PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CIPRIANO CABALLES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Criminally charged before Branch X of the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu^[1]
with nine (9) cases of rape in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-8473 to 8481, inclusive,
upon the corresponding complaints filed by his own daughter, complainant Arlene Caballes, which, except for the dates of commission of the
felony, were identically worded as having been committed thus –

“That on or about the 17th day of January, 1986, at 12:00
midnight, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being the
father of the undersigned Arlene Caballes, armed with
‘3 cantos’, with deliberate intent and by use of force and intimidation upon
said Arlene Caballes, did then and there have sexual
intercourse with said Arlene Caballes against her
will.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[2]

herein
accused-appellant, Cipriano Caballes,
pleaded his innocence to each charge of rape allegedly committed on January 17,
19, 23 and 27, February 12 and 28, March 19 and 29, and April 5,
1986.

The joint trial of said
cases culminated in the conviction of therein accused in a decision rendered by
the trial court sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case, to indemnify complainant
Arlene Caballes in the sum of P10.000.00 also in each
of the said nine cases, and to pay the costs.^[3]

The series of facts resulting in these cases as found and recounted by the trial
court in its decision, having been extensively quoted and discussed by the
prosecution and appellant in their respective briefs, the reproduction thereof
in full hereunder is called for:

“ARLENE CABALLES, 14 years old,
single, 2nd Year high school student, residing at Sambag
I, Cebu City, testified that she is the complainant in nine (9) Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-8473 to
8481, for Rape; against her own father, CIPRIANO CABALLES (Exhibits ‘A’ to
‘I’).  She is one of the daughters of the
accused and Leonora Zosa Caballes.  Her parents sired four children, namely:  Agnes, the eldest and is 16 years old, then
she is the second, followed by Alvin, 9 years old and then the youngest,
Rosanna, 7 years old.  They resided in
the upper floor of a two-storey house which is two fathoms in width by one and
a half fathoms in length and the entire undivided space is also where the whole
family sleeps.  The ground floor
occupants are her grandparents Estanislao and
Josefina Zosa, and her three cousins, who were the
daughters of her aunt Florencia Zosa,
namely:  Julieta,
Dolores and Estela.

“On January 9, 1986, her mother, Leonora Zosa
Caballes, died. 
After her mother’s death, the family lived in the same place.  In the evening, the members of the family
retire in the usual place for sleeping. 
All of them sleep on the floor because there was no bed in their
one-room abode.  Her elder sister, Agnes,
stays in one side of the room where their mother while still alive and Agnes
used to sleep.  She sleeps beside her
younger brother and younger sister.  Few
days after the death of her mother she noticed that the attitude of her father
towards her somewhat changed because she was not allowed to go out of the house
while her sisters and brother were free. 
She gradually realized that her father wanted to own and possess her.

“On January 17, 1986, at midnight, while the rest of the
family were sleeping, her father woke her up and whispered to her to
undress.  When she saw her father naked,
she got scared and did not move.  Because
of her refusal, her father poked a three-cantos knife at her neck and he
undressed her by pulling down her skirt and her panty until they were removed
from her body.  Her father then told her
to sit up and when she did, he pulled her t-shirt off her head.  She cried and her father threatened to kill
her if her cries will be heard by others. 
She was frozen with fear and was unable to shout.  Lying down totally naked, her father placed
himself on top of her, opened her thighs and slowly inserted his penis into her
vagina.  He stayed on top of her for
about four (4) minutes ‘panting and he liked it’.  She felt pain in her organ.  After her father pulled
out his penis, he told her to
dress up.  Her father lied (sic) down on
the place where she earlier slept while she sidled up with her elder sister to avoid being molested
again.  Because of what happened, she did
not sleep well the rest of the evening.

“At 4:00 o’clock in the morning, January 18, 1988, she woke up and prepared food for her younger
sister and brother who will go to school. 
She did not tell her elder sister what their father did to her because
of the threat on her life should she squeal on her father.

“On January 19, 1986, she went to sleep together with her
younger brother and sister.  Her elder
sister, Agnes, was washing clothes outside. 
Her father was then out of the house. 
About 11:00 P.M. that evening, her father woke her up and whispered to
her to undress.  When she did not move,
her father slapped her but she was able to parry his hand.  She cried and undressed herself.  Her father laid on top of her and inserted
his penis to her vagina and made a push and pull motion for about 4 minutes and
enjoyed his act.  After he pulled out his
penis, he put on his brief.  She wore her
panty and skirt.  Her father warned her
not to reveal the incident to anyone or he will kill her.  She went back to sleep on the very same place
where she was abused because her father insisted that she sleep with her
younger brother and sister.  She was
afraid to disobey for he might step on her or kick her.  The next day she did not tell her relatives
because of the threat.

