PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GADFRE TIANSON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Criminal Case No. 1822

“That
on or about the 11th day of February 1991, at around 11:00 o’clock in
the evening, in barangay Concepcion Norte, municipality of Santa Maria,
province of Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of violence and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge of the undersigned offended party, against her
will and in her own house.

CONTRARY TO LAW, with the aggravating
circumstance that the said offense was committed in the dwelling of the
offended party, the latter not having given provocation for the
offense.”^[1]

Criminal Case No. 1825

“That
on or about the 17th day of July, 1991, at around 2:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, in barangay Concepcion Norte, municipality of Santa Maria,
province of Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a fan knife, and by means
of violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned offended party,
against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[2]

Upon
arraignment on June 10, 1994, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel de
oficio, pleaded not guilty. The two (2) cases were consolidated and
jointly tried. On November 20, 1995, the Regional Trial Court of
Romblon, Romblon, Branch 81 rendered a Decision finding
accused-appellant Gadfre Tianson guilty of rape.^[3] The dispositive portion of said Decision provides, as follows –

“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused GADFRE TIANSON GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of:

1. 1. Rape under the Information, dated August 23, 1991, in Criminal Case No. 1822 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
   with the accessory penalties therefor, and to pay P40,000.00 to the
   victim, Rosalie M. Gapi, as moral damages, without subsidiary
   imprisonment in case of insolvency. With costs against the accused; and

2. Rape under the Information, dated August 23, 1991, in Criminal Case No. 1825 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
   with the accessory penalties therefor, and to pay P40,000.00 to the
   victim, Rossana M. Manipol, as moral damages, without subsidiary
   imprisonment in case of insolvency. With costs against the accused.

The
period of preventive imprisonment the accused had undergone shall be
credited in his favor to its full extent and the penalties herein
imposed shall be served successively in accordance with Articles 29 and
70, respectively, of the Revised Penal Code.

SO ORDERED.”^[4]

Hence, this appeal.

In
both cases, the trial court relied on the separate testimonies of the
victims, Rosalie M. Gapi and Rosanna M. Manipol, corroborated by the
testimony of Dr. Catalino B. Gumban, medical officer of the Romblon
District Hospital.

The facts of Criminal Case No. 1822 are as follows:

In
the evening of February 11, 1991, the victim, Rosalie M. Gapi, then
thirteen (13) years old and a confessed virgin, was left alone in their
house in Concepcion Norte, Santa Maria, Romblon. After cooking for
herself and eating, Rosalie closed the door and windows of their house,
lit a gas lamp in her room and went to bed. At around 11:00 o’clock that
night, she woke up and noticed that the gas lamp was off. She was about
to go outside her room to get a match for the lamp when she suddenly
met the accused-appellant who blocked her and placed a pillow on her
face. Accused-appellant then ordered her to lie down on the bed and held
both her hands behind her with his left hand. With his right hand,
accused-appellant removed his pants and succeeded in removing the shorts
and panty of Rosalie. While this was happening, Rosalie smelled an odor
that seemed to come from a cigarette, which odor caused her to feel
dizzy and eventually made her unconscious. However, before becoming
unconscious, Rosalie was aware that accused-appellant laid on top of her
and inserted his penis into her vagina. She heard accused-appellant
utter the words, “Wow, virgin”. During this time, Rosalie felt pain and
tried to struggle. When she woke up at around 4:00 o’clock in the
morning, accused-appellant was no longer around. Rosalie noticed that
she only had her t-shirt on and that her body was painful, particularly
her thighs and vagina. She also saw blood on the blanket and mat where
she had lain. After crying, she washed the bloodied blanket and mat,
afraid that her parents might see these and scold her.

Rosalie
further testified that after the rape, accused-appellant even told her
on the street that it was he who had sex with her. In her sworn
statement, Rosalie likewise stated that accused-appellant was openly
narrating what happened to them in public.

