PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARVEL SABALLE, ALIAS BEBOT ALIAS BETROK, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused was charged with the crime of rape in an Information
reading as follows:

That on or about the 1st day of March, 1989, in the Municipality of
Tolosa, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent and with lewd
designs, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge with Maricel Rendora, a six (6) year child, against her will
and consent to her damage and prejudice.

(p. 5,
Rollo.)

After trial, the court a quo found accused-appellant
guilty as charged in a decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused
Arvel Saballe alias “Bebot Saballe” alias “Betrok” guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of statutory rape under Article 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal
Code; and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
to pay the sum of P20,000.00 to the offended party Maricel Rendora and her
family (People vs. Simeon Mangalinio y Lumanoy, G.R. No. 79011, Feb. 15, 1990.)

(p. 29,
Rollo.)

Accused-appellant appealed, raising the sole assigned error that
the prosecution failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The evidence for the prosecution, as concisely set forth in the
brief submitted by Solicitor General Raul I. Goco, Asst. Solicitor General
Azucena R. Balanon-Corpuz, and Associate Solicitor Angelo R. Arizolsa, is as
follows:

Imelda Rendora testified that on March 1, 1989 at about 5:00 p.m.
in Barangay San Vicente, Tolosa, Leyte, she left her three (3) children, namely
Maricel (6 years old), Michelle (4 years old) and Messanli (2 years old), alone
inside their house while she went to the house of her own mother, about thirty
(30) to forty (40) meters away, to obtain some rice and burning charcoals which
she brought to her kitchen where she built a fire in preparation for
supper. She went out again to the
street about fifteen meters from the house and talked with the neighbors. (pp. 4-6, tsn, September 27, 1989).

Maricel testified that while her mother was outside their house,
appellant entered and enticed her to play with him. While they were playing, appellant forced himself on top of
Maricel and inserted his penis into the latter’s vagina (pp. 3-4, tsn,
September 26, 1989) causing her extreme pain and instant bleeding (p. 13, tsn,
August 29, 1989). Maricel cried (p. 7,
tsn, September 27, 1989). Having
finished with his bestial desires, appellant left through the window before
Imelda came back to the house (p. 14, tsn, August 29, 1989).

When Imelda returned to the
house after talking to her neighbors, she found Maricel sitting in the sala and
crying. She found out that Maricel’s
vagina was bleeding. Acting
instinctively, she washed it with water and tried to find what was causing the
bleeding. She discovered that the
opening had widened and that the bleeding was coming from the inside of the
vagina. Imelda went to her parent’s
house and together with her father they chartered a motorcycle to proceed to
the Rural Health Clinic. Since it was
already 6:00 p.m., the tricycle driver advised them to proceed to the Leyte
Provincial Hospital at Palo, Leyte (p. 8, tsn, September 27, 1989). Along the way, somewhere in Borac, Maricel
informed her mother that it was “Betrok”, the nickname of appellant, who caused
the bleeding when he went on top
of her. They reached the Leyte
Provincial Hospital, at around 7:00 to 7:30 p.m. where Maricel was treated by
two resident physicians, one of whom was Dr. Lydia B. Hayabo M.D., (p. 6, tsn,
August 29, 1989). She came up with the
following findings:

MEDICO-LEGAL REPORT

NAME    :    RENDORA, MARICEL

Age        :    6 ; Female

Status    :    Child

Address :    San Vicente, Tolosa, Leyte

Alleged Case: Allegedly raped by a known person

Alleged Date, Time and Place of Infliction:

March 1, 1989

4:00 p.m.

San Vicente, Tolosa, Leyte

Purpose of Examination: Medicolegal

FINDINGS

P.E. :  No gross P.E. Findings

–  No pubic hairs,

–  Hymen – fresh laceration with bleeding at the
base of clitoris area.

–  Vagina – admits 1 finger with ease.

–  Vaginal smear for the presence of spermatozoa
-negative.

Time of examination: 7:30 p.m.

Date of examination: March 1, 1989

Remarks : Said
patient was admitted on March 1, 1989 and discharged on the following day.