“About midnight also on January 23, 1986, while she was
sleeping on the floor together with her younger brother and sister and her
elder sister Agnes was sleeping three fathoms away from them on the other side
of the room, she was touched by her father and when she woke up, he told her to
undress.  She refused and her father
slashed her duster.  With her duster
torn, her father removed her panty and abused her again with the warning that
she should allow him to do it otherwise he will kill her.  After her father pushed and pulled his penis
while inside her vagina for about three minutes, she felt pain.  Her father put on his brief while she changed clothes
because her duster was already torn.  She
lied (sic) down back to the same place with her younger brother while her
father slept next to him.  Her elder
sister, Agnes, was as usual sleeping at the other side of the room three meters
away from them.  After this third
encounter, she attempted to transfer to her elder sister but out of fear that
she might be maltreated, she had to obey her father’s order that she sleep with
her younger brother and sister.  The next
succeeding days she did not tell anyone of her ordeal because of her father’s
warning.

“On January 27, 1986, midnight, her father woke her up and
said that he wants to make love with her again but will not insert his penis
into her vagina.  Because of the standing
threat to kill her, she passively acceded. 
Her father removed her skirt. 
When she cried, her father pressed his fist on her mouth and it hurt
her.  So she stopped crying.  He removed her panty and took off her
T-shirt.  He removed his brief and laid
(sic) on top of her.  Then he inserted
his penis into her vagina and executed a push and pull movement of his organ
for about five minutes.  Thereafter, he
pulled out his penis, wore his brief. 
She cried and was indignant for having been devoured by her own father.  He warned her that if her grandmother
sleeping downstairs will hear her cry, he will kill her.  She put on her clothes and lied (sic) down
with her side towards her younger brother and sister.  Her father who was sitting beside her then
fondled her breasts for about a minute, after which he took away his hands,
lied down and went to sleep.  She went
back to sleep and woke up (at) 3:00 o’clock in the morning and prepared
breakfast for her younger sister and brother. 
The next day she did not tell her relatives about what has been being
done (sic) to her by her father.  She
suffered shock and started pondering on her predicament.

“The fifth time she was abused by her father was on midnight
of February 12, 1986.  Sleeping at that
time in the one-room house was
her elder sister who was three meters away on one side of the room, and she and
her younger sister and brother on the other side.  She wanted to sleep beside her elder sister
but the latter told her to sleep with their younger sister and brother because
she might he reprimanded by their father and their father might step on
her.  So she slept in her usual place
with her younger sister and brother.  She
was awakened when her father touched her left side and told her to
undress.  She refused.  Her father took off his brief and persuaded
her to allow him to make love because he will insert his penis into the vagina
but take it out immediately.  When she
did not comply, he threatened to kill her and said why should she refuse when
he will not insert his penis.  Her father
removed her duster first and then her panty. 
Her father fondled her breasts for about three minutes, then laid (sic)
on top of her and inserted his
penis slowly into her vagina then he pushed his organ, pulled it and pushed it
again and continued this movement for about four minutes.  After that, his (sic) father pulled out his
penis and put on his brief.  She slept
beside her younger sister while her father slept beside her and kept on
fondling her breasts.  Later, she parried
his hands and he got mad.  At 4:00
o’clock in the morning, he woke up and prepared the food for her younger sister
and brother.  By daytime, she did not
tell any of her relatives what her father did to her that night and on previous
nights because he always threatened to kill her if she tells on him.  She took a bath and hurriedly washed her
panty for fear of being detected by others that her own father abused her and
he (father) might maltreat her.  On this
fifth sexual incident she has had with her father, her 16 year old elder
sister, Agnes, became aware already because she herself confided to her that
while she was sleep, her father also fondled her breasts.

