Herein accused-appellant Mauro M. Suba was charged with two counts of rape before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Third Judicial Region, San Fernando, Pampanga and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 7025 and 7026, the informations read as follows:

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to both charges.3 [See note 1, at 26.] Trial ensued, and, thereafter, the court a quo rendered its decision on January 23, 1995, finding the accused-appellant guilty as charged and sentencing him as follows:

The facts as established by the prosecution follows. Korte

Between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. on November 9, 1992, private complainant Annabelle R. Gavino (hereinafter "Annabelle"), then fourteen (14) years old, was busy cleaning their house in Barangay Lourdes, Candaba, Pampanga. She heard someone calling from downstairs. It was accused-appellant, a cousin of her father, who asked to borrow matches. Annabelle answered that she did not have any. She thought that accused-appellant had left. To her surprise, he had gone upstairs. Without a word, he approached her and poked a balisong (fanknife) at her neck.5 [TSN, August 26, 1993, pp. 5-9.]

With the knife menacingly pointed at Annabelle’s neck, appellant proceeded to undress her. She started to cry.6 [Id., at 12-13.] After undressing her, accused-appellant pushed her down to the floor. As she lay on her back, appellant went on top of her and had sexual intercourse with her. All the while the fanknife was pointed at her neck. After violating Annabelle, accused-appellant left with the threat that if she reported the incident to anyone he would kill her family.7 [Id., at 17-20.] Sclaw

A similar incident occurred on January 24, 1993. At mid-morning, appellant called Annabelle from downstairs and asked this time if he could borrow a tambayok (a straight flattened bamboo used on the shoulders to carry two loads on both ends). She told him that she had none and again she thought that he left thereafter. But, he went upstairs and threatened her with a balisong pointed at her neck. Appellant asked Annabelle if she reported what had happened before to anyone to which she answered in the negative.8 [Id., at 28-30.]

Accused-appellant again proceeded to rape Annabelle poking his knife at her neck the whole time.9 [TSN, September 21, 1994, p. 24.] In the middle of it all, Annabelle’s older brother, Arnold arrived and saw his sister being ravaged by accused-appellant. Alarmed at Arnold’s arrival, accused-appellant put on his short pants and ran away. Arnold consoled his sister who was crying. He reported what had happened to his parents as well as the parents of the accused-appellant.10 [TSN, November 29, 1993, p. 12.] That same day, the Gavino family reported the incident to the barangay authorities.11 [TSN, December 29-1993, p. 13.] Sclex

The next day, January 25, 1993, Annabelle was brought to Lingad Hospital, where Dr. Marissa P. Morales examined her. Said examination yielded the following results:

x x x

Accused-appellant’s defense consists merely of denials and alibi. Xsc

Testifying for his own defense, accused-appellant vehemently denied having had carnal knowledge of Annabelle. In open court, accused-appellant narrated that on 24 January 1993, the day of the alleged second rape, he was instructed by his mother to borrow matches from Aling Pacing whose house was at the back of the complainant’s home. He thus passed by the house of Annabelle.13 [TSN, Mauro Suba, June 17, 1994, pp. 7-8.] He was in the dark as to the allegations of Arnold Gavino that the latter saw him having sexual intercourse with Annabelle.14 [Id., at 10.] He, however, remembered that on his way back from Aling Pacing, He had bumped into Arnold in front of the Gavino household. He then tried to borrow Arnold’s bicycle as he had to go to the Batasan. Arnold, however, refused to lend him the bicycle.15 [Id., at 8.] Also in the Gavino household at that time was Annabelle’s Aunt Emy.16 [Id., at 11-12.] Emy even told accused-appellant that it was good that Arnold did not lend him bicycle as he might just destroy it. That same day Emy recounted to her husband, Benny, accused-appellant’s visit to the Gavino household. Accused-appellant surmised that Emy must have told Benny that accused-appellant was fooling Arnold and had cursed her,17 [Id., at 15-17.] because on his way home from the Batasan, Benny accosted him and hit him with a club.18 [Id., at 19.] Fearing that Benny might do him more harm, he went to Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija where he stayed for three months.

