PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SALVADOR V. LUTANEZ ALIAS “JUN PLEMENTERO” DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal interposed by the accused Salvador V. Lutañez alias “Jun Plementero”
from the judgment* rendered in Criminal Case No.
717 of the Regional Trial Court of Aurora, finding him guilty of the crime of
Forcible Abduction with Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the victim and her
parents in the amount of P12,000.00, and to pay the costs.

The record of the case shows that at about 7:00 o’clock in the
evening of 12 March 1980, while Estelita Porbido and her children named Rosemarie, Danilo, Zenaida, Inocencia, Ricardo, and Melogine,
all surnamed Porbido, were in their house in sitio Balitwak, Barangay San Isidro, San Luis, Aurora,^[1]
she heard a man downstairs ordering in this
manner:  “all the women come out,
the men will remain.  If you will not go out we will kill you
all.”^[2]
When nobody made a move to go down, the muzzle of a gun was
poked through the wall of the house made of coconut leaf shingles.  Soon thereafter, a man whom they later identified as the herein appellant,
Salvador V. Lutañez alias “Jun Plementero“, pushed open the makeshift door of the
house and put his head inside.  Upon seeing Zenaida, the
15-year old daughter of Estelita, the appellant
beckoned the girl to him.^[3] When Zenaida was
near him, the appellant grabbed her and stepped down.  Then, he ordered Estelita
to give the flashlight she was holding.^[4]

With a gun tucked in his waist and another slung over his
shoulder, the appellant held the right hand of Zenaida
and brought her to the deserted hut of Ka Eric Isorena,
about one-half kilometer away, where the appellant made her lie down and removed her panty.  Zenaida struggled
but she could not overcome the
appellant.  She also tried to shout, but
the appellant covered her mouth.  The appellant then pulled her legs apart and
inserted his organ into her private parts. 
That was the first time she had sexual intercourse with a man.  The appellant raped her twice that night.^[5]

Meanwhile, after the appellant had left with Zenaida,
Danilo Porbido ran to the
house of Espiridion Isorena
to seek help.  Isorena
then accompanied Danilo to the barangay
captain, one Bienvenido Caballes
who, in turn, reported the incident to the PC. 
On the return of Isorena and Danilo, they met Adriano Villaruz,
a barangay tanod, whom they
invited to accompany them.^[6]

After satisfying his lust, the appellant brought Zenaida back to her mother. 
Upon reaching the house, the appellant demanded that the mother of the
child come down.  But Estelita
pleaded with the appellant.^[7]
At that instant, Danilo Porbido
and his companions arrived.  Villaruz, the barangay tanod, directed his flashlight at the appellant who ran
away.  They chased him, but they were
unable to overtake him.  Soon, PC
soldiers and the barangay captain arrived.  They looked around the house and after about
twenty minutes they left, bringing with them Estelita
Porbido and her children, who passed the night in the
house of Isorena.^[8]

The following day, 13 March
1980, Zenaida was examined by a physician at the Aurora
Memorial Hospital.  His findings were as follows:^[9]

“General Survey –
Fairly developed, fairly nourished.

“Lesions:  – Head and Neck – no apparent physical
injuries

– Body – no apparent
physical injuries

– Extremeties
– no apparent physical injuries

– Breast – small,
round

– Nipple – small,
brownish

– Pubic hair – few,
black

– labia majora

– labia minora – slightly coaptated

– Vaginal canal – tight, admit index finger easily test tube ½” diameter, admit without resistance

– Hymen –
lacerated 5 o’clock and 7 o’clock face of the clock

Does not bleed on
touch

Conclusion:  Virginity lost”

Thereafter, or on 5 June
1980, Zenaida Porbido, assisted by her mother Estelita Porbido, filed a
complaint against the
appellant before the Court of First Instance of Aurora, docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 717, charging him with the crime of Forcible
Abduction with Rape committed as
follows:

“That on or about the 12th day of March, 1980, in the Sitio of Balitwak, Barangay San Isidro, Municipality of San Luis, Province of
Aurora, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs and
by means of force, threats and intimidation, to wit:  by pointing a gun at her mother and
threatening to kill her and her entire family if she
should report to the authorities concerned, did then and there willfully, unlaw­fully, feloniously and forcibly pull and
abduct the
said complainant from her own house and brought her to distant
hut where the said accused, with
the use of force, threats and
intimidation, had carnal knowledge of her against her will.

