The facts are as follows:

The crime scene was in a small store inside a parking lot located at the corner of Rada and De la Rosa Streets, Legaspi Village, Makati City.5 [TSN, August 16, 1994, p. 7.] The family of private complainant Maricris Zanoria (hereinafter, Maricris) owns the store, while accused-appellant was formerly a parking attendant at the lot. Maricris’ mother, Beatriz Liad, usually tended the store. But as Beatriz Liad was in the hospital for a check-up on the date in question, her daughter Maricris tended the store and slept there alone.

At around 2:00 in the morning of August 9, 1992, accused-appellant, clad in mere sando and intoxicated, entered the store and poked his knife on the breast of the sleeping Maricris. She woke up and sensing the lustful intent of accused-appellant, she pushed, kicked and scratched him but to no avail. Accused-appellant ordered Maricris to undress, and repeatedly punched Maricis Zanoria in the stomach whenever she refused. The continuous beating finally took its toll on Maricris who later on succumbed to the beastly desires of accused-appellant. The forced coition lasted for about two (2) minutes. After accused-appellant had satisfied his lust, he stood up, and threatened to kill Maricis should she disclose the incident to anybody. Maricris could not escape since accused-appellant was sitting on top of a table near the door, smoking a cigarette.6 [TSN, August 16, 1994, pp. 9-21.] SdaaÓ miso

Accused-appellant forced himself upon Maricris a second time at around 4:00 a.m. of the same morning. As in the first encounter, he repeatedly punched Maricris until he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. After satisfying his lust anew, accused-appellant reiterated his death threats on Maricris. He went behind the store to put on his underwear and pants, then headed to the guardhouse to get his clothes and the key of the parking lot gate. Maricris was left alone inside the store, weeping in fear and dejection.7 [TSN, August 16, 1994, pp. 24-28.]

Maricris did not tell anyone of the incidents for more than a year because accused-appellant persistently followed and threatened her with death. December 19, 1993, however, was the last day accused-appellant would stalk Maricris. As she, accompanied by her younger brother and a neighbor, was making a phone call in a store a kilometer away from their house in Fairview, accused-appellant who was holding a bladed weapon and a companion approached and asked her: Sinong pinagsusumbungan mong pulis o kamag-anak mo?" (Who are you reporting to, a policeman or a relative?) Maricris and her companions lost no time in heading for home. As Maricris looked pale and frightened, her mother Beatriz asked her what happened. Maricris was hesitant at first, but when Beatriz slapped her, she finally revealed her sexual ordeal in the hands of accused-appellant. The next day, they reported the rape incidents to the police.8 [TSN, August 16, 1994, pp. 33-39.] Scncä m

On December 19, 1993, accused-appellant was arrested and brought to the Makati Police Station where he knelt before Maricris and her mother Beatriz to ask for forgiveness.9 [TSN, November 29, 1994, p. 25.]

Accused-appellant anchored his defense on alibi and a "sweetheart story". At the time the alleged rapes were committed on August 9, 1992, he could not exactly recall where he was but he knew he was at home with his small sister.10 [TSN, November 22, 1994, p. 33.] Accused-appellant also claimed that he and Maricris were lovers from September of 1991 up to May of 1992. They went out on dates on occasions, but they never had any intimate sexual encounters.11 TSN, November 22, 1994, pp. 23-27.11 He ended the relationship when he saw her talking to another man. Accused-appellant thereafter cohabited with Imelda Catacutan in September of 1993. That was the reason why Maricris fabricated the rape charge against him.12 [TSN, November 22, 1994, p. 37.]

Imelda Catacutan confirmed the amorous relationship between accused-appellant and Maricris which lasted from 1991 to around April of 1992.13 [TSN, November 29, 1994, pp. 38-39.] Sometime in December of 1993, the mother of Maricris (Beatriz Liad) confronted her at the accused-appellant’s house and informed her that Maricris was no longer a virgin. Beatriz turned her ire on accused-appellant and held him responsible for Maricris’ loss of virginity. Upon Beatriz’ prodding, accused-appellant and Imelda went to Maricris’ house where Beatriz asked her daughter if it was accused-appellant indeed who deflowered her. Maricris, however, denied it. Beatriz then warned accused-appellant that she would file a complaint against him if Maricris’ medical examination would confirm that she was no longer a virgin.14 [TSN, November 24, 1994, pp. 44-47.]

On the basis of the foregoing facts, the trial court convicted accused-appellant. Jjä lex

Seeking reversal of his conviction, accused-appellant challenges the credibility of complainant Maricris’ story and reiterates his defense of alibi and amorous relationship with Maricris.

We find the appeal unmeritorious.

We will not disturb the trial court’s conclusion on the credibility of Maricris and the truthfulness of her version. So often repeated by the Court is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected in the record.15 [People vs. Mayor Antonio Sanchez, G. R. Nos. 121039-45, January 25, 1999; People vs. Sarabia, 266 SCRA 471 (1997); People vs. Tacipit, 242 SCRA 241 (1995)] And in a prosecution for rape, the complainant’s credibility becomes the single most important issue.16 [People vs. Dacoba, 289 SCRA 265 (1998)] The trial court, in passing upon the credibility of Maricris, has provided a vivid description of how she conducted herself on the witness stand which validated her charges of rape. Thus:

On the other hand, the accused-appellant failed to impress the trial judge who made the following observations on his demeanor in the courtroom, viz:

We have consistently adhered to the rule that where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect. These findings will not ordinarily be disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case. The reason for the rule is an excellent chance on the part of the trial court, an opportunity that is not equally open to an appellate court, of being able to personally observe the expression of declarants on the witness stand and their demeanor under questioning.19 [People vs. Malagar, 238 SCRA 512 (1994); People vs. Manual, 234 SCRA 532 (1994)] And the Court agrees with the observation of the trial court that the testimony of Maricris was straightforward, guileless and credible.20 [People vs. Tulop, 289 SCRA 316 (1998)] She gave a plain and candid account of her harrowing experience in a manner reflective of honest and unrehearsed testimony.21 [People vs. Gementiza, 285 SCRA 478 (1998)] The rule is well settled that when the question of credence as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense where a rape was committed is in issue, the trial court’s answer is generally viewed as correct.22 [People vs. Erardo, 277 SCRA 643 (1997)]

Verily, the denial/alibi interposed by accused-appellant must fail. Maricris could not have mistakenly identified accused-appellant as her rapist considering their familiarity with one another - they being neighbors in Fairview and friends, not lovers. Positive identification of the accused as the rapist prevails over his defense of alibi.23 [People vs. Escober, 281 SCRA 498 (1997)] Edâ p

The Court also rejects the "sweetheart story" espoused by accused-appellant. Not only does Maricris vehemently deny any amorous relationship with the accused-appellant, he presented no credible evidence to prove such special relationship such as love letters and gifts.24 [People vs. Tismo, 204 SCRA 535 (1991)] Accused-appellant presented a picture of him and Maricris taken at a park sometime in 1991 to prove that they were sweethearts. Maricris explained that the picture shown by accused-appellant was only one among several pictures taken by pairs when he, she and other friends had a group outing at the Quezon City Memorial Circle.25 [TSN, January 11, 1995, p. 19, 26.] Clearly, accused-appellant’s "sweetheart story" is purely self-serving which carries no evidentiary weight at all. This argument based on the much abused "sweetheart story" in rape cases rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience.26 [People vs. Cabel, 282 SCRA 410 (1997)]

The testimony and medical findings27 [Records, p. 12.] of Dr. Annabelle Soliman who conducted a genital examination on Maricris support her charges of rape. Her written report revealed that Maricris’ genital bore a healed hymenal laceration at 6:00 o’ clock position. She stated that the laceration was possibly due to sexual intercourse and that her description of the hymenal laceration is compatible with the date of the alleged rape.28 [TSN, September 27, 1994, p. 22, pp. 18-19.] Miä sedp

Accused-appellant cannot validly claim that his kneeling down before Maricris’ mother (Beatriz Liad) at the police station is inadmissible against him because he was merely forced to do so. On the contrary, accused-appellant’s testimony reveals that he knelt voluntarily without being denied the option to do so or not. Thus:

Even assuming arguendo that they were lovers, rape can still be committed if accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with the complainant against her will.30 [People vs. Vallena, 244 SCRA 685 (1995); People vs. Tacipit, 242 SCRA 241 (1995)]

The fact that it took Maricris and her mother more than a year before reporting the rape incidents to the authorities does not destroy the case against accused-appellant. Being only fourteen (14) years old when Maricris was sexually violated, she was understandably cowed into silence as accused-appellant repeatedly warned her not to divulge the incidents to anybody, otherwise she would be killed. Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained. Fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial considerations and economic reasons have been considered as sufficient explanations.31 [People vs. Lusa, 288 SCR 296 (1998); People vs. Viovicente, 286 SCRA 1 (1998); People vs. Astorga, 283 SCRA 420 (1997); People vs. Fuensalida, 281 SCRA 452 (1997)] It was also understandable for Maricris not to immediately report the rape as Filipino women are known to be affectedly shy and coy, and rape stigmatizes the victim, not the perpetrator.32 [People vs. Luzorata, 286 SCRA 487 (1997)] Misoedpâ

The Court cannot consider Maricris’ charges of rape as purely fabricated or maliciously motivated. A young girl’s revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be easily dismissed as mere concoction.33 [People vs. Molas, 286 SCRA 684 (1998)] For, it is difficult to imagine that she would undergo the indignities and hardships concomitant to a prosecution for rape unless motivated by a desire to have the offender apprehended and punished.34 [People vs. Balmoria, 287 SCRA 687 (1998)] Moreover, no mother would sacrifice her own daughter, a child of tender years at that, and subject her to the rigors and humiliation of a public trial for rape if she were not motivated by an honest desire to have her daughter’s transgressor punished accordingly.35 [People vs. Tumala, 284 SCRA 436 (1998); People vs. Oliva, 282 SCRA 470 (1997)]

As to the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on accused-appellant for each count of rape, the Court finds the same to be in accord with Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The indemnity of P50,000.00 per offense, or a total of P100,000.00, awarded to Maricris is also correct since civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is automatically given to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the commission of the rape.36 [People vs. Pili, 289 SCRA 118 (1998)] Maricris is also entitled to moral damages because under prevailing jurisprudence, moral damages are imposed in rape cases involving young girls between thirteen (13) and nineteen (19) years of age, taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on their youthful feminine psyche.37 [People vs. Erese, 281 SCRA 316 (1997); People vs. Sabellina, 238 SCRA 492 (1994)] An additional P50,000.00 for each count of rape, or a total of P100,000.00 to be given Maricris by way of moral damages, seems proper under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, except for the MODIFICATION awarding complainant Maricris Zanoria y Fabula an additional amount of P100,000.00, as moral damages, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects.

Costs against accused-appellant Winefred Accion.

SO ORDERED. Jjä sc

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.