It took Rosalie some
time before she was able to narrate the incident to her mother, who
accompanied her to file a sworn statement with the police on July 27,
1991. Rosalie then submitted herself to a medical examination on July
29, 1991. A certification was issued by the examining physician, Dr.
Jocelyn I. Ilagan, that Rosalie’s vulvar opening revealed a mucosal scar
or a healed lacerated wound. It was also reported that during her
internal examination, her vaginal vault admitted two fingers without
pain, and that there was no resistance on internal examination,
suggesting a possible hymenal break.^[5]

In
his defense, accused-appellant testified that he had known Rosalie for a
year prior to the incident and had been courting her two (2) weeks
prior to such date. Rosalie, however, turned him down because she
already had a boyfriend. Yet, he claims that even while he was still
courting Rosalie, they already had sex and that at around six o’clock in
the evening of that fateful night, Rosalie invited him over to her
house to help her with her school assignment. He also claims that
Rosalie left him to look for a companion in the house of one Bogoy
Dalisay but that she returned alone. Accused-appellant alleges that he
declared he was going home but Rosalie stopped him and asked him to
spend the night in her house. At around 12:00 o’clock midnight, Rosalie
gave him a pillow and mat and told him he could already sleep. They then
started kissing, after which he undressed himself first and then
Rosalie and then proceeded to have sex with her. He narrated that while
they were having sex, Rosalie even asked him to place a pillow under her
buttocks. They had sex again at around 12:30 o’clock and, again, at
around 3:00 o’clock in the morning. He left her at around 4:00 o’clock
the following morning.

Accused-appellant further alleges that
Rosalie was no longer a virgin when they had sex and that her charge of
rape against him is a lie as she consented to their sexual acts. He
claims that Rosalie was probably afraid of her mother, prompting her to
cry rape. Accused-appellant also avers that on July 28, 1991, Rosalie’s
mother asked him to go to their house where she asked him to wait for
Rosalie’s father so that they can arrange their marriage. He narrated
that he asked the same from Rosalie’s mother. He claims that he stayed
in their house from 9:00 o’clock in the morning until 4:00 o’clock in
the afternoon. However, Rosalie’s father failed to arrive.

On
cross-examination, accused-appellant admitted leaving for Manila on July
30, 1991, or three (3) days after he learned of the criminal cases
filed against him, admittedly to hide. He stayed in Manila for three (3)
years and only returned to Romblon in May, 1994.

The facts of Criminal Case No. 1825, are as follows –

In
the afternoon of July 17, 1991, Rosanna M. Manipol, then fifteen (15)
years old and a confessed virgin, was in the house of one Vicente
Ramirez with her brother and classmates, to eat lunch as was their
custom during school lunch breaks. Rosanna was not, however, able to
return to school that afternoon because she developed a fever and
decided to stay in the said house and rest while waiting for a companion
to take her home; her own house being two and a half (2 and ½)
kilometers away from their school. At around 2:00 o’clock that
afternoon, while lying down and resting in the said house, Rosanna felt
somebody enter and later saw accused-appellant in front of her, wearing
t-shirt and short pants. She was about to scream but was stopped when
accused-appellant, armed with a five (5) inch fan knife, warned her not
to scream or he would kill her. He also warned Rosanna that if she tells
her parents about the incident, he would kill her. Accused-appellant
pinned down Rosanna’s hands with his right hand and sat on the bed where
she was lying. Rosanna then smelled a bad odor coming from the
direction of the accused-appellant who had entered the room smoking,
which caused her to become dizzy and unconscious. When Rosanna regained
consciousness, she felt weak and noticed that she no longer had her
skirt nor shorts and panties on. Instead, Rosanna found her skirt and
panty beside her on the bed, while her shorts were under the bed. She
also noticed blood on her private part and near her buttocks.

Rosanna
knew accused-appellant even before the incident when he was briefly
introduced to her by one Marissa Ramirez, whom Rosanna knew to be his
relative, sometime in December, 1990.

