PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. FELIPE DE GUZMAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant, Felipe de Guzman, appeals from the Joint
Decision,^[1]
dated 25 July 1991, in Criminal Cases Nos. D-9793 and D-9794, of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 44, of Dagupan City, convicting him of the crime of Rape
committed on two (2) separate occasions.

In Criminal Case No. D-9793, the Information reads as follows:

“That on or about December 13, 1989 at Barangay Talibaew,
municipality of Calasiao, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a
dagger, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Marissa Suniega, 12
years of age, to her damage and prejudice.

“Contrary to Article 335, Revised Penal Code.”

In Criminal Case No. D-9794, the crime of rape was allegedly
committed as follows:

“That on or about December 1, 1989 at barangay Talibaew,
municipality of Calasiao, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Marissa
Suniega, 12 years of age, to her damage
and prejudice.”

Upon arraignment on 22 March 1990, the accused pleaded not guilty
to the commission of the crime of rape on two occasions.

In finding the accused guilty of the crime charged, the trial
court states:

“In an attempt to extricate himself from a stigma of
conviction, accused Felipe de Guzman wanted the court to believe his version
that he was, on December 1, 1989, at the house of his sister Milagros Landingin
at Sitio Manga 1, Mata-talahib, Tarlac, Tarlac, where he stayed up to December
3, 1989. Milagros Landingin corrobora­ted
the testimony of her brother. The
defense is alibi. It is unavailing as a
defense since in this particular case, accused Felipe de Guzman was positively
identified by the victim Marissa Suniega. The evidence leaves no room for doubt that the crimes of Rape which were
perpetrated on December 1, 1989 and December 13, 1989 were, as the prosecution’s evidence show,
correctly as­cribed to Felipe de Guzman. The court has pain­stakingly scrutinized the evidence on how the victim
narrated in detail the horrifying incidents. It has been clearly proven that on December 1, 1989 at about 6:00 o’clock
in the morning after the victim’s mother and sister had left their house, the
accused Felipe de Guzman entered the room. While inside, he clamped his hands on her (Marissa Suniega) mouth,
removed her pantie and then lowered his brief and short pants to the level of
his knees. Then he (accused) laid his
weight against her thighs and spread her two legs, knelt down and then jerked
his body (kinot lan kinot), made a push and pull, and uttered and warned the
victim, ‘don’t move or else I will kill you’, during which time he inserted his
penis inside the vagina of Marissa Suniega. The victim felt pain and cried. It is unquestionable therefore that accused employed force in accomplishing
his vicious purpose when he laid his weight against the thighs of Marissa
Suniega, spread her two legs, and intimidated the victim by saying, ‘don’t move
or else I will kill you.’ These led to the consummation of the crime of Rape
falling squarely under Paragraph 1 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Again, on December 13, 1991 at around 6:00
o’clock in the morning, accused Felipe de Guzman entered the same room where he
abused Marissa Suniega on December 1, 1989, and by means of a knife which he
pointed to Marissa, said, ‘don’t say a word, or else I will kill you’, at which
time he inserted his penis to the vagina of the victim. The crime of Rape which was perpetrated on
December 13, 1989 was accomplished by force and intimidation because accused
pointed a knife on the neck of the victim.

“Dr. Casimero Escugan conducted a medical examination,
evidenced by a medico-legal certificate, Exhibit A. In examining the hymen, he found out that there was a healed
lacerated wound at 6:00 and 9:00 o’clock position, and there was an indentation
which is not seen in normal hymen. The
medico-legal officer declared that the healed lacerated wound was caused by a
human penis. These are clear indicia
that the crime of Rape during the incidents on December 1, 1989 and December
13, 1989 are consummated.

“The accused denied the charges saying that he does not know
of anything wrong that he did. The only
reason that he knows is that he and his wife quarreled because he sold their
personal belongings. This defense is
implausible. Marissa Suniega is a 12
year old first year high school student. She submitted herself to medical examination. She gave a statement and testified in Court narrating in detail
the traumatic and unforgettable experience she went through on December 1, 1989
and December 13, 1989 under the callous hands of Felipe de Guzman. Marissa Suniega is a Filipina woman. In this connection, the ruling in the case
of People versus Mustacisa, G.R. 51777, 25 March 1988, Second Division, is
worth-stressing that, considering the inbred modestly and antipathy of a
Filipino woman to air in public things that affect her honor, it is hard to
conceive that complainant would assume and admit the ignominy she had undergone
if this were not true. (Page 374,
Summary of 1988 Supreme Court Rulings by Daniel T. Martinez).”

