PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GREGORIO BERSABE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

No woman,
particularly a six-year old child, would concoct a story of rape, allow an
examination of her private parts and subject herself to the embarrassment and
humiliation of a public trial if she has not, in fact, been a victim of
defloration.

The Case

This Court
reiterates this holding in denying this appeal from the Decision^[1] of the
Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite, Branch 15, finding Appellant Gregorio
Bersabe guilty of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

On June 19,
1984, Precita R. Ramos, on behalf of her six-year-old sister, Arlyn^[2] R. Ramos, filed
before the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Maragondon-Ternate^[3] a
complaint for rape^[4] against
Appellant Gregorio Bersabe. Finding
probable cause, the said court forwarded the records of the case to the Office
of the Provincial Fiscal for the filing of appropriate criminal information.^[5]
Accordingly, on November 25, 1985, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Simeon R.
Jajalla submitted before the court a quo the Information charging the
accused as follows:

“That on or
about [the] 11th day of June 1984, in the Municipality of Maragondon, Province
of Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with the use of force, violence and intimidation, with
lewd design, forced one Arlyn Ramos a six (6) year old girl, to lay [sic] down,
embrace[d], kiss[ed] and touch[ed] her private parts and while in that
condition, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have
carnal knowledge and rape her against her will and without her consent, to her
damage and prejudice.”^[6]

When arraigned,
the accused entered a plea of not guilty.^[7] After due
trial, the lower court rendered its assailed Decision,^[8] which
disposed as follows:

“Wherefore, this
Court finds the accused, Gregorio Bersabe, guilty of the crime of rape beyond
reasonable doubt under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences
him [to] the penalty of [r]eclusion [p]erpetua and
to indemnify the victim [in] the sum of P50,000.00. Plus cost[s].”^[9]

Hence, this
appeal.^[10]

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution
presented four witnesses, namely: (1)
Pat. Ramiro Ilagan, the investigating officer; (2) Dr. Gregoria Camilo who examined the victim; (3) Precita Ramos, the victim’s elder
sister; and (4) Arlyn Ramos, the victim. Their testimonies were condensed in the Brief for the Appellee,^[11] the
pertinent portions of which are as follows:

“In the morning
of June 11, 1984, Arlene Ramos, a six-year old girl who resided with her mother
at Naic, Cavite, went to the house of Aida Bersabe at Bukal III, Maragondon,
Cavite. Arlene was with her elder
sister, Milagros Ramos, wife of appellant’s brother, Bernardo Bersabe. They went to Maragondon because it was the
feast day of that place. Aida Bersabe
is the wife of appellant’s other brother whose name is not indicated in the
case record [TSN, August 5, 1986, pp. 7, 13; TSN, August 19, 1986, pp. 4-5].

At Aida’s house,
Arlene met appellant. With nobody else
in the house, Arlene and appellant played a game which she described as
“kilikilitian” inside Aida’s room. In
the process, appellant gave her four (4) pieces of caramel candy and 50
centavos. Then appellant pushed Arlene,
causing her to lie down on the bed. While in that position, appellant removed Arlene’s short[s], underwear
and undershirt (sando) while also undressing himself. With Arlene lying naked on the bed, appellant inserted his finger
into her sexual organ. Then he inserted
his sexual organ into hers. He did that
four times. Arlene’s sexual organ
bled. Although crying, Arlene did not
shout because of appellant’s threat that he would kill her. Then appellant put Arlene’s clothing back
on. Thereafter, he also put on his own
clothes. Then appellant brought Arlene
to the house of Kakang Pila, which was about two (2) meters away from Aida’s
house, to watch the making of the float for the fiesta (TSN, August 5, 1986,
pp. 12-13; TSN, August 19, 1986, pp. 4-13).

On June 14,
1984, about 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., Precita Ramos, Arlene’s elder sister, came to
fetch Arlene at Bukal III, Maragondon, Cavite. Arlene was at appellant’s house, which was just beside Aida’s
house. Precita was with Merlita, their
eldest sister, who however did not go to appellant’s house but stayed in the
tricycle they were riding on. They came
to fetch Arlene to bring her back to Naic, Cavite, since classes had already
started. Arlene, however, did not want
to go home and acted as if she was afraid of something. Precita had to drag her by the right hand
for her to ride the tricycle with them. Upon reaching home, Precita asked Arlene why she did not want to go with
them. Arlene replied that appellant
inserted his finger and sexual organ into hers and that she did not reveal the
same to her Ate Milagros out of fear that appellant would kill her (TSN, August
5, 1986, pp. 7-9, 14-16).