The same doctor concluded that the fresh laceration at the hymen
was due to the penetration of the penis. Maricel was ordered to be confined for one day at the hospital (p. 6,
tsn, August 29, 1989). For the duration
of Maricel’s stay at the hospital, the medicines needed and all other expenses
incurred, Imelda had to shell out P500.00 (p. 9, tsn, September 27, 1989).

The crime was reported to the Tolosa INP Station in the evening of
March 1, 1989. Acting on such report,
Station Investigator P. Cpl. Eufronio Malate, together with other police
officers, went to Barangay San Vicente, apprehended appellant and brought him
to the station (pp. 4-6, tsn, October 9, 1989) for investigation. The following day appellant was released
from custody since no case was yet filed against him (p. 7, tsn, October 9,
1989). On March 3, 1989, however,
appellant was re-arrested and brought to the hospital where he was positively
identified by Maricel (p. 8, ibid).

(pp. 3-7,
Appellee’s Brief, ff. p. 107, Rollo.)

Accused-appellant’s
defense rests on denial and alibi.

Accused-appellant contends
that the charge of rape is a sheer fabrication by Imelda Rendora, the mother of
the victim, Maricel Rendora, to get back at the family of accused-appellant
against whom she entertained animosities arising out of a land dispute. The contention of accused-appellant is
patently unsustainable in the face of the prosecution evidence. The fact that the victim was sexually
assaulted is patently established by the medical certificate (Exhibit A) issued
by Dr. Lydia B. Hayabo who physically examined the victim which Dr. Hayabo later confirmed on the witness stand. The medical certificate clearly states that the victim’s vagina was lacerated and bleeding and easily admitted
one finger with ease. Dr. Hayabo
concluded that the fresh laceration of the vagina was caused by the penetration of a penis.

As to who raped the victim, there can be no doubt. The victim categorically identified accused-appellant
as the person who raped her. Her
testimony is simple and straightforward, unshaken by a rigid cross-examination
and unflawed by any inconsistency or contradiction. She is a guileless and artless 6-year old girl who can be
expected to tell the truth without any embellishment. Her testimony must be given full faith and credit.

Accused-appellant’s protestation that the victim’s mother filed
the charge to get back at the family of accused-appellant because of an existing
enmity and antagonism between the victim’s and accused-appellant’s family
arising out of an alleged land dispute is too unsubstantial and implausible to
negate the actuality of the rape. As
above demonstrated, the fact of rape as well as the identity of the malefactor
have been clearly established by the evidence. Too, the misunderstanding between the family of accused-appellant and
that of the victim happened three years before the rape and had been in fact
already forgotten by the parties involved who have since become friends. Finally, we are totally appalled by
accused-appellant’s posture view that a mother would willingly subject her
daughter, one of very tender age at that, to the rigors of a rape trial just so
she could satisfy her desire for revenge. As we stated in People vs. Yambao, (193 SCRA 571 [1991]):

It is inconceivable that a mother of a six-year old child would
fabricate a rape charge, subject her daughter to physical examination and the
embarrassment of a public trial. A
mother would not sacrifice her daughter’s honor to give vent to a grudge
knowing fully well that such an experience would damage her daughter’s psyche
and tar her for life.

(p. 578,
Rollo.)

The proffered alibi is likewise unavailing. Alibi is a weak defense for it is easy of
fabrication (People vs. Ragas, 44 SCRA 152 [1972]) and cannot prevail
over the prosecution’s positive and clear identification of the accused as the
perpetrator of the crime (People vs. Rendoque, 205 SCRA 783 [1992]).

Accused-appellant was positively and categorically identified by
the victim as her debaucher and defiler. Material to establishing alibi as a valid defense, it must be shown that
it was physically impossible for the accused-appellant to have been present at
the place of the crime at the time it was committed (People vs. Cruz,
208 SCRA 326 [1992]). In the case at
bench, accused-appellant claimed that at the time of the commission of the
crime he was harvesting palay at a ricefield owned by one Genoveva Cinco. However, by his own testimony said ricefield
is only 180 meters away from the house of the victim (pp. 2-3, tsn, March 7,
1990). At such a short distance,
clearly it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to have been at
the place of the crime at the time of commission thereof.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in
toto.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Romero, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

Bidin, J., on leave.