“At midnight of February 28, 1986, while sleeping in their
one-room house with her elder sister, younger brother and sister, her left side
was touched by her father who told her to take off her jogging pants.  When she defied, her father spread her thighs
and forcibly opened wide the garter of her jogging pants and pulled it down and
then he took off subsequently her panty. 
She refused the advances but her father scolded her and told her not to
refuse because he will not insert his penis into her vagina.  He took off his brief, laid on top of her and
again inserted his penis into her vagina and for about three minutes, he pushed
and pulled his organ.  And again she
cried because of what her own father has done to her.  She noticed something wet on her vagina but
didn’t know what it was all about.  She
does not know what an orgasm is because before her father, she has not yet met
a man.  He put on his brief and slept
beside her younger brother.  Although her
elder sister, Agnes, sleeps within the confines of their one-room house three meters
away from her and her younger brother and sister, she wanted to sleep with
Agnes but could not for fear of being stepped on or kicked by her father
because in the past, she was already kicked by her father twice for trying to
avoid him by sleeping with her elder sister. 
And so, as usual, she woke up at 4:00 o’clock in the morning and
prepared food for her younger sister and brother who will be going to
school.  She did not tell her aunt nor
any relative of what her father has been doing to her because she was
forewarned and threatened to be killed.

“In the evening of March 19, 1986, she went to sleep with her
T-shirt and shorts and panty on.  At
midnight, her father woke her up and told her to undress.  She refused and told her father not to molest
her because she is his very own daughter. 
Her father countered that he will make love again and she should not be
afraid because he will not insert his penis. 
She cried because she does not believe him anymore.  Her father had only his brief and she noticed
his penis bulging inside the brief.  Upon
taking off his brief, she saw his erected penis.  Her father then laid on top of her, thrust
his penis into her vagina and for about three minutes of push and pull
movement, her father stopped and put on his brief.  She cried while putting on her panty and
shorts.  For the rest of the evening she
was unable to sleep because her father slept beside her.  By 4:00 o’clock in the morning, while her father was still sleeping, she got up
and cooked for their breakfast and prepared the food for her younger sister and
brother who were schooling.  During the
time she was abused, her elder sister Agnes was sleeping in the place where she
used to sleep.  At daytime, she had a
conversation with her grandmother, aunt, elder sister and some cousins but she
never mentioned what her father has been doing to her.

“In the midnight of March 29, 1986, while sleeping in their
one room house beside her younger brother, her father transferred her younger
brother and told her to take off her duster. 
She refused and pleaded with her father to spare her because she is his
own flesh.  Her father pressed his fist
on her mouth and then pulled her strapless duster with his two hands from the garter above her breast and way down
below.  Then her father took off forcibly
also her panty that one side was partially torn.  After she was totally naked, her father took
off his briefs and laid on top of her, stuck his penis into her vagina and
pulled it, pushed it again and again for about three minutes.  His usual warning was not to tell anyone
about his acts.  Then he put on his
underwear, slept beside her younger sister, while she put back her panty and
duster and slept beside her younger brother. 
As usual, her elder sister Agnes was just sleeping in her usual place.  She got up at 4:00 o’clock in the morning and
prepared the food for breakfast.

“On April 5, 1986, midnight, while sleeping beside her younger
brother in their one-room house, her father transferred her younger brother and
placed the latter beside her younger sister. 
Then her father told her to take off her city short pants.  She refused and told her father she cannot
bear anymore what he has been doing to her. 
He pressed his fist against her mouth and she felt pain.  Her father, who was sitting near her feet
while she was lying on her back, forcibly pulled down her shorts, destroying
the button and the lock of the zipper. 
When her shorts was taken off, her father pulled down also her panty,
leaving her T-shirt on only.  When she
was naked from the waist down, her father took off his underwear and laid on
top of her.  He inserted his penis into
her vagina and undulated for about three minutes.  She cried looking at her father during three
minutes of his sexual self-satisfaction. 
Thereafter, his father placed on his underwear and she dressed up and
slept beside her younger sister.  That
night her sleep was on and off.  By 4:00
o’clock in the morning, she got up and prepared the breakfast.

