PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SIEGFRED FAJARDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
19, at Malolos, Bulacan, which found accused Siegfred Fajardo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the offended party
in the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.

The evidence adduced by the prosecution which formed the basis of
the appealed decision is summarized by the trial court as follows:

“As alleged by the prosecution, at around 7:00 p.m.,
of August 19, 1982 complainant while walking alone near her home in
Pulong Yantok, Angat, Bulacan was accosted by the accused who held her arm
saying he loves her, whereupon she retorted ‘Are you crazy’. She tried to extricate from his hold but the
accused boxed her in the stomach where she fell to the ground unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she was
already naked while the accused was standing zippering his shorts, after which
he ran away. She felt weary. Her whole body was painful and blood was
oozing from her private part which was likewise very painful. There were two buttons ripped from her olive
green CAT uniform which is now soiled (Exh. A); her orange T-shirt (Exh. B) was
beside her, the front portion of her colored blue pants (Exh. C) was torn, the
skirt was soiled (Exh. D) and her yellow shorts which doubled as panty (Exhs.
E, E-1) was bloodied. She dressed and
walked to the house of her aunt Fely Ocampo and reported that she was
raped. Her aunt requested somebody to
fetch complainant’s father. The father
arrived and after investigating complainant immediately reported the matter to
the barangay captain, then with complainant, reported the same to the police in
Angat, Bulacan where she gave a written statement (Exh. F). That same night, they proceeded to Dr.
Renato V. Cruz in Angat but she was medically examined only the following
day. According to Dr. Cruz’s findings
(Exhs. H & H-1) the hymenal part admits one (1) to two (2) fingers with slight difficulty. Presence of old lacerations (more than 30
days old) were found at 3:00, 7:00 and 10:00 o’clock of the hymen. Also found was a 1/4 inch diameter abrasion,
at upper outer quadrant of the left breast, Dr. Cruz advised complainant to
have a vaginal smear to determine the presence of semen. He did not discount the possibility of rape since
according to him the hymen is elastic but is sure that there were no new
lacerations. The father later asked for
a copy of Exh. H but was not given and doubting the doctor’s findings alleging
the latter’s relationship with the accused, brought his daughter to the NBI and
was examined at 11:30 a.m., of August 12,
1982 (Exh. I). Dr. Nieto
Salvador found the hymen superficially lacerated 7:00 o’clock but healing,
edges are slightly edematous and with fibrin formation; deep laceration at 3:00
o’clock and 9:00 o’clock, edges edematous. No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries on the body and the
hymenal lacerations were healing, the NBI medico-legal concluded. Amplifying, Dr. Salvador said that the
injuries were inflicted two or three days before examination as fibrin
formation which indicate healing was present. As a result of the rape, complainant suffered sleepless nights, wounded
feelings and besmirched reputation.” (pp. 1-3, Decision of Trial Court)

The accused-appellant states that complainant Ma. Charity Lazaro
was his girl friend and that he never raped her.

The facts from the appellant’s viewpoint are rather sketchy. He alleges in his brief:

“The private complainant Ma. Charity Lazaro, who was then 17
years old on August 9, 1986 was walking towards home at about 5:00 in the
afternoon. She was met by the
accused/appellant who was then a boyfriend of said private complainant. The accused/appellant accompanied her to the
house of the private complainant. They
were talking about their relationship while walking along the street and before
they parted they kissed each other at a place near the gate. The accused/appellant after bading (sic)
goodbye went home.

“Later in the evening Marcelino Agustin, uncle of the private
complainant went to the house of the
accused/appellant and told the accused’s father
that the accused embraced the private complainant. He, however, advised the father of the
accused not to see the barangay captain as he might meet there the father of
the complainant.

“On August 31, 1982, Ma. Charity Lazaro accompanied by her
father filed a complaint for Rape against the accused. Said complainant and his father Leopoldo
Lazaro gave sworn statements and after preliminary examination conducted before
the Municipal Trial Court of Angat, the same was forwarded to the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan.” (p. 39, Rollo)

The appellant states that the lower court erred:

A.     
IN FINDING THE INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT IN ESTABLISHING THE CRIME OF RAPE.

B.    
IN CONSTRUING THE GENITAL FINDINGS ON THE SUBJECT CONSISTENT
WITH RAPE.

C.    
IN OVERRULING THE MEDICAL AND GENITAL FINDINGS OF A PRIVATE
PRACTITIONER.

D.    
IN NOT BELIEVING THE THEORY OF THE ACCUSED/APPELLANT.

E.    
IN FINDING THE ACCUSED AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE ALLEGED CRIME. (p. 2 – Appellant’s Brief)

The alleged inconsistencies mentioned by the appellant in his
first assignment of error are so flimsy that they can be dismissed without much
discussion.

The appellant cites the testimony of Ma. Charity Lazaro on August
18, 1983 where she was asked if any conversation transpired between her and the accused when the latter held her
arm. Her answer was, “None
sir.” (p. 6, t.s.n., August 18, 1983). On September 22, 1983, the testimony of the same witness was:

“Atty. Mangahas:

“Q:  What
was the first thing did the accused do so that you came to realize that he was
accosting you?