She narrated what happened
to her to the police authorities only on July 27, 1991, or ten (10) days
later, because she was afraid of the threat made by accused-appellant
that he would kill her if she told her parents about the incident. It
was after she learned that Rosalie Gapi was also raped by
accused-appellant that she decided to narrate what happened to her as
well. Two (2) days after executing her sworn statement, or on July 29,
1991, Rosanna submitted herself to a medical examination, a
certification was issued by the examining physician, Dr. Jocelyn I.
Ilagan, that Rosanna’s “vaginal vault admits 2 fingers without pain; no
resistance on internal examination, possibility of a broken hymen”.^[6]

Accused-appellant
admits having had sex with Rosanna during the incident in question, but
claims that the same was with the latter’s consent, she being his
sweetheart since May, 1991; that he sent her a courtship letter after
being told by Rosanna’s friends that she liked him; and that she
answered his proposal soon after she received his letter. According to
accused-appellant, he had sex with Rosanna for at least seven (7) times,
all in the same house where the alleged rape took place.
Accused-appellant claims that Rosanna would always invite him over and
that sometimes she would miss school in her desire to be with him. He
claims that Rosanna’s companions ignored their being alone in the room
because they knew they were sweethearts.

In convicting the
accused-appellant on both charges of rape, the trial court gave credence
to the testimonies of the two (2) victims, and rejected the claim of
accused-appellant that the sexual act in both instances was done with
the respective consent of the two (2) victims. In rejecting
accused-appellant’s insistence on consensual sex, the trial court ruled
that the same was hard to believe. The trial court also took note of the
fact that accused-appellant failed to produce the letter he testified
to as having been sent to him by Rosanna. Likewise, accused-appellant’s
flight was taken as indicative of his guilt of the crimes charged
against him.

In this Appeal, accused-appellant raises the following assignment of errors –

“I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION THAN THAT OF THE DEFENSE.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.”^[7]

Anent
the first assigned error, we reiterate the time-honored rule that the
trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded
great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless a material or
substantial fact has been overlooked or misappreciated, which if
properly taken into account may alter the outcome of the case.^[8]
In the instant case, we have painstakingly reviewed the records and
transcript of stenographic notes and have not found any reason to
overturn the challenged Decision.

Accused-appellant insists that
the sexual acts he had with both victims are with their respective
consent. While the Court has upheld the defense of consensual sex in
some cases on the basis of strong evidence, consisting of letters and
the testimonies of witnesses showing that the alleged rape was actually
sex by mutual consent,^[9] the “sweetheart theory”, being raised as an affirmative defense, must be established by convincing proof.^[10]
The burden of proof is on the accused-appellant that he and the victims
are sweethearts. However, accused-appellant failed to establish such
fact by convincing evidence.

As regards Criminal Case No. 1822,
accused-appellant’s testimony that he already had sex with Rosalie even
while courting her, is equally hard to believe. We find his bare
allegation as incredible, unnatural, unconvincing and so inconsistent
with human nature and the course of things as to be totally devoid of
credibility. Indeed, we cannot fathom how a fourteen year old barrio
girl, barely into her teens, can so wantonly engage in sex with a
twenty-four year old man whose courtship she had spurned. Such scenario
is made more inconceivable by the fact, that Rosalie had a boyfriend at
that time, as admitted by accused-appellant.

Coming now to
Criminal Case No. 1825, accused-appellant’s referral to a love letter
allegedly sent to him by Rosanna cannot be given credence by this Court
considering that it was not presented in court or testified to by a
disinterested witness.

