EN BANC

[G.R. No. 144445-47. April 30, 2003]

PEOPLE
OF
THE
BIONG, appellant.

PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

GENARO

DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

Just as the prosecution is still required to present evidence to prove the

guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt despite a guilty plea in a capital
offense, so must the government submit independent evidence to prove
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements -- including the qualifying
circumstances -- of the crime of rape despite the appellants admissions during
his testimony or during pretrial.
The Case
For automatic review before this Court is the August 17, 2000 Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba, Laguna (Branch 36) in Criminal
Case Nos. 6586-99-C, 6587-99-C and 6588-99-C, convicting Genaro Biong of
two (2) counts of qualified rape and sentencing him to death for each
count. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows:
[1]

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Genaro Biong:

a. In CC No. 6586-99-C, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape,
defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and is
hereby sentenced to suffer the death penalty and all its accessory penalties under the
law and to indemnify the victim the amount of P75,000.00 plus P30,000.00 as moral
damages; and,
b. In CC No. 6587-99-C, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape defined
and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the death penalty and all its accessory penalties under the law; and

to indemnify the victim the amount of P75,000.00 plus P30,000.00 as moral damages;
and,
c) In CC No. 6588-99-C, not guilty for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The immediate transfer of the accused to the National Bilibid Prison is hereby
ordered.
[2]

Three (3) separate Informations, all dated April 21, 1999, charged
appellant as follows:
Criminal Case No. 6586-99-C
That on or about February 12, 1998, at Barangay Lingga, Municipality of Calamba,
Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with lewd de[s]ign and [through] force and intimidation and with
intent to satisfy his lust, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge of his daughter one DINA T. BIONG, 13 years old, against
her will and consent.
[3]

[4]

Criminal Case No. 6587-99-C

That on or about August 12, 1998, at Barangay Lingga, Municipality of Calamba,
Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with lewd design and [through] force and intimidation and with intent
to satisfy his lust, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of his daughter one DINA BIONG y TERONES, 13 years old,
against her will and consent.
[5]

Criminal Case No. 6588-99-C

That sometime in the month of July 1998, at [Barangay] Lingga, Municipality of
Calamba, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with lewd design and [through] force and intimidation and
with intent to satisfy his lust, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge of his daughter one DINA BIONG y TERONES, 13 years old,
against her will and consent.
[6]

During his arraignment on July 19, 1999, appellant, with the assistance of
his counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty. After trial on the merits, the RTC
rendered the assailed Decision.
[7]

[8]

The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) narrates the prosecutions
version of the factual antecedents as follows:
In the evening of July 18, 1998, thirteen-year old [Dina] Biong was sleeping in her
home in Barangay [Lingga], Calamba, Laguna, together with her mother and appellant
her father. Since their house was small and had only one room, they all slept in just
one bed.
While deep in her sleep, [Dina] was suddenly roused when she felt someone was
touching her. When she turned her head looked who it was, she saw appellant
caressing her body. Before Dina could move, appellant kissed her, mashed her breast
and then started removing her clothes. Surprised, [Dina] struggled and pushed
appellant. However, her effort proved futile. Appellant, took out a knife, thrust it on
[Dinas] neck and laid on top of her. Pinning [Dina] with his body, appellant then
forcibly removed her shorts and panty. Immediately appellant inserted his penis into
[Dinas] vagina and thrust his buttocks back and forth. After satisfying his lust,
appellant casually crawled back to the other side of the bed and lay beside [Dinas]
mother. Too tired from work, [Dinas] mother did not notice what had happened. She
was in deep sleep the whole night and woke up only the following morning. Afraid
that appellant would inflict more harm on her, [Dina] just kept silent about everything.
However, appellant did not stop. On August 12, 1999, appellant again unleashed his
bestial desire upon his own daughter. In the same fashion, while [Dina] was sleeping,
appellant began caressing and kissing her body.When [Dina] woke up, appellant
immediately went on top of her, pinned her down and started removing her shorts and
panty. Losing no time appellant then inserted his penis into [Dinas] vagina and
commenced pumping through and through. After satisfying his lust, appellant again
casually went to the other side of the bed and lay beside [Dinas] mother. As usual,

[Dinas] mother, too tired from work and having a hearing problem, did not notice
what had happened to her daughter.
On February 17, 1999, after gaining enough courage and realizing the futility of her
silence, [Dina] told her mother about the sexual abuses committed on her by
appellant. Upon hearing this, [Dinas] mother immediately had her examined and filed
a complaint against appellant.
The medico-legal genital examination on the victim conducted by Dra. Lorna P. Sta.
Maria disclosed that [Dinas] hymen had healed lacerations at 7 and 11 oclock
positions with IE admitting one finger with ease.
[9]

