PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CONCORDIO SARDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

As in all rape cases, the issue in the instant case is whether or
not the accused had indeed committed the crime of rape as charged, to merit a
judgment of conviction.

In a decision rendered on October 30, 1985, the court a quo, after thoroughly evaluating the evidences presented and after
observing the demeanor and listening to the testimony of the witnesses, found
the accused guilty of the crime of
rape.  The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Concordio
Sarda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Rape defined and penalized under Article 335 of the revised penal code
committed with the use of a bolo a deadly weapon.  There being an aggravating circumstance that
the crime was committed in an uninhabited place
which is not offset by any mitigating circumstance, the court has no
alternative but to impose the capital
punishment of DEATH.  May the Lord have
mercy on your soul. 
Accused is further ordered to pay Venus Sabornido
the sum of P25,000.00 moral damages to fully compensate
her for the suffering and humiliation undergone by her by reason of the sexual
affront perpetrated upon her.” (p. 51, Rollo)

Sabornido filed a complaint against the accused two
(2) days after the alleged rape.  The
crime was said to have been committed as follows:

“That on or about the 31st day of March 1985, at about 1:30
o’clock in the afternoon more or less, in Barangay Pili, Almeria, Leyte, Philippines, and within the preliminary jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to
have sexual intercourse, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
criminally hold the hands of one VENUS SABORNIDO, his step daughter, and
removed his sharp pointed bolo and pointed it to her neck, and by saying ‘do not shout or else I will kill you and while they were getting bamboos for the
outriggers (catig) of the pump-boat in a certain
isolated place of Barangay Pili,
Almeria, Leyte.  And by means of force
succeeded in having sexual intercourse, an unmarried woman of good reputation
and against her will.

“That in the commission of the crime the following aggravating
circumstances were present, to wit: (1) abuse of
superior strength and force (2) the crime was isolated (3) the victim is 12 years old (4) the
perpetrator used sharp pointed bolo.

“Contrary to law.” (p. 1, decision)

The facts attending the commission of the crime are summarized in the People’s brief as follows:

“On March 31, 1985,
at around 1:30 o’clock in the
afternoon, 12-year old private complainant Venus Sabornido
was in an isolated bamboo grove located at Barangay Pili, Leyte,
together with her stepfather, appellant Concordio Sarda, cutting bamboos for banca
outriggers.  Her mother, Lilia de la
Pena, had earlier gone home to get food (p. 3, tsn.,
Sept. 12, 1985, testi­mony of Venus Sabornido).

“Appellant called private complainant to come near him.  When she did, appellant held her right hand
and said: ‘Venus, I will use you and do not worry, I
will be responsible for you.’ At this point, private complainant cried and
struggled to get free.  Appellant unsheathed
his bolo pointed the same to private complainant’s neck and threatened to kill her if she made a noise or
moved (p. 5, tsn., supra).

“Appellant pushed private complainant to the ground while
repeating his threats.  He removed her
underwear with one hand and held the bolo to her neck with the other.  Appellant then let go of the bolo and pulled
down his trousers to his knees.  He laid on top of private complainant who tried to close her
legs.  But appellant place (sic) his knee
between her legs to force them apart. 
Then with one hand, he inserted his sexual organ into that of private
complainant, and with the other one
hand immobilized her arms.  When he
finished, appellant loosened his grip on private complainant who thereupon sat
up.  While zipping his pants, appellant
told the crying child: ‘Do not worry, I will be the one responsible for you, I
will give you everything which will make you happy, do not tell this matter to
anybody or else I will kill you.’ (pp. 6-10, tsn., supra).

“Private complainant left appellant and headed for home.  On the way, she met her mother who was
bringing food to them.  Her mother
inquired why she was crying.  She replied
that they would talk about it at their house. 
Upon reaching home, private complainant told her mother that she was
raped by her stepfather in the bamboo grove.

“Appellant did not come home that night.

“The next morning, private complainant went to the police with
her mother and gave a statement recounting her harrowing experience.  Afterwards, private complainant and her mother proceeded to see Dr. Franco Redoblado who conducted a physical examination of her
sexual organ (pp. 11-13, tsn., supra).

“’The results of the examination are the following:

“’1.    Hymen perforated with irregular edges and
fresh laceration at both 5 & 8 o’clock
portion of the vaginal opening.

“’2.    She writhes in pain on insertion of the two
fingers.

