PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL YLANAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

On appeal is the decision^[1]
dated April 15, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch
14, in Criminal Case No. CBU-41810, finding accused-appellant Manuel
Ylanan guilty of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

On August 14, 1996, a complaint was filed by Rosemarie
Monopolio^[2]
accusing appellant of rape. The complaint reads:

That on or about the 13th day of August, 1996, at about
3:00
A.M., more or less, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, entered the room
of the undersigned, and by means of force and intimidation, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously did lie and succeeded in having carnal
knowledge of said Rosemarie Monopolio.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^[3]

On arraignment, assisted by counsel, appellant pleaded not
guilty.

During trial, the prosecution presented complaining witness
ROSEMARIE MONOPOLIO, a 15-year-old maiden from Zamboanga. She testified
that she had worked for about a week as an all-around helper in the
kitchenette of appellant Manuel Ylanan located at Mabolo Street, Cebu
City. On August 13, 1996, at around 3:00 A.M., she said she was raped by
appellant. While in the makeshift room in the kitchenette where she and
her sister slept, according to her, she was awakened when appellant
entered the room and clamped his hand on her mouth, then placed a pillow
against her face. She slapped appellant and pleaded for him to stop his
advances. However, appellant persisted and succeeded to mount her from
behind. He locked her arms and neck in a “full nelson hold,” rendering
her immobile and unable to resist. While mounting her, appellant
threatened to kill her. He then inserted his penis inside her vagina.
Rosemarie reported the rape to her aunt Leticia Agustin,^[4] who came to the
kitchenette that morning. This was around 9:00 A.M. Together, they
reported the incident to the barangay and to the
Mabolo police station. Rosemarie was then brought to the Cebu City
Hospital where she was medically examined.^[5]

Dr. ESTERLITA FIEL, resident physician of Cebu City Medical
Center,
testified that she examined Rosemarie Monopolio on August 13, 1996 at
around 10:30 A.M. and found fresh lacerations on her hymen at 2:00
o’clock and 10:00 o’clock positions. She opined that these lacerations
could have been caused by sexual intercourse, bicycle riding, ballet
dancing, horseback riding, and masturbation.^[6]

SPO1 ELBERT FLORES, SR. testified that he was assigned at
Precinct
No. 4 of Mabolo, Cebu City. He stated that he was one of those who
invited appellant to their station for investigation.^[7]

LETICIA AGUSTIN, Rosemarie’s maternal aunt, testified that
she accompanied Rosemarie to the barangay
and the police station, as well as to the hospital after Rosemarie told
her that Manuel raped her. She also testified that Manuel and Rosemarie
were sweethearts, and that she did not understand the affidavit she
signed at the police station.^[8]

The first defense witness was appellant MANUEL YLANAN. He
admitted
having copulated with private complainant, but denied raping her. For
according to him, she consented to the sexual intercourse on August 13,
1996. He alleged that he was a widower and that he was attracted to
Rosemarie and courted her. He even had plans of marrying
Rosemarie.^[9]

A son of Manuel, MANOLINE CINCO FLORES, 10 years old, was
also
presented as witness for the defense. He testified that Rosemarie was
introduced to him and his siblings by their father as their new mother.
He also alleged that Rosemarie even took them out to a mall to win their
affection. He said Rosemarie slept on the same bed with Manuel in the
kitchenette.^[10]

On February 13, 1997, the prosecution presented JULIE FE
MONOPOLIO
as rebuttal witness. She denied that her sister Rosemarie and appellant
Manuel were lovers. She claimed they were not close to their aunt
Leticia.

After Julie’s testimony, the court required that Rosemarie be

placed again on the witness stand, to the consternation and objection of
the prosecution. She reiterated her testimony that she was raped by
appellant. She denied that they were lovers.^[11]

AVELINA BOHOL was presented by the defense as sur-rebuttal
witness.
She testified that she was a housekeeper/helper of Manuel Ylanan.
According to her, Rosemarie and Manuel were sweethearts as she would see
Manuel kiss Rosemarie and the latter would not resist.^[12]

The last witness presented was BERNARDITA FAMUDULAN of the
Institute of Religion and Culture (IRC) in Cebu City. She was identified
as the custodian or guardian of Rosemarie. She testified that she works
for the IRC as a seminar house staff. According to her, the IRC is a
religious organization that aids abused victims. She testified that
Rosemarie and her family were under IRC’s custody while her case was
pending trial. Aside from IRC, LIHOK FILIPINA also helped
Rosemarie.^[13]

On April 15, 1997, the trial court rendered its assailed
decision disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby finds the
accused Manuel Ylanan guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the
rape and violation of the complainant Rosemarie Miaga Monopolio that
evening of August 13, 1996 at Mabolo District in this city. He is hereby
sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify the complainant in the
amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) in concept of moral
and exemplary damages.