Version of the Defense

For his part, appellant relates his version of the facts in this manner:
The defense presented the oral testimonies of Genaro Biong, Mary Jean Geronimo
and Mrs. Damasa Terones.
The first witness, Genaro Biong, is the accused. He testified that on July 19, 1998, he
was at the house of his manager, Eddie Hernandez to repair the tricycle he was
driving. Afterwhich, he proceeded to the house of his brother-in-law, Basil and stayed
there until the next day because they had drinking spree. On August 12, 1998, he was
plying his route afterwhich, he proceeded to the house of Basil for a drinking session
and he didnt [go] home the next day. On February 12, 1999, after plying his route he
went home but nobody was at their house. His wife arrived at around 9:00 pm. And
after a few minutes, his daughter arrived from the house of his sister.He went out to
ply his route and went home the next morning. He denied the claim of his daughter
that he was using shabu. He presented a Chemistry Report from the Regional Crime
Laboratory Office 4 showing that he is negative for shabu in his blood. The only
reason he can think of why his daughter filed the case was that his father-in-law has a
grudge against him because he refused to live with his in-laws. His father-in-law
wanted to take custody of his daughter.
The second witness, Mary Jean Geronimo, is the forensic chemist who tested the
accused for shabu. The counsel stipulated to the due execution of the findings
conducted or contained in the Chemistry Report No. 4266-99 duly signed by the
witness.

The last witness, [Damasa] Terones is the mother of the alleged victim. She testified
that they sleep and crammed together in one bed that it is natural that if someone
moves his legs or hands or if it touches you, you would be awaken. She admitted that
his husband is fond of drinking and he sometimes doesnt come home because of his
drinking session with his friend. She said that during the three (3) rape incidents, she
was not awaken because she was tired. (Citations omitted)
[10]

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court held that Dina Biong testified in a straightforward, natural
and candid manner. Although she was visibly under stress and almost
continuously in tears, her testimony was clear.She was credible. Her
testimony was convincing.
In brushing aside the alibi of appellant, the trial court found that he had
failed to show the physical impossibility of his presence at the site of the
crime. Further, his alibi was uncorroborated.
Hence, this automatic review.

[11]

The Issues
Specifically, appellant assigns the following errors for our consideration:
I

The lower court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape despite
the blatant inconsistencies in the testimony of the alleged rape victim.
II

The lower court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape,
defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, when
his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
[12]

In sum, the main issue is whether the prosecutions evidence sufficiently

established appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Courts Ruling

Appellants conviction should be affirmed, but the penalty must be reduced

to reclusion perpetua.
Main Issue:
Sufficiency of the Prosecutions Evidence
At the outset we note that in Criminal Case No. 6586-99-C, the trial court
acquitted appellant of rape that had allegedly taken place on February 12,
1998. Basic is the rule that an acquittal is immediately final upon its
promulgation. Hence, that case is no longer subject to our review. We will
deal only with Criminal Case Nos. 6587-99-C and 6588-99-C.
[13]

Appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. The records, however, show otherwise. Private
complainant testified as follows:
Q Lets go to that incident that happened on July 19, 1998, what time did that rape
incident happened?
A I dont know the time because it was night time, sir.
Q Where were you then?
A I was at home, sir.
Q What were you x x x doing just before you were raped?
A I was sleeping, sir.
Q Where were you then sleeping?
A In our house, sir.
Q In what part of your house?
A In a room, sir.
Q Did you have any companion in that room at that time?
A Yes, sir, the three of us with my mother.

Q When you say the three of us, to whom are you referring to?
A My father, sir.
Q Do you have any other siblings?
A None, sir.
Q How were you awakened?
A Because somebody was embracing me, sir.
Q After you sensed that somebody was embracing you, how did you respond?
A I was surprised, sir.
Q Why were you surprised?
May we move, your Honor that the answer of the witness be recorded in the
vernacular.
A Dahil hindi ko po akalain na may mangyayari po sa akin.
Q Did you find out the identity of that person who was embracing you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who is that person?
A Genaro Biong, sir.
Q Your father?
A Yes, sir.

xxxxxxxxx
Q After you were embraced by you father what else did he do?
A He was kissing me from my head up to my feet, sir.
Q What did you do when he did that?
A I was struggling, sir.

Q How did you struggle?

A I was pushing him away, sir.
Q Were you able to push him away?
A No, sir.
Q Why?
A Because he is heavy, sir.

xxxxxxxxx
Q Did you shout?
A No, sir.
Q Why did you not shout?
A Because he has a knife, sir.
Q What kind of knife?
A It is big and broad, sir.
Q After he took off your shorts, what else did he remove?
A My panty, sir.
Q And what did you do while he was removing your panty?
A Nagpapapalag po.
Q After he removed your panty what else did he do?
A He touched my breast, sir.
Q Which breast?
A Both, sir.
Q And after he touched both your breasts what did he do next?
A He kissed me from my head up to my feet, sir.

xxxxxxxxx
Q After he sucked your breast what did he do next?
A Ginalaw nya po ako.
Q When you said ginalaw nya po ako tell us exactly what did he do?
A He laid on top of me, sir.
Q What else did he do?
FISCAL:
(Witness at this point, your Honor cannot seem to give her answer.)
WITNESS:
A He inserted his penis to my vagina, sir.
FISCAL:
(Witness is crying when she was giving her answer.)
Q What were you doing at that point when he was sucking your breast?
A Nagpapalag po.
Q At that point that he penetrated you, what were you then doing?
A I was not able to move because he was lying on top of me, sir.

xxxxxxxxx
Q You said you were again raped on August 12, 1998, what time did this happen?
A Night time also, sir.
Q Where did this happen?
A Also in our house, sir.
Q In what particular portion of your house?
A Also in the room, sir.

