PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ENEMECIO L. BORJA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Convicted by the Regional
Trial Court of
Toledo City,
(Branch 29)* of the crime of Rape and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
accused-appellant Enemecio L. Borja
is now before us on appeal.

In substance, the evidence for the prosecution follows:

On 17 November 1984,
at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening,
complainant Virginia L. Baring, 18, was resting at her quarters at the Atlas
Socio Economic Project, Abaca Township,
Poog, Toledo
City, where she was then
working.  There, accused Enemecio L. Borja, a distant
relative, showed up, and requested her to accompany him outside the township to
buy some toothache tablets for his wife. 
Suspiciously, she asked him if there were no one else to go with them,
to which the accused retorted – “Do you not trust me, we are relatives?”
Disarmed by his reply, Virginia
reluctantly went with him (TSN, pp. 2-10, 31 July 1985).

They passed along a footpath, Enemecio
walking slightly ahead of Virginia
(TSN, p. 6, 18 February 1986).  The place
was not well lighted, there being no lamp post. 
The only illumination was provided by a bulb on a fence lining the
pathway (TSN, p. 6, 27 January 1987). 
About sixty meters away from the quarters, Enemecio
suddenly turned around, faced Virginia,
and hugged her.  A “holihod” (a round sharp pointed instrument, used for
punching holes in shoes, about six inches in length and about one-half inch in
diameter) was in his hand.  He covered
her mouth with his palm, continually kissed her on the cheeks and bit her upper
lip.  He was successful in removing her
“maong” pants and her panty.  She was then forced to lie down on the ground
(TSN; pp. 12-18, 31 July 1985; p. 8, 18 February 1986; p. 7, 4 April 1986).

Virginia tried to
get up but Enemecio struck her with his fists on her
head, left arm and on the breast.  During
cross-examination, she narrated that the blows somewhat caused her to lose
consciousness for when she regained her senses, Enemecio
was already on top of her deflowering her (TSN, pp. 9-11, 18 February
1986).  The pain made her shout (TSN, pp.
18-19, 31 July 1985).  Even then, she
struggled to free herself to no avail. 
In her estimation, Enemecio succeeded in
satisfying his lust in about twenty minutes (ibid, pp. 20-21).

His evil desire consummated. 
Enemecio threatened Virginia
not to mention a word of the incident to anyone, or else, he would kill her
(ibid, pp. 21-22).  On their way back,
they met Eduardo Silva, a co-worker, who was asked by Enemecio
if his (Enemecio’s) wife was looking for him to which Eduardo answered in the negative.  Eduardo noticed that Virginia
kept silent (TSN, pp. 3-4, 21 January 1987). 
After Enemecio and Virginia parted ways, she
returned directly to her quarters where she burst into tears.  A little later, co-employees Tirso Villarmia and Edwin Tingal arrived and to whom she revealed her harrowing
experience.  They, in turn, advised her
to report the matter to her parents (TSN, pp.
22-26, 31 July 1985).

Early the next day, 18
November 1984, Virginia,
accompanied by Tirso Villarmia,
went home to her parents at Carcar, Cebu, to tell them of the outrage on her person.  Her mother, Visitacion
Baring, recalled that they arrived at about 6:30
in the morning (TSN, pp. 4-6, 17 July 1987). 
After the parents were told, they decided to go back to Toledo
City to report the crime to the Barangay Captain. 
The latter told them to go
to the police, who in turn, advised Virginia
to undergo a medical examination (TSN; p. 28-29, 31 July 1985; pp. 4-5, 17 July 1987).

The next day, on 19 November, Virginia
went to the City Health Officer of Toledo
City for examination (TSN, p. 3, 24
June 1986).  The doctor’s Physical
Injuries Report (Exh. D, D1 – D2) detailed the
following findings:

“1. Hematoma
located at the let upper outer quadrant left breast.

“2. Linear abrasion located at the
right elbow.

“3. Slight swelling with tenderness
located at the left cociput – head.

“4. Lacerated wound – upper lip.

“5. On internal examination:  Lacerated hymen with slight bleeding located
at the following areas:  5, 7, and 9 o’ clock.”

In his defense, Enemecio admitted
having had carnal knowledge of Virginia
on the date alleged but maintained that force was not employed.  His story was that on 17 November 1984, at about 6 o‘ clock in the evening, he invited Virginia
to go out of the township.  While passing
along a narrow road, Virginia
placed her hand over his shoulder.  He
gestured back by placing his hand over her shoulders (TSN, pp. 7-8, 14 October
1987).  She confessed that she loved
him.  He responded and replied that he
loved her, too.  Then, they descended to
the cornfield some fourteen 
(14) meters from the road and embraced and kissed each other
(TSN, pp. 2-3, 18 March 1988).  No signs
of resistance were shown by Virginia.  On the contrary, she welcomed his advances (Rollo, p.
61).  He removed all his clothes and then
proceeded to remove hers gradually (TSN, p. 3, 18 March 1988).  They passionately made love thereafter (ibid,
pp. 4-5).

After evaluating the conflicting versions, the Trial Court tilted
the judicial scales in favor of the prosecution, pronounced Enemecio
guilty sentenced him to reclusion perpetua,
and ordered him to indemnify Virginia
in the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages.

Hence, this appeal, with the following
Assignments of Error:

“1.  The Court a quo erred in holding
that force was employed by the appellant in attaining his purpose of having
sexual intercourse with the complainant.

“2.  The Court a quo erred in holding
that the sexual intercourse was committed at the time when the complaining
witness was unconscious.