The costs of these proceedings shall also be taxed against
the accused.

SO ORDERED.^[14]

In this appeal, appellant alleges that the trial court erred,

I. … IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT.

II. … IN NOT GIVING THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHILD WITNESS FOR
THE DEFENSE EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT.^[15]

Essentially, the issue is one of witnesses’ credibility.

Appellant contends that the testimony of Rosemarie does not
deserve
credence. For one, appellant points out that Rosemarie did not even
attempt to shout to get the attention of her sister who was sleeping
nearby, although there were opportunities for her to do so. He casts
doubts on her allegations, that (1) she slapped him despite her arms
being locked by him; (2) she watched him rest and put on his clothes
right after the alleged rape, which is not a normal response of a woman
who had just been raped; and, (3) appellant was able to enter her from
behind. He says this was incredible since it would be difficult for a
man to enter a woman from behind, sexually, without her cooperation and
consent.

Appellant also assails the trial court’s failure to
appreciate the
testimonies of the following witnesses: (1) Leticia, Rosemarie’s own
aunt who testified that Rosemarie and appellant were sweethearts; (2)
Dr. Fiel, the doctor who said that there were no hematomas on any part
of Rosemarie’s body, indicating that there was no force inflicted upon
her; and, (3) Manoline, a young and naïve witness, whose testimony in
court deserves full credence.^[16]

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the appellee,
argues
that the trial court did not commit any error in giving credence to the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The OSG avers that the
seemingly unnatural response of Rosemarie after the rape should not
affect her credibility as there is no standard set of behavior when one
is confronted by a startling experience. It also emphasizes that the
absence of any hematoma or any external sign of injury does not
necessarily negate rape. It dismisses appellant’s contention that
Rosemarie and he were sweethearts and even if they were indeed
sweethearts, this does not necessarily mean appellant did not rape her.
There are such things as marital and date rapes. Finally, the OSG argues
that penetration from behind was not sexually impossible.^[17]

Time and again, the Court has consistently followed three
guiding
principles in reviewing rape cases: (1) an accusation of rape can be
made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is
even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to
disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two
persons being usually involved, the testimony of the complainant should
be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed
to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense.^[18] These
are the guidelines that we utilized, and we are convinced that the
present appeal has no merit.

On the issue concerning the credibility of witnesses, we have
also
consistently ruled that it is best left to the trial courts’
determination since, more often than not, they are in the unique
position to physically observe closely the witnesses while testifying,
an opportunity denied the appellate courts which usually rely on the
cold pages of the mute records of the case.^[19]
In this case, after observing the complainant, the appellant, and their
respective witnesses as to their demeanor, gestures, their voices and
their conduct on the witness stand, the trial judge arrived at a
favorable assessment of Rosemarie’s testimony. Judge Renato Dacudao
found her version of the incident to be more credible than that of the
appellant. On review, we find nothing on record to show that the trial
judge overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated certain facts and
circumstances, which if considered would have altered the outcome of the
case. We find that the trial court’s ruling on the issue of credibility
worth savoring:

The cold and barren words of the pertinent stenographic
records,
heretofore quoted, can hardly present in faithful and genuine
perspective, the pain, suffering and anguish that were written over the
face and form of complainant as she related on the witness box, at times
in halting tones that reek with pathos and anger, the heart-rendering
story of her ravishment and despoliation by the accused that evening of
August 13, 1996. Indeed, as the poet says, they breathe truth who
breathe their words in pain. For throughout her testimony the
complainant was sobbing and wailing in pain (which, in the perception of
the Court could not have been a sham or made-up act) when she narrated
how the accused that evening in question, with his ungovernable libido,
tiptoed into her makeshift bed, pushed her face down on the bed with his
powerful hands, and when she slapped him, threatened to kill her and
told her to shut up, then clamped his hand on her mouth; and then
proceeded to lock his arms around her neck totally immobilizing her, and
rendering her hors de combat; after which he pushed down with his feet
and legs her shorts and panties, and then proceeded to penetrate her
from behind with his male member.

