PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SAMUEL BORCE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Samuel Borce was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Bangued,
Abra, in a decision, promulgated on 23 October 1995, in the jointly-tried
Criminal Case No. 1481 and Criminal Case No. 1482. The trial court there adjudged:

“WHEREFORE:

“In Criminal Case No. 1481 for Rape, the Court finds the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of the crime of rape
committed with the use of a deadly weapon aggravated by mutilation defined and
penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 11
of Republic Act No. 7659, and sentences him to suffer two death penalties.

“In Criminal Case No. 1482 for frustrated murder, the Court
finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated
murder defined and penalized under the provision of Article 248 in relation to
Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS AND TWENTY (20) DAYS of prision mayor
as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and TWENTY (20) DAYS of
reclusion temporal as maximum.

“The accused is hereby
ordered to indemnify the victim in the amount of P250,000.00 as actual, moral
and exemplary damages, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.”^[1]

The penalty of death having been imposed on the accused by the
court a quo, the records were elevated to this Court, in accordance with
Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act
No. 7659, for automatic review.

Samuel Borce, the accused-appellant, had been charged in two
separate informations, to wit:

In Criminal Case No. 1481 for Rape:

“That on or about
April 29, 1994, at around 8:30 o’clock in the morning, at the hill of the
western part of Bariquir, Barangay San Antonio, Municipality of Bangued,
Province of Abra, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and with the use of deadly
weapon, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie upon one
REGINA BAGA and succeed in having carnal knowledge against her will and consent
and this was repeated for the second time around, to the great damage and
prejudice of the said offended party.”^[2]

In Criminal
Case No. 1482 for Frustrated Murder:

“That on or about
April 29, 1994, at around 8:30 o’clock in the morning, at the hill of the
western part of Barangay San Antonio, Municipality of Bangued, Province of
Abra, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery, use of superior
strength and evident premeditation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously hack the face of one REGINA BAGA, inflicting multiple hack
wounds on her face, thus the accused having performed all the acts of execution
which would have produced the crime of Murder as a consequence but nevertheless
did not produce it by reason of the timely medical attendance rendered to said
victim which prevented her death.”^[3]

The accused, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of “not
guilty” to the two charges.

The Solicitor General, closely paraphrasing the trial court in
its decision, summed up the evidence for the prosecution; thus:

“Complainant Regina Baga is 45 years old, married, and whose
husband works abroad as an overseas contract worker. She is thin and weighs not more than 100 pounds. She and appellant, Samuel Borce, are
neighbors in Barangay San Antonio, Bangued, Abra (TSN., August 22, 1994, p. 3).

“On April 29, 1994, at about 8:30 o’clock in the morning,
Regina took her bolo and ventured alone to gather firewood at Barikir, a
forested area situated about one kilometer away from her house. (TSN, August 22, 1994, p. 4) While ascending a hilly portion of the
forest, she noticed appellant behind her (p. 3). Without saying a word, appellant approached Regina, took hold of
her right arm, twisted it and wrested away her bolo (p. 3). Appellant poked the tip of the bolo on
Regina’s neck and threatened to kill her (p. 10). At this point, appellant’s bestial desires were aroused. Giving vent to it, he pinned complainant on
the ground and forcibly removed her ‘Cullots’ and underpants. Regina unceasingly fought to resist his
advances. Nonetheless, being stronger
and heavier, appellant placed himself on top of Regina and after a protracted
struggle succeeded in raping her. Thereafter, appellant dragged Regina away from the pathwalk and into the
woods (p. 7). His lust not yet
satiated, appellant raped Regina for the second time. When he was through, appellant dragged Regina farther into the
forest. There, he executed his plan to
kill and abandon Regina. However,
Regina did not die. When she regained
consciousness after being strangled by appellant, she noticed that her face was
hacked (Ibid. p. 9). Terrified, she
screamed for help but [no one] came.

