PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO ISON @ DANNY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

At the instance of the offended party, Leonila
P. Santiago, who filed the corresponding criminal complaint before the
Municipal Court of Echague, Isabela,
the Accused Danilo Ison was
charged with Rape committed in an uninhabited place and with grave abuse of
confidence.

The evidence for the prosecution sought to establish that
Complainant, Leonila P. Santiago, was a 13-year old
girl on 17 April 1979, who,
with her widowed mother, Cresencia Paynor Santiago, were residents of
Lambaken, Jaen,
Nueva Ecija.  They had relatives in Roxas,
Isabela, namely, Mr. and Mrs. Florencio
Antolin and Alex Bautista, a brother-in-law of Cresencia.  Cresencia also had a brother in Echague, Isabela, by the name of Florencio Paynor.  After the school term, Leonila
usually went to Roxas, Isabela, at her uncle
Alex Bautista’s place to spend her
vacation.

On 17 April 1979,
Complaint hitched a ride in the jeep of the Accused to go to Roxas, Isabela, to spend the
summer vacation.  The Accused was actually a distant uncle, being a
third degree cousin of Complainant’s mother. 
He was a businessman, who usually made trips to Roxas,
Isabela with his helper, Alfredo Lozada,
to deliver eggs for sale.  The group left
Lambaken, Jaen,
at about 4:30 in the afternoon with
the three of them sitting on the front seat of the jeep.  Complainant was seated between the two men
because the back of the jeep was filled with
egg boxes.

Upon reaching the diversion road at Echague, Isabela
near the Echague cemetery, the Accused told
Complainant that they would spend the night there.  They slept in the jeep, the Accused lying down on
the front seat behind the steering wheel while Leonila
slept in a sitting position at the other end of the front seat.  The legs of the Accused dangled outside the
jeep.

While Complainant was thus asleep, she was awakened when she felt
someone, who turned out to be the Accused, holding her hands.  Complainant struggled and fought to free
herself when the Accused started embracing her. 
She cried for help from Al, who happened to be at the back of the front
seat, but instead of helping her, Al assisted the accused by holding her
hands.  Suddenly, the Accused gave
Complainant a fist blow in the
abdomen, which rendered her unconscious. 
She later regained consciousness when she felt pain in her private part
as the Accused succeeded violating her. 
She noticed that her pants and panty were already removed and she was in
a lying position on the front seat with her left leg hanging from the seat and
the Accused was on top of her doing the push-and-pull movement.  Complainant was shocked and cried for help but
none was forthcoming.  The act
consummated, the Accused threw her pants and torn panty at her and threatened
her not to make any revelation otherwise he would kill her and her mother.

Soon thereafter they proceeded to Roxas
arriving thereat at about 6:30 in
the morning at her uncle Antolin’s place.  Immediately, Complainant mailed a letter to
her mother (Exhibit “B”) narrating the offense on her person.  She did not disclose the incident to her
uncle because of the threats made to her by the Accused.

Cresencia Santiago, Complainant’s
mother, received her daughter’s letter on 28 April 1979. 
Immediately, she sent a telegram to her brother-in-law, Alex Bautista,
at Roxas, Isabela,
requesting the latter to bring Complainant home to Lambaken
so that she could verify the truth.  The
day after Cresencia had sent the telegram, Alex and
the Complainant arrived.  The latter
recounted how she was taken
advantage of by the Accused.  Because Cresencia was a widow
and financially hard-up, she decided to ask for help from her brother, Florencio Paynor, who was staying
in Echague, Isabela.  Thus, Cresencia,
Complainant and Alex immediately went to Echague, Isabela, that same afternoon, and on 7 May 1979,
Complainant signed and filed a criminal complaint for Rape with the Municipal
Court thereat (Exhibit
“C”).

The corresponding Information was thereafter filed with the Court
of First Instance of Isabela and trial on the merits
ensued.  On 7 June 1982, said Court^[1]
found the Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him of the crime
charged.  The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the
Court finds the accused, DANILO ISON alias DANNY, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of RAPE AS DEFINED AND PENALIZED under Art. 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 2632 and 4111, and as
charged in the Information, and accordingly, hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties provided for
by law, to pay and indemnify the offended party, LEONILA SANTIAGO, the amount
of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00) as moral
damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the
costs.

“In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be extended
the benefits of Article 29, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
127, when he underwent preventive imprisonment from May 14, 1979 to May 18, 1979, provided he complied with the conditions
therein imposed.”

