FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 88229. May 31, 1994.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUILLERMO CASIPIT y

RADAM, Accused-Appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; FINDINGS THEREON BY THE

TRIAL COURT ENTITLED TO HIGHEST RESPECT. — When the question of credence arises
between the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense on the commission of
rape, the answer of the trial court is generally viewed as correct, hence entitled to the
highest respect, because it is more competent to so conclude having closely observed the
witnesses when they testified, their deportment, and the peculiar manner in which they
gave their testimonies and other evidence in court.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; RULE ON TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES OF TENDER AGE. — Worth noting
is the marked receptivity of our courts to lend credence to the testimonies of victims who
are of tender years regarding their versions of what transpired since the State, as parens
patriae, is under obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their
minority, are not yet able to fully protect themselves.

3. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; PROOF OF INJURIES NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT THEREOF. —

The argument that the absence of external injuries on the body of the victim belies her
claim that she struggled with appellant to prevent him from raping her is devoid of merit.
The absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape.
Proof of injuries is not necessary because this is not an essential element of the crime. This
does not mean however that no force or intimidation was used on the victim to
consummate the act. The force or intimidation required in rape is relative. It is viewed in
the light of the victim’s perception and not by any hard and fast rule. It need not be
overpowering or irresistible but necessary only to achieve its purpose. Aside from applying
force, the appellant used intimidation by threatening the victim with a knife.

4. ID.; ID.; ABSENCE OF CONSENT OF THE VICTIM; MAY BE SUPPORTED BY THE

UNWAVERING AND FIRM DENUNCIATION OF THE ACCUSED. — The principal defense of
appellant that he and Myra were sweethearts cannot be given weight. For, it that was true,
she would not have immediately disclosed to her family and to the authorities the sexual
assault done to her. After all, nobody else but the two of them knew what happened
between them in the loneliness of an isolated hut in an open field. The fact that Myra lost
no time in immediately reporting the violation of her honour and submitting herself to
medical examination bolsters her credibility and reflects the truthfulness and spontaneity
of her account of the incident. If she had voluntarily consented to the sexual act with
appellant, her most natural reaction would have been to conceal it or keep silent as this
would bring disgrace to her honor and reputation as well as to her family. Her unwavering
and firm denunciation of appellant negates consent.

DECISION
 BELLOSILLO, J.:

FOUND GUILTY OF RAPE and sentenced to reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the
offended party P30,000.00 for moral damages, 1 the accused GUILLERMO CASIPIT y
RADAM appeals to us insisting on his innocence. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The victim, Myra Reynaldo, was then 14 years old and a sixth grader, while appellant was
22. They were neighbors in Victoria, Alaminos, Pangasinan.

On 19 September 1986, before going to Manila for a medical checkup, the father of Myra
entrusted her to the parents of Guillermo. On the same day, Guillermo invited Myra to go
to the town proper of Alaminos to buy rice and bananas. When they reached the poblacion,
he told her that they should buy in Dagupan instead because the prices were cheaper. She
agreed. Upon arriving in the poblacion, Guillermo invited Myra to watch a movie. They
watched the movie until six o’clock in the evening, after which, they took a ride for
Alaminos arriving there at eight o’clock. They took their dinner in Alaminos before
proceeding home to Barangay Victoria. On their way home it rained hard that they had to
take shelter in a hut in the open field of Barangay Talbang. Inside the hut, Myra sat on the
floor while Guillermo laid down. After a few minutes, he told her to lie down with him and
rest. Then he went near her. He removed her panties, poked a knife at her neck and
warned her not to shout. She resisted appellant, kicked him twice, but was helpless to
subdue him as he tied her hands behind her nape. Moreover, he opened her legs, went on
top of her, and the inevitable had to come. He mounted an assault on her chastity until he
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. She could not stop him as he was big and
strong. After the sexual encounter, she felt pain and could not sleep. 2

After waking up the following morning, they proceeded home. On their way, he told her to
proceed ahead. When she reached home, she was observed to be walking abnormally
(bull-legged) by Rogelio Casipit, her cousin-in-law. When her aunt, Nenita Rabadon,
learned about it, she called for her and asked her what happened. She then narrated
everything to her. Her aunt took her to the house of their barangay captain, Bruno
Carambas, and reported the incident to him. The barangay official then called for Guillermo
but he denied having raped Myra. chanrobles law library : red

While inside the house of the barangay captain, the victim was examined by her sister-in-
law Susan Cabigas and Elsa Carambas, wife of the barangay captain, who both found the
victim’s private part reddish and her panties stained with blood. 3

The following afternoon, Myra, accompanied by an uncle, went to the police station of
Alaminos to report the rape and then to the Western Pangasinan General Hospital where
she was examined by Dr. Fideliz Ochave. The medical findings of Dr. Ochave showed no
external sign of physical injuries but noted the presence of first degree fresh healing
laceration at the perineum and of the hymen at six o’clock position. The laboratory result
was negative for spermatozoa. 4 On 26 September 1986, Myra gave her statement to the
police and later filed a criminal complaint against Guillermo. 5