As to the alleged rape on 9 November 1992, the accused-appellant simply remembered seeing Annabelle Gavino with her sisters and friends on the road to their barrio that day.19 [Id., at 24-25.] Sdaadsc

To support his claim, accused-appellant presented his mother Lolita Musngi. She testified that on 24 January 1993, at around 9:00 in the morning, she was doing the laundry at home. Arnold Gavino approached her and asked for the whereabouts of the accused. When she asked him why, Arnold replied that "It seems that Mauro was doing something untoward to my sister." When she asked Arnold if he had actually witnessed what he was talking about, he answered in the negative. After her encounter with Arnold, she proceeded to the Gavino household and saw Annabelle by the table crying. She then asked Annabelle what Mauro did to her, saying: "Kinana ka ba?" (Did he have sexual intercourse with you?), to which the young lass replied "No," shaking her head and still crying. Annabelle then explained that the reason why she was crying was because her brother Arnold had boxed her. At the time of her conversation with Annabelle, her son Mauro was at Barangay Batasan, San Miguel, Bulacan. However, earlier that day, she had asked Mauro to borrow matches from Aling Pacing.20 [TSN, April 13, 1994, pp. 6-9.]

As mentioned earlier, accused-appellant was convicted of the offenses charged against him. In brief, accused-appellant raises the following errors allegedly committed by the trial court: miso

The first two assignment of errors refer to the credibility of the witnesses, hence, will be discussed jointly.

In the futile attempt to assail the credibility of Annabelle, accused-appellant points the portions of her testimony which weaken her allegation that she was raped. He claims that Annabelle could not have possibly been intimidated since, when he allegedly threatened her with a knife, Annabelle was upstairs while appellant was downstairs:22 [Id, at 47.]

x x x

Annabelle, however, had repeatedly declared in her testimony that she was threatened by appellant after he went upstairs and approached her. He poked his knife at her neck not only while she was being undressed but also while he was raping her. In recounting the November 9, 1992 incident, Annabelle testified as follows:

Similarly, in the second rape on January 24, 1993, the victim testified that accused-appellant, after he went upstairs, made use of a knife to threaten her:

x x x

Further, Annabelle testified that the accused-appellant never let go of the knife, thus instilling fear in her, ensuring the success of his lewd designs: Nexold

It is clear from the above testimony, that Annabelle’s life was being seriously threatened and she was paralyzed with fear. Hence, accused-appellant’s allegation that "she did not resent the undressing" and that "there was no reaction on her part while being allegedly raped" is totally unfounded. She did not do anything as she "was afraid because he was holding that balisong."29 [Id., at 19.]

Taking into account the following factors: that a knife was poked at Annabelle’s neck; that accused-appellant was an ascendant, being a cousin of her father; and that accused-appellant was reputedly a notorious person who was "much feared in our place;" and known to have even "mauled his brothers;"30 [TSN, September 28, 1993, p. 10.] it was not abnormal for Annabelle to have reacted as she did.

Likewise, accused-appellant’s claim that Annabelle was raped while standing deserves scant consideration as she narrated that she was sexually abused after being forced to lie down, thus: Oldmiso

The victim’s brother Arnold, likewise affirmed that Annabelle was raped while lying down:

Accused-appellant further posits that if it were true that Annabelle was a virgin, it was unusual that appellant was able to insert his organ "that easy and no reaction on her part."36 [Rollo, p. 49.] Again, said insinuations are baseless in light of Annabelle’s testimony that she felt pain when appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, thus:

Appellant also alleges that if Annabelle’s two brothers were present at the time she claims to have been raped, how then could the rape have been consummated.38 [See note 21.] However, Annabelle had clearly explained that the kitchen, where her younger brothers stayed, was downstairs while she was raped upstairs.39 [TSN, September 21, 1993, p. 8.] But more importantly, she stated that when appellant threatened her with a knife her brothers had "already left… and they were at the house of my grandmother."40 [Id., at 21.]