It is of course true that the accused’s system is not
exactly the
normal way to copulate with a girl, even in a rape. But then truth is
sometimes stranger than fiction, just as there is method even in
madness. And, in the case at bench, the Court wishes to point this out,
indeed the Court must will out with this, that the accused herein was
literally smirking and smacking, with more than a dash of mischief in
his eyes, as he sought to regale and tantalize the Court (and the people
at the gallery, too) with his unusual sexual exhibition, evidently
relishing and savoring every bit and morsel of his perverted and twisted
machismo. (Rollo, pp. 133-134).

Appellant’s main defense is the trite “sweetheart theory”.
In People vs. Domended,^[20] we said that:

“…we cannot imagine that a countrified lass, barely in her
teens,
will have the courage to engage in sexual intercourse with her
middle-aged employer a week after commencing with her employment.”

Similarities of this case to Domended are striking. First,
both
complainants were 15-year-old girls who hailed from a distant rural
area. They went to the city, wanting to try their luck and earn a
living. Second, complainants were ravished by their middle-aged
employers barely a week after they commenced their employment. Third,
appellants in each case averred that the sexual encounters were borne
out of mutual lust and desire, if not love. In Domended, we struck down
appellant’s “sweetheart theory”. We can do no less in this case.

For, the contention of appellant that he and Rosemarie were
lovers
does not square with the facts. It is a worn-out concoction which we
find all too often in analogous cases. It is aimed to be a cover-up for
what is now patent sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace. In
People vs. Cambi^[21] we said:

Also of additional significance is the fact that the
appellant
was Margie’s employer. Thus, appellant’s contention that there was no
intimidation prior to the commission of the alleged carnal act is simply
not true. Time and again this Court has held that intimidation must be
viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time
of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule. This
Court is not blind to Margie’s unfortunate predicament of having been
subjected to the unbridled lust of one who provided her and her siblings
with a much needed source of livelihood. That appellant took advantage
of his moral influence over his fifteen-year old worker cannot be
denied. We more than understand, we sympathize with the plight of this
poverty stricken barrio lass who must have agonized over the loss of her
innocence but also feared the very thought of losing the hand that
feeds her.

Moreover, even if arguendo Rosemarie and appellant were
indeed
lovers, such a relationship does not necessarily negate the commission
of rape. The gravamen of the crime of rape is sexual congress of a man
with a woman without her consent.^[22]
Love is not a license for carnal intercourse through force or
intimidation. A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her
will.^[23]

Appellant’s reliance on Leticia’s and Avelina’s testimonies
as well
as that of his son, Manoline, does not serve him well. On Leticia’s
testimony, the trial court keenly observed:

To be sure, the Court had taken stock of the rather
unfavorable
[to the complainant] testimony of Leticia Agustin. But Leticia Agustin
is definitely not a loyal aunt, one who is expected to root for
Rosemarie or to be protective of her. For in her very straitened
circumstances (Julie Fe Monopolio told the Court that during their brief
sojourn with Leticia, she and Rosemarie were given food but once a
day), it is quite understandable that Leticia would wish to rid herself
of two additional mouths to feed and two free lodgers in her shanty,
whilst pining for a slice of the cake which a settlement of the rape
case would fetch (The evidence shows that she went with the accused’s
son, “Boy” to Zamboanga to work out some kind of settlement of the rape
case with Rosemarie’s parents, offering to that end the sum of
P50,000.00). At the same time, the Court can not be unaware of the fact
that Leticia was a former employee of the accused, and that she must owe
him gratitude. In any event, the Court noticed that Rosemarie’s mother
and Leticia, who are virtual look-alikes, traded baleful glances after
Leticia stepped down from the witness box. Obviously there was no love
lost between the two sisters.^[24]

Needless to stress, in Manoline’s testimony we see a young
son
trying to protect his father and keep him away from jail. How and why in
so short time as one week, with long working hours, the private
complainant would find time to ingratiate herself as a new “mother” to
appellant’s children had been left unexplained. This tale is unworthy of
belief.