That the accused committed the above offenses with the following
aggravating circumstances:

1.  It was committed at night
time purposely sought, and which facilitated the commission of the aforesaid
crimes;

2.  The abduction was
committed by the accused in the dwelling of the offended party who had not
given any provocation;

3.  The offenses were
committed with evident premeditation;

4.  The crime of rape was
committed in an inhabited (sic) place.”^[10]

When arraigned, the accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not
guilty to the commission of the offense.^[11]
At the stand, he denied that he abducted and then raped the complainant Zenaida Porbido on the night of 12 March 1980.  He claimed that he was in Bongabon,
Nueva Ecija on the said
day.^[12]
His claim was corroborated by Mario Danipog and Jun Collado who both testified that the accused and other
residents of Sinipit, Bongabon,
Nueva Ecija, attended the
birthday party of Narciso Corpus held at the Banquerohan River, Palayan City,
where they stayed up to 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, after which they went to
the house of the accused where they had a drinking spree until midnight of the
said day.^[13]

But the trial court did not give credence to the appellant’s
alibi since he was positively identified by prosecution witnesses who had no
motive to testify falsely against him and rendered judgment in the case,
sentencing the accused, under the charge, to suffer the penalty aforesaid.^[14]

Whereupon, the accused instituted the present appeal.  In support thereof, he claims that the trial
court erred:  (1) in giving credence to
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses in readily identifying the accused
whom they all allegedly saw for a fleeting moment on the night of 12 March
1980; (2) in concluding that complaining witness Zenaida
Porbido was abducted and raped by accused-appellant
on the night of 12 March 1980; (3) in convicting
the accused-appellant solely on the question of whether his defense of alibi is
available and worthy, and not on the strength of the corroborated and firmly
established alibi of the accused-appellant for failure of the prosecution to
prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

We find no merit in the appeal. 
The issues raised by the appellant involve the credibility of witnesses
and we have repeatedly upheld the well-established rule that conclusions and
findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal
because the trial court is in a better position to observe the demeanor and
credi­bility of the witnesses while testifying. 
While there may be some exceptions to this rule,^[15]
we find that the present case is not within such exceptions.

The testimony of the complainant on how she was forcibly taken
from her home and brought to a deserted hut, about half a kilometer away, and then raped twice, is credible and
we find nothing unusual or improbable in it. 
Her testimony appears to be
straightforward and consistent and she had no motive to testify falsely against
the appellant.  This Court has
consistently held that the testimony of a rape victim as to who abused her is
credible where she had no motive to testify falsely against the accused.^[16]
We need not also belabor the rule that no Filipino girl would publicly admit that
she had been ravished unless this is the truth for her natural instinct is to
protect her honor and future.^[17]

We can not give credence to the appellant’s claim that he was
somewhere else at the time of the commission of the crime because the appellant
was positively identified as the culprit by prosecution witnesses who had no
ulterior motive to impute to him the commission of the crime.^[18]
In this case, the appellant was identified by Zenaida
Porbido, Estelita Porbido, and Danilo Porbido by his pock-marked face and recognition was easy
because the house was sufficiently illuminated.

In this connection, the appellant contends that the testimonies
of said witnesses should not be given credence because such testimonies
identifying him by his pock-marked face, appear to be too identical and of the
same pattern as to clearly betray their being rehearsed and concocted; and that
the said witnesses could not have identified him because they saw the culprit
for the first time on a fleeting moment and at night time.

It is not true, however, that the appellant was seen only for a
fleeting moment so that it could not be possible for the said witnesses to
identify him as the culprit.  It should
be noted that Zenaida Porbido,
the victim, had spent some time with him, having been abducted and then raped
by the appellant.  The fact that the
prosecution witnesses were one in identifying the appellant by his pock-marked
face, would not also justify a conclusion that their testimonies were rehearsed
or concocted.  As we have pointed out,
the prosecution witnesses had no evil motive to impute the commission of the
crime to the appellant; and besides, the crime was reported to the police
authorities immediately after the appellant had left with his victim, giving no
time for these witnesses to concoct a story against the accused.

