PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELEUTERIO RAPTUS Y JERAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant was
charged before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City by private complainant
Arlene Cabe, a minor eleven (11) years of age, in two separate complaints for
the crime of rape.  Accused allegedly had
carnal knowledge of private complainant against her will on two separate
occasions.^[1]

The trial court, after
joint trial, found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him in its
consolidated decision of August 18, 1989, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the
accused ELEUTERIO RAPTUS y JERAY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having
committed rape as penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, on the victim Arlene Cabe as charged on October 3, 1988 under Criminal
Case No. C-31834.  This Court also finds
the accused ELEUTERIO RAPTUS y JERAY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having
committed rape on the same Arlene Cabe on November 4, 1988 under Criminal Case
No. C-31835.  This Court hereby sentences
the said accused in Criminal Case No. C-31834 to suffer imprisonment of reclusion
perpetua; to indemnify the victim, Arlene Cabe in the amount of
P25,000.00; and to pay the costs.  This
Court likewise sentences said accused in Criminal Case No. C-31835 to suffer
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the victim,
Arlene Cabe, in the amount of P25,000.00; and to pay the costs.

“The accused shall be credited with the period of time he has
undergone preventive imprisonment in the service of his sentence(s) under
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

“SO ORDERED.”^[2]

As found by the trial court, at about 12:00 noon on October 3,
1988, Arlene was playing with two other young girls named Irene and Marilou in
front of a house which was being constructed near her home.  Appellant, who resides in a house about eight
(8) meters away, called Arlene and requested her to buy P2.00 worth of Hope
cigarettes for him from the store of one Aling Belen.  Arlene bought the Hope cigarettes and then
went to the house of appellant
to deliver the cigarettes as instructed. 
After receiving the cigarettes, appellant suddenly closed the door of
the house.  There was nobody else inside
the house.  Appellant threatened Arlene and then brought her to his room. 
Once inside the room, he forcibly stripped Arlene naked.  He also took off all his clothes and,
thereafter, forcibly laid Arlene down on the floor and placed himself on
top of her.  Appellant placed his penis
inside the private organ of Arlene. 
Arlene felt pain as the penis of appellant entered her vagina.  Appellant touched Arlene’s breasts while he
was on top of the latter.  His penis was
inside Arlene’s private part for about five (5) minutes.  Arlene was unable to shout because of fear.

After this, appellant put on his clothes while Arlene also put on
her clothes.  Before leaving the house,
appellant gave Arlene P20.00 which the latter accepted.  She was threatened not to report the matter
to her mother.  Arlene went home and,
later, she spent the P20.00.

At about 10:00 o’clock  on the  morning
of November 4, 1988, Arlene was playing with other children in front of
her house.  Appellant called her and
requested her to buy Hope cigarettes worth P3.00.  After buying the cigarettes, Arlene proceeded
to an old abandoned house to give the cigarettes to appellant.  This was the place where appellant had told
Arlene to go in order to deliver the cigarettes to him.  This vacant house was about sixty (60) meters
away from the house of Arlene.  What
happened thereafter was a repetition of the first sordid incident.

Upon reaching the vacant house, Arlene gave the cigarettes to
appellant who, after receiving the cigarettes, closed the door of the vacant
house.  He quickly undressed himself and
also forcibly undressed Arlene. 
Appellant forcibly laid Arlene on the floor and then placed himself atop
Arlene.  He inserted his private organ
inside the sexual organ of Arlene, at the same time touching her breasts.  Arlene again felt pain as appellant inserted
his penis inside her vagina.  His penis
remained inside the sexual organ of Arlene for about five (5) minutes while
Arlene was lying down on the floor.  He
put on his clothes after this, while Arlene dressed up.  Before leaving the vacant house, appellant
gave Arlene P20.00.  Before she went
home, she was again threatened not to tell her mother or anybody else about the
sexual encounter.^[3]

At about 6:00 o’clock on
the evening of December 6, 1988, Evelyn Labarlado, a 23-year old neighbor of
Leticia Cabe, the mother of Arlene Cabe, went to the latter’s house at Bagong
Silang, Caloocan City.  Evelyn asked
Leticia if she had learned about the sexual molestations suffered by the
latter’s child, Arlene.  Leticia
confronted her daughter Arlene right then and there in the presence of Evelyn
Labarlado.  Arlene admitted that she was
really sexually molested by appellant “Mang Terio,” whose full name
is Eleuterio Raptus.^[4]

On December 7, 1988,
Arlene Cabe was subjected to medical examination for alleged rape at the
Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame, Quezon City.  Dr. Desiderio Moraleda, chief of the
Medico-Legal Office, conducted the medico-legal examination, and submitted
Medico-Legal Report No. M-2923-88, dated December 12, 1988, stating in part the
following –

“FINDINGS:

GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:

Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female child
subject.  Breasts are undeveloped.  Abdomen is flat and soft.