“’3.    Colposcopy (w/a
small vaginal speculum) reveals what appears to be semen in the vaginal fornix below the cervix.

“’4.    Cervix slightly open.

“’5.    Specimen taken still demonstrated some sperm
cells no longer motile.  (pp. 4-5, tsn., Sept. 11,
1985, testimony
of Dr. Franco Redoblado) (pp. 3-6, Appellee’s Brief)

The appellant denies the crime of rape, stating that he and the
complainant had an amorous relationship and he was charged only because they
were caught “in flagrante delicto.”

Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty.  He now assigns the following errors:

I

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT GIVING EVIDENTIARY
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE ACCUSED AS WELL AS THE
COMPLAINANT’S MOTHER.

II

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
GIVING SO MUCH CREDIBILITY AND CREDENCE TO THE VERSION OF THE COMPLAINANT.

III

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED GUILTY AS CHARGED INSTEAD OF ACQUITTING HIM.  (pp. 1-2, Appellant’s Brief)

The accused assigns as error the failure of the trial court to
give weight and credit to his testimony and to that of the complainant’s
mother, his common-law wife.

On the basis of the facts and evidences in the records, this
Court, like the trial court, considers said testimonies unworthy of
belief.  The accused’s
testimony, for one, is not only self-serving but contrary to human
experience.  What the accused would like
the court to believe was that he and his twelve year old step daughter had an
amorous relationship going on for three (3) months already and that the only
reason why they could not indulge in sexual relations earlier was because the
mother was in the house and that they only had an opportunity to do so on that
fateful day of March 31, 1985.

This contention is unbelievable for if it were true that the two
were really sweethearts, they would have indulged in sexual acts several times,
and not only once (People v. Moredo, 127 SCRA 117
[1984]), Surely, there would have been similar opportunities during the span of
time that the accused claimed their relationship had been existing.  As stated by the trial court, there were more
opportunities in the house than in a bamboo grove.

The acts of the complainant belie the allegation of the
accused-appellant.  If there was really
consent on the part of Venus, the victim, she would not have immediately filed
the charges the following day.  No reason
was given by the appellant except the contention that Venus would not have
filed the case if not for her mother’s arrival, which means she reported the
incident only because she feared her mother. 
But Lilia herself, the victim’s mother, reported the rape and had her
daughter physically examined.  It was to
her mother that Venus first reported the abuse by her stepfather.  If the mother really saw her daughter and
common-law husband in an intimate embrace, she would not have accompanied her daughter to the police and to
the doctor.  At most, she would have
charged the two and not the appellant
alone.

There is no reason also
for the victim to file charges against one who had not done anything wrong to
her.  There can be no direct benefit to her family, only harm.  This explains the change of heart of the mother who did not want the man who had been her
husband since 1979 to go to jail.  There
is an absence of motive of the complainant to file the rape charge against the
accused (People v. Rosario, 159 SCRA 192 [1988]).  On the contrary, for filing the case she will
get shame and humiliation in return — something unbearable to a barrio girl
just emerging from childhood.

Lilia de la Pena’s
testimony cannot likewise be given merit. 
Her testimony appears perjured. 
The trial court did not give credence to the testimony of a
witness whose statements are not only contradictory to her earlier spontaneous
acts but also patently untruthful.  In
one instance, Lilia told the court that the accused was her husband and Venus, her daughter by her deceased
husband.  She later admitted on
cross-examination that Pepe Sabornido
her lawful husband was still alive and that she and the accused were not
legally married.  A court will find it
difficult to believe a witness who cannot even tell the truth about her own
personal circumstances.  Evidence to be
worthy of credence, must not only be credible but must also come from a
credible source (People v. Sunga, 123 SCRA 327
[1983]).

Lilia’s actions are
likewise inconsistent.  She reported the
rape incident immediately, obviously to seek justice for her daughter.  She later testified for the accused.  She gave no reason for the change.  Testimony coming from such a source is not
worthy of credence.

The appellant assigns as
another error the trial court’s giving credence to the complainant’s testimony.

Sarda contends that the victim never registered a
strong outcry for help. 
The failure of the complainant to scream is fully and satisfactorily explained (See People v. Mustacisa,
159 SCRA 227 [1988]).

Apart from the fact that the place was isolated with the nearest
house 150 to 250 meters away, there was the threat employed by the accused on
the victim.  There is moreover the moral
ascendancy of the stepfather over the 12-year old stepchild.  This also explains why the victim was not
able to free herself and run for safety when the accused relaxed his guard on
her.

