PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO SABELLINA AND CRISANTO BACULIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

RICARDO SABELLINA and CRISANTO BACULIO appeal from the decision
of the court a quo^[1] convicting them of rape, and
sentencing each of them to reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify
the complaining witness in the amount of P12,000.00.

On 22 August 1988, at around two o’clock in the morning, in
Tagpaco, Sinalac, Initao, Misamis Oriental, 13-year old Evangeline Sabellina
was sleeping in their house together with her parents Moises and Natividad,
brothers Eddie, Ely and Rito, and sisters Jocelyn, Evelyn and Marina. Evangeline was roused from her sleep by
persons calling out repeatedly, “Nong Moises, Nang Vidad, all of you come
down so that blood will not flow.”

Natividad peeped through the bamboo slits of their house and
recognized Ricardo Sabellina and Crisanto Baculio as the persons shouting. Ricardo is the cousin of Evangeline, the
nephew of Moises, and the common-law husband of Evangeline’s half-sister Alicia
Galarpe. Responding to the call,
Natividad shouted at Ricardo, “Dong, just come upstairs because it is muddy downstairs.” The
T-shirts of Ricardo and Crisanto were wet.

Ultimately, all the members of the Moises Sabellina household had
to go down. At gunpoint, they were told
by Ricardo to line up near the canal. He told them not to move because, according to him, what he and Crisanto
were doing was “strafing.” Ricardo struck Natividad on the head, back
and hands with his gun and then hit Moises on the right shoulder and back. Natividad asked the appellants what they
wanted, and Crisanto answered that he was getting Jocelyn, who at that time was
pregnant by him, so she could give birth in his house.

While holding a knife, Crisanto warned the Sabellina family that
he would kill them and throw their bodies to the Alubigid River if they
resisted.

Ricardo and Crisanto then tied Moises and Natividad
Sabellina. While Ricardo was holding
the family at bay with a gun, Crisanto forcibly led Evangeline to the lower
portion of the house and then ordered her to remove her panties, threatening
her with death if she refused. After
Evangeline complied he told her to lie down. She resisted but Crisanto kicked her on the
thigh until she fell to the ground. He
took off his trousers and briefs, pressed his knees on her thighs, and the
inevitable had to happen. He inserted his
penis into her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her. Evangeline cried, but Crisanto asked her,
“Which do you prefer, the lives of your parents or we consummate
this?” Evangeline could not answer.

After the sexual congress, Crisanto brought Evangeline back to
the house and told Ricardo, “Commander, she did not squeal.” Ricardo
then took hold of Evangeline and brought her back to the place where Crisanto
raped her. There Ricardo also ordered
Evangeline to remove her panties, warning her that he would stab her if she
resisted his advances. Like Crisanto,
Ricardo also ordered her to lie down and then inserted his penis into her sex
organ. After satiating his libido, Ricardo
brought Evangeline back to where her parents were. He and Crisanto warned the whole family not to go up to their
house because they would come back.

After the rapists left, Evangeline and her mother went to their
neighbor Marceliano Bullecer, a member of the Civilian Home Defense Force
(CHDF), and reported the outrage. Bullecer with some companions went to arrest Ricardo and Crisanto, took
them to the Army Camp at Camilon and then to the Initao Police Station where
they were investigated. The police
authorities also questioned Evangeline and Natividad.

Evangeline was subsequently taken by her mother to the clinic of
Dr. Concepcion R. Banogon, a government physician, for physical
examination. Dr. Banogon found the
vagina of Evangeline with laceration at 7 o’clock position with fresh oozing
blood upon insertion of a finger. It was
also found positive for spermatozoa.

