
his own house, with his wife sleeping on the floor above him. The Court emphasized that rape has been
committed in many different places including places which to many would appear
to be un­likely and high-risk venues for sexual advances.

Moreover, in People vs. Codilla,^[19]
it has also been held that “it is of no moment that the rape occurred with
the complainant’s parents, brothers and sisters just sleeping in the nearby
room. It is not impossible nor
incredible for her family members to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened
while the sexual assault was being committed. Lust is not respecter of time and place.”

We sustain, therefore, the findings of the trial court on the
credibility of complainant and give the defense of alibi scant consideration. Elemental is the rule that the alibi of the
accused that he was not at the rape scene cannot stand against the positive
identi­fication made by the complainant.^[20]
In this case, the lighted kerosene lamp inside the Torres’ residence at the
time of the incident conveniently facilitated com­plainant’s identification of
appellant as the lecher. The
illumination produced by a kerosene lamp, like a “gasera” or “lampara”,
is sufficient for the identifica­tion of persons.^[21]
Furthermore, a distance of 500 meters separating the house of appellant from
complain­ant’s residence can easily be negotiated in a matter of minutes by
walking such that appellant could have been present at the crime scene at the
time the complainant was raped. Having
miserably failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at
the crime scene, appellant’s alibi shatters all the more.^[22]

Consequently, defense witness Dante Quinevista’s testimony that
it was he who went to the Torres’ residence where he and complainant
consentingly had sexual intercourse cannot inspire belief. His story, at the most, is pure fiction and
a mere subterfuge to save a beleaguered brother. It is quite understandable for Dante Quinevista and Mary Grace
Quinevista (appel­lant’s brother and wife respectively) to give testimonies
tending to support the purported alibi for their sympathy goes invariably with
appellant. Blood is thicker than
water. But alibi is admittedly and con­sistently
considered the weakest defense an accused can concoct,^[23]
and becomes less plausible as a defense when it is mainly established by the
accused himself and his immediate relatives.^[24]

In fine, it has been clearly established with moral certainty
from the testimony of the complainant that she unwittingly succumbed to the
lecherous assault perpetrated by appellant through force or intimidation, thus
squarely falling within the definition of rape under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended.

WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Dispositive portion, RTC Decision dated April 23, 1993, p. 26.

^[2]
Decision, pp. 2-4, pp. 14-17.

^[3]
Decision, p. 5.

^[4]
Decision, p. 4.

^[5]
Decision, pp. 6-7

^[6]
Decision, pp. 7-9

^[7]
Decision, p. 9.

^[8]
Decision, p. 10.

^[9]
Decision, pp. 10-11.

^[10]
Decision, pp. 11-12.

^[11]
TSN, pp. 8-9, September 18, 1992.

^[12]
TSN, p. 15, September 18, 1992.

^[13]
Decision, p. 12.

^[14]
The exceptions are: when patent
inconsist­encies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the lower court,
and (2) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the
evidence. People vs. Gumahin, 21
SCRA 729.

^[15]
People vs. Ibay, 233 SCRA 15.

^[16]
Brief, p. 11, Rollo, p. 75.

^[17]
210 SCRA 647.

^[18]
182 SCRA 811, 819.

^[19]
224 SCRA 104.

^[20]
People vs. Dinola, 183 SCRA 493.

^[21]
People vs. Ching, G.R. No. L-103800, January 19, 1995.

^[22]
See People vs. Arroyo, 201 SCRA 616; People vs. Apawan, 235 SCRA
355.

^[23]
People vs. Santito, 201 SCRA 87.

^[24]
People vs. Paglinawan, 233 SCRA 494; People vs. Torres, 232 SCRA
32.