Q What were you doing just before you were raped?

A I was sleeping, sir.
Q And what roused you from your sleep?
A Because somebody is touching me, sir.
Q Were you able to recognize that person who was touching you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Whose that person?
A Genaro Biong, sir.
Q When you say that you were roused by that person who was touching you, tell us on
what part of your body were you being touched?
A All of my body, sir.
Q How did you react?
A I was surprised, sir.
Q Where was your mother at that time?
A Also sleeping, sir.
Q After you were touched all over your body by your father, what else happened?
A He was kissing me from my head up to my feet, sir.
Q What were you wearing then?
A Long pants, sir.
Q What else?
A T-shirt, sando and panty, sir.
Q When your father was kissing you all over, can you tell us if you were then still
dressed?
A None, sir.

Q Who removed your clothes?

A Genaro Biong, sir.
Q When you say that your clothes were taken off, tell us were all your clothes and
underwear taken off?
A No, sir.
Q Tell us, which apparel was removed from your body?
A My pants and panty, sir.
Q And who removed these?
A Genaro Biong, sir.
Q And how did he remove it?
A He took it off, sir.
Q What were you doing when he was removing your long pants and panty?
A I was lying down, sir.
Q Nothing else?
A I was struggling, sir.
Q Tell us, how did you struggle?
A I was pushing him away, sir.
Q Were you able to succeed in pushing him away?
A No, sir.
Q Why?
A Because hes heavy, sir.
Q And after he was able to remove your pants and panty, what did he do next?
A He laid on top of me, sir.

Q After he laid on top of you, what did he do next?

A He again inserted his penis to my vagina, sir.
Q What did you feel when he did that?
A It hurts, sir.
Q After he penetrated you, what else happened?
A He laid beside my mother, sir.[14]

The foregoing testimony indubitably shows that in advancing his libidinous

pursuit, appellant not only used his moral ascendancy over his own daughter,
but also employed intimidation. By threatening private complainant with a
knife, he succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. The element of rape -carnal knowledge through intimidation -- was duly established.
Credibility of the
Victims Testimony
The trial court found the testimony of private complainant to be both
credible and convincing. It is settled that the determination of the competence
and the credibility of a witness rests primarily with the trial court, because it
has the unique position of observing the witnesss deportment on the stand
while testifying. Absent any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the
assessments and conclusions of the trial court, the reviewing court is
generally bound by the formers findings. Moreover, in the case at bar, the
victims testimony is corroborated by the medical findings.
[15]

[16]

According to the Medico-Legal Certification, the victim had lacerations on

her hymen. Although not indispensable to a rape conviction, the findings in the
report that point to sexual assault strengthen her claim that she was raped.
[17]

Appellant alleges inconsistencies in the testimony of private complainant

that supposedly render it highly incredible. We have examined the records of
the case, but found no significant inconsistencies in her testimony. The
supposed contradictions refer to minor details that do not in any way affect or

obscure her otherwise explicit account. To be sure, inconsistencies in the

testimony of a rape victim are inconsequential when they refer to minor details
that have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of the crime
-- carnal knowledge through force or intimidation.
[18]

When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to constitute the commission of the
crime. No young woman would recklessly accuse her own father of so grave
a crime, unless she has been truly aggrieved. When her testimony is
straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and
unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, it must be
given full faith and credit. In a rape case, the accused may be convicted
solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing
and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.
[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

The fact that the mother of private complainant was on the same bamboo
bed when the rape was committed does not make the latters claim any less
credible. It was established that the mother was a deep sleeper; working as a
laundrywoman, she was always tired at the end of the day. It was also
established that she had hearing problems. The records further show that the
accused used to sleep on the space between her and the victim. Hence, it is
believable that the mother was unaware of and undisturbed by the bestial acts
being done by the accused to their daughter.
We cannot fault private complainant for not shouting or trying to get help
from her mother, though the latter was sleeping right there on the same bed
while the incident was happening. Like any child raised in the traditional
Filipino way, the victim was afraid of her father. This was evident from her own
testimony when she said, Dahil isang tingin lang niya ay natatakot na ako. It
is understandable that the fear that gripped her cowed her into silence and
prevented her from attempting to get help from her mother.
[23]

The trial court was correct in brushing aside appellants defense of denial
and alibi, which was uncorroborated and unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence. It aptly explained:

x x x. For alibi x x x to prosper, the defense must be able to show that the accused
could not have been physically present at the [site] of the crime, or its immediate
vicinity, during the time of its commission. In these cases[,] the house of the accuseds
brother-in-law where the accused claimed to be at the time of the incidents of rape on
July 19, 1998 and August 12, 1998 was about 30 minutes drive from the place of the
incident.Moreover, the accused did not even present his brother-in-law Basil, at least
to corroborate his testimony. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Rene
Henson, [stated] that alibi cannot stand against the positive identification of the
accused made by the victim. Accordingly, his defense of alibi must necessarily fail.
[24]