In this appeal, accused Felipe de Guzman avers that the trial
court erred:

“1. In giving credence to the fabricated story
of private complainant and her witnesses that she was allegedly raped by
accused–appellant on December 1, 1989 at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning;

“2. In giving credence to the fabricated story
of private complainant and her witnesses that she was allegedly raped by
accused–appellant on December 13, 1989 at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning;

“3. In convicting the accused-appellant without proof beyond reasonable
doubt.”

Obviously, the principal issue raised by the accused is the
credibility of complainant’s testimony and those of her witnesses.

The accused finds it quite strange and unnatural for a
twelve-year-old girl to be articulate as to vividly describe the act of rape
committed against her by the accused; that she did not offer any form of
resistance while she was allegedly being sexually abused by the accused; and
there­after not reporting the incidents to her parents, sister Mildred,
barangay officials or to police authorities. He finds it even more surprising and strange that after the alleged
rape, she acted normally – went about her usual activities at home and in
school and could even sleep soundly from 1 December 1989 up to 27 December 1989.

Finally, accused-appellant posits that the strong driving force
that compelled the private complainant to file the complaint was the concerted
action of complainant her­self, her parents, her sister Mildred (wife of the
accused) in retaliation for his previous act of selling his sander motor in the
amount of P1,000.00, but giving only P500.00 to his wife, and in selling his
Betamax set in the amount of P4,000.00 – “that fanned the flame of hatred
and aggravated the worsening relationship between the accused and his wife and
his in-laws.”^[2]

We find no merit in this appeal.

There is nothing strange or unnatural in the behavior of the
complainant when she did not shout for help while being sexually abused by the
accused. She testified that the accused
clamped his hand on her mouth. Moreover, she repeatedly testified that the accused threatened to kill
her if she reported the incident. According to her, during the second assault, on 13 December 1989, the
accused pointed a dagger at her. As for
the apparent normal behavior of Marissa Suniega after the commission of the two
(2) rapes, this can be explained by the fact that she did not want any member
of her family to suspect that something wrong had happened to her. She repeatedly stated during the trial that
she was afraid the accused would kill her if she reported what happened to her.

As for the alleged articulateness of the complainant in
describing the rape on two (2) occasions committed against her, we do not find
anything so articulate or graphic in the victim’s testimony which stated simply
and clearly the sexual assaults upon her. Besides, she was already thirteen (13) years old when she testified
before the court. A per­son of that age
can already express her feelings or observa­tions in comprehensible language.

A witness who testifies in a categorical, straight­forward,
spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on cross-examination is a
credible witness. (People vs. Clores,
184 SCRA 638.)

The last-ditch defense of the accused that the com­pelling reason
why complainant filed the complaint was because of the acts of the accused of
selling his sander motor and the Betamax set is bizarre and unacceptable. We must not lose sight of the fact that
Marissa Suniega is a “barrio lass.” It is hard to believe that she
would risk the ignominy that would befall her if she were to expose the
humiliating incidents, and for what? Because she was deprived of the pleasure of watching TV or Betamax? No young, decent Filipina woman would
publicly admit that she had been criminally ravished unless that is the truth,
for the natural instinct is to protect her honor. (People vs. Pasco, 181 SCRA 233.)

We have carefully examined the records of these cases and read
the transcripts of the hearings. We do
not find any abuse of discretion or error in the conclusions arrived at by the
trial judge based on the evidence presented as to call for a reversal of the
appealed joint decision.

It is settled that the findings of the trial court pertaining to
the credibility of a witness are entitled to great respect since it had the
opportunity to examine his demeanor as he testified on the witness stand, and,
there­fore, it could discern if such witness was telling the truth or not. (People vs. Clores, G.R. No. 82362, April
26, 1990, 184 SCRA 638, citing People vs. Amancio, 122 SCRA 686.)

WHEREFORE, the joint decision of the court a
quo which found Felipe de Guzman guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape on two (2) counts is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the
appellant.

Cruz, (Chairman), Grino-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Judge Crispin C. Laron

^[2]
p. 27, Brief for Accused-Appellant