This Court has consistently held that rape is committed when
intimidation is used on the victim
(People v. Daniel, 86 SCRA 511 [1978]).

The appellant’s attempt to establish an intimacy between him and
the victim by the fact that the latter addressed him simply as Cording, must
not likewise be given credence.

As held in the case of People v. Manalo
(145 SCRA 9 [1986]) familiarity between
the accused and the offended party does not create an inference that an amorous
relation existed between them.  It can
even be a sign of disrespect or
disregard for the person who took the place of her father and who has
now ruined her future.

Similarly, the appellant contends that the resistance offered by
the victim should have been strong and genuine to prove rape.  That it must have been tenaciously carried
throughout is not necessary.  The records
show that the victim offered resistance by closing her legs and pushing the
appellant but she finally succumbed because of the appellant’s superior
strength and threats.  The moral
ascendancy and influence of the appellant over the victim enabled him to select
a time and place where rape could be effected unnoticed by other persons.  We consider that Venus treated the accused as
her father as manifested in her testimony.

The accused submits that the force and intimidation used are not
sufficient to prove that he committed the crime of rape.  The records belie this argument.  The evidence sufficiently establishes the
elements of the crime.

As compared with the self-serving testimony of the accused and
the highly doubtful testimony of the complainant’s mother, the testimony of the
complainant was given in a simple, straight-forward and spontaneous manner
reflecting the truth (People v. Ausan, 152 SCRA 52
[1987]).  It has been a long-established
rule that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may
be convicted even on the complainant’s testimony alone, if credible (People v. Monteverde, 142 SCRA 668 [1986]).

Moreover, it is a principle that “conclusions as to
credibility in rape cases lie heavily on
the trial court”.  (People v. Partulan, 156 SCRA 489 [1987])
and People v. Malate, 116 SCRA 487 [1982]) for it is
the court which has observed the behavior and deportment of the witnesses.

Lastly, the appellant
claims that the prosecution evidence failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt considering that the complainant’s version is questionable and
not totally believable.

There is no reason for us
to disbelieve the complainant’s testimony and to reverse the trial court’s
finding.

As earlier stated, the
testimony of Venus was given in a straight-forward, convincing, and
consistent manner.  The trial court
stated:

“Venus is not the personification of the Goddess of Beauty
carried in her name.  She is fairly
built, barely five feet tall, untouched by modern make-up.  Twice she came to court in the same cheap T-shirt and skirt and worn rubber sandals.  Her nails were strangers to pedicure and
manicure; her hair was unkempt perhaps due to the dusty road from her native
town of Almeria and to the capital town of Naval where the court holds sessions.  Yet she had all the charming Filipina beauty
in her brownness.  She was the typical
country lass.

“The court observed her give a positive straight,
and candid replay of the criminal assault upon her by the accused.  The court did not find any improbabilities in
her entire testimony.  There is no reason
not to believe her.  The incidents that
followed after her ravishment add more credibility to her said story.

“’Rape victim’s testimony was given in a convincing manner and cor­roborated
by the events which followed after the rape. 
(People v. Resano, 132 SCRA 392).’

Her going home in tears; her undelayed report to her mother; their complaint to the
police the following day; the Medical examination of Venus; the failure of the
accused to return home. . . all these indicate truth of the sexual violation of
Venus by the accused.” (p. 49, Rollo)

There
is likewise no reason for an innocent 12-year old step daughter to fabricate
the serious charge of rape against the common-law husband of her mother, a man
whom she already considered having the authority of her father.  As held in People v. Lopez
(131 SCRA 548 [1984]), it is
unthinkable that a 13-year old girl would willingly submit her body to a
common-law husband of her aunt.

It cannot likewise be said that the victim merely concocted the
details of the rape incident because the victim’s testimony as shown by the
records was consistent and full of details. 
A 12-year old child would not have been able to concoct such an explicit
account of rape if she had not truly experienced it (People v. Susan, 152 SCRA
52 [1987]; and People v. Dadaeg, 137 SCRA 500
[1985]).

In the light of the evidence presented, there is sufficient proof
to sustain a judgment of conviction.

Since the present Constitution provides that the death penalty
may not be imposed, the appellant’s sentence should be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto except for the reduction of the penalty
from death to reclusion perpetua, and
the increase of the moral damages from P25,000.00 to
P30,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.