“After April 5, 1986, when she could no longer bear the evil
deeds of her father, she planned to run away from home.  Agnes, her elder sister, came to know about
it and requested her (Arlene) that they leave the house together.  Agnes confided her fear that she’ll be the
next to devoured (sic) by her father because in the past, their father made
some advances on her (Agnes) already.  In
fact, her elder sister intimated to her that what has been going on in the
house is not unknown to her (Agnes) because of the sound of the floor.  And so on April 12, 1986, the two sisters
implemented their decision to quit home. 
They ran away and sought refuge in the house of their uncle, Romeo Zosa, in Lapulapu City.  Because her uncle was then in Mindanao, the
complainant told the wife of her uncle everything that happened.  Upon knowing the whole sordid thing and
fearing that the violent father of her nieces might discover that she was
hiding them and will surely maul her, she (the aunt) transferred the girls to
her sister’s house.  Few days later, the
complainant, accompanied by her elder sister Agnes and their other aunt,
Veronica Bustanillo, reported the matter to the
police headquarters at Ramos Police Station. 
After the arrest of her father, she and her father had a confrontation
before Asst. City Fiscal Solima and in the presence
of the Police investigator Arturo Sayson, Captain Colina, her grandmother, aunt Veronica Bustanillo,
her uncle Nilo Zosa
(brother of her deceased mother), her father asked for forgiveness for what he
did to her and said that if forgiven he will send his daughters to their aunt
in Mindanao and he will have nothing to do with them anymore.  Complainant, however, refused to forgive her
father.

“On the same month that she escaped from her house, she
submitted herself to an examination at the Cebu City
Medical Center and was issued a medical certificate (Exhibit ‘J’).”^[4]

As a witness for the People and on cross-examination, complainant
stated that it was only during the first time that she was abused by herein
appellant that the “3-cantos” knife was used by the latter to
intimidate her into agreeing to and keeping quiet about the detestable
act.  On the second to the ninth
incidents of sexual assault, appellant either painfully pressed his fist
against her mouth or slapped her or persuaded her to allow him to make love to
her promising that he would not insert his penis into her vagina or do so only
halfway or take it out immediately, constantly with a standing threat that he
would kill her if she told anyone what had happened.  She could not state with precision the exact
duration of nor the manner in which each sexual congress was carried out.  She is, however, certain of the seriousness of
the charges she made against her father, but because of what her father did to
her, she cannot forgive him.

The prosecution likewise presented Agnes Caballes,
the elder sister of complainant, who materially corroborated the latter’s
testimony and who herself had, at one time, been subjected to molestation by
appellant, having been fondled by him and similarly silenced into mute
submission for fear of his ire and violent character; and, Dr. Claudia Vilma Borromeo, a resident
physician of the Cebu City Medical Center assigned to
the out-patient department, who testified that on April 21, 1986 she examined
Arlene Caballes. 
Following said examination, the good doctor issued a medical certificate which states:

“P.E. Finding:

Introitus –
admits one finger with ease

Hymen – intact; no lacerations

For sperm analysis – (-) negative”^[5]

Dr. Borromeo testified that it is
possible for a woman’s hymen to remain intact even after having been raped if
said hymen is lax, thick and resistant. 
After the examination conducted by her, she found Arlene’s hymen to be
thick and very elastic.  As to the
negative sperm count on complainant’s genital organ, she explained that a sperm
normally has a lifetime of about two (2) days and she examined Arlene several
days after the last alleged sexual attack.^[6]

The defense, on the other hand, presented appellant who denied
the charges brought against him by his daughter.  He testified that since the death of his
wife, his daughters Arlene and Agnes had been sleeping in the ground floor of
the two-storey house together with their grandparents and cousins; that the
present accusations were all lies and fabrications
because his daughters wanted to do as they please without anyone stopping them;
and, that the filing of the complaints against him was upon the instigation of
some persons, particularly Aniano Tago,
Josefina Zosa and Veronica Bustanillo,
who all had an axe to grind against him.^[7]

Appellant assails the
trial court’s judgment of conviction with the following assignment of errors:

“I

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO
THE TESTIMONIES OF [A] COMPLAINANT ARLENE CABALLES AND [B] HER SISTER AGNES
CABALLES BECAUSE OF THEIR APPARENT AND PRACTICAL IMPROBABILITY AND WHOSE
CONDUCT AND PASSIVITY HAVE CAST DOUBT UPON THEIR SINCERITY, CANDOR AND
VERACITY.

“II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT
THE MEDICAL FINDINGS OF DR. CLAUDIA VILMA BORROMEO [EXH. ‘J’] BEARS CONSISTENCY
WITH THE TRUE PHYSICAL VIRGINITY OF COMPLAINANT ARLENE CABALLES, WHICH NEGATES
ALLEGATIONS OF PREVIOUS SEXUAL CONGRESS OF ARLENE CABALLES WITH APPELLANT.

