PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELEE, VS. EDGARDO MANUEL Y GALANG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This case chronicles the harrowing experiences of a young girl,
barely 14, at the hands of a member of the same household; twice snatched from
sleep in the dead of night, her will to resist sapped by being made to smoke
marijuana at knife-point, twice forced to submit in silence to that which her
sex would consider the ultimate invasion — rape.

The Court is called upon to review the conviction of the accused
on two informations filed before the trial court, ordering Edgardo Manuel y
Galang to suffer reclusion perpetua and pay the victim the amounts of
P40,000.00 as indemnity and P10,000.00 as moral damages for each rape.^[1]

Emma Ruth Rabago was 13 years and eleven months old when the
alleged rapes occurred in 1989. She
shared residence at 1163 Kagitingan Street, Tondo, Manila, with her sisters
(Estela and Anne Marie Garcia), cousins (Jeffrey Manlili, Josephine Rabago) and
niece (Jaja Manuel), as well as with Edgardo Manuel, the accused, and his
mother Lucy Manuel. Emma’s mother, Lucy
Paclibar Rabago was then working in Saipan.

The first information alleges —

“That on or about the 21st day of July, 1989, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge with (sic) the
undersigned complainant, a minor, 14 years of age, by then and there forcing
her to smoke marijuana, thereby making her dizzy, weak and unable to resist,
undressing her, threatening to kill her, lying on top of her and inserting his
penis into her private parts, then succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her,
against her will and consent.”^[2]

A second information, alleging substantially the same facts,
averred that the complainant was also raped on the 23d of June, 1989.^[3]
On arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges. Upon order of the trial court, the cases
were consolidated and tried jointly.^[4]

The prosecution built its case primarily on the testimony of the
complainant. Emma Rabago testified that
on the night of June 23, 1989, while sleeping in her unlit room with her sister
Estela P. Garcia, Edgardo entered, smoking a marijuana cigarette, holding a balisong. He
tapped her on the shoulder, pointed the balisong at her neck and threatened to kill her if
she would shout. Emma did not shout,
fearing for her safety. She smoked the
marijuana as ordered.^[5]
Edgardo, while keeping the weapon levelled at her neck, then carried her to the
floor and removed her clothing. He lay
on top of her, inserted his penis in her vagina several times. She felt pain, but did not struggle or
resist because she was very weak.^[6]

Emma testified that she reported the incident to two neighbors, a
certain Auntie Nitz, friend of her mother, and one Linda Borillo, another
neighbor, but nothing came of the reports. She did not tell anyone else of the rape.^[7]

She narrated the events that led to the second rape on July 21,
1989, stating that it took place at around 1:00 o’clock in the morning, while
sleeping with Estella Garcia on the same bed. Emma claims that she woke up on the floor, apparently having been
carried there by Edgardo, who again made her smoke marijuana while pointing a balisong at her neck. When the drug had taken effect on
Emma, Edgardo removed her clothes, lay on top of her and inserted his penis
into her vagina. She again felt pain,
unable to offer any struggle against Edgardo, however, as she was overcome by
weakness.^[8]

This time, she reported the incident again to her Ate Linda, then
to the police on Aug. 13, 1989, with the assistance of her mother, who had
returned from Saipan. On
cross-examination, Emma stated that she also reported the rapes to her father
and brother, who did nothing. The
latter advised her, however, to wait for her mother.

Adoracion Paclibar-Rabago, mother of Emma, testified that she
entrusted her children, Emma, Anne Marie Garcia and Estella Garcia, to Lucy
Manuel, mother of Edgardo. It was,
however, Linda Borillo, her friend, who called overseas and told her to come
home as her daughter had been raped. She returned to the Philippines on Aug. 10, 1989. The next day, she had Emma examined at the
NBI by medico-legal officer, Dr. Noel B. Minay, who prepared a report which
indicates the presence of a “healed hymenal laceration.”^[9]

It was also learned at the trial that Edgardo was the defendant
in another case for acts of lasciviousness allegedly committed on Anne Marie
Garcia by touching her private parts.^[10]

The evidence of the defense, on the other hand, consists mainly
of denial.