“Meanwhile, Regina’s
son, Raymund, was worried that at a late hour his mother had not yet returned
home (TSN, Sept. 26, 1994, p. 10). Fearing that something bad may have happened, he, together with his
brother and sister, went to search for her in the woods. There, they found their mother lying on the
ground and bleeding profusely on the face. Her brain tissues were exposed. When asked what had transpired, Regina told her son that she was raped
and hacked by appellant. (ibid., p.
11). Immediately Raymund brought her
mother to their house.”^[4]

Regina was brought to the Abra Provincial Hospital where she was
promptly attended to. Her treatment in
the hospital lasted for 16 days. The
medical certificate,^[5]
dated 11 May 1994, disclosing the findings of attending physician Dr. Cynthia Cacho Viado on the injuries suffered
by the victim, pertinently read:

“IE     –           Multiple
old hymenal lacerations

                      Vagina
admits two fingers with ease.

                      Cervix
open 1-2 cm.

                      Uterus
enlarged to three months size.

                      Adnexae
( – )

                      Bleeding
moderate.

“SPERM ID ( –
)

PT (
– )

“x x x              x x x

“NOI  –           Hacking

POI   –           San Antonio, Bangued, Abra

TOI   –           8:30 A.M.

DOI  –           4-29-94

“Multiple hacking wound – face
(Mid) portion.”^[6]

Samuel Borce denied the accusation. Presented at the witness stand by the defense were the accused
himself, his mother Lydia Borce and one Dr. Herminio Venus. Highlighting the testimony of the defense
witnesses, the Public Attorney’s Office, acting as counsel for the accused,
narrated its version of the case; thus:

“Accused Samuel Borce testified that on April 29, 1994, he went to
get the firewood that he gathered and when he arrived in the place he saw
Regina Baga gathering the firewood which he already gathered; then he prevented
the victim from gathering the firewood. She tried to hack him with her bolo so that they grappled for possession
of the bolo and while grappling, the bolo hit the head of Regina Baga
afterwhich the accused left her. He
denied having raped Regina Baga. After
grappling with the bolo, the accused went home and thereafter he went to see
Regina Baga when he was informed that she was already dead and this was the
time he was arrested and detained up to the present. When he was arrested by the police officers he was not informed
of his human and constitutional rights.

“LYDIA BORCE testified that she is the mother of the
accused. That on April 29, 1994, she
said that she and her son went to gather firewoods and after gathering
firewoods they went home and that he never raped the complainant. She admitted that she did not see Regina
Baga stabbed the accused because she
went home already. She only learned
Regina Baga was hurt from the people who told her. She tried to go and help her but she was already brought to the
hospital. She testified that when her
son was brought to the police station he narrated that he accidentally hacked
her (Regina Baga) when the latter attempted to steal his firewood. She also asked the accused if he raped
Regina Baga and told her that he did not rape Regina Baga. Her son was detained up to the present. She stated that she was not able to do
anything for her son because they are poor and have nothing to offer. She tried to asked the help of the Brgy.
Captain but they did not pay attention to her. When asked by the Court Regina Baga alleged that when victim prevented
her son to get the firewood gathered by her son she personally witnessed the
incident in fact she tried to prevent her and not to steal the firewood, but
Regina Baga did not heed her.

“DR. VENUS when
asked by the court if there was rape committed against victim stated,
thus: `As to my findings there is no
physical injuries.’ He stated that the
lacerations were old ones and when rape committed within three hours, the
lacerations would have been fresh and not old. The victim was allegedly raped on April 29, 1994 so that on the same day
she was examined. The doctor also
admitted if there are no lacerations there is consent to the sexual
intercourse. The doctor also admitted
that moderate bleeding was due to menstrual period. When asked if there is spermatozoa, he answered in the
negative. He stated that a spermatozoa
has a lifetime of within 24 hours or for 2 days and if the spermatozoa were
inside already in the vagina it will live for 17 days.”^[7]

The trial court, Hon. Benjamin A. Boñgolan presiding, was not
persuaded by the theory put up by the defense in the face of the strong
evidence submitted by the prosecution. The accused was convicted, as aforesaid, of the crimes charged.

