PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCELO VALDEZ Y MANZON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In an information filed before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and docketed therein as Criminal Case No. A-51,
Marcelo Valdez was charged with rape for willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
having sexual knowledge, through force, threats and intimidation, of Lolita Baliton, against the latter’s will.

On May 11,
1979, the said Court
rendered its decision convicting accused as charged, with the fol­lowing dispositive portion:

“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused MARCELO VALDEZ y
MANZON guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE, and there being no
mitigating or aggravating circumstance, sentences him to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify Lolita Baliton in
the amount of P12,000.00 (People vs. Rapada, 80 SCRA
63) and to pay the costs.

Let the accused be credited
with the full period of his preventive detention under Republic Act 6127.”

The case is now before Us on appeal, with the accused-appellant
raising the following assignments of error:

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN BELIEVING THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
COMPLAINANT AND HER WITNESSES WHICH ARE REPLETE OF INCONSISTENCIES AND INHERENT IMPROBABILI­TIES, AND LACKING IN CANDOR AND CREDIBILITY.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE
PROSECUTION’S WITNESSES ARE “VERY CONVINCING, FRANK, STRAIGHT-FORWARD AND
SINCERE” IGNORING THE DULY RECORDED OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT ON THE
DEPORTMENT OF COMPLAINING WITNESS WHICH REVEALS HER LACK OF SINCERITY.

III

THE TRIAL COURT MISAPPRECIATED THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF THE TESTIMONY
OF THE ACCUSED BY HOLDING THAT
COMPLAINANT ASKED ACCUSED TO MAKE
LOVE TO HER EVEN BEFORE THE LATTER HAD COURTED HER.

IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED AT LEAST ON
REASONABLE DOUBT.

The facts of the case are as follows:

Appellant of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, who was then 20 years of age, left his hometown
in 1976 for San Quintin, Pangasinan,
in order to harvest palay.  During each harvest season, he stayed with
the Baliton family where he was given free board and
lodging.  Whenever he was there, he slept
in the camarin near the Baliton house.

At about 10:30 in the
morning of December 21, 1977,
while Lolita, a 13 year old barrio lass, was alone fold­ing clothes with her
12-year old friend Victoria Flores, appellant suddenly entered the house
holding a balisong. 
He threatened the two girls that he would kill them and their families
if they screamed or told anyone about what would happen.  Thereafter, he pulled Lolita towards him,
twisted her hands and put them at her back. 
He made her lie down, lowered her panty, opened the zipper of his pants, put out his sexual organ, went on top
of her, inserted his organ in her private part and then went through with the
push and pull movement.  At this instance
Lolita cried in pain.

All throughout this sexual abuse, the two girls were not able to
do anything because of the continuing threats of appellant who did not stop
brandishing his balisong.  After appellant left, Lolita’s tears did not
stop flowing until her mother arrived. 
When asked for an explanation, both girls kept silent having in mind the
threat made by appellant that if they talk, he will kill them.

Lolita testified that this heinous act was repeated in January
1978 with appellant repeating the same threats on her.  Sometime in February, while appellant was
away, Lolita finally narrated to her
mother the gruelling experience she had.  Mrs. Baliton
immediately reported the matter to the Barangay
Captain and on February 26, 1978, had her daughter
undergo a physical examination.  The
medical findings included the following – “presence of old lacerations at 3:00 o’clock, 6:00 o’clock, and 9:00 o’clock positions”.

On February 27, 1978,
the matter was brought to the police of San Quintin, Pangasinan, and this led to the filing of the information
charging appellant of rape.

The first and second assigned errors will be taken up together as they revolve around the same issue
of credibility.  Appellant insists that
the lower court should not have given the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses much weight as said witnesses were not sincere, lacked candor, seriousness
and integrity.  To discredit the
testimony of the victim, appellant maintains that both of them were in fact
sweethearts who before Decem­ber 21,
1978 have had sexual intercourse on several occasions in the camarin.^[1] To support this allegation,
he presented as evidence a ring
supposedly given to him by the victim.^[2] He further adds
that he even proposed marriage to the girl.^[3]

Next, appellant contends that the victim was obviously lying in
Court because of her testimony that her panty was only lowered up to her thighs.  His claim is that if this is true, then rape
could not have been committed because of the impossibility of insertion of the
penis into the victim’s vagina.^[4]

Also, according to the appellant the delay of the victim in telling
her mother and making a complaint only proves that there really was no rape.

We do not agree.  Upon a
consideration of the whole record, We find the testimony of the victim aside
from being sufficiently corroborated by the other witness and by medical findings,
credible to any reasonable person.  It is
true that there were a few inconsistencies but they are too minor to affect the
girl’s credibility.  Such inconsistencies
are well-expected to come from an un­exposed barrio lass not used to the rigours of a public trial. 
Next, appellant failed to show Us a good reason for the girl’s alleged
disposition to lie in court and the complicity of her family thereto.  As he admitted, he was treated very well just
like any member of the Baliton family.^[5]
Indeed, it is very doubtful that the victim and her young friend would make up
a story of rape for no motive at all. 
Needless to say, Lolita, a girl of such tender age, will not expose
herself to public shame and humiliation by having to undergo a physical examina­tion
and testify in open court if her rape charge is not true.

The Court cannot believe that the appellant and Lolita were in
fact sweethearts.  The ring presented in
evidence could not have belonged to the victim because, as has been successfully proven by the prosecution, it was too small
for her.^[6] It should also be noted that no other
substantial evidence to support appellant’s claim, like love letters, notes or
other tokens was shown in Court.