“3.  The Court a quo erred in
convicting the appellant despite absence of sufficient evidence for a valid
conviction.”

In a nutshell, the appeal is anchored on the defense that the sexual congress was with the consent and
cooperation of Virginia.  Thus, Enemecio
denies that he had threatened Virginia
with an “holihod,”
claiming that the latter is not a deadly weapon but a small pointed tool and it
is inconceivable that Virginia
would not have been able to defend her honor and chastity at the threat of a
puny “holihod.” He further contends that if
he had forced sex on Virginia,
the latter would have suffered numerous bruises considering that barbed wire
lined both sides of the narrow pathway where they were.  In addition, he expresses wonder that Virginia
made no loud outcries despite the fact that the place was only sixty (60)
meters away from her sleeping quarters and forty (40) meters away from the
nearest residential house.

Enemecio further maintains that if it
were true that he had raped Virginia,
she would have said so immediately to Eduardo Silva whom they met on their way
back to her quarters.  He even questions Virginia’s
having gone to her parents in Carcar, Cebu, to disclose the occurrence to them
instead of reporting the matter to the local authorities or to the security force of the
township.

In his Brief, Enemecio theorized that
the rape charge was brought only for the purpose of showing Tirso
Villarmia, Virginia’s boyfriend, who came to know of
the incident, that her “sexual tryst” with Enemecio
was a forced one, which scheme succeeded as Tirso
eventually married Virginia.

In short, as in most rape cases, the credibility of the victim is
put to an acid test.  We find Enemecio’s submissions, however, unpersuasive, the
circumstance of force and intimidation having been proven by testimonial and
documentary evidence.

That force was employed is apparent in the Physical Injuries
Report (Exhibits D, D1 – D2).  The
injuries and bruises sustained by Virginia
are clearly indicated therein.  The
“linear abrasion at the right elbow” confirms the struggle that took place
between barbed wire fences.  The “hematoma at the left breast,” and the slight swelling
with tenderness located at the left cociput-head”
substantiates Virginia’s
allegation that Enemecio hit her with his fists on
different parts of her body immediately prior to the dastardly act.  The
“lacerated wound – upper lip” establishes Virginia’s
testimony that Enemecio had bitten it.  The injuries listed in the medical
certificate are herein referred to not to prove those injuries per se
but to substantiate the use of force.

Other physical indications of force are Virginia’s
panty with detached garter (Exhibits A, A-1) and her denim pants with a torn
portion just below the zipper (Exhibit B). 
These mutely but eloquently indicate the violence with which they were
hastily removed, as against Enemecio’s claim of
having gradually removed the same.

Contrary to Enemecio’s protestations, Virginia
could not have made loud outcries as he had covered her mouth with his
hand.  Added to this, was the continued
threat of the “holihod,” a weapon which,
while not ordinarily classified as deadly, could, like any pointed tool, be
capable of piercing human flesh if it could go through leathered shoes and
soles.  The combination was enough to instill
fear into Virginia and cow her to
submit to Enemecio’s lewd desires.  In fact, the combined circumstances had
rendered her unconscious.

The fact that Virginia did not
disclose to Eduardo Silva, whom the met upon their return, the assault on her
chastity cannot be taken against her credibility.  She must have still been in a state of shock
for the abuse perpetrated on her person besides the fact that she could not
openly flaunt the disgrace that befell her to a mere passerby whose ability to
help her could have been nil.

Neither do we find anything wrong in Virginia’s resolve to return
home to Carcar, Cebu, fifty
(50) kilometers distant, to confide to her parents the ignominy she had
suffered at the hands of the accused. 
Rather, it was a most natural reaction for a daughter.  Her parents were the most logical persons to
turn to for understanding, advice, solace, and vindication of the wrong
inflicted on her, not to mention the fact that family honor was also inevitably
involved.  And, indeed, together, they
lost no time in going back to Toledo City
to report to the local authorities, as a starter in their quest for justice.

The defense had subjected Virginia
to stringent cross-examination in an attempt to entangle her in contradictions,
and to prove that she was fully conscious all throughout the criminal encounter
and had consented thereto.  She remained
steadfast and fully credible, however. 
There may have been slight inconsistencies in her testimony, but this is
understandable considering that she was rendered unconscious, and had undergone
a traumatic experience.  The mere
circumstance that she was testifying in the presence of strangers on an
intimate matter not usually even mentioned in public might have caused her not
a little embarrassment and confusion that rendered her narration less than
perfect (People v. Mancilla, G.R. No. 47628, 15 May
89, 173 SCRA 373).

Finally, the contention that the rape charge was feigned to cover
up for Virginia’s infidelity to her boyfriend, by making it appear that she was forcibly deprived of her virginity,
is simply preposterous.  This Court has
consistently held that the testimony of a rape victim as to who abused her is
credible, where she has no motive to testify against the accused except to
vindicate the wrongful act against her honor (People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 47299,
19 February 1986, 141 SCRA 385; People v. Nunez, G. R. No. 54445, 12 May 1989,
173 SCRA 274), and where, as in this case, her testimony is buttressed by
indubitable evidence of guilt.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED, with
the modification that the indemnity awarded to Virginia L. Baring is hereby
increased to P30,000.00 (People vs. Puragoso, G. R. No. 50872, 18 October 1989).  Costs against the
accused-appellant, Enemecio L. Borja.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento,
and Regalado, JJ., concur.

* Judge Jose P.
Burgos, presiding.