PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE MANAGBANAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In a decision dated August
24, 1983, the Regional Trial
Court^[1]
of Ormoc
City presided over by the Hon.
Judge Francisco C. Pedrosa, convicted Vicente Managbanag, appellant herein, of the crime of Rape.  The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court renders
judgment finding the accused, VICENTE MANAGBANAG, GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Rape, as defined and penalized under Article 335,
Paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and sentences him to suffer
and undergo imprisonment of (RECLUSION PERPETUA).  The accused is further ordered to indemnify the offended party, MARIETA NOVAL,
in the amount of P12,000.00 and to pay the
costs of this action.^[2]

The trial court, in arriving at the conviction, relied heavily on
the testimony of the offended
party, Marieta Noval, a
girl barely 14 years old at the time her humiliating and painful defloration
took place in the hands of the appellant.

The date was January 10,
1982, at around 2:00 p.m.,
when the appellant requested Marieta
to cover with soil the excrement of the former’s
mother-in-law.  (A hole was carved on the
floor of the sick woman’s room for her waste discharge which spilled underneath
the house).  As Marieta
proceeded to perform the task, the appellant followed her beneath the
house.  With a bolo in
one hand which he wielded to threaten the girl with death.  (“If you shout, I will stab you.”) the appellant drove the girl to the ground, then removed her clothing, covered her mouth with his left hand
and “even put a piece of cloth over her mouth,” and forcibly had
carnal knowledge of her.

Traumatized by the experience and fearful for her life, the girl
ran towards the town plaza where she concealed herself for two days.  An elder sister finally brought the
bewildered girl to their aunt’s house in Batuan, Ormoc City.  Marieta’s father,
as soon as he was informed of his daughter’s sorry plight, reported the
incident to the authorities.  Marieta was also subjected to a medical examination on January
12, 1982.

Thereupon, a complaint for rape was filed by Marieta
on March 11, 1982.  After trial, the appellant was convicted of the crime charged.

In this appeal, the appellant assigns the following errors, to
wit:

I

THE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
STRONGLY AND SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED, BECAUSE
IT OVERLOOKED CERTAIN SIGNIFICANT AND MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE
VERSION ADVANCED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE.

II

THE COURT ERRED IN ITS EVALUATION OF THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE,
ASCRIBING ALLEGED WEAKNESSES DUE TO ITS MISINTERPRETATION AND/MISCONCEPCION OF
THE EVIDENCE.

III

THE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE CRIME CHARGED WAS PROVEN
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.^[3]

There is sufficient evidence on record pointing to the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant.

1.  Contrary to the
contention of the appellant, it was not impossible for the rape to have taken
place at the time and place mentioned by the offended party.  The area beneath the appellant’s house was
fenced by wooden slats which provided enough cover that made it improbable even
for people standing a short distance away
to see through,^[4]
much less for people who were just
passing by.  However, were it possible to
look through the fenced area if one purposely did so, the offended party
affirmed that there was nobody in sight at the moment she was ravished, and
that the windows and doors of the neighboring houses were closed.  This, we believe, for 2:00 p.m. is usually siesta time and people rarely go
to the beach (the house, under which the rape was committed, is along the way
to the beach) to swim at such an hour. 
At any rate, the presence of people in a certain
vicinity does not preclude the commission of rape.  The crime may be committed even at a place
where people usually pass by.^[5]

As regards the testimony
of the examining physician, we find no cogent reason to doubt its
veracity.  The physician’s declaration as
to the presence of lacerations
as well as spermatozoa in the
genitalia of the offended party need not be corroborated by the medical
technologist for it must be presumed that the doctor, in the performance of his
official duty, has verified the facts on which he testified in open court.  Besides, as a medical practitioner, he must
also be presumed to be competent to testify on what he has actually
examined.  Nonetheless, we have held that
a medical certificate is not indispensable to prove the commission of rape.^[6] In many instances, a medical certificate has
been construed by courts to merely amplify the case for the prosecution especially where the
testimony of the offended party is highly credible, as in this case.

2.  The testimonies of the
witnesses for the defense were correctly disregarded by the trial court:

“x x x [c]onsidering that the improbabilities which they chose to
urge  upon this Court for the exculpation
of the accused do not meet the quantum of evidence necessary to overthrow the evidence of the prosecution, which evidence
is beyond reasonable doubt.  The theory
of the defense is merely one of denial and further that the crime of rape could
not have been committed due to the fact that there were many persons present
allegedly at the time of the incident.”^[7]

The allegations that Marieta fled because she was caught by the appellant’s wife
stealing eggs and further, that the rape case was filed to cover up the
stealing incident were obvious concoctions by a man desperate to evade
punishment for his crime.

A rape charge is a
serious matter with pernicious consequences. 
It exposes both the accused and the accuser to humiliation, fear, and
anxieties, not to mention the stigma of shame that both have to bear for the
rest of their lives.  It is, therefore,
inconceivable for a chaste girl and her parents to devise a scheme which shall
cast a cloud upon the girl’s honor if only for a trifling reason as stealing
eggs.

3.  The trial court, in
giving credence to and relying mainly on the testimony of the offended party,
said:

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

During the direct examination of the offended party, she spoke in
such a low voice, casting her eyes down to the floor and barely whispering her
answers.  She had to be prodded
constantly in order to elicit answers from her to questions of the Fiscal.  The offended party, most of the time, had
downcast eyes and occasional bouts of crying. 
But on cross-examination, in spite of a grueling cross-examination by
the learned counsel for the defense, the dam of remorse which had been held
back by the timidity of a girl 14 years of age finally broke, and her torrent
of answers almost overwhelmed the questions of the Cross-examiner.

The Court noted that her answers on cross-examination were answers
which should have been given on direct examination, but were withheld by the
dam of timidity of a fourteen-year-old minor who had been deflowered of her
maidenhood.  On cross-examination, she
engaged the Cross-examiner in a display of candor in answering the hardest
questions thrown at her.  x x x.”^[8]

Conviction by the trial court of the accused in rape cases based on the sole
testimony of the offended party has, in quite a number of instances, been
sustained by us on appeal.  The trial
court is in the best position to assess the demeanor of the witnesses and such
assessment has been accorded the highest respect by this Court.

Nevertheless, the testimony of Marieta
was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the examining physician as
well as the blood-stained shorts and underwear, her injuries and the presence
of spermatozoa.

In view of all the foregoing, we can not find any reason to change
the decision of the trial court except to increase the indemnity adjudged to
P25,000.00 from P12,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the decision
appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with regard to the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA but MODIFIED as
regards to the indemnification to the offended party, MARIETA NOVAL, which is
increased to P25,000.00.  Costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera,
Paras, and
Padilla, JJ., concur.

^[1]
8th Judicial Region, Branch XII.

^[2]
Rollo, 17.

^[3]
Id., 69.

^[4]
T.s.n., August 18, 1983, 31-32.

^[5]
People v. Aragona, No. L-43752, September
19, 1985, 138 SCRA 569.

^[6]
People v. Aleman, No. L-39776, February
20, 1981, 102 SCRA 765; supra, 579.

^[7]
Rollo, 16.

^[8]
Id., p. 8.