Appellant asserts that the absence of any physical injury on
the
victim meant that no force or intimidation was employed on Rosemarie.
However, force and intimidation depend on perception. What may
constitute force or intimidation differs from person to person.
Rosemarie categorically testified that she resisted appellant, but he
was just too strong. He also rendered her immobile. No doubt he enjoyed
moral ascendancy as employer over his new employee. Aside from this, he
threatened to kill her. These circumstances more than suffice to sustain
a finding that force and intimidation existed in this case. Besides,
the absence of any hematoma or marks on Rosemarie’s body does not mean
that she consented to the sexual act. Much less could one draw from that
negative fact the conclusion that no force or intimidation was used
against her. Proof of injuries is not indispensable in prosecutions for
rape.^[25]
In People vs. Dreu,^[26] we held:

It is of no moment either that the medical certificate
fails to
show that Josephine suffered any contusion or abrasion. Although the
results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence to
prove that the victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in
establishing accused-appellant’s guilt or innocence…

Rosemarie’s inability to scream to get the attention of her
sister
did not positively indicate willingness on her part to have sex with
appellant. As she claimed, appellant was nearly suffocating her with a
pillow and she was stricken with fear, which paralyzed and silenced her
to suffer rather than risk more harm.

Appellant further claims that Rosemarie’s silence after the
rape
was unnatural and indicated her consent to the sexual act. Nothing is
farther from the truth. Rosemarie’s reactions could indicate shock and
fear. But note that immediately thereafter she reported the incident to
her aunt. The very same day, they reported the rape to the
barangay
officials and to the police. She also willingly subjected herself to a
medical examination. That she remained motionless after the rape and
watched appellant dress did not mean consent. After having just
undergone a traumatic experience she was naturally unnerved, even
shocked to inaction. We have noted in a number of cases that there is no
uniform reaction for persons subjected to sexual assault. Some may
shout, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while
others may openly welcome the intrusion.^[27]

We cannot likewise give any merit to appellant’s contention
that
Rosemarie’s testimony is inconsistent and incredible. We find her
testimony straightforward, spontaneous and consistent even in the face
of a long and grueling interrogation from the defense counsel. The rule
is that when a rape victim’s testimony is straightforward and candid,
unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or
contradictions in its material points, it must be given full faith and
credit.^[28]

Appellant’s assertion that it is impossible for Rosemarie to
have
slapped him after he had held her hands is misleading. What she said is
that she slapped him after she was awakened by his unwanted touch and
before she was rendered immobile.^[29]

Contrary to appellant’s defense, having carnal knowledge of a
woman
from behind without the latter’s consent is not impossible. Complainant
testified that appellant mounted her and held her in such a way as to
render her immobile, removed her shorts and undergarments and forcefully
spread her legs with the use of his feet and proceeded to insert his
penis into her private parts from behind. She testified that she was
penetrated for she felt stinging pain on that part of her
anatomy.^[30]
Moreover, the prosecution presented Dr. Fiel, who testified that the
victim suffered several lacerations on her private parts. They show that
she had indeed been sexually abused, but more important, that she
struggled against forcible coitus. These facts were not successfully
rebutted by appellant.

Appellant’s contention that it would have been impossible for
him
to rape Rosemarie without waking up Julie Fe who was sleeping nearby
also deserves scant consideration. Julie Fe explained she was in a deep
slumber due to lack of sleep and fatigue the previous days. We also note
that even appellant admits that it was possible for him and Rosemarie
to engage in sex without disturbing Julie Fe. The smallness of the
make-shift room did not mean that rape was impossible. Lust is no
respecter of time or place.^[31] Rape may be committed in the most unlikely
places such as a small room where other family members also
slept.^[32]

In sum, we agree with the trial court in giving credence to
the
testimony of Rosemarie and the prosecution witnesses. Given the natural
modesty and shyness of a 15-year-old barrio lass, in our view, Rosemarie
would not fabricate a rape charge, expose herself to the rigors and
intrusions of a medical examination, as well as the scandal of a public
trial, if said charge were not true.^[33]
Appellant also failed to establish any reason or motive why Rosemarie
would falsely testify against him. Absent any showing of ill motive on
her part, Rosemarie’s testimony deserves utmost weight and
credence.^[34] And
considering all the evidence on record, we agree that the appellant is
guilty as charged.

