PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO SALITA Y BETUS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On April 19, 1984
which was Holy Thursday, Soledad Tante Linn Hayashi, together
with her children Sheila Linn Hayashi who was nine (9) years old and Mary Jo
Ann Tante (Jenny), and a companion Perlita Cañones went to their resthouse at Barrio Tagalag,
Valenzuela, Metro Manila as there was a “pabasa.” The caretaker of the resthouse
and their fishpond was a certain
Linda Salita who lives in a house nearby.  Ricardo Salita,
nicknamed Carding, is the son of Aling Tinay and Mang Narcing, brother of Linda Salita.  After the “pabasa”
was finished on Good Friday, Soledad
went home to their residence at Manila
and left her children Sheila and Jenny with Perlita
at their rest house.  They were entrusted
to the care and custody of Linda.

In the afternoon of
that day, Good Friday, while Sheila was in the veranda of their resthouse watching a person catching fish nearby, Carding
approached her and cuddled her.  He
inserted one of his fingers inside her vagina. 
He also kissed her several times. 
After that Linda told them to go to sleep.  Carding slept in the resthouse
at the room next to where Sheila and her sister slept.

The following day, Holy Saturday, between two and three in the afternoon while Sheila was reading
a comic magazine inside the room in the resthouse,
Carding went inside the room and closed the windows and door.  He was also reading another comic magazine
but it did not take long as he put it down and sat beside her.  He got the magazine she was reading and threw
it away.  Then he let her face him and he
pulled down her green bermuda pants to her knees
while he removed his pants, Carding let her face him and he opened her thighs
in front of him which he placed as close to the top of his thighs.  He inserted his penis into her private
part.  While his private part was inside
hers he moved her up and down like a horse (niyuyugyog).  Her buttocks and vagina were painful and
Carding repeatedly kissed her.  She cried
in pain.  Carding was sitting down while
she was on top of his thighs.  Afterwards
he put her down and told her not to tell anybody what had happened or else he will kill her and her
mother.  Then she put up her pants,
opened the door and ran away to the place where Jenny was.  Her buttocks and vagina were painful and
aching and it was difficult for her to urinate.

Carding remained in the resthouse and
slept.  In the afternoon of the following
day, Sheila and Jenny were fetched so they returned to Manila.  Jenny then told their mother that Sheila had
blood stains in her pants and they told her that she was abused by
Carding.  When Soledad
inspected her vagina and saw blood and puss in it she immediately brought her
to the Makati
Medical Center
but she was not treated there.  Upon
advice they proceeded to the CIS where she was examined and investigated.  There she gave a sworn statement.  Sheila identified Carding as the person who
raped her.^[1]

In due course a criminal complaint for rape was filed against
Ricardo Salita by Soledad Tante
Linn Hayashi, mother of the victim, in the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela,
Metro Manila.  Upon arraignment Salita entered a plea of not guilty.  After trial on the merits a decision was
rendered on July 23, 1986
finding him guilty of the offense charged and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, to pay the offended
party Sheila Linn Hayashi damages in the amount of P30,000.00 and to pay the costs.

Hence, the herein appeal wherein the accused interposed the
following assignment of errors allegedly committed by the trial court:

“I

THE LOWER
COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN GIVING CREDIT TO THE
BIAS, VAGUE AND SELF-SERVING TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

II

THE LOWER COURT
SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE POSITIVE AND CLEAR EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE.

III

THE LOWER
COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND IN NOT ACQUITTING HIM ON
GROUNDS OF REASONABLE DOUBT.”

The appellant alleges that the prosecution failed to establish
that the complainant Soledad Tante Linn Hayashi is
the mother of the offended party.

Besides the testimony of Soledad
herself to the effect that Sheila is her daughter, the prosecution presented
the birth certificate of Sheila
attesting to this fact.^[2]
Indeed, the appellant himself acknowledged on the witness stand that the victim
is the daughter of the complainant.^[3]

Under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court when the offended
party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or
guardian may file the same.  The
complaint therefore was appropriately filed in this case by the mother of the
offended party.

The main thrust of the defense is the matter of credibility of
witnesses.  The appellant claims that
considering the height of the appellant and the offended party, the rape could
not have been committed.

From the evidence
on hand it appears that the appellant placed the offended party on top of his thighs
and after inserting his penis in her vagina caused the offended party to move
up and down.  Their difference in height
was of no moment for the rape to be consummated under the circumstances.

The testimony of the offended party is clear and spontaneous.  It is the revelation of an innocent child
whose chastity was abused by appellant. 
It deserves full credence.  She is
corroborated by her sister Jenny who got suspicious
when she saw the appellant enter the room where Sheila was.  She ran around the house and saw through a
hole in the window that the appellant was kissing and embracing Sheila.  However, when the appellant stood up Jenny
ran away.

Upon the return of Sheila and Jenny to Manila
they reported to their mother Soledad
what happened to Sheila.  Soledad
saw Sheila’s pair of pants stained with blood and sensed that her vagina not
only had a foul odor but likewise discharged blood and yellowish matter.  She wasted no time in having her medically examined after which she filed the
complaint.

On the other hand,
the defense of the appellant is alibi. 
This defense cannot prevail in the light of his positive identification
as the culprit by the prosecution witnesses. 
The appellant claimed that on that fateful afternoon he was allegedly
detaching the amplifier and sound system which were used in the “pabasa” and that the victim was playing with his two
nieces.  Nevertheless, it was not
physically impossible for him to have gone to the rest house to commit the rape
and thereafter return to the place where the chairs, tables and sound system
were.

On the whole, the Court finds no reason to overturn the findings
of the court a quo as to the credibility of the
witnesses.  Indeed, the conviction of the
appellant for the offense charged is clearly supported by the evidence and the
applicable law.  This heinous offense
against a nine-year old child must be vindicated.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED in
toto with costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Exhibits A, A1 and B.

^[2]
Exhibit J.

^[3]
TSN, June 25, 1985, Page
24.