The version of the defense is that Ricardo Sabellina, 33,
married, and a detention prisoner of the Provincial Jail of Cagayan de Oro City
was at home with his family in Sinalac, Inatao, at dawn of 22 August 1988; that
appellant Crisanto Baculio arrived at five o’clock in the afternoon of the
previous day, 21 August 1988; that they stayed there and drank tuba with
friends until six o’clock in the
morning of 22 August 1988; that they stayed indoors during that time as it
rained; that after Crisanto and other guests left, Ricardo was arrested by
Antonio Quintera, a CHDF member, and brought to the Camilon Military Detachment
in Sinalac. Ricardo claimed that he was
maltreated and forced to confess participation in the rape of Evangeline but
refused to admit guilt. He was then
taken to the Initao Police Station and incarcerated. When asked as to what could be the reason for the charge against
him and Crisanto, Ricardo replied that Evangeline’s family was mad at him for
being the common-law husband of her sister Jocelyn.

Appellant Crisanto Baculio advanced the same story of a drinking
spree the whole night of 21 August 1988 until the following morning of 22
August 1988. He claimed that the rape
charge was a lie.

In this appeal, accused-appellants contend that the trial court
erred (a) in giving credence to the testimonies of Evangeline and her mother,
(b) in holding that they (both accused) were positively identified, and (c) in
convicting them of rape.^[2]

As regards the first assigned error, accused-appellants allege
that the medical certificate presented by the prosecution does not show that
rape was committed because of the absence of extragenital or bodily injuries. Appellants further argue that the testimonies of the victim and
her mother are replete with inconsistencies thus –

One. On direct
examination by the prosecution as to what unusual incident she witnessed at
2:00 o’clock dawn of August 22, 1988, she went on to describe how two persons
went to their house, called her parents and asked them to come down, and after
they came down, she was allegedly raped by CRISANTO BACULIO and later by
RICARDO SABELLINA x x x x
However, on cross-examination, when she was asked when the alleged rape
happened, she could not recall the exact date and merely uttered “August
3, 19.”

Two. She mentioned
that the two persons who called them “continued pointing their guns to my
parents.” But on cross-examination, she tried to clarify that there was
only one gun and one knife. Complainant
gave no description of the gun that was used. Accused CRISANTO BACULIO allegedly held a gun, while accused RICARDO
SABELLINA held the knife. This is
inconsistent with the testimony of her mother that accused RICARDO SABELLINA
was the one holding the gun and accused CRISANTO BACULIO was holding the knife.

Three. She testified
that when they were outside their house she was asked to stand up and accused
CRISANTO BACULIO brought her to the lower portion of the house where she was
allegedly raped. Her mother, in turn,
testified that accused CRISANTO BACULIO picked up her daughter and said
“Nang Vidad, I will only ask something from your daughter.”
Complainant never mentioned about this utterance.

Four. Again on
direct examination, she stated that they were asked to come down from the house
and they did so for fear that they would be shot at. But on cross-examination, she stated that her mother answered the
calls of the two persons by saying, “Dong, you may come upstairs so we can
have our conversation here because it is muddy downstairs.” Then she
stated that her mother later opened the door to let the accused in the
house.”^[3]

Lastly, appellants submit that there was no showing at all that
Evangeline cried or tried to resist their advances.

The trial court gave full faith and credit to the testimony of
Evangeline that she was raped by appellants Ricardo Sabellina and Crisanto
Baculio. It is axiomatic that the
evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a witness is accorded with
the highest respect because it is the trial court that has the direct
opportunity to observe the witness on the stand and determine if she is telling
the truth or not,^[4]
except when such evaluation was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight
and substance which could have affected
the result of the case.^[5] But none of such exceptions can be
applied in this case to the court a quo.