“SO ORDERED.” (pp. 23-24, Rollo)

In this appeal, the
Accused faults the Court a quo
with the following errors:

“(1)   The
trial court erred in not considering and finding that it was physically
improbable, if not impossible, for the accused to be at the scene of the alleged
rape at the diversion road near the cemetery of Echague,
Isabela, in
the evening of April 17, 1979 considering certain factors/circumstances
(discussed hereunder).

“(2)   The trial court erred in believing complainant’s utterly incredible story of rape in this case.

“(3)   The
trial court erred in convicting the appellant and in not acquitting him of the
criminal charge of rape.” (p. 1, Accused-Appellant’s Brief)

Being inter-related, we will discuss the first and second
assignments of error jointly.

It is the Accused’s submission that
they left Barrio Lambaken, Jaen,
Nueva Ecija, at 5:00 P.M.
and not at 4:30 P.M. as alleged
by Complainant; that considering the physical distance of 267 kilometers from
Barrio Lambaken, Jaen, Nueva Ecija to Echague, Isabela, the scene of
the alleged incident, they could not have arrived at Echague
in the evening of the same day
inasmuch as the passenger jeepney was fully loaded
with eggs up to the top and they were travelling at a
speed of only 30 kilometers or
less per hour besides making several stops on the way; that added to this, the
bad condition of the barrio road from Lambaken, Jaen, Nueva Ecija and the treacherous zigzag from Dalton Pass, Nueva
Ecija to Sta. Fe, Nueva Vizcaya, compelled them to drive slowly with great caution
thereby rendering it improbable for them
to have been at the diversion road near the cemetery at Echague,
Isabela, in the evening of 17 April 1979 as
Complainant contended.

The foregoing defense does not impress us.  Under normal road conditions, 267 kilometers
can be negotiated by car in four (4) to five (5) hours.  Add another one (1) or two (2) hours taking
into consideration that the vehicle used was a jeep and the alleged poor
condition of the roads as well as the zigzag from Dalton Pass, and the
aforesaid distance could have been negotiated in seven (7) hours, or up to approximately 12 midnight.  Complainant’s testimony, therefore, that she
was abused in the evening of 17 April
1979 is sufficiently credible. 
And even if it were past midnight,
it would still be dark “in the evening” to a 13-year old barrio lass
who was not said to have been wearing a watch to tell the time by.

Alfredo Losada’s testimony
corroborating the Accused’s theory that they never
stopped at the diversion road at Echague, Isabela, is not deserving of credence not only because it
is biased considering that as a helper of the Accused, he would naturally be
beholden to the latter, but more so because Complainant’s declarations
sufficiently rebut it.

Contrary to the Accused’s assertions,
Complainant’s story is not “utterly incredible”.  For one thing, the circumstance of force and
intimidation attending the abuse on Complainant’s person is proven not only by
her testimony but also by the medico-legal report of Dr. Corazon Lappay, the examining physician.  The latter attested to the existence of recently healed lacerations at 3, 6, 9, 12 o’clock positions of the hymen, thus confirming the fact of forced
sexual intercourse.  That physical
evidence is of the highest order.  It
speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses (People vs. Bardaje,
G.R. No. L-29271, 29 August 1980,
99 SCRA 388).

Appellant’s posture that the lacerations in complainant’s hymen
were intentionally induced through the use of fingers to simulate a rape case
was refuted by Dr. Lappay who testified that fingers
could not cause the multi-lacerations sustained by complainant (t.s.n., December
18, 1979, pp. 19-20).

The absence of bruises, contusions and abrasions in the body of
the complainant is neither inconsistent with her claim that she was ravished by
the accused in the manner she described. 
It is to be recalled that Complainant was boxed in the abdomen as a
result of which she lost consciousness. 
It was thus unnecessary to inflict other injuries on her.

The absence of any discernible trace of a fist blow on
Complainant’s abdomen is of no moment either, especially since the medical
examination on her was conducted seventeen (17) days after the incident, at
which time no visible signs of such injury might be expected any longer (People
vs. Rouben Corral y Hernandez, G. R. No. 73604, 29
January 1988, 157 SCRA 673).

The non-presentation of Complainant’s torn panty was due to the
fact that she had thrown the same in the garbage can upon reaching Roxas.  A simple
barrio girl like her could not be expected to realize its evidentiary value in
the event of a court litigation.