Edgardo testified that on the night of June 23, 1989, he was
sleeping in the sala of the house of Adoracion Paclibar. He denied forcing Emma Ruth to smoke
marijuana and claimed he could not have raped her on either of the alleged
dates since three other persons slept in the room — Anne Marie Garcia, Anthony
Rabago and Estella Garcia.^[11] Nor
could he have carried Emma to the floor because that is where Anthony
slept. He claimed that it was Anthony
Rabago smoking marijuana, not he.^[12]

Pressed for a reason for the filing of criminal cases against
him, Edgardo asserted that it was instigated by a certain Linda Hernandez
(godmother of Emma^[13]) who
became envious when Adoracion entrusted her children to his mother, Lucy
Manuel. He claims Linda was angered
when his mother refused to lend her money, so she convinced the children to
create a scandal that would drive him and his mother out of the house.^[14]

Edgardo also said that he was confronted about the reported rape
of Emma by Adoracion Paclibar when she returned from Saipan. He refused to marry her, as demanded by
Adoracion, because he was “not in love with Emma Ruth Rabago and * * the
family is very troublesome,” the daughters having different fathers. He was surprised when policemen arrived to
arrest him, thinking that Adoracion was only joking when she said she would
file charges against him.^[15]

The defense presented Danilo Forte, who testified that he saw
Adoracion Paclibar, the mother of the complainant, having a beer with one
Leandro Ibarra at the store of Aling Virgie. Forte testified that Adoracion said to the two persons she was speaking
with: “You witnessed, even if a
person is innocent, I was able to have him incarcerated.”^[16]
The statement, Forte claims, was made in the presence of many persons, and
clearly in reference to the accused.

The trial court, through Assisting Judge Willelmo C. Fortun,^[17]
promulgated its decision on April 29, 1992, the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Edgardo Manuel y
Galang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of “Rape”
charged in Crim. Cases No. 89-76010 and 89-76011, and pursuant to Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, hereby sentences him as follows:

“(1) In Crim. Case No. 89-76010, accused is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify
Emma Ruth P. Rabago in the amount of P40,000.00, plus P10,000.00, as moral
damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the
costs;

“(2) In Crim. Case No. 89-76011, accused is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify Emma Ruth P. Rabago in the amount of P40,000.00, plus P10,000.00, as
moral damages without subsidiary imprisonment in the case of insolvency, and to
pay the costs.”

In this appeal, the accused assigns the following errors to the trial
court, viz.: (1) finding the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape charged in Crim.
Case Nos. 89-76010 and 89-76011; (2) sentencing the accused to the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each case; (3) ordering the
accused to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of P40,000.00 plus
P10,000.00 as moral damages in each case, and; (4) not giving “due
course” to (i.e., ignoring) the inconsistencies between the sworn
statement of the complainant before the police and her testimony before the
trial court.^[18]

At the outset, it must be pointed out that the medical
certificate allegedly issued following the medical examination of the private
complainant is not reliable evidence as to the fact of rape. The document appears to have been prepared
by Noel B. Minay, M.D., of the­ Medico-Legal
Division of the NBI, the examining physician. He was, however, out of the country during the trial. The prosecution attempted, nonetheless, to
introduce the certificate in evidence against the accused by presenting Dr.
Nieto M. Salvador,^[19]
whose competence was limited to identifying the signatures of his colleagues
which appeared on the document.^[20] The
medical certificate of Dr. Minay as to the condition of the complainant’s
genitalia must be regarded as hearsay, the accused never having had the
opportunity to confront and cross-examine him.^[21]
Evidence of this nature deserves, as it possesses, no credibility
whatever. It cannot, therefore,
establish any fact as to the condition of the genitalia of the victim.

Essentially, therefore, the Court is called upon to resolve the
conflicting claims of the complainant and the accused. Reference to well-settled jurisprudence of
this Court removes the difficulty of this task. As against the positive identification by the private
complainant, mere denials of accused cannot prevail to overcome conviction by
the trial court.

Appellant would persuade the Court that inconsistencies in the
statements of the private complainant suffice to destroy her credibility,
questioning her claim of having reported the rapes to several persons. He rejects the possibility of consummating
sexual congress in a room where other persons were sleeping. Moreover, he attempts to impute ill-motive
to the complainant and other persons for filing of these charges against him.

These protestations are unavailing and discussed forthwith, seriatim.

The Court had occasion to note the difficulty that young girls
have in coming forward to denounce an unwelcome sexual assault:

“One should not expect a fourteen-year old girl to act like an
adult or mature and experienced woman who would know what to do under such
difficult circumstances and who would have the courage and intelligence to
disregard a threat on her life * * and complain immediately that she had been
forcibly deflowered. It is not uncommon
for young girls to conceal for some time the assaults on their virtue because
of the rapist’s threat on their lives, more so when the rapist is * * living
with her.”^[22]

The Court is similarly not convinced that the discrepancies
between complainant’s testimony in court and what she deposed in the affidavit
she signed at the police station on August 13, 1989 destroy her credibility.