The following
day, June 15, 1984, at 10:45 a.m., Arlene, accompanied by Precita, went to the
police station at Maragondon, Cavite, and filed a complaint for rape against
appellant with Chief Investigator Pat. Ramiro Ilagan. The complaint for rape committed on June 11, 1984, was entered in
the blotter as Entry No. 18-76, appearing on page 119 thereof (TSN, February
28, 1986, pp. 3-5; TSN, August 5, 1986, p. 2).

On June 16,
1984, Dr. Gregoria Camilo, the Municipal Health Officer of Naic, Cavite,
examined Arlene at the Rural Health Unit Center at Naic. After examination, her findings were: ‘the
vulva is congested and there are hymenal tears at 1:00 o’clock, 6:00 o’clock,
and at 11:00 o’clock.’ She described
the vulva as reddish and had a slight swelling, and the laceration of the hymen
as still fresh (TSN, May 20, 1986, pp. 3-5).”^[12]

Version of the Defense

Raising the
defenses of denial and alibi, appellant presented the following version of
facts: ^[13]

“The accused denied the accusation
against him. He declared that he did
not sexually abuse the complaining witness, Arlene Ramos. In the afternoon of June 11, 1984 he went to
the show. He attended the show from
1:00 o’clock to 3:30 in the afternoon. When he arrived in his house after the show, his parents and brothers
were in the house. He saw Arlene Ramos
playing with the boys and girls in the house on said date on the occasion of
the town fiesta. There was a
misunderstanding between the family of the Ramos[es] and the Bersabe[s] (TSN,
pp. 3-10, July 14, 1994).”

The Trial Court’s Ruling

In convicting
the appellant, the trial court rejected the defenses raised. The court also ruled that the young
complainant had no motive to testify falsely against Appellant Bersabe and that
the medical findings of Dr. Gregoria Camilo corroborated the victim’s
testimony.

Assignment of Error

In his Brief,
appellant imputes to the trial court this sole error:

“The Court a quo erred in
rendering a verdict of conviction despite the fact that appellant’s guilt was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt.”^[14]

In the main,
Appellant Bersabe assails the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of
the victim. He also argues that his
culpability, if any, should only be for lascivious acts and not for rape.

This Court’s Ruling

The appeal is
without merit.

Credibility of Witness

It is axiomatic
that findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses are accorded with
respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of any showing that
some facts or circumstances of weight or substance have been overlooked,
misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of
the case.^[15] Truly,
the trial court is in a better position to assess the credibility of witnesses
and their testimonies, as it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses
firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude while on the witness
stand.^[16]

In this case,
the trial court accorded full faith and credence to the testimony of the
six-year old victim. After a careful perusal
of the records, this Court finds no reason to overturn or modify such
assessment.

In a
straightforward, clear and convincing manner, Arlyn testified how appellant
perpetrated the sexual assault upon her:

“Q    After
that candies and money were received by you, what else was done to you by
Gorio, the accused Bersabe?

A     He
lied [sic] me down on the bed.

Q     How
did he make you lie down on the bed? By
force, or by what?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     After.
. .

COURT

Q     How
did Gorio force you to lie down on the bed?

A     He
made me lied [sic] down.

COURT:

Q     How
did he make you lied [sic] down?

A     I
was pushed.

FISCAL AÑONUEVO:

Q     Who
pushed you, Gorio?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     When
you were already lying down on bed, what did he do?

A     He
removed my short, my panty and my undershirt (sando).

Q     When
you said he, you are referring to Gorio, the accused?

A     Yes,
sir.

COURT:

Q     What
were you wearing at that time?

A     ‘Sando
po.’

Q     And
you had a short?

A     Yes,
your Honor.

Q     And
your panty?

A     Yes,
your Honor.

Q     Aside
from those, you don’t have any other apparel?

A     No
more, your Honor.

FISCAL AÑONUEVO:

Q     Was
he able to remove your short, your panty and sando?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     And
you were then naked?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     Lying
on the bed?

A     Yes,
sir.

COURT:

Q     While
Gorio was removing your short, panty and your sando, what were you doing?

A     Gorio
removed also his short, his brief and his clothing.