The contention of the defense that the absence of contusions or
external injuries on the body of Evangeline
belies her testimony that she was kicked on her thigh by appellant Baculio is
pointless. We have ruled time and again
that the absence of external signs of physical injuries does not negate rape.^[6]

We find no substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of
Evangeline and her mother. In fact,
when read and taken together, their statements agree on material points. Although there may be minor lapses in the
testimony of Evangeline, these are to be expected of a person recounting
details of a humiliating experience which are painful to recall. The fact that she was not able to mention
the date of the rape when she was asked for the second time is not fatal to the
prosecution. The precise date when
victim was sexually abused is not an essential element of the offense.^[7]

With regard to the issue on who of the appellants was holding a
gun and who was holding a knife when each of them raped Evangeline is clearly
explained in her testimony:

Q.   After
that, what did they do?

A.    This
Crisanto Baculio brought me to the lower portion of our house and upon reaching
that place he told me to put off my panty.

Q.   Did you do as ordered?

A.    Yes
sir, because Crisanto Baculio told me that if I would not take off my panty he
would kill and shot (sic) me with his gun.

Q.   How
about Ricardo Sabellina, what did he do, if any?

A.    He
was still in our house.

Q.   Crisanto
Baculio was the one who brought you to the lower portion of your house?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   What
did he do after he commanded you to take off your panty?

A. After that, he told me to lie down. I did not but he kicked me hitting my thigh and I fell down to the
ground, then he used his two knees on top of my thigh x x x x

Q.   When
you were able to lie down and Crisanto Baculio was already on top of you, what
happened next?

A. He inserted his penis inside my vagina x x x x Then
he was on the push and pull movement xxx

Q.   After
that, what happened next?

A.    He
brought me back to our house and he told Ricardo Sabellina ‘Commander, she did
not squeal x x x x’

Q.   After
that, what happened next?

A. Ricardo Sabellina brought me to the same place where Crisanto Baculio
had brought me and he told me to remove my panty x x x x He told me to remove
my panty while he was removing his trousers and he told me to lie down and he
inserted his penis inside my vagina and made a push and pull movement.

Q.   What
did you do at that time?

A.    I
just cried. I could not do anything. He warned me not to cry because if I do
(sic) so, he would stab me with his knife he was holding.

Q.   Was
he able to have a sexual intercourse with you?

A.    Yes,
sir^[8] (Underscoring
supplied).

As clearly demonstrated above, Evangeline testified in a direct and
straightforward manner that when she was raped first by appellant Baculio, the
latter had his gun with which he threatened her and when appellant Sabellina
later took his turn in raping her, he threatened her with a knife. If there were other matters that Evangeline
might have forgotten to include in her narration, it is worthy to note that a rape victim is not and cannot be
expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic experience.^[9]

The defense argues that the failure of Evangeline to cry and resist
the advances of appellants weakens her claim that she was raped. We cannot accept this proposition. Force or violence and intimidation required
in rape cases are relative. When
applied, force need not be overpowering or irresistible.^[10]
Given the circumstances under which Evangeline found herself, her inability to
shout or offer tenacious resistance did not mean she willingly submitted to the
sexual onslaught. This Court has
repeatedly ruled that intimidation includes the moral kind, such as the fear
caused by threatening the girl with a pistol or knife.^[11]
Rape was committed when intimidation was used on the victim and the latter
submitted against her will because of fear for her life or personal safety.^[12]

In their second and third assigned errors, appellants claim that
they have not been categorically identified as the persons who raped Evangeline
because she and her mother even admitted that at the time assailants wore
masks.

We are convinced, as the trial court was, that Evangeline and her
mother positively recognized both accused as the rapists. Referring to her affidavit on direct
examination, Evangeline testified that she saw two persons wearing masks, one
was carrying a gun and the other a stainless knife that was pointed at
them. She asserted that she recognized
their voices as well as their sizes and they were Ricardo Sabellina and
Crisanto Baculio. She said that they
even hit her mother.^[13]
Specifically, Evangeline explained that she recognized the voices of Sabellina
and Baculio because sometimes they would meet each other on the way and
sometimes “on a drinking spree.”^[14]

Evangeline’s mother, Natividad Sabellina, likewise positively
identified the appellants –

Q.   In
your affidavit, you stated that two men, the accused, entered your house with
masks?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Considering
that circumstance, will you please tell us if you recognized them to be the
accused in this case?