GENITAL:

There is absence of pubic hair. 
Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated with the pinkish labia
minora presenting in between.  On
separating the same are disclosed a congested vulvar mucosa and an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with
shallow, healed lacerations at 3 and 9 o’clock. 
External vaginal orifice admits the tip of the examining index finger.

CONCLUSION:

Subject is in non-virgin state physically.  There are no external signs of recent
application of any form of trauma.

REMARKS:

Vaginal and peri-urethal smears are negative for gram-negative
diplococci and for spermatozoa.”^[5]

On a sole assignment of
error that the trial court allegedly convicted appellant despite the existence
of reasonable doubt, counsel for appellant predictably attacks the credibility
of the minor victim’s testimony for want of any other possible defense.  Appellant also banks on the possibility that his disclaimer of any participation in the crime and the imputation and
shifting of culpability therefor on a gambling friend of his, one Rostum, would
prosper as a credible defense.

The Solicitor General
convincingly met the contentions of appellant, and we quote his arguments with
approval:

“Appellant contends that victim Arlene Cabe’s testimony is not
credible because —

‘1)  she did not struggle or make any outcry at
the time of the alleged rape; 2) she accepted P20.00 from the accused on two
occasions of the rape; 3) she never told her mother or any other relative(s)
about the sexual molestation.’

(Appellant’s Brief, p. 5).

“Such contention is untenable because the above cited
circumstances can be easily explained by the fact of the victim’s tender age.  It should be noted that Arlene Cabe, at the
time of the rape, was only 11 years old. 
Considering her young age, she could easily have been intimidated by the
appellant.  In fact, appellant threatened
her with a knife at the time of the first rape on October 3, 1988 (Tsn., p. 17,
March 14, 1989).

“Anent appellant’s claim that the victim did not tell anyone
about the rape, this is belied by the record, particularly by the victim’s own
testimony, to wit:

‘Q.    Sometime on December 6, 1988, do you
remember if your mother confronted you in connection with the sexual acts done
to you by Mang Terio?

A.           
Yes, sir.

Q.         
What did your mother tell you on that occasion?

A.           
I reported all the things that Mang Terio did,
sir.

Q.         
Did you come to know how your mother came to
know about these sexual acts done to you by Mang Terio?

A.      I reported it to
her, sir.  (Tsn., March 14, 1989, p. 10)’

“Hence, the victim’s actuations were, contrary to appellant’s
contention, as natural as those expected of an 11-year old and grade-four
student, which she was.

x     x    
x

“Appellant insists that ‘what makes Arlene’s testimony
incredible is the identical manner by which she was allegedly raped by the
accused on October 3, 1988 and November 4, 1988.’ (Appellant’s Brief, p. 5)

“An analysis of the victim’s statements on what transpired
immediately prior to and during the rape, reveals that there is nothing
incredible in what Arlene Cabe told the Court.

“Firstly, with respect to the manner she was led by the
appellant to go inside the latter’s house (requesting her first to buy
cigarettes and deliver them to his house), this modus operandi
of the appellant indeed happened. 
Hence, the witness’ repetition of the appellant’s modus operandi
resorted to by him on the two occasions she was raped shows her tenacity to
tell the truth.

“Secondly, anent the appellant’s insertion of his penis inside
the victim’s vagina, there is no other way rape can be committed.  Thus, the repetition of this circumstance in
the victim’s account of the two rape incidents is logical and credible.

“Lastly, the fact that appellant’s penis was inside the
victim’s sex organ for five minutes in both instances is not an indicator of
the falsity of the victim’s testimony, but rather, reflects more of the
appellant’s sexual prowess, or his lack of it.

“Hence, complaining witness Arlene Cabe cannot be faulted for
giving similar accounts of the two rape incidents.

x     x    
x

“Appellant tries to capitalize on the victim’s alleged use of
obscene language (‘kinakantot n’ya ako’) when she testified in Court to attack
the witness’ credibility.  Again, this
contention is untenable for the simple reason that calling a spade a spade is
not an alteration or distortion of the truth. 
Moreover, this can be attributed to the victim’s tender age and innocence.  Thus, the limited vocabulary and lack of
malice in uttering such words.

x     x    
x

“In the case at bar, the trial court lends credence to the
testimony of the victim Arlene Cabe after observing that – – –

‘Despite her minority, Arlene Cabe was well composed during her
testimony.  She has a normal
intelligence.  She answered, the
questions addressed to her promptly.  She
was credible.  She described the force
and intimidation employed against her by the accused in her
cross-examination.  (Tsn., March 14,
1989, pp. 17; 20-21; 23).