Q     While
Gorio was removing your short and your sando, did you resist?

A     I
resisted, your Honor.

FISCAL AÑONUEVO:

Q     Did
you make any cry? Did you cry?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     Did
you make any outcry?

A     No,
sir.

Q     Why
did you not make any outcry?

A     He
said that he [was] going to kill me.

Q     You
were threaten[ed], in short?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     According
to you, Gorio also removed his short, brief and shirt. After he ha[d] removed his short, brief and
shirt, what did he do to you?

A     He
inserted his finger into my vagina.

Q     After
inserting his finger into your vagina or private organ, what else did he do?

A     He
inserted his penis into my vagina.

Q     What
did you feel when he inserted his penis into your vagina?

A     I
felt hurt.

COURT:

Q     What
was your position while the accused inserted his finger into your vagina? Were you still lying on that bed when Gorio
inserted his finger into your vagina?

A     Yes,
your Honor.

Q     How
about when he inserted his penis into your sex organ, were you still lying on
the bed?

A     Yes,
your Honor.

FISCAL AÑONUEVO:

Q     Can
you tell the Court how many times did he insert his penis into your sex
organ? If you can.

A     Four
times.

Q     Did
you make an outcry when he was inserting his penis into your sex organ?

A     No,
sir.

Q     Why
did you not make any outcry?

A     He
[was] going to kill me.

COURT:

Q     Who
said that he was going to kill you?

A     Gorio.

Q     What
did he actually say, the exact word?

A     “Huwag
daw po akong sisigaw.” (I was told not
to shout)

FISCAL AÑONUEVO:

Q     Were
you crying at that time?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     After
Gorio, the accused in this case had done all those you have narrated before
this Court, what happened next?

A     ([T]he
witness cannot answer[.])

FISCAL AÑONUEVO:

Q     That
Gorio who, according to you, fingered your sex organ and inserted his sex
organ, will you please point to him if he is here in court?

A     That
one (witness is pointing to the accused).

Q     After
you were fingered by the accused and his penis was inserted [in]to your sex
organ, did you remain lying on the bed?

A     No,
sir.

Q     What
did you do?

A     I
put on my clothing.

Q     Were
you the one who put on your clothing?

A     He
was the one who put on my clothing.

Q     You
are referring to Gorio, the accused whom you have identified?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     How
about Gorio, did you see him dressed [sic] himself also?

A     Yes,
sir.”^[17]

Such candid and
straightforward narration of the sexual assault unmistakably deserves credence.^[18] No woman,
especially a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of
her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has
not, in fact, been a victim of rape and impassioned to seek justice for the
wrong done to her being.^[19]

The foregoing
testimony was corroborated by her elder sister Precita Ramos:

“Q    Upon
meeting her[,] did you talk to her?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     What
was the conversation between you and your sister Arlene?

A     She
does not want to go home that is why I dragged her in her right hand in riding inside the honda. [sic]

Q     What
do you mean honda?

A     Tricycle,
sir.

Q     You
are referring to your sister Arlene [whom] you dragged?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     Upon
reaching home [w]hat happened?

A     I
asked her.

Q     What
did you ask her?

A     I
asked her why she [did] not like to go home as if she [was] afraid.

Q     What
did she tell you?

A     She
told me that Gorio did something bad to her.

Q     Did
you ask her what something bad was done to [her] by accused Gregorio Bersabe?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     What,
did she tell you?

A     My
sister Arlene told me that she was fingered by Gregorio Bersabe and after that
Gorio inserted his penis into the vagina of Arlene. And I asked Arlene why she did not tell that incident to my
sister Milagros and Arlene told me that Gregorio Bersabe told her not to tell
anybody[;] if so he would kill Arlene.

Q     What
else?

A     I
later on asked what Gorio gave her and she told me that she was given candy and
money.

Q     Did
you ask her whether she accepted that money and candy?

A     Yes,
sir.”^[20]

The defense did
not present any evidence to prove that the prosecution witnesses had any ill
motive to testify falsely against him. And normally, no member of the victim’s family would subject the victim
to the stigma and embarrassment concomitant with a rape trial if he or she were
not motivated solely by an honest desire to have the malefactor punished.^[21]

Moreover, the
physical evidence supports the testimony of the victim that she had been
raped. Dr. Gregoria A. Camilo,^[22] who
examined the victim, arrived at the following findings:

“1.      The
vulva is congested.