“A:   He
held me in my arm, sir.

“Q:  What
arm, left or right?

“A:   Right
arm, sir.

“Q:  Without
any conversation between you and him?

“A:   There
was a conversation, sir.

“Q:  Please
inform this Honorable Court what was that conversation?

“A:   He
said that he loves me very much
but I told him – what are you crazy? (TSN, September 22, 1983, pp. 15-16).

The conversation supposed
to be inconsistent with the earlier answer is hardly any conversation at all.

The second inconsistency
refers to time. On August 18, 1983, the
complainant testified that she was raped at 7:00 P.M., on August 7, 1982. During her cross-examination on September
22, 1983, she testified that she reached the scene of the crime at 6:00 P.M.,
of that date.

The absence of precision
in stating the time of the crime
is understandable. The testimony of the
complainant as to when the crime was committed is based on an estimate of time and not reference to a
timepiece.

The appellant also
questions the complainant’s statement that Siegfred Fajardo was never her
suitor by pointing out that when he accosted her, he stated that he loves
her. Fajardo’s “loving” the
complainant does not necessarily mean he was her suitor.

The discrepancy between
the findings of the private physician and the Medico-Legal Officer of the
National Bureau of Investigation is explained by the trial court in its
decision as follows:

“The court is thus confronted with two sets of conflicting
medical certificates, one issued by Dr. Cruz and the other issued by Dr.
Salvador, medico-legal (sic) of the NBI. The medical certificate issued by the former dated August 15, 1982 (Exh.
H; Exh. 2) found old healed lacerations (more than 30 days old) while the
latter’s medical certificate dated August 12, 1982 (Exh. I) concluded that the
3 lacerations two of them deep were fresh and healing (around two or three days
old) exactly coincided with the alleged rape of August 9, 1982.

“Despite his findings
however, Dr. Cruz did not discount the possibility of rape and suggested a vaginal
smear. On the other hand NBI
medico-legal was emphatic that complainant had sexual intercourse and the
lacerations were the result of such intercourse (p. 19, TSN., April 12,
1984). After carefully assessing the
evidence, the court is of the opinion that greater weight should be given to
Exh. I. The medical examination conducted by the NBI which is a police agency under
the Department of Justice tasked by the government to conduct or perform
medico-legal work should be afforded full faith and credit because not only
could Dr. Salvador be categorized as a disinterested witness, he also enjoys
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. On the other hand, Dr. Cruz being a private
medical practitioner in Angat, Bulacan, can not avail of this
presumption. His private clinic is well
known there and serves the general public, his relatives, friends, and acquaintances.

“The testimony of complainant’s foster father that Dr. – Cruz
is related to the accused cannot just be dismissed casually and it becomes
credible when it remained unrebutted. He is therefore not a disinterested witness. Precisely, because of this and Dr. Cruz’s refusal to furnish a
copy of the medical certificate, that Lazaro (complainant’s foster father) has
deemed it wise to seek the help of the NBI.” (Decision of trial court, pp.
3-4).

We see no error in the
decision of the trial court to give greater weight to the medical findings of
the NBI physician. Not only is he a
medico-legal expert whose duty is to look into medico-legal cases but he is a
completely disinterested witness.

We agree with the
Solicitor General that the question of credibility should be resolved against
the appellant. He argues:

“Appellant’s testimony that complainant’s uncle, Marcelino
Agustin, followed him home after having seen appellant embrace complainant near
the gate of the house, and reported the matter to appellant’s father who
suggested that they see the barangay captain about the incident but later
decided not to, is utterly incredible. Why should a simple embrace between sweethearts be of such serious
concern to the boy’s father? Why did
the defense not present appellant’s father and complainant’s uncle to
corroborate his testimony? And if
complainant and appellant were really sweethearts and were getting along very
well, why would she accuse him of such a serious and heinous crime? All these cast doubts on appellant’s
version. On the other hand, it is
inconceivable that a barrio lass could relate such a woeful story replete with
details if the same did not actually happen. There was absolutely no reason for her to falsely accuse appellant. Moreover, her alleged inconsistency, that of
declaring that no conversation transpired between her and appellant, and then
later on admitting that he professed his love to her which she spurned; as well
as the alleged disparity of her testimony that she was raped at 7:00 p.m., and
her statement on cross-examination that she reached the place of incident about
7:00 (sic) p.m., are trivial and minor so that they do not impair the
complainant’s credibility.

“Complainant’s torn and bloody pants, soiled shirt, abrasion
in her breast and three fresh lacerations on her hymen are mute but eloquent
proof of her dishonor. All appellant
could say in this regard was that the torn and bloody clothings could have been intentionally done before their
presentation in court.” (pp. 6-7, Appellee’s brief).

The usual indemnity
awarded in rape cases is P20,000.00. The records do not indicate any special reasons to warrant raising the
indemnity to P50,000.00 as ordered by the trial court.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo
is hereby AFFIRMED except for the
P50,000.00 indemnity which is REDUCED to TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.