A.    I
recognized them.

Q.   Speaking of Crisanto Baculio, how did
you recognize him when he was masked?

A.    I
recognized them after they made sexual intercourse with my daughter because
they took off their masks.

Q.   You
mean they took off their masks after the accused made their sexual intercourse?

A.    Yes
sir, after
they were through with my daughter, they conducted my daughter to our house.^[15]

As the court a quo found, the victim’s account was given in a clear manner without
any indication that the same was motivated by any ill feeling, and that her
testimony was buttressed by the corroborative testimony of her mother and the
findings in the medical report. The
contention of the defense that the rape charge was fabricated by Evangeline’s
mother because of hatred for appellants is completely baseless. It is inconceivable that a mother would draw
her young daughter into a rape scam with all its attendant scandal and
humiliation just because of a supposed feud.^[16] No
mother in her right mind could possibly wish to stamp her child falsely with
the stigma that follows a heinous crime that is rape.^[17]

The affirmance of the conviction for rape of accused-appellants
is thus inescapable. Not only
that. They should in fact be ordered
each to indemnify the complaining witness in the increased amount of P50,000.00
instead of P12,000.00, or a total of P100,000.00 for both accused.

Under prevailing jurisprudence, the accused in rape cases is normally sentenced to
pay the victim P30,000.00 for moral damages. But under certain circumstances, this Court has awarded moral damages of
P50,000.00 such as in rape of young girls with ages ranging from thirteen (13)
to nineteen (19) years.^[18]
Accordingly, considering that Evangeline Sabellina was only thirteen (13) years
old when she was helplessly raped in succession by the two accused-appellants
and taking into account the immeasurable havoc it can bring to her youthful
feminine psyche, the Court deems it fair and just that she be awarded
P50,000.00 as moral damages to be paid by each appellant.

WHEREFORE, the conviction for rape by the court a
quo
of accused-appellants RICARDO SABELLINA and CRISANTO BACULIO and the
imposition upon each of them of a prison term of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED. However, the award for moral damages
to be paid by each accused-appellant to complaining witness EVANGELINE
SABELLINA is increased to P50,000.00, or a total of P100,000.00 for both, plus
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Regional Trial Court, Br. 19; Cagayan de Oro City, decision penned by Judge
Anthony E. Santos, Rollo, pp. 19-29.

^[2]
Brief for Accused-Appellants, pp. 21-36.

^[3]
Id., pp. 25-26.

^[4]
People v. Eduardo de la Cruz, G.R. No. 108180, 8 February 1994.

^[5]
Ibid.

^[6]
People v. Arnan, G.R. No. 72608, 30 June 1993, 224 SCRA 37.

^[7]
People v. Ocampo, G.R. Nos. 90247-49, 13 February 1992, 206 SCRA 223.

^[8]
TSN, 6 April 1989, pp. 70-72.

^[9]
People v. Dabon, G.R. No. 102004, 16 December 1992,
216 SCRA 656.

^[10]
People v. Alvarez, G.R. No. 73071, 11
September 1992, 213 SCRA 722, People
v. Tayag, G.R. No. 105803, 12 October 1993, 227 SCRA
169.

^[11]
People v. Mabunga, G.R. No. 96441, 13 November 1992,
215 SCRA 694.

^[12]
People v. Olivar, G.R. No. 101577, 13 November 1992, 215 SCRA 759.

^[13]
TSN, 15 May 1989, p. 18.

^[14]
Id., p. 19.

^[15]
Id., p. 11.

^[16]
People v. Raptus, G.R. Nos. 92169-70, 19 June 1991, 198 SCRA 425.

^[17] People v. Rio, G.R. No. 90294, 24
September 1991, 201 SCRA 702.

^[18]
People v. Joya, G.R. No. 79090, 1 October 1993, 227 SCRA 9.