In this appeal from the judgment finding him guilty, appellant Samuel
Borce assigned two related errors allegedly committed by the court below; to
wit:

“1.     The trial court
gravely erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the
witnesses of the prosecution and in disregarding the theory of the defense.

“2.     The trial court gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant
Samuel Borce of double rape despite the fact that the results of the medical
findings contradicted to the testimony of Regina Baga thereby showing that no
rape was committed.”^[8]

At the cost of being overly repetitious, the court, once again,
must here echo the familiar doctrine that in the assessment and evaluation of
contradictory asseverations of witnesses, it is with the trial court where the
main responsibility, as well as its concomittant authoritativeness, really
lies. The appellate court, absent
cogent justifications that can warrant otherwise, would almost certainly defer
to the findings and conclusions made thereon by the trial court. Several reasons have been advanced, nurtured
by a host of jurisprudential holdings, that are all too compelling to be
ignored. The trial judge is he who gets
the opportunity to directly and intimately observe the witnesses and to
determine, by their demeanor at the witness stand, the probative strength or
weakness of that which they declare. The witnesses can reveal much more than what can ordinarily be reflected
in and perceived from the transcripts that merely would contain the matter
which is stated but not how it is said. Tell-tale marks of either honesty or fabrication, truth or concoction,
reality or imagination, may eventuate from a meaningful pause or spontaneous
ready reply, the angry or subdued denial, the forthright stare or the
elusive eyes, the sudden pallor or the flush of face, and all that
characterizes the deportment and peculiar outward behavior of witnesses when
their response to both direct examination and cross examination is
elicited. These signs, although
available to the trial judge,^[9]
are, however, easily lost on the appellate court.

In rape cases particularly, the judge is often asked to arbitrate
between the discordant and irreconcilable declaration of the victim and the
denial of the accused. In the
estimation of such conflicting versions, hardly can the appellate court assert
a preponderant competence over that of the trial judge. It is true, of course, that an accusation
for rape can be managed with facility, while the defense, upon the other hand,
is invariably hard put to dispute the claim of rape. It is precisely for these reasons that a court does not merely
take in stride the charge but gives a full and concentrated attention on, as
well as great caution in, the assessment and evaluation of the victim’s
testimony.

With all the above considerations in mind, the Court itself has
gone over the testimony of Regina. Here
is how she has testified:

“FISCAL FLORES:

“Q   Will
you please state your name, age and other personal circumstances?

“A    Regina
Baga, 45 years old, married, a housekeeper and a resident of San Antonio,
Bangued, Abra.

“Q   Madam
Witness, do you know a person by the name of Samuel Borce?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“Q   And
will you tell the Court why you know Samuel Borce?

“A    I
know him because he is my neighbor in San Antonio, Sir.

“Q   Where
are you neighbors in one another?

“A    In
San Antonio, Bangued, Abra, Sir.

“Q   If
this neighbor of yours Samuel Borce is in court this morning, will you kindly
point to him?

“INTERPRETER:

Witness pointed to accused Samuel Borce.

“FISCAL FLORES:

“Q   Alright,
on April 29, 1994 at around 8:30 o’clock in the morning, do you know where were
you?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“Q   Where
were you at that time?

“A    I
was in the forest, Sir.

“Q   Where
is that forest you are referring to located?

“A    In
Barikir, San Antonio, Sir?

“Q   Will
you tell the Court why you were on the forest on that particular morning of
April 29, 1994?

“A    I
went to gather firewood, Sir.

“Q   Do
you have any companion when you went to the forest to gather firewood at that
time?

“A    None,
Sir.

“Q   Madam
Witness, will you tell the Court the distance where you gathered firewood from
your house?

“A    It
is less than 1 kilometer, Sir.

