THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BUENAVENTURA BAYLON ALIAS “TURA”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Once again the principal issue which confronts Us in this appeal is the
credibility of witnesses. Because this is a criminal case it is obvious
that the judge who tried the case and in the process observed the
witnesses, noted their demeanor and even the inflections of their voices
found the prosecution’s evidence to be more credible. For reasons
which are too trite to mention, We sustain the trial judge because an
examination of the record does not warrant a different action.

This case is about the rape of a girl of tender years. SONIA ALDAS had
just entered her teen years when she suffered a traumatic experience.
She was abused, according to the cold and formal words of the
information, as follows:

“That on or about the 8th day of March, 1978, in the Municipality
of Victorias, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means
of force and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of one, SONIA ALDAS, a minor 12 years
and 8 months old, against the will of the latter.” (Expediente, p. 32.)

The “above-named accused” was a man whose shadow had lengthened on that
day in March, 1978, because he was then 78 years old. His name is
BUENAVENTURA BAYLON alias “TURA”.

The sentence under appeal reads as follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court finds the
accused Buenaventura Baylon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of rape defined and penalized under Art. 335, Revised Penal Code as
amended, and hereby sentences him to suffer the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as moral damages and to pay the costs.” (Id., p. 246.)

Baylon was not committed to prison pending appeal because by order of
the trial judge “in the meantime the bond which he has filed [pending
trial] shall serve for purposes of his provisional liberty [pending
appeal].” (Id., p. 252.)

The facts, as narrated in the well-written decision of Judge Segundino G. Chua, are as follows:

“At about 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon of March 8, 1978, Sonia
Aldas was on her way home from the public market of Victorias, Negros
Occidental, where she bought some viands. She was accompanied at the
time by a ten-year old boy, Nilo Guatag. Passing by the school premises
of the Victorias Elementary School along Montinola Street, she decided
to get inside in order to ask some money for her school allowance from
the accused Buenaventura Baylon, whom she used to call ‘Lolo Tura’. She
requested Nilo just to wait outside while she looked for the accused
who was tending to the plants and flowers within the school campus.
Sonia used to ask money from the accused ever since she was a student in
grade one, and called him ‘Lolo Tura’ because the brother of the
accused happened to be the husband of her father’s sister.

“Sonia saw the accused and approached him asking for money. The
accused told her that they go to the far end of the school building
because, according to him, he kept his money in that place. (The school
building is inside a fenced campus and is about 300 meters from the
public market.) But once there the accused suddenly grabbed her hand and
loosened her panty. Then he pushed her down to the cement floor, laid
on top of her and had sexual intercourse with her. She struggled to get
away from his hold, pleading with him, but he threatened to kill her
with a knife. The girl felt pain when the accused inserted his penile
organ into her private part and she could not remember how long the
sexual act lasted.

“Then there was a tap at the door of the room. Sensing the
presence of someone, the accused let her go and she ran out of the room
where she met Nilo Guatag who led her out of the school campus.

“At the time of the incident Sonia Aldas was exactly 12 years, 8
months and 22 days old, having been born on July 16, 1965, according to
her mother and Sonia’s baptismal certificate (Exhs. “B”, “B-1” and
“B-2”).

“Sonia did not tell anybody about the incident until the following
morning when her mother arrived from Minapasok, Fabrica, in the north.
Her mother, Ana Aldas, was surprised why she did not go to school that
morning and she asked her daughter why. Sonia said she was not feeling
well and she cried. Then she related her harrowing experience to her
mother. The mother lost no time in bringing Sonia to the police station
to report the incident. They saw the rural health physician, Dr.
Josefina Manzon, to have her physically examined. Dr. Manzon then
issued the corresponding medical certificate (Exh. “C”) which is quoted
hereunder in full:

‘March 9, 1978

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that I have examined SONIA ALDAS, 11-1/2 yrs.
old, female, student, residing in Fermont Village, Victorias, Negros
Occidental and found the following:

1. Absence of pubic hair.

2. Hymen-freshly lacerated and congestion of the edges.

3. Vaginal canal admits one (1) finger.

(SGD) JOSEFINA A. MANZON

Rural Health Physician
Neg. Occ.’

“Dr. Manzon, a graduate of the University of Santo Tomas of 1951,
passed the board examination for medicine the following year. She was
in private practice for sometime until she joined the government service
in 1966. Since Dec. 1, 1977 she has been the rural health physician of
Victorias town up to the present time. Concerning her findings in this
case, Dr. Manzon declared that the fresh laceration she found in
Sonia’s hymen could have been caused within 24 hours before examination,
and that such injury could have been caused by a hard instrument such
as an erect male organ. The congestion of the edges, according to her,
referred to the swelling and reddening of the tissues. During the
physical examination, Dr. Manzon could insert into the girl’s private
part but one inch of her forefinger because she was complaining of pain.

“On April 12, 1978, Ana Aldas filed the complaint for rape against
the accused before the Municipal Court of Victorias (Exhs. “A” and
“A-1″).” (Id., pp. 239-242.)

The appellant now claims:

“1. THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE.

2. THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED UNDER
ARTICLE 335 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AND IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF
RECLUSION PERPETUA, and

3. THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING MORAL DAMAGES.” (Brief, p. 1.)

In support of the first assignment of error the appellant points to
contradictory statements made by Sonia, e.g. that the accused forced her
to lie on the cement floor and then loosened her panty but later she
said that after the accused has loosened her panty he pushed her to the
cement floor. But such contradiction in the sequence of events does not
impair Sonia’s credibility considering her tender years and the fact
that she was narrating a traumatic experience which was attended by
excitement and confusion. In fact, the trial court observed that, “Her
oral declaration was clear and convincing and she weathered a gruelling
cross-examination.” (Id., p. 246.)

The appellant claims that Sonia offered no resistance when she was raped. It is true that Sonia admitted that she did not physically resist
her Lolo Tura but she explained her omission in this wise, “How could I
be able to kick him when before doing that carnal act with me he
threatened to kill me and pointed a knife at me, and upon threatening me
I fell unconscious because of fear. (The witness cries).” (TSN, p.
89.)

It should be recalled that in March, 1978, Sonia was less than 13 years old and the case of People vs. Savellano, L-31227, May 31, 1974, 57 SCRA 320, 328 is relevant; there it was held:

“It is not necessary that the force employed against the
complaining woman in rape be so great or of such a character as could
not be resisted. It is sufficient that the force used is sufficient to
consummate the culprit’s purpose of copulating with the offended woman
(U.S. vs. Villarosa, 4 Phil. 434, 437 cited in 52 C. J. 1018, note 7;
Decision of Supreme Court of Spain, dated May 14, 1878, 3 Viada, Codigo
Penal 452; II Hidalgo Codigo Penal 302). The force or violence
necessary in rape is naturally a relative term, depending on the age,
size and strength of the parties and their relation to each other (75
C.J.S. 475).”

In insisting that Sonia offered no resistance, the appellant goes
farther by stating “this may be an indication and willingness on the
part of the offended party.” (Brief, p. 9.) This must be the pits in
advocacy. For the assertion that a girl with the smell of milk still in
her mouth would willingly submit herself to a man so that he can
satisfy his carnal thirst is simply unacceptable.

The appellant’s brief which is not well-organized argues in the first
and second assignments of error that Sonia was not raped because: (1)
“being a girl a little over 12 years of age, slightly built there can
[not] be immediate penetration of the penis of the accused in her
vagina”; (2) Dr. Manzon said, “There could have been an attempt [of
rape]”; and (3) Dr. Manzon’s statement that, “There was no bleeding.”

The best evidence to prove that Sonia was raped is the fact that when
she was physically examined on March 9, 1978, the day following the
incident, this condition was noted: “Hymen – freshly lacerated and
congestion of the edges.” (Exhibit C.)

Dr. Manzon did in fact say that there could have been an attempt of
rape. But she also said: “Maybe he tried to insert the male organ I
could not tell, Your Honor, if there was a consummation since when I
inserted my finger there a laceration and the hymen was already
lacerated, may be the old man tried to insert, an attempt only, Your
Honor, it could be possible, Your Honor, that the male organ was already
touching the vagina.” (TSN, p. 46.)

Dr. Manzon is not a lawyer and it is obvious that in her mind there is
no rape unless there is penetration of the vagina. But the law does not
require penetration of the vagina; entry of the labia is sufficient.
As a matter of fact, however, Sonia’s vagina must have been entered for
how could her hymen have been lacerated.

The absence of bleeding does not disprove the rape because the physical
condition of Sonia was sufficient to demonstrate that it took place.

The appellant interposed the defense of alibi. He also claimed that he
did not know Sonia and saw her for the first time only in court.

The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification
made by Sonia. And the testimony of Mrs. Catalina Moduramente that she
and the accused left the school premises together at about 6:00 p.m. on
March 8, 1978, is unavailing because it was not impossible for the
latter to have committed the rape before the two left the school.

It is to be recalled that Sonia addressed the accused as “Lolo Tura”
because the latter’s brother married the sister of Sonia’s father. When
the appellant was cross-examined he admitted that he has a younger
brother named Carlos Baylon and that Carlos is the brother-in-law of Ana
Aldas. It should also be recalled that Ana Aldas is the mother of
Sonia. All these facts show that Sonia was telling the truth and that
the appellant did in fact know Sonia contrary to his pretension.

Appellant’s last assignment of error is to the effect that:

“It is fundamental in law that only matters which were proved can
be taken by the Court in its decision. The record of this case is
devoid of any proofs proving moral damage that was suffered by the
offended party. Such being the fact it is respectfully submitted that
the Honorable trial judge has no legal authority to award such moral
damages to the offended party.” (Brief, p. 13.)

Suffice it to say that, “No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in
order that moral, nominal, temprate, liquidated or exemplary damages may
be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated
ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the
circumstances of each case.” (Art. 2216, Civil Code.) And “Moral damages
include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate
result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.” (Art. 2217, Id.)

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in toto. Cost against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.