Moreover, the identification of the appellant was not based
solely on his physical defect, but by his voice as well, when the appellant
told the women in the house to come out; and when he told the victim’s mother, Estelita Porbido to come down,
after he returned to the house with Zenaida.

The appellant further claims that the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses is incredible because they contradicted each other as to
the gun used by the appellant, in that Estelita Porbido declared that the gun poked into the wall of their
house was about 98 centimeters long, while Danilo Porbido stated that the gun of the appellant was about 29
centimeters in length, and even as Zenaida Porbido testified that the appellant had two (2) firearms –
one tucked into his waistband and another slung over his shoulder.  This alleged contradiction, if it be so,
refers however to an insignificant detail which would not destroy the
credibility of the said witnesses.

The Court has ruled that “it is an accepted rule that the
credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her
testimony more especially if she is testifying on minor matters.  In fact, such inconsistencies are to be
expected if a witness is unrehearsed and testifies spontaneously.  In the case of People vs. Gozum (135 SCRA 295), We held that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a
complainant, a 16–year old girl not accustomed to a public trial, do not affect
her credibility.”^[19]

The appellant contends that the complainant could not have been
raped on the night of 12 March 1980, as claimed by her, because of the
testimony of the physician who examined her the following day that the
lacerations on the complainant’s vagina were no longer fresh and bleeding and
in view of the absence of other
physical injuries on the complainant.

The fact, however, that the lacerations on the complainant’s
vagina were no longer bleeding when she was examined the day after the
commission of the crime charged does not
preclude a finding that she was raped in the manner testified to by her.  In fact, the same medical examiner testified
that “it is possible that she lost her virginity on the day before she was
examined.”^[20]
The absence of other physical injuries on the complainant’s body does not also
negate the complainant’s testimony that she was raped.  For rape to be committed, it is not necessary
that there be marks of physical violence on the victim’s body.^[21]

The trial court, therefore, did not commit any error in finding
the appellant guilty of the crime for which he was charged.  The indemnity to be paid to the complainant,
however, should be increased to P30,000.00, in line with recent decisions of
the Court.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED
with the modification that the indemnity to be paid to the complainant is
increased to P30,000.00.  With costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Judge Ernesto P.
Valencia.

^[1]
tsn of January
28, 1982, pp. 2-5, 10; tsn of February 12,
1982, pp. 8-9

^[2]
tsn of January
28, 1982, pp. 10-11

^[3]
Id., pp. 3-4, 7-8

^[4]
Id., pp. 11-12

^[5]
Id., pp. 4-5, 8, 11, 18

^[6]
tsn of February
12, 1982, pp. 3, 9-10, 12-13

^[7]
tsn of January
28, 1982, pp. 12-15

^[8]
tsn of January
28, 1982, pp. 5-6, tsn of February 12, 1982, pp. 3-4, 13-14

^[9]
Exhibit A

^[10]
Original Record, pp. 1-2

^[11]
Id., p. 14

^[12]
tsn of July
21, 1982, pp. 2-3

^[13]
tsn of June
16, 1982, pp. 2-17

^[14]
Original Record, pp. 123-128

^[15]
Teodoro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R No. L-31471,
November 12, 1987, 155
SCRA 547

^[16]
People vs. Nunag, G.R. No. 54445, May 12, 1989, 173 SCRA 274

^[17]
People vs. Abonada, G.R. No. 50041, January 27, 1989, 169 SCRA 530

^[18]
tsn of July
21, 1982, p. 4

^[19]
People vs. Jamandron, G.R. Nos. 80226-27, October 13, 1989, 178 SCRA 474, 479

^[20]
tsn of March
31, 1982, p. 3

^[21]
People vs. Viray, G.R. No. L-41085, August 8, 1988, 164 SCRA 135, 141, and
cases cited