“III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING
APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE SANS STRONG AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF
GUILT.”^[8]

I.   Anent the first
assigned error, appellant alleges that, considering that the room shared by the
members of his family as sleeping quarters only measured 2 fathoms in width by
1-1/2 fathoms in length and with the illumination afforded by the light
filtering through the gaps in the bamboo flooring, the consummation of the
alleged rapes as described could not have escaped notice by appellant’s other
children who slept in the same room. 
Moreover, he faults Agnes Caballes,
complainant’s elder sister, for maintaining her silence or for failing to
confront her father or sister despite having been a witness to acts which she
considers ignominious and odious.  That
conduct, appellant contends, is irreconcilable with sincerity and candor.

We agree with the
Solicitor General’s refutation of this alleged error:

“First, contrary to appellant’s claim, the silence of
Agnes about what she saw is understandable. 
She is still very young, 16 years old. 
From her testimony, the appellant who is her father is a violent
person.  In fact, the appellant
frequently maltreated his daughters Agnes and complainant Arlene.  Undoubtedly, appellant has instilled fear on
(sic) his daughters, and this could be the reason why Agnes just kept
silent.  Agnes’ silence does not mean she
approves of the sexual act committed by his father on his sister, Arlene.  While the act is detestable and odious to
Agnes’ conscience, yet Agnes was powerless to talk due to constant fear.

“On this point, the trial court said:

‘Complainant and her sister, Agnes, were one in disclosing that
they were frequently maltreated by their father, although the latter countered
that they were corporal punishments done by a father towards his daughters
whenever they commit mistakes.  What
remained undenied is that lately, after the accused
had already made sexual advances with complainant, he maltreated his two
teenage daughters without any reason at all. 
The fear he instilled on (sic) his daughters by his unmitigated
floggings caused complainant Arlene to bow down to his carnal cravings and
Agnes’ docile submission to his evil advances, like fondling her (Agnes’)
breasts.’ (p. 19, dec., p. 140, rec.; Crim. Case No. CBU­-8473)

“Second, the act was so embarrassingly humiliating that
Agnes preferred to keep quiet about it and kept the knowledge to herself
because others who may come to know about the act might ridicule not only her
father and her sister but her family as a whole.  This is the most normal human behavior in
analogous situations and verifiable by human observation and experience.

“In fact, the complainant Arlene testified that, at one time,
she was in a hurry to wash her panty so that nobody would notice what his (sic)
father had done to her because the act was so embarrassing.  x x x“^[9]

This argument of the Solicitor General is bolstered by the trial
court’s observation, to wit:

“On the part of Agnes, she must have been only trying to play
asleep because she already knew something have (sic) been going on between her
father and her sister.  In fact, during
the first carnal act, Agnes was awakened by the movement and sound of the mat
and saw her naked father on top of her undressed younger sister who was then
crying, so much so that she (Agnes) shouted enough for them to hear:  ‘What are you doing there?’ Their younger
brother and sister may have doozed (sic) off in those
nine instances when complainant was raped. 
Children are known to be sound sleepers (P. vs. Mustacisa,
G.R. 51777, Mar. 25, 1988).  Even while
her mother was still alive, Agnes was already aware of the lustful desires of
her father because whenever the latter has a chance to touch her while
sleeping, he fondles her breast.^[10]

The Solicitor General further aptly submits:

“It is strange that appellant assails largely the actuation of
Agnes, the elder sister of complainant Arlene, but not Arlene’s.  Is it because Agnes’
truthfulness corroborates Arlene’s plaints? 
It must be emphasized that even without the testimony of Agnes, the lone
testimony of complainant Arlene is enough to convict.  In fact, the assigned error boils down to
credibility of witnesses.  In this case,
both Agnes’ and Arlene’s testimonies are more than credible, and even without
Agnes, the trial court finds the testimony of complainant ‘coherent,
straight-forward and credible,’ thus:

x  x  x

‘On the witness stand, complainant Arlene Caballes
testified in a firm, spontaneous and straight-forward manner and in open court
pointed an accusing finger at her father and in an avenging tone, re-affirmed
her accusation as the man who raped her nine times.”^[11]