“Q   While
you were at the forest or hill to gather firewood on that particular hour at
8:30 o’clock in the morning, April 29, 1994, do you know if there was anything
unusual happened to you?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“Q   Will
you tell the Honorable Court what was that unusual incident happened to you?

“A    On
that particular morning when I went to gather firewood when I was ascending to
the mountain I saw Samuel Borce behind me, Sir.

“Q   And
what happened next when you saw Samuel Borce behind your back?

“A    He
got holding of my hand holding a bolo and twisted it, Sir.

“Q   And
what happened when he twisted your arm and got the bolo?

“A    After
twisting my right arm and wrested the
bolo from me afterwhich he let me down and removed my clothes and my panty and
skirt, Sir.

“Q   After
removing your skirt and panty, what did he do next?

“A    He
raped me, Sir. He went on top of me and
inserted his penis into my vagina.

“Q   You
said that he took the bolo from you, what did he do with the bolo after taking
from you . . . . I withdraw the question, your Honor.

“A    You
said he placed his private part into yours, what did you feel when he inserted
his penis into your vagina?

“Q   I
felt something hot inside me, Sir.

“COURT:

“Q   What
was that hot if you know?

“A    Maybe
his semen coming from him, Sir.

“FISCAL FLORES:

“Q   More
or less how long did he stay on top of you?

“A    About
3 minutes, Sir.

“Q   How
many times did he insert his penis into yours?

“A    (No
answer)

“COURT:

“Q   Did
he rape you?

“A    He
raped me twice, Sir.

“Q   What
do you mean by that?

“A    After
raping me for once he transferred me to another place then he again raped me,
Sir.

“Q   Where
did he transfer you?

“A    He
transferred me to a place near the place where he first raped me, but that
place is farther than the path, Sir.

“Q   What
is this path?

“A    The
path going to the mountain, Sir.

“Q   And
this is the path which you took in going to the mountain?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“FISCAL FLORES:

“Q   Now,
you said that he also took the bolo that you were holding?

“COURT:

“Q   What
happened after raping you for the second time?

“A    I
struggled and I lost consciousness, Sir.

“FISCAL FLORES:

“Q   After
regaining your consciousness, what happened next?

“A    Samuel
Borce was not there anymore by my face is already wounded, Sir.

“Q   Do
you know what have caused the wound in your face?

“ATTY. BARBERO:

Objection, your Honor,
she said she was unconscious.

“COURT:

May answer.

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“COURT:

“Q   What
was he used in wounding your face if you know?

“A    He
used my bolo, Sir.

“FISCAL FLORES:

“Q   You
said that the wound inflicted in your face was caused by the bolo he got from
you, in what stage did he cause the wound in your face, before the first rape
or after the first rape?

“A    After
the second rape, Sir.

“Q   Actually,
how did he wound you on that bolo he got from you?

“A    He
hacked me, Sir.

“Q   Where?

“A    He
hacked me on my face, Sir. (Witness
pointing to the scars on her face.)

“Q   How
many times did he hack you in your face?

“A    He hacked me 3 times, Sir.”^[10]

On cross-examination, the complainant repeated, in the same
straightforward fashion, her direct testimony. Continuing, she went on to respond to further searching questions of
counsel; thus:

“ON CROSS-EXAMINATION:

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   You
said that the accused told you that he was going to kill you, in fact, he did
not do that instead according to you he laid you down and raped you?

“COURT:

It is different.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   When
did he say that he will kill you?

“A    When
he already laid me down, Sir.

“Q   By
the way, Madam Witness, what is your educational attainment?

“A    First
Year high school, Sir.

“Q   He
did not kill you when he said that instead according to you he had a sexual
intercourse with you, is it not?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“Q   And
according to you before he had sexual intercourse with you, he took off your
panty and palda?

“COURT:

You need not to
repeat.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

That is what she said,
your Honor.

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   What
first did he take off?

“A    He
removed first my skirt, Sir.