Accused-appellant further tries to cast a doubt on the victim’s story by arguing that if it were true that, as stated by Annabelle, appellant was holding the "balisong" with "his right hand when he poked the said balisong," the knife should have been "directed at the left portion of her neck not on her right side of the neck." Jjlex

Overwhelming evidence on record shows that accused-appellant poked his knife at the middle portion of Annabelle’s neck, not on the right side thereof.41 [TSN, August 26, 1993, pp. 10, 29; TSN, September 28, 1993, p. 5, 13.] Hence, no inconsistency exists as to which hand accused-appellant used in holding his knife and which part of the neck the knife was pointed.

Also made an issue by accused-appellant is the alleged admission made by Annabelle to Lolita Musngi, accused-appellant’s mother, who testified that when she asked Annabelle if her son had sexual intercourse with her, she answered in the negative. But as aptly pointed out by the trial court, assuming that what she testified to is true, such statement has little evidentiary value since a young lady like Annabelle would naturally make such a denial in an embarassing situation where, as in this case, the question was posed in the presence of many people. Also, it would seem pointless for Anabelle to tell the mother of her rapist the horrible experience with her son. A mother’s instinct is always to defend her offspring. Illuminating are the following portions of appellant’s mother’s testimony: Newmiso

x x x

On the other hand, Annabelle readily admitted to her own mother that she was raped by accused-appellant:

Appellant claims that there was contradiction between Arnold Gavino’s statement that the "accused saw him (arnold) while he was on top of his sister and having sexual intercourse" and his statement given during cross-examination that "when accused Mauro Suba saw him, he was no longer having sexual intercourse with her sister." However, this inconsistency was explained later on upon clarificatory questions propounded by the trial court. Apparently, Arnold did not understand the questions earlier propounded, and upon elucidation, he gave a categorical statement that he first saw Mauro Suba on top of his sister.45 [TSN, November 29, 1993, p. 18.] Scedp

All told, the first two issues raised by the accused-appellant boils down to the issue of credibility of witnesses. We have held, time and again, that the trial court’s assessment as to the credibility of witnesses is to be accorded great weight. This is so because it had better opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.46 [People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Bandares y Boton, G.R. No. 130092, July 26, 1999.] Illuminating are the following observations made by the trial court:

Not only is Annabelle’s testimony free from doubt or suspicion of embellishment, insincerity and untruthfulness, but the young girl had no reason to falsely incriminate accused-appellant. She has no motive to charge him with a heinous and loathsome offense except "her desire for justice and redress for a terrible wrong inflicted on her." Her testimony that she was raped by the accused-appellant is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant. Sccalr

In a last ditch effort to exonerate himself, accused-appellant claims that the absence of spermatozoa in Annabelle’s organ when she was physically examined proves that there was no rape. He adds that inasmuch as there was ejaculation based on the testimonies that "the accused complete (sic) a sexual act on both occasion … (I)f it were so, then the doctor should have found seminal fluid."48 [Id., at 54.]

A careful examination of the transcript of records reveals that neither Annabelle nor Arnold testified that accused-appellant had an ejaculation during the sexual act. Besides, the absence of spermatozoa in the complainant’s vagina does not necessarily negate the commission of rape. There may be a valid explanation for such absence, as when the semen may have been washed away or when the rapist failed to ejaculate.49 [People v. Salomon, 299 SCRA 403 (1994).]

Per current case law, a rape victim is entitled to a civil indemnity of P50,000.00 per count.50 [People v. Amado Sandrias Javier, G.R. No. 126096, July 26, 1999.] Seeing no cogent reason why the amount of indemnity should be raised in this particular instance, we find the award of the trial court of P120,000.00 incorrect. We, however, award moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. As ruled in the case of People v. Prades,51 [293 SCRA 411.] an additional award of P50,000.00 is due the rape victim notwithstanding the absence of proof of its award, in view of the fact that she has in fact suffered mental, physical and psychological trauma. Calrsc

WHEREFORE, the decision convicting Mauro Suba y Musngi of two counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each crime is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that he is ordered to pay the victim P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.