Proper Penalty
To warrant the imposition of the death penalty, the prosecution must allege
in the Information and establish beyond reasonable doubt the minority of the
victim as well as her relationship with the accused.
[25]

In the instant case, the records show that appellant admitted during the
pretrial that private complainant was his daughter, and that she was born on
August 12, 1985. After getting that admission, the prosecution did not present
any more evidence to prove her minority. In People v. Javier, we stressed that
the prosecution must present independent proof of the victims age, even
though it has not been contested by the defense. The minority of the victim
must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.
[26]

Just as the prosecution is still required to present evidence to prove the

guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt despite a guilty plea in a capital
offense, so must the government submit independent evidence to prove
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements -- including the qualifying
circumstances -- of the crime of rape despite the appellants admissions during
his testimony or during pretrial. After all, qualifying circumstances alter the
nature and the gravity of the crime and increases the penalty to death.
By itself, appellants admission falls short of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Considering the irreversible and final nature of the penalty of death
once carried out, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact
necessary to constitute the crime will suffice for the Court to uphold such
extreme penalty.

With respect to damages, this Court has consistently held that, upon a
finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory.
If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000; otherwise,
the victim is entitled to P50,000 for each rape incident. The additional
amount of P50,000 should also be awarded as moral damages for each case
at bar. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need
of further proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed
that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an
award. Further, exemplary damages should be awarded because of the duly
established circumstance of relationship.
[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

WHEREFORE, the automatically appealed Decision in Criminal Case Nos.

6587-99-C and 6588-99-C is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
appellant is found guilty of simple, not qualified, rape; and is sentenced
to reclusion perpetua, not death. For each count of rape, the amount of civil
indemnity ex-delicto is reduced to P50,000, moral damages is increased
to P50,000, and exemplary damages is further awarded in the sum
of P25,000.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 136137. December 11, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CALIXTO "ALEX"

BIONG (At Large), ANTONIO DIOLA, ENRIQUE "DODOY"
MORALES (At Large), ORLANDO "KOLOT" LEYSON (At Large),
JOHN DOE (At Large), RICHARD DOE (At Large) and PETER DOE
(At Large), accused.
ANTONIO DIOLA, accused-appellant.
DECISION
VITUG, J.:

On 01 June 1996, fourteen-year old Carol Epis was in her grandparents house in barrio
Tuburan, Upper Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte, when, about three o'clock in the afternoon,

Rowena Leyson and Gemma Jekjek Morales invited her to go with them to barrio Sindangan,
about five kilometers from Tuburan, to get the pair of pants of Rowena from her father-in-law
Emong Leyson. A benefit dance, sponsored by the Kabataang Barangay, was scheduled at
Sindangan that same evening but Carol Epis had no intention of attending the affair. Carol
considered the two women as her friends as both frequently would pass time in the place of
her TiaEgia, although Rowena, at 20, and Gemma, at 19, were way older than she was. After
asking permission from her grandparents, Carol decided to go. As the girl would soon learn, it
was a decision that would change her young life.
The three girls initially traversed the distance to Sindangan by foot but, after reaching a
particular juncture in Ilihan, they took a tricycle ride for the remaining stretch of their
journey. Arriving at Sindangan at five o'clock that afternoon, they directly went to the store of
Inday Lim, where they sat on the stores adjoining wooden benches, staying there for the next two
hours. Carol repeatedly told Rowena that they should now go and get her pair of pants but
Rowena prevailed upon her to wait awhile. At eight oclock that evening, the benefit dance
started. Again, Carol tried to convince Rowena that they should now go but the latter insisted
that they dance first.Rowena and Gemma headed for the dance floor while Carol, not being
appropriately dressed for the occasion, remained seated at the store with Inday Lim and the
latters daughter, Elviza, for company. Meanwhile, a man, who later introduced himself to be
Mario Maraon, approached her and asked her to dance but soon left when she begged off. Later,
Antonio Diola also asked her to dance and when she again declined, he went back to his
companions who were seated on a table. Moments later, Mario Maraon returned and quietly sat
beside her. Silence engulfed both Carol and Maraon who obviously had nothing to say to each
other. Momentarily, their silence was interrupted when Carol asked Maraon the name of the
person who had just asked her to dance. Maraon answered that it was Antonio Diola, alias
`Mocoy.' The persistent Diola convinced her to dance three more times, but she repeatedly
refused him. Carol, who at eleven o'clock in the evening had still not eaten dinner, decided to
look for her erstwhile companions Rowena and Gemma but failing to find them at the dance hall
or anywhere else, she returned to her seat at the store. She would have wanted to return to her
grandparents house in Tuburan but for lack of fare money and her fear of a dark and solitary
journey home, the girl thought it best to just wait for her friends. After a while, she decided to
proceed to the house of Emong, which was about 150 meters from Inday Lim's store, to look for
them there. Not finding anyone in the house, Carol went back to the store where she inquired
whether Rowena and Gemma had by then returned. She was told that they had not. She was
sitting on the stores wooden bench when she met Dominga Minggay Cortina. After telling
Cortina of her plight, the latter volunteered to accompany Carol to Emong Leysons
house. Finding nobody at the house of Emong Leyson, the two girls decided to return to the
store. It was approximately three o'clock in the early morning of 02 June 1996 when they trudged
back to Inday Lims store.
Along the way, at a point near a school, they noticed seven men. Among the seven, Carol
first recognized Antonio Diola, who was just wearing a "sando." She also recognized Enrique
Morales alias Dodoy, Calixto Alex Biong, and Orlando Leyson alias Kolot. She did not know the
names of the three others. After seeing the seven men, Minggay Cortina ran away, leaving Carol
behind. Desperate, she yelled, "Minggay," but the latter did not respond. Left alone with their
quarry, the seven men surrounded Carol and dragged her towards a secluded area behind the
school building. Calixto Biong took hold of her, Orlando Leyson pulled her T-shirt while Enrique

