THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CESAR CERVANTES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant
Cesar Cervantes seeks a reversal of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig,
Branch 156^[1] convicting him of the crime of rape
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the victim in the amount of P25,000.00.^[2]

The facts
gathered from the evidence of the prosecution are as follows:

Marivic Ortega and her family had been renting for more than
three years a room in the house of Cesar Cervantes’ mother at No. 577, Abella’s
Compound, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.^[3]

At about 11:00 o’clock in the evening of November 29, 1987, while
Marivic, her mother and her brother were already asleep, Marivic’s father and
Cervantes had a drinking session. After
a while, Marivic’s father, who was already drunk, retired for the night.^[4]
A few minutes later, Marivic felt a hand touching her breast, rousing her from
her sleep. She tried to stand up, but
Cervantes got hold of her hands and pulled her down to the sofa. He then went astride her, forcibly removed
her underwear, slid a finger into her vagina, and mashed her breast. When the eleven-year-old girl resisted,
Cervantes showed her his fist and said: “Huwag kang gagawa ng eskandalo, kung hindi papatayin kita.”
(“Don’t cry out or I will kill you.”) He then stripped himself,
placed himself on top of her again and kept on mashing her breast. A little later, Marivic felt his manhood
being inserted into her private part, causing her extreme pain. Afterwards, Cervantes went out of the house.^[5]

As
Cervantes continued to threaten her whenever they saw each other, Marivic kept
to herself the affront to her honor. But when on December 3, 1987, Cervantes
tried to molest her again, the girl hit him with a broomstick. This incident, witnessed by Anita Gabatino,
impelled Marivic to dislose to her parents Cervantes’s sexual assault upon her
on November 29, 1987.^[6] Her father then brought her to the
Municipal Hall, and then to the PC INP Crime Laboratory Services at Camp Crame,^[7] to report the incident.

On
December 7, 1987, Marivic was physically examined. The examination revealed a shallow healed laceration at 7:00 o’clock and a deep healed
laceration at 6:00 o’clock in
the fleshy type hymen of her genital organ.^[8]

The complaint
subsequently filed against Cesar Cervantes resulted, after trial, in his
conviction.

In this appeal,
Cervantes stresses that while the complainant testified that she was abused at
11:00 o’clock in the evening of November 29, 1987,^[9] she also declared that at about the
same hour that same night, her father and the accused were drinking together.^[10] Her father also testified that he
arrived early that night and had a drinking
bout with Cervantes,^[11] but the
truth was that they started drinking at around 10:45 and ended at 11:30
that night.^[12]
Thus, it could not have been possible for the accused to rape Marivic and at
the same time be drinking beer with her father.

This
argument is shallow. The testimonies of
both parties as to the time these events transpired were but mere
estimate. They were not supposed to be
a precise chronology. It would
seem most unlikely that Marivic would consult her watch, assuming she had one,
to ascertain the exact time when she was being sexually abused. It was enough for her to declare that she
was raped at the time her father was already sleeping. Thus, when the trial court asked her how she
could have been raped at 11 o’clock when she herself said her father and
Cervantes were then still drinking, she protested:

A:    No, your Honor. That was the time when my father was already
asleep.^[13]

The
appellant’s brief also invites the attention of this Court to the size of the
room where the rape was allegedly committed. It measures 3 x 3 1/2 meters. The argument that in such a small
room, and with all the family members sleeping there, a single shout for help
from Marivic, or even the noise created by Cervantes during the alleged rape,
could have awakened any of the occupants of that room.^[14]

It must be recalled that Marivic could not bring herself to
scream because of her assailant’s threat. She was constrained to silently yield to his lustful attack. It is possible that there was not enough
noise to awaken the other occupants from their slumber. Besides,
rape may take only a short time to consummate, given especially the stealth
that accompanies it and the anxiety to finish it as soon as possible
to avoid discovery and apprehension.

To further impugn Marivic’s credibility, the accused-appellant points out that while she
initially testified that he boxed her, she declared later that he had just threatened her.^[15]

This is a minor
inconsistency and does not impair the essential veracity of her testimony. Her failure to recall every single detail of
her horrible experience bolsters rather than weakens her credibility. Besides, whether the accused boxed her or
merely threatened her is immaterial as
force or intimidation does not
have to be established when rape
is committed against a girl under 12 years of age.

It
is next asserted that the two lacerations on the complainant’s organ could have
been caused not by sexual intercourse but by self-manipulation or masturbation,
there being no extensive abrasions or contusions on the walls of the labia
minora. The answer to this is that the
absence of extensive abrasions or contusions on the vaginal wall does not rule out rape because the
slightest penetration is enough.^[16]

Finally, the
accused-appellant wonders why the alleged
rape was reported to the authorities only on January 4, 1988, or 36 days
after the said incident. The records
show that Marivic went to the police to complain as early as the first week of December, 1987. In fact, she was physically examined on December 7, 1987, upon a request dated
December 6, 1987^[17] of the Commanding Officer of the
Camp Crame General Hospital. January 4, 1988 was the date when
Cervantes’s mother went to the Municipal Hall of Mandaluyong to verify
if there was really a case against her son.^[18]

Marivic’s delay in reporting
the rape does not mean it did not
happen. It is not uncommon for young
girls to conceal for some time
the sexual abuse committed
against them because of the rapist’s threat to their lives. There is also their natural reluctance to
admit that their chastity has been sullied and to expose themselves not only to official interrogation with all its
attendant embarrassments but also to the morbid curiosity of the general public
who is interested only in the prurient details of the ravishment than in the
vindication of the victim and the punishment of the rapist.

The intimation that
the rape charge was prompted by the ejectment of the complainant’s family from
the leased premises for their failure to pay monthly rentals deserves little
attention and is hereby rejected.

The Court is convinced that the trial court committed no error in finding the
accused-appellant guilty of raping the
11-year old Marivic. He fully
deserves the penalty of reclusion perpetua for his beastly
assault on his innocent victim, who will never experience the
sweet surrender of her virginity to
the man for whom she could have
preserved it and to whom she could have offered it with purity and love.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The challenged decision is AFFIRMED, but
with the modification that the accused-appellant
shall also indemnify Marivic Ortega in the amount of P30,000.00. It is so ordered.

Griño-Aquino, Bellosillo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Presided by Judge Martin S. Villarama, Jr.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 17.

^[3]
TSN, August 19, 1988, pp. 4-5.

^[4]
TSN, February 23, 1989, p. 6.

^[5]
TSN,
August 19, 1988, pp. 7-8; October 6, 1988, pp. 3-4.

^[6]
TSN, October 6, 1988, pp. 4-5.

^[7]
February
23, 1989, p. 4

^[8]
Exhibit B, Original Records, p. 84.

^[9]
TSN, October 6, 1988, p. 2.

^[10]
Ibid., p. 3.

^[11]
February
23, 1989, p. 6.

^[12]
March 16, 1989, p. 3.

^[13]
TSN, October 6, 1988, p. 4.

^[14]
Brief for the Appellant, pp. 13-14.

^[15]
TSN, August 19, 1988, p. 9.

^[16]
People v. Tismo, 204 SCRA 535 citing People v. Somera, 170 SCRA
428; People v. Cruz, 180 SCRA 765 and David v. CA, 182 SCRA 675.

^[17]
Exhibit C, Original Records, p. 83.

^[18]
TSN, July 21, 1989, pp. 3-4, 6.