“The general rule has always been that discrepancies between
the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the
witness stand do not necessarily discredit him since ex parte affidavits
are generally incomplete. Affidavits
are generally subordinated in importance to open Court declarations because
they are oftentimes executed when an affiant’s mental faculties are not in such
a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident
which has transpired. Further, affidavits
are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind because they
are generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply
signs them after the same have been read to them.”^[23]

The fact is that Emma did report the matter to her mother
immediately upon the latter’s arrival from Saipan, and this after earlier
confiding in Linda Borillo, who had called her mother overseas. It is entirely natural and in accord with
ordinary experience that a girl of her tender years would need the presence and
support of her parent to go through the ordeal of a physical examination,
reporting to the police and testifying against her rapist in open court. The Court has reviewed the testimony of Emma
and finds the same to be forthright and unwavering, and her identification of
the accused positive and certain.

Nor is the Court impressed by the claim that the charges against
the accused were filed by complainant because Edgardo refused to marry
her. On the contrary, it seems more in
accord with reality that the offer to marry Emma was a result of the reported
rape, intended to spare her from the dishonor of Edgardo’s uninvited lust. Surely, no mother would prod her own
daughter to expose herself to humiliation and public curiosity for no good
reason. Nor could it be expected that Emma
would, on her own, venture into the embarrassment of a rape investigation and
trial on trumped-up charges, given the Filipino woman’s well-known modesty and
reticence.^[24]

Accused attempts exculpation on the theory that the presence of
other persons in the room renderred it impossible to commit the alleged rapes. He maintained that it was not possible to carry Emma on the
floor, since that is where her brother Anthony slept, in such a way as to
obstruct ingress to or egress from the room.^[25]

The Court has ruled repeatedly that the crime of rape may be
committed even when rapist and victim are not alone. Rape may take only a short time to consummate, given the anxiety
of discovery, especially when committed near sleeping persons oblivious to the
goings-on. Thus, the Court has held
that rape is not impossible even if committed in the same room while the
rapist’s spouse was sleeping,^[26] or in a small room where other family
members also slept.^[27]

Finally, appellant questions the imposition of separate penalties
for each of the offenses charged. He
forwards, however, no ground to show any infirmity in the judgment. Suffice it to say that the appealed judgment
correctly, and in accordance with law, penalizes the accused for what the
evidence established to be two (2) separate and independent offenses of rape.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED,
without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Regalado, Puno, and
Mendoza, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Decision of Hon. Willelmo C. Fortun in Crim. Case Nos. 89-76010-11, assisting
judge of Branch V, RTC of Manila, April 29, 1992.

^[2]
Information in Crim. Case No. 89-76010.

^[3]
The information in Crim. Case No. 89-76011 substantially replicates the first,
but for the allegations that the rape took place on June 23, 1989 and that the
accused threatened to kill the complainant.

^[4]
August 24, 1989; Vol. II, Original Record at 6.

^[5]
TSN of Aug. 20, 1990, at 8-10.

^[6]
Id., at 11-17.

^[7]
Id., at 17-19.

^[8]
Id., at 20-22.

^[9]
Exh. B.

^[10]
TSN of August 10, 1989 at 9.

^[11]
TSN of January 11, 1991 at 5, 6.

^[12]
Id.

^[13]
See TSN of August 8, 1989 at 22

^[14]
Id. at 7.

^[15]
Id. at 9.

^[16]
TSN March 18, 1991 at 4.

^[17]
Pursuant to Adm. Order no. 68-92, Judge Fortun was designated to assist in the
disposition of this inerited case.

^[18]
Brief for the Appellant, Rollo at 37.

^[19]
Officer of the Medico-Legal Division of the NBI.

^[20]
TSN September 11, 1990 at 9; SEE also §34 of Rule 130, Rules of Court.

^[21]
U.S. v. Lorenzana, 12 Phil. 64; De Guia v. Manila Electric
Railroad & Light Co., 40 Phil. 706; and Peo. v. Marcedonio, 192 SCRA 579
(December 21, 1990).

^[22] Peo. v. Ignacio, G.R. Nos.
106644-45, June 7, 1994, citing Peo.
v. Oydoc, 125 SCRA 250; Cf. Peo. v. Sonico, 156 SCRA 419; see also Peo.
v. lbay, G.R. No.
101631, June 8, 1994, citing Peo. v.
Olivar, 215 SCRA 759
(1992).

^[23]
Peo. v Sarellana, G.R. Nos. 102056-57, June 8, 1994; Peo. v. Ponferada, 220 SCRA 46 (1993), citing Peo. v. Dumpe, 183 SCRA 547 (1990); see also Peo. v. Gonzales, 99 SCRA 697 (1980).

^[24]
See Peo. v. Ansioko, 131 SCRA 486; Peo. v. Resane, 132 SCRA 711

^[25]
TSN, Jan. 11, 1991 at 6.

^[26]
Peo. v. Ignacio, supra at
note 23

^[27]
Peo. v. Cervantes, 222 SCRA 365 (1993).