Morales held her by the neck. Pointing his hunting knife at her, Antonio Diola warned her not to
make a sound. Orlando Leyson released her T-shirt and pulled down her short pants and her
underwear. Calixto Biong began to touch her all over. Morales then held her feet, Leyson her
hands and Diola kept her at bay with his knife. It was Calixto Biong who first ravaged her,
followed by Orlando Leyson, Enrique Morales and the three others whom she could not
identify. She tried to shout but they quelled her cries by covering her mouth with a cloth.
It was a harsh initiation for Carol into the carnal world, and the pain was
unbearable. Antonio Diola, who continued to point the knife at her, himself did not sexually
molest her. After having sated their beastly appetites, the group left her. Blood stained her
pants. Not knowing what to do, the young girl went back to the house of Emong to look for
Gemma and Rowena but, failing to find them there, she returned to the school, where, unable to
sleep, she sat on a bench at an inconspicuous corner of the building and stayed there up until
morning. It was five o'clock in the morning when she decided to take the one-hour hike
homeward to Tuburan.
Carol did not immediately tell her grandparents about the incident for fear of their anger. It
was only four days later when she found the courage to narrate her ordeal to Lucing Neri, a
paternal aunt, who promptly relayed her sad tale to her grandfather. Her relatives accompanied
her to the Macrohon police station and thereafter to the municipal health office for medical
examination. According to Dr. Archimedes Demetrio, the vagina of private complainant proved
negative of spermatozoa. But, to the examining doctor, it was only to be expected because the
physical examination was made five days after the alleged rape. Medical findings further
revealed the hymen to be no longer intact, and without any recent lacerations. Dr. Demetrio
found old and healed lacerations, which, he opined, could not have been made just within the last
five days.
Preliminary investigation yielded the names of four of the malefactors, while three remained
unidentified. All but Antonio Diola had fled Sindangan, their whereabouts still
unknown. Antonio Diola was the only one arrested and, on 04 March 1997, an accusatory
Information was filed against him. Thus -

"The undersigned Prosecutor, acting upon a sworn complaint originally signed and
filed by the offended party, hereby accuses CALIXTO BIONG alias `Alex',
ENRIQUE MORALES, alias `Dodoy', ORLANDO LEYSON alias `Kolot', JOHN
DOE, RICHARD DOE and PETER DOE, who are all at large, and ANTONIO
DIOLA, who is presently detained in the Provincial Jail, Maasin, Southern Leyte, of
the crime of Rape committed by them as follows "That on or about the second day of June 1996, at around 3:00 a.m., in barangay
Sindangan, municipality of Macrohon, province of Southern Leyte, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with lustful intent and by means of
force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take turns in ravishing one Carol F. Epis, and successfully had carnal intercourse with

said offended party without her consent and against her will, to the damage and
prejudice of said Carol F. Epis and of social order."
[1]