Furthermore, Complainant lost no time in denouncing the wrong
done to her upon arrival at Roxas by writing a letter
to her mother at Jaen,
Nueva Ecija.  This fact immediately negates any alleged
voluntary submission of Complainant to the Accused’s
sexual advances (People vs. Isaac, G. R. No. 36136, 16 March 1988, 158 SCRA
725).

Indeed, Complainant, a thirteen-(13)-year old girl, could not be
expected to personally report to the police without the knowledge of her
elders.

The Accused makes much of the alleged inconsistency in the
prosecution evidence in that while Complainant testified that she wrote her
mother upon her arrival on 18 April
1979 the postmark stamped on the envelope shows that it was
received in “Jaen,
Nueva Ecija, on April 17, 1979.” The records
show, however, that the latter postmark had been crossed out and initialed to
correct the mistake in the dates.  This
conclusion is supported by two other entries in the envelope which read:  “Jaen, Nueva
Ecija Received April 27, 1979 Philippines”
(Exhibit “B-I-C”) and “Roxas P.O. 19
IV 79 Isabela” (Exhibit “B-I-A”).  These entries show that the letter was
actually mailed at Roxas, Isabela,
on 19 April 1979 and
received at the Jaen,
Nueva Ecija Post Office on 27 April 1979.  Evidently, if the letter was mailed at Roxas, Isabela on 19 April 1979,
it would be impossible for it to reach the Postal Office of Jaen,
Nueva Ecija, 267 kilometers
away on 17 April 1979 or two (2) days before it was mailed (Section 1, Rule
129, Rules of Court).  And, as to whether
Complainant’s mother sent the telegram to her brother-in-law via the Bureau of
Telecommunications or RCPI is actually inconsequential.

The defense also
sought to establish that it was impossible to commit Rape on the front seat of
the jeep.  It even presented the vehicle
for ocular inspection and made Complainant demonstrate how the crime was
committed.  Photographs of the
demonstration were also submitted
in an attempt to prove impossibility of its commission.  Suffice it to state that the front seat of
the jeep measures 62 1/2 inches long, which is equivalent to approximately five
feet and two and one half inches, and twenty-nine (29) inches wide (t.s.n., August 9,
1980, p. 315).  Complainant was somewhat
thin and short, as can be seen from the photographs (Exhibits “3” and
“3-D”).  Complainant even
demonstrated to the Court that she could lie flat on the front seat, her feet
to the right side thereof (t.s.n., August 9, 1980, pp. 35-36).  Neither is the Accused a very big man; he is
5′ 5″ in height and weighs 116 lbs. as disclosed by
the record.  It was not impossible then
for Complainant to have lain flat on the front seat with the Accused on top of
her.  It should be recalled that Complainant was unconscious at the beginning
of the commission of rape because the Accused had boxed her in the abdomen. 
When she was thus rendered unconscious, it was a simple matter for the
accused to have positioned her so that he could abuse her with ease.

“A rapist, however, rarely considers the position his victim
may have in the sexual act, his purpose is to be sated and that alone.  Whether or not his victim is contorted is the
least of his concern.  It
is not improbable therefore, that the appellant could have violated the
complainant in the manner she described” (People vs. Salazar, 93 SCRA 796,
807).

In a last-ditch effort at
exculpation, the Accused further contends that he was charged with the offense
because he refused to lend money to Florencio Paynor, brother of Complainant’s mother.  He avers that this case was filed in order
that they could extract money from him as shown by the fact that his helper,
Alfredo Lozada, was not included as a co-accused
although Complainant testified that said helper held her hand while the Accused
was abusing her.

The contention is
preposterous.  It is highly improbable for Complainant’s mother
and close relatives to sacrifice the honor, dignity and future of an innocent
young girl for such mercenary motives. 
Besides, the evidence amply supports the commission of the crime.

The non-inclusion of
Alfredo Lozada, the Accused’s
helper, in the criminal Complaint can be explained by the fact that his participation
was not brought up during the police investigation.  It was only during the cross-examination of
Complainant that “Al’s” participation was disclosed.

All told, the assigned errors remain unsubstantiated and we find
the conscience resting easy on a finding of guilt.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED
with the modification that the indemnity to the offended party, Leonila Santiago, is hereby increased to P20,000.00 consistent with case law.  With costs against the
accused, Danilo Ison.

SO OREDERED.

Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento,
and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Decision penned by Judge Procoro J. Donato.