However, we note that the trial court awarded P100,000 for
moral
and exemplary damages. This is not accurate, for the trial court should
have specified which amount referred to what damages. Pursuant to
current jurisprudence, as civil indemnity, P50,000 should be awarded in a
rape case, but moral damages should also be awarded to the victim in
the amount of P50,000. To discourage the abuse of young girls,
especially by their elders, such as employers, the amount of P25,000
could also be awarded as exemplary damages.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the
Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City in Criminal Case No. CBU-41810, finding
accused-appellant MANUEL YLANAN guilty of rape is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. He is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay
the victim, Rosemarie Monopolio, the following: (1) civil indemnity of
P50,000; (2) moral damages fixed at P50,000; and (3) exemplary damages
in the amount of P25,000, together with the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Acting Chief Justice), (Chairman),
Mendoza, and Corona, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp.
16-48.
^[2] Also
referred to as “Manopolio” in the records.
^[3] Rollo, p. 4.

^[4] “Letecia” in
some parts of the records.
^[5] TSN,
November 18, 1996, pp. 4-28.
^[6] TSN, January
21, 1997, pp. 3-11.
^[7] TSN, January
22, 1997, pp. 2-5.
^[8] Id. at
14-18; TSN, January 23, 1997, pp. 3-8.
^[9] TSN,
February 3, 1997, pp. 3-16.
^[10] TSN,
February 11, 1997, pp. 3-8.
^[11] TSN,
February 13, 1997, pp. 5-8, 28-33.
^[12] TSN,
February 25, 1997, pp. 2, 6.
^[13] Id. at
13-18.
^[14] Rollo, pp.
47-48.
^[15] Id. at 82.

^[16] Id. at
114-139.
^[17] Id. at
201-208.
^[18] People vs.
Serrano,
G.R. No. 137480, 353 SCRA 161, 169 (2001) citing People vs. Gallo, G.R.
No. 124736, 284 SCRA 590, 612 (1998); People vs. Barrientos, G.R. No.
119835, 285 SCRA 221, 237-238 (1998); People vs. Balmoria, G.R. Nos.
120620-21, 287 SCRA 687, 698 (1998); People vs. Sta. Ana, G.R. Nos.
115657-59, 291 SCRA 188, 202 (1998); People vs. Perez, G.R. No. 118332,
270 SCRA 526, 531 (1997).
^[19] People vs.
Velasco,
G.R. Nos. 135231-33, 353 SCRA 138 (2001) citing People vs. Castillo,
G.R. No. 130205, 335 SCRA 100, 111-112 (2000).
^[20] G.R. No.
137564, March 30, 2001, p. 13.
^[21] G.R. No.
127131, 333 SCRA 305, 316-317 (2000).
^[22] See People
vs. Yparraguire, G.R. No. 124391, 335 SCRA 69, 76 (2000).
^[23] People vs.
Jimenez,
G.R. No. 128364, 302 SCRA 607, 618 (1999) citing People vs. Gecomo, G.R.
Nos. 115035-36, 254 SCRA 82, 110 (1996).
^[24] Rollo, p.
46.
^[25] See People
vs. Docena, G.R. Nos. 131894-98, 322 SCRA 820, 829 (2000).
^[26] G.R. No.
126282, 334 SCRA 62, 70 (2000).
^[27] People vs.
Cambi, supra at 315, citing People vs. Silvano, G.R. No. 127356, 309
SCRA 362, 392 (1999).
^[28] People vs.
Baway, G.R.
No. 130406, 350 SCRA 29 (2001) citing People vs. Caratay, G.R. Nos.
119418, 119436-37, 316 SCRA 251, 267 (1999); People vs. Bonghanoy, G.R.
No. 124097, 308 SCRA 383, 390 (1999); People vs. Perez, G.R. No. 122764,
296 SCRA 17, 27 (1998).
^[29] See TSN,
November 18, 1996, p. 38. Underline supplied.
^[30] TSN,
November 18, 1996, pp. 19-20.
^[31] People vs.
Alcartado, G.R. Nos. 132379-82, 334 SCRA 701, 717 (2000).
^[32] See People
vs. Baybado, G.R. No. 132136, 335 SCRA 712, 720-721 (2000).
^[33] See People
vs. Taño, G.R. No. 133872, 331 SCRA 449, 461 & 462 (2000)

^[34] See People
vs. Velasco, supra at 15, citing People vs. Gementiza, G.R. No. 123151,
285 SCRA 478, 486 (1998).