“Q   What
is the kind of your skirt that you were wearing at that time?

“A    Cullotes,
Sir.

“COURT:

What is this cullotes?

“ATTY. BARBERO:

It is a skirt but a
pants and loose in the thighs, your Honor.

“Q   How
did he take that off, your pants when you were lying down and you said that he
is already on top of you at that time?

“A    He
pulled it down, Sir.

“COURT:

“Q   What
was your position?

“A    I
was already lying down, Sir.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   Isn’t
a fact, Madam Witness, that you testified before this Court when you said that
when he laid you down, he went on top of you?

“A    Yes,
Sir, after removing my cullottes and my panty.

“Q   After
he removed your cullottes, he then again removed your panty when you were lying
down?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“Q   Naturally,
in taking off your cullottes and your panty, he used his two hands, is it not?

“A    He
used both hands, Sir.

“Q   And
at that time that he was taking off your cullottes and panty both of his hands,
you did not bother to kick him and then run away?

“A    I
tried to defend myself but he is stronger than me, Sir.

“Q   However
you have all the chances to defend yourself when he was removing your cullottes
and panty, why did you not try to kick him and fight him to defend yourself?

“A    I
tried to fight back but he is stronger than me, Sir.

“Q   You
did not even try to bite his hands or scratch his face or his breast or
whatever part of his body?

“A    I
cannot bite him because he pushed me down, Sir. (The witness making a gesture of both hands.)

“Q   At
the time he was pushing you down of both of his hands, he then make sexual
intercourse with you, is it not?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“Q   So
since you said both of his hand were being used in pushing you down, how did he
able to insert his penis into your private part? Or how was he able to insert his penis into your vagina when both
of his hands were pushing you down?

“A    He
went on top of me and insert his penis into my vagina, Sir.

“Q   At
the time that he went on top of you, you did not try to close your thighs but
you spread it out?

“A    Even
if I tried to close my thighs, he was so much stronger than I, Sir.

“Q   So
that at the time that he was pushing you down according to you, both of his
hands, you did not have any other recourse than to let him go so that you have
no strength?

“A    Yes,
Sir, because he is stronger than I and I could not do anything.

“Q   But
during the time he was pushing you down with his two hands and then he did the
act of sexual intercourse according to you?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“Q   And
according to you he again transferred you to another place, is it not?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“Q   How
far from the original place?

“A    From
here up to across the street, Sir.

“COURT:

Which the parties
agreed to be simply 25 to 30 meters.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

30 meters, your Honor.

“Q   When
he transferred you, you followed him?

“A    I
followed him because he was dragging me, Sir.

“COURT:

“Q   What
was he pulling?

“A    My
hand, Sir.

“Q   How
about your panty and skirt?

“A    He
was holding them, Sir.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   He
was pulling only with one hand?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“Q   What
hand, the right or left hand?

“A    My
right hand, Sir.

“Q   And
his left hand was holding your cullottes and your panty?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“Q   So
that you did not try to pull away although it is only his one hand was holding
you?

“A    I
was already weak, Sir.

“Q   You
are already weak with one sexual intercourse?

“A    I
was already weak because I was weakened with the experience and you can see my
physical built, Sir.

“Q   While
he was pulling you to transfer to another place you did not even try to bite
him or fight back while the other hand was holding your panty and cullottes?

“A    Even
if I am going to fight him back I am already weak and he is even stronger and
bigger than me in built, Sir.

“Q   Isn’t
a fact that San Antonio is a stony land?

“A    Even
if San Antonio is stony, at that time I was not able to pick up stone and at
that time he was dragging me, Sir.

“Q   And
you have your left hand to pick up a stone or pick up sand in order to grapple
with him?

“A    I
was already overcome by fear, Sir.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

I think the correct
translation for that, your Honor, is; `I don’t able to think that anymore.’

“COURT:

Put it on record.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   And
even you did not think for shouting even that you said that the place is near
the road?