‘Arlene testified that the accused
had carnal knowledge of her on October 3, 1988 and on November 4,
1988.  This was corroborated by the
medico-legal findings made when Arlene was examined on December 7, 1988.  Given the naivete and age of the complainant,
it is difficult to conceive that her rape charges were fabricated.  The fact that after the first rape, the
complainant did not stay away from the accused who was able to gain carnal
knowledge of her again is explicable from her young age and fear (People vs.
Bano, 142 SCRA 476).’

(Decision, p. 4)

“Clearly, therefore, the trial court was completely justified
in finding complaining witness Arlene Cabe’s testimony credible.”^[6]

The gravamen of the
offense of statutory rape, as provided in Article 335, paragraph 3 of the
Revised Penal Code, is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12)
years of age at the time she was raped; proof of intimidation or force used on
her, or lack of it, is immaterial.^[7] Furthermore, in this case, after each act
the appellant threatened to kill complainant if she would tell anyone about his
lascivious acts, each threat installing fear in the mind of the minor,
which made her an “easy prey in his subsequent sallies.”^[8]

Appellant further claims that it was incredible for Arlene, after
the rape, to nonchalantly go out clutching the twenty-peso bill and to continue playing with her
friends.  To him, it was unlikely that a
young girl traumatized by a rape would act thereafter in a natural
fashion.  Yet, even among adults,
different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation,
and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is
confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.^[9]

More important, appellant fails to consider that the victim is
still of tender age.  A child who is only
eleven (11) years old may not yet know or fully realize the detestable nature
and gravity of he acts committed upon her person.  A child can easily be made to believe
otherwise, as could have been the case of Arlene.  On the other hand, 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.^[10]
It should be borne in mind that
this case involves a victim of tender years and limited schooling whose actions
under such difficult and trying
circumstances are dominated more by fear than by reason.  She cannot be expected to have such exceptional
courage as to disregard a threat on her life.^[11]

But even assuming that
Arlene may have innocently or otherwise dispensed of her sexual favors as
alleged by appellant, particularly if she were paid for it, such fact cannot
change the revolting truth that appellant molested an 11-year old child.  Rape is committed even if the girl under
twelve (12) years old consented to the sexual act or, for that matter, even if
she were a prostitute.

The court below found the
testimony of Arlene Cabe credible and convincing.  It is a firmly settled doctrine that the
findings of the trial court, which had the inestimable advantage of observing
the detailed demeanor of the witnesses are entitled to great respect.^[12] Nor has appellant invoked any justification
for a departure from this rule.

Regarding the competency
of a child to testify, the decision of this question rests primarily with the
trial judge, who sees the proposed witness, notices his manner, his apparent
possession or lack of intelligence, as well as his understanding of the
obligations of an oath.  As many of these
matters cannot be photographed into the record, the decision of the
trial judge will not be disturbed on review, unless from what is preserved it
is clear that it was erroneous.^[13]

It is the theory of
appellant that the rape case against him was fabricated by mother and daughter
since they have a pique against
him.  The Court considers this final
argument as nothing but a wild and desperate concoction by appellant in order
to evade punishment for his ignominious acts of perversion.  Surely, it is inconceivable that a mother
would draw her young daughter into a rape scam, with all its attendant scandal
and humiliation, just to rid herself of an unwanted stranger.^[14]

WHEREFORE, the
judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED,
with the modification that accused-appellant is hereby ORDERED to pay complainant Arlene Cabe
an increased indemnity of P30,000.00 in Criminal Case No. C-31834 and another P30,000.00 in Criminal Case No.
C-31835, in line with current jurisprudence.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, and Padilla, JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., on leave.

^[1]
Original Record, Criminal Case No. C-31834, 2; Original Record, Criminal Case
No. C-31835, 2.

^[2]
Penned by Judge Rene Victoriano, Original Record, 62.

^[3]
Appellee’s Brief, 4-6.

^[4]
Decision, Criminal Cases Nos. C-31834 and C-31835; Original Record, 59.

^[5]
Exhibits “E” to “E-4.”

^[6]
Appellee’s Brief, 7-11.

^[7]
People vs. Mangalino, 182 SCRA 329 (1990); People vs. De la Cruz,
56 SCRA 84 (1974).

^[8]
People vs. Derpo, 168 SCRA 447 (1988).

^[9]
People vs. Ronquillo, 184 SCRA 236 (1990).

^[10]
People vs. Oydoc, 125 SCRA 250 (1983).

^[11]
People vs. Cruz, Sr., 151 SCRA 609 (1987).

^[12]
People vs. Aboga, et al., 147
SCRA 404 (1987); People vs. Estenzo, etc., et al., 72 SCRA 428 (1976).

^[13]
Wheeler vs. U.S., 159 U.S. 523.

^[14]
People vs. Bacani, 181 SCRA 393 (1990).