The version of Guillermo, on the other hand, is that long before the incident, he and Myra
were sweethearts. On 19 September 1986, they agreed to watch the movie "Cabarlo" so
they went to Dagupan City. They entered the moviehouse at noon and left at six o’clock in
the evening. While watching the show, he placed his arm on the shoulder of Myra and she
did not object. He kissed her several times; she kissed him as many times. They talked
about their love for each other. After the movie, they went home. However, when they
reached Alaminos, it rained hard so they sought shelter in a hut. They removed their wet
clothes. He embraced her and she liked it. Then he lowered her panties and she did not
resist. He laid her down on the floor and she consented. He joined her on the floor. He
placed himself on top of her and sexual intercourse followed as a matter of course. They
stayed inside the hut the whole night. They went home together the following morning.
After the love tryst, he went to look for a job in San Juan, Metro Manila. He was arrested
in July 1987. He contended that the victim was probably induced by her aunt Nenita
Rabadon to file the case. 6

After trial, the court a quo sustained the prosecution and found appellant guilty of raping
Myra by means of force and intimidation.

Appellant now assails the trial court for giving credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses while disregarding his and worse, for finding him guilty instead. He
maintains that the victim’s story contained many flaws; firstly, even as she had testified
that she struggled with him and kicked him twice, the doctor who examined her found no
external physical injuries on her body; secondly, the fact that the victim agreed to have a
movie date with him shows that she liked him and was attracted to him; and, thirdly, the
victim did not leave the hut but slept with him until morning, which is an unnatural
behavior of one who had been raped. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

We cannot sustain the accused; hence, we affirm his conviction. We cannot argue against
the trial court for giving full faith and credit to the testimony of Myra that appellant poked
a knife at her neck and sexually abused her despite her resistance as he was stronger and
bigger than she who was only 14 years old. Considering the physical condition of the
victim and the place where the crime was perpetrated, which was in an isolated hut in an
open field, it was not difficult for the accused to subdue the victim and coerce her into
submission.

These factual findings of the trial court appear to be borne by the records, and we cannot
have any justification to hold otherwise. When the question of credence arises between the
conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense on the commission of rape, the
answer of the trial court is generally viewed as correct, hence entitled to the highest
respect, because it is more competent to so conclude having closely observed the
witnesses when they testified, their deportment, and the peculiar manner in which they
gave their testimonies and other evidence in court. 7

The argument that the absence of external injuries on the body of the victim belies her
claim that she struggled with appellant to prevent him from raping her is devoid of merit.
The absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape.
Proof of injuries is not necessary because this is not an essential element of the crime. 8
This does not mean however that no force or intimidation was used on the victim however
that no force or intimidation was used on the victim to consummate the act. The force or
intimidation required in rape is relative. It is viewed in the light of the victim’s perception
and not by any hard and fast rule. It need not be overpowering or irresistible but
necessary only to achieve its purpose. Aside from applying force, the appellant used
intimidation by threatening the victim with a knife.

The fact that Myra went with appellant to a movie is no indication that she already agreed
to have sex with him. Her actuation is understandable as she is a close relative of
appellant, according to his grandfather. 9 Hence, it is not improbable that the victim
placed her trust on appellant by letting him accompany her to the movie. It should be
emphasized that she was then only fourteen years old, an innocent barrio lass. Records
are bereft of evidence that she was a woman of ill-repute, or of a flirtatious nature to incite
or provoke appellant to have sex with her.

The principal defense of appellant that he and Myra were sweethearts cannot be given
weight. For, if that was true, she would not have immediately disclosed to her family and
to the authorities the sexual assault done to her. 10 After all, nobody else but the two of
them knew what happened between them in the loneliness of an isolated hut in an open
field. The fact that Myra lost no time in immediately reporting the violation of her honor
and submitting herself to medical examination bolsters her credibility and reflects the
truthfulness and spontaneity of her account of the incident. If she had voluntarily
consented to the sexual act with appellant, her most natural reaction would have been to
conceal it or keep silent as this would bring disgrace to her honor and reputation as well as
to her family. Her unwavering and firm denunciation of appellant negates consent. 11

Worth noting is the marked receptivity of our courts to lend credence to the testimonies of
victims who are of tender years regarding their versions of what transpired since the
State, as parens patriae, is under obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who,
because of their minority, are not yet able to fully protect themselves. 12

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision finding accused-appellant GUILLERMO CASIPIT y

RADAM guilty of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED, with the
modification that the indemnity in favor of MYRA REYNALDO is increased to P50,000.00. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Costs against Accused-Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. and Quiason, JJ., concur.

Cruz and Kapunan, JJ., are on leave.

Endnotes:

1. Decision penned by Judge Antonio M. Belen, Regional Trial Court of Lingayen,

Pangasinan, Br. 38.

2. TSN, 1 December 1987, pp. 6-10.

3. TSN, 15 February 1988, pp. 1-10.

4. Records, p. 1.

5. Ibid.

6. TSN, 22 April 1988, pp. 1-14.

7. People v. Carson, G.R. No. 93732, 21 November 1991, 204 SCRA 266.

8. People v. Abonada, G.R. No. 50041, 27 January 1989, 169 SCRA 530.

9. Rollo, p. 62.

10. People v. Sarol, G.R. No. 75506, 19 June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 286.

11. People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 58174, 6 July 1990, 1987 SCRA 288.

12. People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 86162, 17 September 1993.