“A    I
screamed for help but nobody was there to help me, Sir.

“Q   How
about your husband, why did you not bring him to gather firewood?

“A    He
was not around, Sir.

“Q   Where
is your husband?

“A    He
is working abroad, Sir.

“Q   How
many years did he work there abroad?

“A    He
went abroad in October, Sir.

“Q   October,
what year?

“A    October,
1993, Sir.

“COURT:

“Q   Is
he still abroad?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   So
that at the time of the incident, your husband is not living with you for more
than 6-months?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“Q   So
at that time, it was you who was holding a bolo, is it not?

“FISCAL FLORES:

I think that is a
vague question, your Honor.

“COURT:

Witness may answer.

“A    Yes,
Sir, because I was on my way to gather fireword.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   In
fact, it was even you who tried to hack the accused but he got hold on you, is
it not?

“A    No,
Sir, he got hold of my hand right away.

“Q   And
that the time he got hold your hand and the bolo and it was wounded your face?

“A    No,
Sir, he pointed the bolo first on my neck.

“Q   But
your neck was not wounded?

“A    Yes,
Sir, he just rested the point of the bolo on my neck.

“COURT:

“Q   So
that the wound at the base of your neck it is not caused by the accused as you
said later as the wound opened by the surgeon during your operation in order
for breathing?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   You
said that you were operated for a hack in your face, there was no showing,
there is no stitches?

“A    You
can see three long scars on my forehead, Sir.

“Q   That
was the time when he moved the bolo on your face?

“COURT:

She said she was unconscious at that
time.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   You
said that you are unconscious, however the accused did not do anything to you,
he did not kill you and did not stab you until you die?

“FISCAL FLORES:

If she was unconscious
at that time, how was she able to know, your Honor?

“COURT:

Reform.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   However,
you did not sustain anymore wounds when you were unconscious the accused did
not take the opportunity to kill you?

“FISCAL FLORES:

She was already unconscious, your Honor.

“COURT:

Sustained.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   So that according to you
the accused left you when you were unconscious?

“FISCAL FLORES:

Objection, your Honor, she was already
unconscious.

“COURT:

What is the question?

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   So
that according to you the accused left you when you were unconscious, that when
she regained her consciousness, she found her face bleeding, your Honor?

“COURT:

       May
answer.

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   And
that was all that the accused did to you, he just left you?

“FISCAL FLORES:

       The question is misleading, your
Honor.

“COURT:

       Reform.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   In
your statement found on page 6 of the record, question No. 4 and answer No. 4,
you did not state that you were transferred by the accused and he again raped
you, which may I request that it be marked as Exhibit l, your Honor?

“COURT:

       Mark
it Exhibit l, question and answer No. 4, mark the original copy.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

       It
is found on page 5 of the record of the rape case so with the frustrated murder
case, your Honor.

“COURT:

       Anyway it is jointly tried.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   You
said that when he transferred you to another place, you have all the chances to
pick up your cullotes and your panty, however you have never have the chance to
pick up a stone and throw his hand?

“A    There was no stone
beside me, Sir.

“COURT:

“Q   Is
this place a thickly forested or sparsely?

“A    That
is a thickly forested place, Sir.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   Isn’t
a fact, Madam Witness, that San Antonio there are no more forest and then that
is being flooded everytime when there was a typhoon?

“A    Some
parts only, Sir.

“Q   Did
you not say a while ago that the first he first raped you was along the path
and then he brought you farther along the road?

“COURT:

       She did not say that. She was not raped beside the road.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

       She said, your Honor, transferred
me farther the road nearer the path.

“COURT:

       Yes,
nearer the path. May answer.

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“COURT:

“Q   How
far was it from the path?

“A    It
is about from here up to there, Sir, about half a meter.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

“Q   And
along that path there are stones and sands because the path is not aspalted, is
it not?

“A    There are no stones
because the soil there was hard, Sir.