The offer of marriage, instead of helping him in his defense,
betrays the appellant’s culpability.  It
was made in the presence of the Barangay Captain at
the time when an investigation was already being conducted.^[7]
This could only be taken as an admission of guilt.^[8]
Further­more, if the appellant and Lolita were really sweethearts, the latter
would have readily accepted the
proposal of marriage.  Had there been love between the two, the
girl would not have jeopardized their relationship by exposing everything to
her mother and to the authorities, much less filing a complaint for rape
against him.

Regarding the appellant’s
claim that in line with Lolita’s testimony that her panty was only pulled down
to her thighs, there could have been no sexual inter­course, We find this
incorrect because said testimony did not stop there.  The girl went on to say that her panty was
eventually torn, allowing the consummation of the sexual act.  Thus:

“Q.  When you were sexually abused by Marcelo
Valdez on December 21, 1977,
you said on cross examination that your pantie was
just lowered 6 inches above the knee, will you please tell the Court what happened to that pantie when Marcelo Valdez sexually abused you?

“A.   It was torn, sir.

“Q.   Where is that pantie
now?

“A.   No
more, sir.”^[9]

The delay on the part of the victim in telling her mother and
making a complaint should not be taken against her.  The cause of this delay was well-explained in
the lower court and that is, the girl feared for her own life and the lives of
her friend and their families.^[10]
This Court has already recognized that concealments by young girls of rape
against them are not uncommon because of threats on their lives.^[11]
We have also repeatedly held that delay in reporting a rape incident due to
death threats is justified.

On the third assignment of error, We agree with the lower court
that the following testimony of the accused?appellant is not only unreliable but hard to believe:

“Q.   The fact is your activities while in the
house is eating during lunch time, help the parents of Lolita Valeton till the fields, also in the harvest and at night
time sleep in the camarin is it not?

“A.   At harvest time, we all harvest in the field
and when the afternoon comes I go to the camarin and
sleep there, sir.

“Q.   And you never had any occasion to be very close
to Lolita Valeton because of her age and because of
your relationship to the family because you are the ‘kasugpong‘,
is that right?

“A.   I used to sleep in the camarin
of Lolita and Lolita voluntarily came to the place where I was, sir.

“Q.   When was that?

“A.   In 1977, sir.

“Q.   What date or month?

“A.   I already forgot it, sir.

“Q.   But you are
sure that it was in 1977?

“A.   Yes, sir.

“Q.   At what time when she went to you without
asking her to come?

“A.   3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, sir.

“Q.   What happened there at 3:00 o’clock?

“A.   She went to the place where I was and laid
down and told me how she felt, sir.

“Q.   What did she tell you as her feeling at the time?

“A.   Lolita said to me, ‘I am waiting for you to
tell me how you feel but I think you are ashamed.’

“Q.   With that statement of Lolita Valeton, what did you do?

“A.   I kissed her, sir.

“Q.   Only?

“A.   She told me that we would have sexual
intercourse, so we did it, sir.

“Q.   It was Lolita Valeton
who told you that?

“A.   Yes, sir.

“Q.   And
you had the sexual act with her?

“A.   Yes, sir.”^[12]

Appellant’s story appears incredible from every angle.  It is unbelievable that young Lolita, fresh
from her elementary grades, would lure a much older man to have sex with her
when the latter has not even told her about his feelings towards her.  It is even more difficult to believe that
this girl would suggest sex in a place very near her house, stay there for a
long period of time to have more sex, knowing the danger of being caught by any
member of her family or her neighbors.

At this point, it is apt to consider the lower court’s
observation that not only was appellant’s testi­mony incredible but that
appellant did not appear as a credible
witness.  Thus:

“Considering the testimony of the accused and the evidence he
adduced, this Court, try as it would, (sic) could not give any credence to the
testimony of the accused in view of the very unstable, nervous, shuffling and
hesitant manner in which it was given on the witness stand.  Accused
testified on three occasions.  On the
first occasion, it was claimed that he was sick and the court granted the
motion to reset.  On the succeeding times
he testified, he did so in the same nervous, excited, tense, shuffling and
hesitant manner, breathing heavily, frequently clearing his throat, sweating
profusely indicating not only unreliabi­lity but a troubled conscience as
well.  But far more unreliable is his
testimony itself that Baliton, a young girl of 13
years would go up to him unsolicited and seek him in the afternoon when the pos­sibility
of detection was great and ask him who was not courting her to tell her that he
loved her and without his saying anything to her she kissed him and then openly
invited him to have sexual intercourse with her in a manner which would even
put courtesans or women of loose morals or easy virtue to shame.  The narration of the accused is difficult to
believe.  Baliton
was a barrio girl only 13 years old, of an age when one is still a child barely
entering the stage of puberty and residing in a barrio which is shielded from
the corroding influence of social and sexual mores and practices of highly
advanced societies.  What is ascribed to
her by the accused betrays it as a figment of a fecund imagination.  Being so, it fails to impress this Court for
evidence to be credible must not only proceed from a credible witness but must
be also credible in itself (People vs. Dayag, 56 SCRA
439).”^[13]

In view of the foregoing, We hold that the lower court did not
err in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is
hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the amount of indemnity to be paid
the complainant by the appellant is
increased to P20,000.00.  Costs against
appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Feliciano, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

^[1] Appellee’s Brief, page 4.

^[2] Exhibit I.

^[3] Page 97, Rollo.

^[4] Appellee’s Brief, page 12.

^[5] Page 98, Rollo.

^[6] Page 144, Rollo;
p. 35, TSN, March 25, 1979.

^[7]
Page 98, Rollo.

^[8]
Section 24, Rule 130, Rules of Court.

^[9] TSN, page 40, August 10, 1978.

^[10]
Page 47, Rollo.

^[11]
People vs. Alcid, 135 SCRA 280.

^[12] TSN, pp. 6-7, February 7, 1979.

^[13] Page 61, Rollo;
Decision, page 4.