PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NESTOR ABELLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

We are asked to weigh the testimony of a ten-year old girl
against the denials of the herein appellant, who has been convicted of raping
her. In pleading for his exoneration,
he stresses that he was unjustly accused by the girl upon the prodding of her
mother.

Based mainly on the girl’s narration, the evidence for the
prosecution showed that at around 8 o’clock in the evening of June 15, 1990, in
Cagayan de Oro City, Charlyn Villablanca was sent by her mother to fetch her
father from her uncle’s house some 200 meters away. As her father tarried, she decided not to wait for him and to go
back by herself alone. It was on her
way home that Nestor Abella, a neighbor of hers, called her and ordered her to
buy ice for him. She refused at first
but agreed when she saw him get angry. She had gone only a few steps away, however, when he called her back in
an apparent change of mind. When she
proffered to return the fifty centavos he had given her for the ice, he grabbed
her arm and pulled her to a nearby banana grove. There he ordered her to strip and when she refused pulled down
her panty himself. Then he took off his
shorts. What followed was the violation
of the girl, with his hand upon her mouth to prevent her from screaming and his
shaft upon her mound to gratify his lust.^[1]

Charlyn felt pain in her vagina. The spurt of lascivious fluid smeared her outraged innocence. As for Abella, he stood up after the deed
was done, put on his shorts, and casually walked away as if nothing had
happened.^[2]

Meanwhile, her mother Wilma Villablanca, worried that she had not
returned, started out to look for her. She met her on the way and found the girl in tears. Soon enough, she learned the reason for her
child’s distress. Charlyn told her
mother of the rape and the identity of her attacker.^[3]

Wilma immediately notified her husband Romulo Villablanca and the
couple, together with their daughter, went to the scene of her rape to look for
Abella. Finding no one there, they
reported the attack upon Charlyn to the barangay captain and later to the
police. That same evening, they
proceeded to the Northern Mindanao Regional Training Hospital, where the girl
was subjected to a medical examination by Dr. Apolinar A. Vacalares, who made
the following findings:^[4]

Labia majora intact and normal. Labia minora, left reddish, congested and contused, measuring 1.0 cm. in
diameter.

Hymen – intact.

Contusion, labia minora, left

x x x

Negative for Spermatozoa.

On the stand, Dr. Vacalares explained that the trauma on the
girl’s vagina could have been caused by an erect penis although the penetration
was superficial and did not tear the hymen. He also opined that the semen could have dripped out of the labia, which
would explain the absence of spermatozoa at the time of the girl’s examination.^[5]

Wilma Villablanca also took the stand to support her daughter’s
testimony.^[6]
The prosecution also presented in evidence, among other exhibits, a letter
dated September 23, 1990, in which Abella asked Charlyn’s parents for
forgiveness.^[7]

The appellant denied the charge and swore that at the time of the
alleged incident, he was in the basketball court at Zone 3 with some friends,
including Monico Dalde, who testified to corroborate his defense.^[8]

After trial, Judge Senen C. Peñaranda of the Regional Trial Court
of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City, rendered a decision dated February
14, 1991, the dispositive portion of which read as follows:

WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused NESTOR ABELLA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, as principal, of RAPE as defined and penalized under Article
335, par. 3, Revised Penal Code, with no mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA
and to pay the costs; and to indemnify CHARLYN VILLABLANCA in the amount of
Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos. The
accused shall be credited with the full period of his preventive imprisonment.

In this appeal, Abella faults the trial court for giving credence
to Charlyn who, he alleges, was coached by her mother Wilma. He also claims it erred in treating his
letter as an admission of guilt notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution
to prove its case.

The appeal has no merit.

The supposed inconsistencies between the testimonies of Charlyn
and her mother are minor flaws that do not impair the integrity of the evidence
for the People. In any event, such inconsistencies must be
resolved in favor of Charlyn, who was giving first-hand and direct testimony of
her ordeal at the hands of the appellant.

Charlyn’s identification of Abella as her attacker was sufficient
although she could not tell his name at first. She did not have to know his name to be able to point to him as the
person who raped her that night. She
knew him by face. They were neighbors. This was the reason, in fact, why she obeyed
him when he told her to buy ice for him.

In law, Charlyn was not even required to know her attacker’s
name. What is important is that at the
trial, she positively pointed to him as the person who raped her.^[9]

Abella’s conviction did not rest alone, if at all, upon his
letter to Charlyn’s parents in which he expressed his remorse and begged for
their forgiveness. All the letter did
was strengthen the trial judge’s conviction that the appellant was indeed
guilty of the crime imputed to him.

The appellant cites the case of People v. Lao,^[10]
where the Court said of a similar letter of apology:

As regards the letter of apology, if it was indeed written by the
accused, this cannot be considered as an apology for committing rape. If ever accused asked for apology, it was
because he and complainant were cousins and that he was a married man.

That case is not in point because the accused there was acquitted
not because of the rejection of the letter but in light of three important
circumstances, to wit, the absence of resistance from the complainant to the
alleged rapist, who was unarmed and physically small; the fact that the
complainant made the accusation of rape only after she was already six months
pregnant; and the continued cordial relations between the complainant and the
accused after the alleged rape. No such
or similar circumstances are present in the case at bar.

Regarding the intact hymen, it suffices to say that full
penetration of the vagina is not necessary to constitute the crime of rape.^[11]
We have held in many cases that partial penetration of the vagina by the male
organ is sufficient, as where it is shown that the labia and the opening of the
vagina were inflamed.^[12]
There was such a finding in the case at bar.

We are satisfied with the conclusion of the trial court, which
had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their
credibility, that the appellant Nestor Abella did, on the night of June 15,
1990, force his lust upon the complainant, who was then only ten years old, and
thus committed the crime of rape as punished under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code.

The Court cannot adequately express its revulsion for the nauseating
offense committed by the appellant upon the defenseless girl who had not yet
left her childhood years when she was rudely thrust into a violent act of
sordid sex. The outrage not only
sullied her chastity but also, and no less heartlessly, disenchanted her
innocence.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the decision of the
trial court is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the civil indemnity is
increased to P30,000.00. Costs against
the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

^[1]
TSN, December 18, 1990, pp. 34-38.

^[2]
Ibid., pp. 38-39.

^[3]
TSN, November 5, 1990, pp. 6-7.

^[4]
Exhibit “A”/”1,”
Records, p. 74.

^[5]
Decision, p. 3; Rollo, p.
18. TSN, January 9, 1991.

^[6]
TSN, November 5, 1990; December 18,
1990.

^[7]
Exhibit “B,” Records, pp.
75-76.

^[8]
Decision, p. 4; Rollo, p. 19.

^[9]
TSN, December 18, 1990, p. 36.

^[10]
137 SCRA 523 (1985).

^[11]
People v. Castro, 196 SCRA 679
(1991).

^[12]
People v. Magallanes, 218 SCRA
109 (1993); People v. Dabon, 216 SCRA 656 (1992); People v.
Alegado, 201 SCRA 37 (1991); People v. Cruz, 180 SCRA 765 (1989); People
v. Alvarez, 163 SCRA 745 (1988).