Antonio Diola advanced the defense of alibi and introduced a succession of witnesses in an
attempt to destroy the credibility of private complainant.
Witness Rowena Leyson denied having been a personal friend of Carol Epis and disclaimed
having gone to the latters house in Tuburan on 01 June 1996. She testified that, on 31 May 1996,
three days before the alleged rape she was on her way to Sindangan with Gemma Morales to get
a pair of trousers from her mother-in-law "Toning" Leyson. It was then when she first met
private complainant on the road. She described the meeting as being brief and uneventful. Upon
reaching Sindangan, Toning Leyson told her and Gemma that the pair of trousers were not yet
finished. Since it was already late, she and Gemma decided to spend the night at Ilihan in the
house of Belen Leyson, a relative, and there stayed until the afternoon of the next day. On crossexamination, the witness acknowledged as being the sister-in-law of accused Orlando Kolot
Leyson and admitted personally knowing accused Antonio Diola and Calixto Biong and that it
was the father of Diola himself who convinced her to take the witness stand.
A repudiation of the account of private complainant was also echoed in the testimony of
defense witness Dominga Minggay Cortina. According to Cortina, she first met private
complainant Carol Epis on 01 June 1996. At between 6:30 to 7:00 p.m., she had gone to the store
of Inday Lim to buy something to eat when she saw Carol sitting on the bench. Obviously
recognizing her as a newcomer in the area, she introduced herself and asked the other girl her
name to which the latter replied, I am Carol. Cortina said that after that fleeting encounter, she
proceeded home to prepare herself for the benefit dance. The dance started at 10:30 p.m. When
she returned later, she saw Carol still sitting on the bench. She stayed at the dance hall for only
thirty minutes and thereafter went home with her cousin Sarah Jane Tenio. It was eleven o'clock
in the evening when she arrived home and never left the house after that. She denied having
accompanied private complainant to the house of Emong Leyson, let alone being with her when
the seven accused supposedly accosted them. Upon cross-examination, Cortina also disowned
any acquaintance with Gemma Morales and Rowena Leyson.
Luzviminda Tiempo Lim, also known in the Sindangan neighborhood as Inday Lim admitted
having personally known private complainant as the girlfriend of her trusted errand boy,
Jonathan Biong, alias Do." According to Lim, she first met Carol Epis when she and her family
were swimming at a beach in Sindangan. There, she saw Jonathan Biong approach Epis and
bring her food. Sometime in March or April of 1996, Carol, in the company of an unidentified
girl, came to barangay Sumayod at Sitio Amparo in Macrohon. Again, in May that year, Carol
stayed at Sindangan for three days in the company of Jonathan Biong. The witness was on board
a motorcycle, driven by Jonathan Biong, on her way home from Maasin and Lumbag when she
saw Carol standing by the roadside. Biong momentarily stopped and Carol hopped in. On 21
May 1996, Carol and Biong spent the night at the house of Aniceto Biong, the uncle of
Jonathan. The following day, Carol and Biong spent the night at the house of Jonathans aunt. The
witness did not bother to ask Jonathan Biong about it because she knew he and private
complainant were sweethearts and she respected their privacy. The witness said that she was
certain that on the evening of 01 June 1996, Jonathan Biong was not in Sindangan because he
was in Cebu. That night, Lim saw Carol Epis sitting on a store bench together with Minggay

Cortina. When asked by the witness, the young girl replied that she was going to spend the night
at Rowenas place.
Aniceto Biong declared that when he entered his house in Sindangan on 01 June 1995, he
saw Carol Epis lying on the bed. He asked who she was and she remarked, "Do. Do and I are
sweethearts," referring to Jonathan Biong, his nephew and the son of his brother Arcadio. After
changing his clothes, Aniceto left for his farm. When he returned at five o'clock that afternoon,
he saw Carol still there. She told him she was going to take her supper at the house of Boy
Lim. Aniceto Biong took his dinner and spent the night at the residence of his sister, Maria
Cortina, the mother of "Minggay" Cortina. The next morning of 02 June 1995, when he returned
to his house to change into work clothes, he saw Carol inside but he noticed that his nephew was
not around. After advising her to go home, he gave her some food to eat. He did not observe any
change in her appearance nor any indication that she might have been subjected to a violent rape
the previous night. It was the last time he ever saw her. When he later chided Jonathan about it,
his nephew simply smiled.
Accused Antonio Diola testified that on the evening of 01 June 1996, at seven o'clock in the
evening, he was preparing the sound system owned by his older brother, Matranillo Diola, at the
dance hall, which was just a few meters away from his house. He admitted having seen Carol
and Minggay at the store of Inday Lim. It was the first time that he saw Carol and only came to
know her name during the preliminary investigation of the rape case. Diola said that the benefit
dance ended at about two o'clock in the early morning. He brought the sound system, including
the amplifier, home where he spent the night. He learned of the alleged crime only when three
police officers accosted him on 01 July 1996. Accused admitted having known his co-accused
Enrique Morales, who was a little older in years, as well as Calixto Biong, and Orlando Leyson
who, at 14 to 15 years old, were relatively younger, than he was.
Witness Antonio Maturan corroborated the testimony of Antonio Diola. He stated that on the
night of 01 June 1996, he was at the dance hall of Barangay Sindangan. When the affair came to
an end at about two o'clock in the morning, he helped Diola return the equipment to the latters
house, which was about 15 meters from the hall. His own residence being a distant away, and it
was already late, Diola invited him, and he acceded, to spend the night at Diola's house. The next
day, he and Diola woke up at six o'clock in the morning.
The succession of its witnesses notwithstanding, the defense failed to convince the trial
court of the innocence of accused Antonio Diola; it adjudged:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding accused ANTONIO DIOLA alias

`Mokoy' GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of six (6) counts of Rape and sentencing
him to six (6) determinate, indivisible penalties of RECLUSION PERPETUA subject
to Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, and to pay the costs.
"Accused Diola is also liable for civil indemnity for moral damages at P50,000.00 per
rape or a total of 300,000.00 to the private complainant Carol Epis in line with current
jurisprudence.