The father exercises such strong moral and physical influence and
control over his daughter that the force or violence, threat or intimidation
upon her need not be of such
nature and degree as would be required in other cases.^[12]
The overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over the
daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape
cases committed by an accused having no blood relationship with the victim.^[13]

As pointed out by the trial court, “the prosecutrix
was tenderly fourteen (14)
years old when she initially succumbed to the bestial acts of her father.  Arlene was young, uninitiated in sex and
would not have the slightest idea that the accused who was her own father would
have the gall to devour his own flesh and blood.  x x x As can be recalled,
the accused, in the first sexual beachhead, threatened his daughter Arlene,
with a tres-cantos knife.  On the subsequent sexual satisfaction with
his daughter, he slapped Arlene and on other occasions, he pressed his fist on
her mouth in total disregard of her (sic) daughter’s tearful plea to spare her
because she is his own flesh and blood.”^[14]

Given complainant’s naivete and
inexperience in matters of sexuality, it was improbable that she would
fabricate matters about the rapes committed against her person or concoct lies
against her own father, knowing fully well the seriousness of such charges,
even granting that she harbored abhorrence for his ways, and run the risk of
subjecting herself to humiliating and embarrassing scrutiny wrought by a public
trial.^[15]
We have repeatedly held that when a woman testifies that she has been raped,
she says all that is necessary to signify that the crime has been
committed.  For no young decent Filipina
woman would publicly admit that she had been criminally ravished unless that is
the truth, for her natural instinct is to protect her honor,^[16]
and unless motivated by an honest desire to seek justice.^[17]

Rape is a crime which is not normally committed in the presence
of witnesses, hence, the court merely relies on the credibility of
complainant’s testimony as weighed against the credibility of the accused.^[18]
To warrant a conviction in rape charges, however, the victim’s testimony must
be clear and free from contradictions.^[19]
In the case at bar, the court a quo was satisfied with Arlene’s
demeanor on the witness stand when it stated that “all told, the Court
finds the coherent and straight-forward testimony of the complainant
credible.”^[20]
Oft-repeated is the judicial principle that the findings of the trial court on
the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest respect,^[21]
considering that it had vantage opportunity to see, hear and observe the
witnesses testify and to weigh their testimonies.^[22]
Absent any abuse of discretion, oversight or disregard of circumstances of
weight as would call for a contrary conclusion, this Court is not disposed to
disturb His Honor’s findings.^[23]

II.  Appellant obstinately
maintains that the findings in the medical examination conducted on Arlene Caballes, are indicative of the true physical virginity of
complainant.  In other words, she has
supposedly never had any previous sexual experience at the time she was
examined thus belying her testimony and imputation against appellant.

What appellant fails to consider is that while the physical
condition alone of complainant’s genital organ ostensibly does not indicate
that she has been the victim of sexual assaults by her father, there is that
equal probability, which was established in this case as a fact, that she has
had sexual intercourse albeit against her will, under the loathsome
circumstances herein before narrated and borne out by the evidence for the
prosecution which appellant has failed to successfully impeach.

The testimony of Dr. Claudia Vilma Borromeo, the examining
physician who attended to Arlene Caballes, sufficiently explains and rebuts appellant’s
contentions on this point, in this wise:

“Q  –   Dr., the charge here is rape.  Is it possible for a woman to be raped and
still her hymen remains intact?

A    –   Yes,
it is possible.

Q   –   Will you explain to us why it is possible?

A    –   Some
women have lax, thick and husky hymen which can resist any degree of
penetration.

Q   –   What is the average number?

A    –   There
are a lot of them.

Q   –   What is the percentage out of 100 women?

A    –   50
to 60%.

Q   –   If there is actual penetration is it
possible that the hymen would remain intact?

A    –   As
I said yes.

Q   –   Can you explain that?

A    –   As
what I said, some vaginal opening are (sic) equipped with hymen that is thick,
lax and resistant.

Q   –   In cases of women where they have thick and
lax hymen what usually happens to this hymen during sexual intercourse?

A    –   Usually
this is lacerated.

Q   –   When there is no complete penetration, even
if the hymen is thin, let’s say there was fractional penetration, is it
possible that the hymen would not break?

A    –   Depending
on the degree of penetration and the force of the penetration.

Q   –   Is
it possible for a woman to be raped 9 times and still would not sustain any
injury or laceration in her hymen?

A   –   As
I said depending on the degree of penetration and the force of the
penetration.  And also depending on the
kind of hymen a woman has.

