THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO ESPIRITU, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bangued, Abra
convicting Ernesto Espiritu of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No.
1513 and sentencing him “to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim the sum of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as moral damages.”

In her complaint, Marieta Trongco alleged that –

“That on or about September 18, 1982, at Quimloong, in the
municipality of Bucay, Province of Abra, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means
of force and violence, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously had sexual intercourse with one Marieta F. Trongco, a 12
year old girl, single, without her consent and against her will.” (page
50, Rollo).

Prosecution evidence shows that complainant Marieta Trongco is the 7th
child in a family of nine. She is a first year high school student and a
resident of Quimloong, Bucay, Abra. Accused Ernesto Espiritu is her
brother-in-law, being the husband of her elder sister.

Around 5:00 in the afternoon of September 18, 1982, Marieta was in the
house of Eutiquio Pacano watching a television program. When she felt
the urge to urinate, she went to the eastern part of the house and there
she urinated. Accused-appellant suddenly arrived and pulled her in the
direction of the forest where she was made to lie down and had sexual
intercourse with her. She tried to shout for help but Espiritu closed
her mouth with his hand and, subsequently, with a handkerchief. The
accused then boxed her in the stomach, causing her to lose
consciousness. When she regained consciousness, accused was already on
top of her performing sexual intercourse. The accused then stood up and
left. She also stood up, put on her pantie and ran home. She reported
the matter to her father, Benjamin Trongco, that her brother-in-law,
Ernesto Espiritu, had abused her. Her father and a brother went to look
for the accused but they failed to find him. Said accused never showed
up again in their house.

The next day, the matter was reported to the police substation at Bucay,
Abra. The police authorities took the statement of Marieta and then had
her examined physically at the Abra Provincial Hospital. Dr. Fidel
Gabat looked her over and then issued a medical certificate containing
the following:

“External:

Hymen with old laceration at 6:00 and 11:00 o’clock positions.

Vaginal opening admits 2 fingers.

Spermatozoa – negative per Laboratory Technician.”

In this appeal, Ernesto Espiritu alleged that the lower court erred in not acquitting him on ground of reasonable doubt.

The defense is denial and alibi, appellant claiming that on the date in
question, he was at Patok, Bucay, Abra; however, he admitted that in the
morning of September 18, 1982, he was at Quimloong.

WE find the judgment of conviction by the lower court well supported by
the evidence and, it should, therefore, be affirmed. As aptly observed
by the trial court –

“The claim of the accused that he did not abuse the complainant
because he was at Patok, Bucay, Abra at the time of the incident is
unreliable and unworthy of belief. Accused admitted that he was at
Quimloong in the morning of September 18, 1982. There was nobody
presented to corroborate him that he was at Patok, Bucay, Abra in the
afternoon of September 18, 1982. Patok is a neighboring barangay of
Quimloong, Bucay, Abra, and there is no showing whatsoever of the
impossibility that the accused was not at Quimloong, Bucay, Abra in the
afternoon of September 18, 1982. It is nearer the truth and acceptable
to reason that after having committed the act and knowing that the
complainant had reported the matter to his father-in-law Benjamin
Trongco, he went to Patok, Bucay, Abra where he stayed until arrested.

“Between, therefore, the affirmative declaration of the
complainant Marieta Trongco that she was forcibly raped by the accused
and the alibi of the accused amounting to a denial, the Court has to
give greater weight to the former. The defense of alibi interposed by
the accused is unbelievable and cannot prevail over the direct and
positive testimony of the complainant Marieta Trongco.” (p. 53, Rollo).

Appellant’s contention that there could have been no sexual intercourse
on the date in question because of the doctor’s findings that the
laceration of complainant’s hymen is old, is untenable. For, be that as
it may, the crime of rape is not dependent on the virginity of the
offended party. The fact that she was no longer a virgin is no defense.

Complainant was only 13 or 14 years old at the time and she has no
reason to publicly expose herself to have been ravished by a
brother-in-law. Patok, Bucay, Abra is only 3 to 4 kilometers away from
Quimloong. It is not therefore physically impossible for him to be at
the scene of the crime before, during or after he was allegedly at
Patok. Further, the fact that he left the place and failed to show up
until he was arrested is a circumstance of guilt.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. With costs.
SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Gutierrez, Jr., and De La Fuente, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., (Chairman), no part.