"The accused is entitled to the full period of his preventive imprisonment to be

deducted from the period of his original sentence."
Accused Antonio Diola has appealed his conviction. Appellant has raised nine assignments
of error, which, in sum, assail the reliance made by the court a quo solely on the account of
private complainant in utter disregard of the testimony of the defense witnesses. He argues that
the dismissal of his defense of alibi by the trial court in the face of overwhelming corroborative
testimony is unjustified.
The Court is not prepared to accept appellant's plea and to disregard the assessment made by
the trial court. The test of credibility is not necessarily a question of numbers nor a function of an
appellate court more than that of the trial court. Repeatedly, the Court has called attention to the
fact that it is the trial court which can be afforded the unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses on the stand. The manner witnesses testify the hesitant pause, the nervous voice, the
undertone, the befuddled look, the honest gaze, the modest blush, or the guilty blanch is a
significant indicum in aptly assigning value to testimonial evidence. The evaluation made by the
trial court on the credibility of witnesses is rightly accorded respect and it is not interfered with
except only, as so often held, when any circumstance would indeed appear to have been patently
overlooked or misconstrued that the appellate court could be constrained to do otherwise.
[2]

In the case at bar, the Court is not justified to ascribe to the trial court any such error.
The narrative of private complainant was clear and unwavering in placing appellant at the
scene of the crime. She convincingly detailed his exact participation when she was waylaid and
subjected to a most horrifying ordeal. She testified thusly:
"Q. Since nobody responded from the house of Emong Leyson, where did you go?
"A. We went back to the dancing hall, passing the school when I saw somebody.
"Q. Who was this somebody?
"A. I could not identify the persons but they were many.
"Q. How many?
"A. Seven. The person whom I first saw was he (witness is pointing to accused Antonio Diola to be the
person whom she saw first) who was wearing an undershirt (sando) at that time.
"Q. Now what happened when you saw them at the vicinity of the school at Sindangan?
"A. Dominga Cortina ran away, leaving me behind.
"Q. Before Minggay ran away, did she tell you anything?
"A. No, sir.
"Q. After Minggay ran away, what happened?
"A. Alex held me.
"Q. What else happened?
"A. They surrounded me.
"Q. You mean that seven persons whom you saw surrounded you?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Aside from the seven persons surrounding you, were there any other persons present?
"A. No more.
"Q. When one of them whom you identified as Alex held you, which hand of yours did he hold?
"A. My two hands were held by Alex.
"Q. After the holding of your two hands by Alex, what happened next?
"A. Orlando Leyson alias `Kolot' pulled my t-shirt.
"Q. When Orlando Leyson pulled your t-shirt, what were the other persons doing?
"A. Enrique Morales alias Dodoy held my neck.
"Q. What about accused Antonio Diola, what did he do if any?
"A. He pointed his hunting knife at me.
"Q. Can you still recall how long was the knife pointed at you?
"A. No, sir.
"Q. When you said he pointed his knife at you, what particular part of your body was pointed to by his
knife?
"A. At my chest. (witness pointing to her left chest).
"Q. While pointing his knife at you, did he utter anything?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. What did he say?
"A. If I would shout, he would kill me.
"Q. After you were held by some of the seven persons at the vicinity of the Sindangan school, what
happened next?
"A. Orlando Leyson released my t-shirt and pulled down my short pants.
"Q. While Orlando Leyson was pulling down your short pants, what did accused Antonio Diola do?
"A. He was still pointing his knife at me.
"Q. Was Orlando Leyson successful in pulling your short pants?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Were you wearing your panty at that time?
"A. Yes. Sir.
"Q. When your short pants were pulled down by Orlando Leyson, you were still wearing your panty?
"A. It was included when he pulled my short pants.
"Q. After your short pants and panty were pulled down, what happened next?
"A. Alex was the first one to touch me.

"Q. What part of your body was touched?

"A. My breast.
"Q. After that, what happened?
"A. He touched my vagina.
"Q. Who touched it?
"A. Alex.
"Q. While Alex Biong was touching your vagina, what did accused Antonio Diola do?
"A. He was still pointing his knife at me.
"Q. What did the other persons do to you?
"A. They held my arms and legs.
"Q. Can you tell us who held your feet?
"A. Enrique Morales.
"Q. And who held your hands?
"A. Orlando Leyson.
"Q. Did you know the seven persons who held you?
"A. I could not identify the three (3) of them.
"Q. Who were the four of them whom you have known?
"A. Antonio Diola, Calixto Biong, Orlando Leyson and Enrique Morales.
"Q. And after Alex or Calixto Biong touched your vagina, what happened next?
"A. He had sexual intercourse with me.
"Q. Who?
"A. Calixto Biong.
"COURT:
"Q. He was the first one?
"A. Yes, your honor.
"PROSECUTOR MAAMO:
"Q. After Calixto Biong, who was the next?
"A. Orlando Leyson.
"Q. And who was the third one?
"A. Enrique Morales.
"Q. Was there a fourth one who had sexual intercourse with you?
"A. The other three of whom I could not identify.
"Q. What about Antonio Diola, did he have sexual intercourse with you?

"A. No, sir.