Q   –   Can you explain a little more on that?

A   –    As I said if the woman has a thick, elastic
or lax hymen and just a very slight degree of penetration like 1/8, 1/4
fractions proportion, then the hymen may not break.”

(Emphasis
supplied.)^[24]

As to the condition of the hymen and the negative sperm analysis,
local jurisprudence is replete with decisional holdings that total penetration
is not essential.  Any penetration of the
female genitalia by the male organ is sufficient.  Entry of the labia or lips of the female
organ merely, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is
sufficient to warrant conviction.^[25]
Moreover, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of
rape, the important consideration being, not the emission of semen, but
penetration.^[26]

As earlier noted, quite telling is Dr. Borromeo’s
testimony on this score:

“Q   –   Is it possible that a woman raped 9 times
may still be negative of any presence of spermatozoa?

A     –  
The lifetime of sperms is more or less 2 days.  I examined the patient on April 21 while the
incident happened on April 17, so there was a lapse of 4 days.  Normally the lifetime of sperms is 24
hours.”^[27]

III.  We cannot but reject
appellant’s contention that the lower court convicted him of the crime of rape
as charged “sans strong and convincing evidence of guilt.” Appellant
in this case has done nothing more than to deny having committed the offenses
charged, as most felons are wont to do. 
Contrarily, complainant’s testimony gives an indubitably credible and
detailed account of the commission of the dastardly acts.  Appellant’s mere denial constitutes
self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary
weight than the declaration of credible witnesses on affirmative matters.  Furthermore, as between a positive
and categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a bare
denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.^[28]

To our minds, and after a careful evaluation of the facts and the
evidence on record, full reliance may be placed on the prosecution’s evidence
which definitely establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, appellant’s
culpability for the extremely revolting, reprehensible and unnatural felonies
with which he is charged.  Consequently,
he must suffer the full punitive sanctions of the law in expiation of his
criminal and bestial perversion.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED, with
the modification that the indemnity to be paid by accused-appellant to
complainant for each crime of rape is increased to P30,000.00 in accordance
with the current jurisprudential rule.

SO ORDERED.

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

---

^[1]
Presided over by Judge Leonardo B. Cañares.

^[2]
Rollo, 122-124.

^[3]
Ibid., 142.

^[4]
Ibid., 125-132.

^[5]
Exhibit “J”; Original Record, 69.

^[6]
TSN, April 9, 1987, 3.

^[7]
TSN, August 6, 1987, 9.

^[8]
Brief for Appellant, 1-2.

^[9]
Brief for Appellee, 23-24.

^[10]
Rollo, 138.

^[11]
Brief for Appellee, 27.

^[12]
People vs. Franco, 114 SCRA 737 (1982).

^[13]
People vs. Erardo, 127 SCRA 250 (1984); People
vs. Cariño, 167 SCRA 285 (1988), People vs.
Ramos, 167 SCRA 439 (1988).

^[14]
Rollo, 139.

^[15]
People vs. David, 177 SCRA 551 (1989).

^[16]
People vs. Abonada, 169 SCRA 530 (1989).

^[17]
People vs. Selfaison, 1 SCRA 235 (1961); People
vs. Gan, 46 SCRA 667 (1972); People vs.
Estebal, 173 SCRA 209 (1989).

^[18]
People vs. Basiga, 169 SCRA 76 (1989); People vs.
Barranco, 177 SCRA 103 (1989).

^[19]
People vs. Geneveza, 169 SCRA 153 (1989).

^[20]
Rollo, 142.

^[21]
People vs. Villamala, et al., 78 SCRA 145
(1977).

^[22]
People vs. Payao, 68 SCRA 70 (1975).

^[23]
People vs. Modelo, 35 SCRA 639 (1970); People vs.
Ordonio, 68 SCRA 397 (1975).

^[24]
TSN, April 9, 1987, 2-3.

^[25]
People vs. Alvarez, 163 SCRA 745 (1988), citing People vs. Oscar,
48 Phil. 527 (1925) and People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980 (1925).

^[26]
People vs. Jose, 37 SCRA 450 (1971); People vs. Sato, 163 SCRA
602 (1988); People vs. Ando, Jr., 180 SCRA 412 (1989).

^[27]
TSN, April 9, 1987, 3.

^[28]
People vs. Biago, 182 SCRA 411 (1990).