“Q   You
never have any conversation with him at the time, only the fact that he told you
he is going to kill you, however he did not kill you but he raped you?

“A    Yes,
Sir.

“ATTY. BARBERO:

That’s
all for the witness, your Honor.”^[11]

The testimony of Regina Baga is plain and unswerving. The Court is amply convinced that the trial
court could not have erred in giving credence to her testimony. Even an uncorroborated testimony of a single
witness, if credible, is enough to warrant conviction. If the rule were otherwise, there rarely
would be convictions in rape cases which almost invariably are committed with
no eye-witnesses around to attest to their commission. Neither can alibi, verily a mere
denial and basically self serving in nature, be held to prevail over positive
and affirmative testimony. The rule is
even strengthened where the complainant appears to have no nefarious motive to
charge the accused wrongly. It would be
unthinkable that Regina Baga, a frail woman, weighing barely 100 pounds,
married, and 45 years of age at the time of the attack on her honor, would open
herself and her family to public scrutiny and embarassment, let alone send an
innocent man possibly to the gallows, for no strong reason at all.

Already in the past, the Court has rejected the argument that
the absence of sperm in the vaginal
area is a good defense in a rape case. It may not be amiss to add that the medical certificate was issued by
Dr. Viado only on 11 May 1994 or several days after the commission of the
offense on 29 April 1994. Medical
findings indicative of pressure on the genitalia, coupled with the testimony of
the victim, have repeatedly been held to suffice.^[12]

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11
of Republic Act No. 7659 reads:

“ART. 335. When and how
rape is committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances.

“1.     By using force or
intimidation;

“2.     When the woman is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

“3.     When the woman is
under twelve years of age or is demented.

“The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

“Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a
deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.

“When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has
become insane, the penalty shall be death.

“When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.

“When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is
committed, the penalty shall be death.

“The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

“1.     When the victim is
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

“2.     When the victim is
under the custody of the police or military authorities.

“3.     When the rape is
committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other
relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.

“4.     When the victim is a
religious or a child below seven (7) years old.

“5.     When the offender
knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)
disease.

“6.     When committed by any
member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police
or any law enforcement agency.

“7.     When by reason or
on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical
mutilation.”

In fine, relevant to the case at bar, when the crime of rape is
committed “with the use of a deadly weapon,” the penalty prescribed
is reclusion perpetua to death. The death penalty is imposed when by reason or on the occasion of
rape, the victim has suffered “permanent physical mutilation.” In this regard, the Court a quo
stated:

“It is therefore crystal clear to the mind of this Court that the
two counts of rape were committed with the use of a deadly weapon, i.e., the
bolo used by the accused in hacking, with the bestiality of an enraged beast,
the victim with three strokes on her face all of which were fatal and nearly
cost her life. This dastardly and
heinous act was accompanied by unusual cruelty and savagery. The victim was left for dead; that she
survived is, to the Court, the will of providence so she can identify to the
strong arm of the law and to the unerring sword of justice, her attacker.

“In the advent of the reimposition
of the death penalty under R.A. No. 7659, Sec. 11, this Court is mandated to
impose the death penalty, considering that the victim sustained fatal wounds
which left her permanently deformed with the three ugly scars across her
face. Furthermore, the wounds were
inflicted after she was ravished so that these were therefore unnecessary for
the commission of rape, thus displaying the cruelty of the offender.”^[13]

The imposition of the death penalty on accused-appellant by the
trial court on each count of rape has been premised on the infliction of three
scars on the victim’s face. The phrase
“permanent physical mutilation“ has not been defined in the law. Neither Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as so amended by Republic Act No. 7659, nor any of the chapters in Title
Eleven, entitled “Crimes against Chastity,” provides any further clue on the
meaning that should be given to the term. In Title Eight on “Crimes against Persons,”^[14]
the Code simply states in Article 262 thereof that –

“Art. 262. Mutilation. – The penalty of from reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall
intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either totally or partially,
of some essential organ for reproduction.

“Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision
mayor in its medium and maximum periods.”

No specific ascription having been given
by the law to the word, “mutilation”
must perforce be understood in its generic sense and ordinary usage. Webster^[15]
defines mutilation as cutting off or permanently destroying a limb or an
essential part thereof. Black^[16]
defines the term, in its criminal law concept, as one that would deprive a
person of the use of any of those limbs which may be useful to him in fight,
the loss of which amounts to mayhem.

A thorough reading of the records of the case would fail to
disclose that accused-appellant inflicted the wounds on the victim deliberately
to maim her. It would, in fact, appear
that the victim sustained the wounds only as a result of a clear attempt by
appellant to kill her and cover-up his misdeeds. The injury thus borne by private complainant should not be taken
as a circumstance which would raise the penalty to death for the crime of rape
but should instead rightly be taken up and absorbed in the crime of frustrated
murder.

Accordingly, for each count of rape, there being neither
mitigating nor aggravating circumstance alleged and proved in the commission
thereof, the penalty, conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code,
that should properly be imposed on accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 1481
is reclusion perpetua.

Relative to Criminal Case No. 1482, Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code provides:

“ART. 248. Murder. –
Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:

“1.          With treachery,
taking advantage or superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing
means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity.

“2.          In consideration
of a price, reward or promise.

“3.          By means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor
vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

“4.          On occasion of
any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

“5.          With evident
premeditation.

“6.          With cruelty, by
deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging
or scoffing at his person or corpse.”

When the crime is frustrated the penalty next lower in degree
shall be imposed; hence, Article 50 of
the same Code states:

“ART. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of
a frustrated crime. – The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a
frustrated felony.”

The prosecution has satisfactorily shown that accused-appellant
did likewise commit the crime of frustrated murder. The wounds inflicted on the hapless victim could have resulted in
her death had it not been for the timely medical treatment administered to
her. On accused-appellant’s contention
that he has had no intention to kill the victim, the Court agrees with the
Solicitor General in his observations that –

“(the) claim is completely
belied by the nature and number of the wounds he inflicted on his victim. The medical examination of the victim
reveals that the victim’s hack wounds were indeed fatal. Observedly, the hack wounds extended to the
brain matter of Regina. The court a
quo dismissed appellant’s defense as a `naive story.’ According to him, complainant tried to steal
the firewood which appellant had gathered; that when appellant caught
complainant in the act, she tried to hack him with her bolo; that in the
struggle for possession of the bolo, complainant was accidentally wounded on
the face. As correctly concluded by the
court a quo, it befuddles the mind how complainant could have accidentally
suffered three (3) deep hack wounds on her forehead and face when allegedly, in
the course of the struggle, the sharp edge of the bolo faced the accused while
its blunt edge faced the complainant. That the wounds inflicted were deep and fatal belies appellant’s claim
that the blows were purely accidental.”^[17]

On the award in lump sum of “P250,000.00 as actual, moral
and exemplary damages” to the victim, the court a quo has acted
inaptly. In order to sustain any award
for such damages, each must be independently justified and substantiated which
is here unfortunately wanting. For one,
exemplary damages are awarded in a criminal offense only when its commission is
attended by an aggravating circumstance, a matter which has not been
established. Consistent with prevailing
jurisprudence,^[18]
however, the victim is entitled to an indemnity of P50,000.00 for each count of
rape.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Bangued, Abra, in Criminal Case No. 1482, finding appellant SAMUEL BORCE guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated murder and sentencing him
accordingly, is AFFIRMED. The decision
in Criminal Case No. 1481, finding the same appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of two counts of rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS, however, that
the penalty imposed on accused-appellant for each count of rape is hereby
reduced to reclusion perpetua, and appellant is ordered to pay, instead
of the P250,000.00 damages awarded by the court a quo, an indemnity of
P50,000.00 for each count of rape.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo,
Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing, and Purisima, JJ., concur.

---