"Q. What was he doing when the other six (6) companions were having sexual intercourse with you at
that time?
"A. He was still pointing his knife at my chest.
"Q. Can you give us an estimate Carol, how long the sexual intercourse by the six (6) men [lasted]?
"A. No, sir.
"COURT:
"Q. This happened where, in the school?
"A. Yes, your honor.
"Q. Inside one of the rooms?
"A. Outside the school.
"PROSECUTOR MAAMO:
"Q. What particular place in the school?
"A. Behind the school building.
"Q. How far is this from the road?
"A. Maybe from here to DILG.
"INTERPRETER: Witness is pointing from the witness stand towards DILG which is approximately
thirty (30) meters.
"Q While the six (6) men were having sexual intercourse with you, did you not try to shout?
"A I shouted.
"Q How loud was it?
"A I shouted loudly twice and after that they covered my mouth with a cloth.
"Q Who covered your mouth?
"A I could not identify.
"Q After that what happened?
"A They left me in the school.
"COURT:
Alone?
"A Yes, Your Honor.
"PROSECUTOR MAAMO:
And where did you go?
"A I went back to Emong's place.
"Q What happened at Emong's place?

"A I asked whether Rowena Leyson and Gemma Morales went back but still they did not come back.
"Q After that where did you go?
"A I went back to the school.
"Q What part of the school?
"A Just along the side of the school on a bench.
"Q. About what time was that Carol when the incident wherein you were forcibly abused by the
accused?
"A. About [three o'clock] early in the morning.
"Q. So it was already June 2, 1996?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Now when you went back to the school and seated on a bench, what happened?
"A. Nothing, sir. I just stayed there until morning.
"Q. In the morning, what did you do?
"A. I went back to the house of my grandparents."[3]

A perusal of the accounts of defense witnesses Inday Lim, Dominga Cortina, Rowena
Leyson, Aniceto Biong and Antonio Maturan, would show that their testimony merely touched
on incidents prior to the rape.Nowhere in their narrative did they successfully negate the
presence of Antonio Diola during the commission of the beastly crime. Antonio Maturan testified
that after assisting Diola take the sound equipment to the latters house, the two of them
immediately slept together in the sala of Diolas house. The witness could not have been expected
to keep an eye on his companion all night and be positively certain that the latter did not, at
anytime, leave to join his co-accused. The scene of the crime was not really distant away from
his residence. If at all, the account of Inday Lim and Aniceto Biong only depicted private
complainant as being one who could brazenly and wantonly spend three nights with her lover,
flouting the conservative moral sensibilities of the people of Sindangan. Even if true, it certainly
would not have necessarily precluded private complainant from being raped.
The findings of Dr. Archimedes Demetrio, who conducted a medical examination on private
complainant (five days after the incident), that the victim's private organ showed no recent
lacerations but only old and healed vaginal tearing, not likely made during the last five days,
could not by itself be taken to necessarily mean that she was not subjected to the crime
charged. Neither virginity nor a finding of fresh vaginal lacerations would be essential in proving
rape.
In a long line of cases, this Court has continued to hold that subjecting the victim to medical
examination is not even a sine qua non to prove the charge. Just to the contrary, it has been a
consistent ruling of the Court that an accused may be convicted even solely on the testimony of
the complainant if the same is not improbable, and it is credible, natural, convincing, and
consistent with human nature and the course of things.
[4]

[5]

[6]

Appellant assails the findings of conspiracy by the court a quo, contending that there has
been lack of proof given of a prior agreement to commit the crime by all the accused. The

argument is without merit.Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of the felony and decide to commit it. The agreement to commit the
crime is, more frequently than not, made by the malefactors, not within a considerable interval
preceding the commission of the act, but close to, or contemporaneous with, the actual
commission thereof, when by their collective acts, it becomes implicit that they have
spontaneously agreed and decided to commit the felony. The existence of conspiracy, in fact, is
often inferred from the actuations of the accused during the commission of the crime, which
point to a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest.
[7]

[8]

[9]

On the witness stand, the victim poignantly recounted the individual participation of the
seven malefactors. Calixto "Alex" Biong held her hands, Orlando "Kolot" Leyson pulled her Tshirt, and Enrique "Dodoy" Morales held her by the neck. Then, Leyson released her T-shirt and
pulled down her short pants and underwear. Alex forthwith touched her breasts and vagina while
the others continued to hold her hands and feet.During all the time that the six of his co-accused
took turns in ravishing their hapless victim, appellant Antonio Diola kept on poking his knife at
her. It should be obvious that the malefactors acted in concert and synchrony, with evident unity
in their criminal intent, in accomplishing their sinister design. The cooperative acts of each
towards the criminal purpose of taking on their victim should prove that they were all parties to
the dastardly deed. While appellant Diola concededly did not actually penetrate private
complainant, his act of holding a knife against her to effectively silence any protest, was an overt
act in furtherance and facilitation of the conspiracy.
[10]

The act of one conspirator being the act of all the conspirators, Diola is liable for as many
counts of rape as each of his six co-conspirators has committed against private complainant.
Conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, appellant should be held liable to pay the
amounts of P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages, the two kinds of
damages having independent jural foundations, for each of the acts of rape committed against
private complainant or a grand total of P600,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Maasin, Southern Leyte, in
Criminal Case No. 1997, is AFFIRMED and ANTONIO DIOLA is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of rape, on six counts, against Carol Epis and is sentenced to suffer, for each
count, the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Appellant is also ordered, conformably with prevailing
jurisprudence, to pay a total of P600,000.00 by way of damages, as hereinabove so explained, to
private complainant. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.