In both cases, we have two young girls
barely in their teens caught by surprise by a twenty-four year old
virtual stranger who brutally forced himself into their juvenile bodies.
Physically and mentally, they could do little to resist his strong
advances. Under the circumstances, physical resistance need not be
established, especially since intimidation was exercised upon the
victims and they submitted themselves against their will to
accused-appellant’s lust because of fear for life and personal safety.^[11]

Young
though they are, the doctrine still holds that when a woman testifies
that she has been raped, she says in effect, all that is necessary to
show that rape has been committed, as long as her testimony meets the
test of credibility.^[12]
Courts give credence to the testimony of a young girl who claims to be a
victim of sexual assault, because ordinarily, no girl or woman of
decent repute would undergo the humiliation of a public trial and
testify on the details of her ordeal, unless motivated by a desire to
have the offender apprehended and punished.^[13]
In this case, other than the accused-appellant’s allegation of
“conspiracy” by the victims’ mothers and other relatives, no such motive
has been shown as to why Rosalie and Rosanna would accuse him of the
heinous crime of rape. Coming now to the award of damages, the trial
court’s award of P40,000.00 in moral damages should be increased to
P50,000.00 in line with recent jurisprudence.^[14]
In addition to moral damages, civil indemnity should also be awarded to
the victims. Under prevailing jurisprudence, civil indemnity of
P50,000.00 is automatically awarded to the offended party without need
of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of rape.^[15]
Finally, pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code, the presence of
one aggravating circumstance justifies the award of exemplary damages.
Accused-appellant should thus pay Rosalie P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages since the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was duly proven,
the evidence having established that he entered the residence of Rosalie
and there perpetuated the sexual attack.^[16]

WHEREFORE,
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Romblon, Branch
81, in Criminal Cases Nos. 1822 and 1825 dated November 20, 1995,
convicting accused-appellant of rape and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all its accessory penalties, in each
case, is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

1. The award of moral damages awarded to both victims is increased to P50,000.00 each;
2. Accused-appellant is ordered to pay both victims civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 each; and
3. Accused-appellant
   is ordered to pay Rosalie M. Gapi, complainant in Criminal Case No.
   1822, the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Kapunan, J., on leave.

^[2] Records, Criminal Case No. 1825, p. 1.

^[3] Records, Criminal Case No. 1822, pp. 68-82; Criminal Case No. 1825, pp. 60-78.

^[4] Id., at p. 82 and 78, respectively.

^[5] See Exhibit “A”, Criminal Case No. 1822; Records, p. 43.

^[6] See Exhibit “C”, Criminal Case No. 1825; Records, p. 41.

^[7] Brief for the Accused-Appellant, p. 1; Rollo, p. 95.

^[8] People v. Paranzo, G.R. No. 107800, 26 October 1999, citing People v. Villaza, 127 SCRA 349 (1984); People v. Ramos, 240 SCRA 191 (1995); People v. Nicolas, 241 SCRA 67 (1995); People v. Mariñas, 248 SCRA 165 (1995); People v. Ramirez, 266 SCRA 135 (1997); People v. Teodoro, 280 SCRA 384 (1997); and People v. Jose G. Perez, G.R. Nos. 124366-67, May 19, 1999.

^[9] People v. Barcelona, G.R. No. 125341, 9 February 2000, citing People v. Bayron, G.R. No. 122732, Sept. 7, 1999.

^[10] Id., citing People v. Monfero, G.R. No. 126367, June 17, 1999.

^[11] See People v. Pontilar, G.R. No. 104865, 275 SCRA 338 [1997], citing People v. Talaboc, 256 SCRA 441, 450, April 23, 1996; citing People v. Dusohan, 227 SCRA 87, October 5, 1993, People v. Ramos, 245 SCRA 405, June 27, 1995 and People v. Angeles, 222 SCRA 451, May 21, 1993.

^[12] People v. Caratay, G.R. No. 119418, 119436-37, 5 October 1999, citing People v. Antido, 278 SCRA 425, 440 [1997].

^[13] Id., citing People v. Medina, G.R. No. 126575, December 11, 1998, pp. 7-8; People v. Pontilar, 275 SCRA 338 [1997].

^[14] See People v. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, 293 SCRA 411 [1998].

^[15] People v. Guiwan, G.R. No. 117324, 27 April 2000, citing People v. Pili, G.R. No. 124739, 289 SCRA 118 [1988].

^[16] People v. Garces, Jr., G.R. No. 132368, 20 January 2000.