2.       There
are hymenal tears at 1:00 o’clock, 6 o’clock, and at 11 o’clock.”^[23]

Appellant
maintains that the locus criminis discredited the complainant’s
account. Because there were a lot of
people around the place then, there being a town fiesta, it was hard to believe
that nobody noticed the alleged rape or, at least, became suspicious. Appellant’s contention is not
persuasive. This Court has steadfastly
ruled that lust is no respecter of time and place.^[24] Rape can
be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the
roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other
occupants, and even in the same room where there are other members of the
family who are sleeping.^[25]

Moreover, the
appellant threatened the victim with death. Easily intimidated, the child did not scream for help. The workings of the human mind under
emotional stress are unpredictable, such that people react differently to
startling situations: some may shout;
some may faint; some may be shocked into insensibility; others may openly
welcome their intrusion.^[26] In People
vs. Galas,^[27] this
Court ruled that “fear has been known to render people immobile, if not useless
x x x.”

Appellant also
assails the credibility of the account of the victim, because she allegedly
comported herself after the alleged rape without any indicium of shock, trauma
or fear. This is without basis. When the elder sister of the victim fetched
the child, the former noted that she was pale and shuddering. Fear was etched on her face. The child refused to go home not because she
enjoyed appellant’s company, but because she feared that he would carry out his
threat to kill her.

Rape or Acts of Lasciviousness?

Appellant
contends that, if at all, he should be convicted only of acts of
lasciviousness. He maintains that the
prosecution proved only that he had inserted his finger into the sex organ of
the victim. This is totally
puerile. Appellant committed rape, not
acts of lasciviousness. During
cross-examination, the victim graphically testified that appellant inserted his
penis into her vagina, as follows:

“ATTY. LEGAYADA:

Q     Then
after both of you were naked, what happened?

A     He
inserted one of his fingers into my vagina, sir.

Q     Did
you feel pain at the moment one of his fingers was entered into your vagina?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     But
[was] the finger able to penetrate into the vagina?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     Did
you feel whether your private parts bled after the finger was forced into the
vagina?

A     It
bled, sir.

Q     How
long did the finger stay inside your vagina, Miss Witness?

A     I
do not know, sir.

ATTY. LEGAYADA:

Q     While
the finger was inside your vagina, what else did Mang Gorio do at the same
time?

A     He
inserted his penis into my vagina, sir.

Q     Did
the penis penetrate into your vagina, Miss Witness?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q     How
big was the penis, if you could remember?

A     I
do not know, sir.

Q     Are
you sure it was the penis of Gorio which entered your vagina?

A     Yes,
sir.

x x x                                             x x
x                                     x x
x

Q     Now,
at the time the penis of Mang Gorio was allegedly inside your vagina, what was
Mang Gorio doing?

A     He
inserted one of his fingers, sir.

Q     Miss
Witness, could you tell the difference whether it is a finger that was inside
your vagina or a penis as the case may be?

A     No,
sir.

COURT:

Q     [Are]
the penis of Mang Gorio and his finger different?

A     Yes,
your Honor.

Q     What
is the difference?

A     I
do not know, your Honor.

Q     Take
for instance your interpreter, where is the finger of your interpreter?

(The witness remains silent)

Q     Do
you have a finger, Miss Witness?

A     Yes,
your Honor.

Q     Where
is your finger?

(Witness showing the fingers by
stretching her palm open)

Q     You
also have your private parts, Miss Witness?

A     Yes,
your Honor.

Q     That
you called kiki?

A     Yes,
your Honor.

Q     Where
is your kiki?

A     Here,
your Honor. (Witness is pointing to the
portion where her private part is situated)

Q     I
have my own fingers too?

A     Yes,
your Honor.

Q     Where
is my private part? Where is my
titi? Look at me. Where is my private part?

A     There,
your Honor. (Witness is pointing to the
portion of the body of the Presiding Judge where his private organ is
situated)”^[28] (Underscoring supplied.)

The prosecution
clearly proved that appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim, who was below twelve years of age. Paragraph 3 of Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code is very clear: Rape is
committed by one who has carnal knowledge of a woman under twelve years of age.^[29]
Accordingly, appellant was rightly convicted of statutory rape.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED
and the Decision of the trial court convicting Gregorio Bersabe is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr.,
(Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.

---