FIRST DIVISION

Accused-appellant LITO BAYGAR y ESCOBAR (hereafter LITO) prays for a reversal of his conviction for RAPE decreed in the Decision1 [Original Record (OR), 82-86; Rollo, 12-16. Per Judge Mauricio M. Rivera.] of 19 September 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 73, in Criminal Case No. 93-10481.

A criminal complaint was filed by Joanna Kristin F. Nable (hereafter JOANNA) assisted by her parents, Emma F. Nable and Rolando Nable, accusing LITO of rape committed as follows:

LITO pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. Trial ensued thereafter and the prosecution presented JOANNA; her mother Emma F. Nable; Dr. Jesusa Nieves Vergara, Medico-Legal Officer of PNP; and Dr. Rosauro Cabailo, consultant-surgeon of the V. Luna Hospital. Their testimonies, as summarized by the trial court, are as follows:

LITO denied having raped JOANNA. He testified he was the houseboy of the Nables and that the case was filed against him because he tried to collect his unpaid salary in the amount of P5,000 to buy new clothes. Instead of paying him his salary, the parents of JOANNA threatened him and told him that he can be arrested at any time. He was subsequently arrested on 7 December 1993. Prior to the arrest he was left alone in their house as the couple and their children went out to work for money. He was told to guard the house while they were away. They left the house at 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon and returned at 8:00 o’clock in the evening. When they returned they were accompanied by a barangay tanod who arrested him. He was brought to the police headquarters and was subsequently detained.4 [TSN, 7 February 1996, 4-9.] miso

The trial court found it hard to believe LITO’S testimony that the complaint for rape was fabricated by his employers to evade payment of his salary. It noted that the amount of P5,000 was nothing compared to the trouble of having their daughter medically examined twice as well as going to court and advertising to the whole world that their daughter had been raped. It observed that the victim was only five years old when the incident occurred and it would be preposterous to assume that JOANNA could have concocted the grave charge of rape. Although it recognized that victim’s testimony was characterized by inconsistencies, it decided that the categorical statement of the victim that LITO inserted his penis into her vagina prevails. Rtcspped

The trial court was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that LITO ravished JOANA, a five year old girl, and carnal knowledge of a girl below 12 years old is always rape under the law. Thus, in its decision of 17 September 19975 [Supra note 1.] it decreed:

LITO seasonably appealed to us from the decision.

In his Appellant’s Brief, LITO contends that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him of statutory rape despite failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He attacks the credibility of the victim by pointing out that no competent evidence was presented to prove her age and that her testimony was characterized by inconsistencies which the trial court even pointed out in its decision. He emphasizes that although JOANNA claimed that he put his penis in her vagina, she likewise claimed that his penis never touched her vagina and that after she held his penis, the latter put on his pants. He also points out the fact that JOANNA testified that she was wearing her panty when he put his penis inside her vagina and that his penis never touched her vagina. Korte

LITO further highlights the testimony of Dr. Vergara that there was no laceration of JOANNA’S hymen, which means that her hymen is still intact. This fact alone merits his acquittal since every circumstance favoring his innocence must be taken into account. Finally he claims that Dr. Cabailo was not proven to be an expert witness, and his testimony does not show that JOANNA was indeed raped.

LITO thus concludes that the evidence against him falls short of that degree of proof necessary to engender moral certainty as to his guilt of the crime charged. spped

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that accused-appellant’s contention is untenable and bereft of merit. The OSG submits that the defense of simple denial cannot prevail over the positive declaration of JOANNA and the physical evidence on record. The OSG maintains that in assessing contrary declarations and statements, greater weight must generally be accorded to the positive testimonies of witnesses than the denials of the defense. The OSG likewise points out that despite JOANNA’S very tender age, she testified in a fairly clear, straightforward manner, in harmony with ordinary human experience. Furthermore, it characterized his testimony as unworthy of belief particularly with respect to his claim that his employers were motivated in fabricating the accusation of rape against him to avoid paying him his accumulated salary in the amount of P5,000 which he was trying to collect from them. It recommended that the assailed decision be affirmed in toto. Sclex

At the heart of LITO’s argument is the credibility of JOANNA. These three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Time and again the Court has held that conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses in rape cases lie heavily on the sound judgment of the trial court. It is likewise settled that appellate courts will generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court since the latter is in a better position to weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying unless it is found that the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.6 [People v. Florida, 214 SCRA 227 [1992]; People v. Lorenzo, 240 SCRA 624, 635 [1995]; People v. Hubilla, Jr., 252 SCRA 471, 478 [1996]] Sclaw

A careful review of the records herein yield no cause to reverse the factual findings of the trial court. Contrary to the allegations of appellant, JOANNA testified in a straightforward, clear and truthful manner. Given her tender years, her testimony acquires even more credibility in its utter simplicity and lack of embellishments. We reproduce pertinent portions of her testimony, thus:

x x x

x x x7 [TSN, 26 April 1994, 8-11.]

The victim, JOANNA, was only five years old at the time of the rape. At such a tender age, she could not be expected to weave with uncanny recollection such a complicated tale as the sexual assault that LITO unconscionably perpetrated on her.8 [People v. Sueta, 225 SCRA 219, 225 [1993].] Even on cross-examination, JOANNA’S candor and honesty were evident; her language simple and spontaneous, consistent of and befitting someone her age testifying to such a horrible experience, to wit. Thus: miso

The victim has been consistent and positive in her testimony that LITO inserted his penis in her vagina and felt pain in the process. LITO has not successfully controverted this testimony. JOANNA’s testimony that she had her panty on was not inconsistent with her testimony that LITO inserted his penis into her vagina. The fact that the victim was wearing a panty when the sexual assault was committed did not negate penetration.

Further, the fact of penetration, though incomplete, was collaborated by the testimony of the examining physician that there was a congestion or redness on the vaginal area of the victim which could have been caused by a fully erected penis.10 [TSN, 30 May 1995, 4.]]

As for the intact hymen, such finding has no bearing on the fact of carnal knowledge. We have held that to sustain a conviction for rape, full penetration of the female genital organ is not required since mere entry by the penis into the lips of the said organ -- even without rupture or laceration of the hymen -- is sufficient. Thus, a finding that the victim’s hymen is intact does not negate a finding that rape was committed.11 [People v. Gagto, 253 SCRA 455, 464 [1996].] Jospped

LITO’s bare denial and self-serving assertions that the case stemmed from the desire of the victim’s family to evade paying him his wages is unbelievable. No parent would expose his or her own daughter, specially a child of such tender age as JOANNA, to the shame and scandal of having undergone such a debasing defilement of her chastity if the charge filed were not true.12 [People v. Zaballero, 274 SCRA 627, 639 [1997]. See People v. Dela Cruz, 251 SCRA 77 [1995]; People v. Abao, 240 SCRA 758 [1995].] Moreover, it is hard to believe that a child would invent such a story as the rape perpetrated by accused-appellant on her unless it were true. A girl of such age as the victim would not concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience, not to mention the trauma, of a public trial, unless she was raped.13 [See People v. Escober, 281 SCRA 498 [1997]; People v. Sanchez, 250 SCRA 14 [1995]; People v. Dado, 244 SCRA 655 [1995].] In fact, from a reading of JOANNA’s testimony, it would appear that she, because of her tender age, did not quite grasp the enormity or gravity of the bestiality heaped upon her by LITO. Sppedjo

There is no doubt in our minds that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the fact that LITO had carnal knowledge of JOANNA. Considering JOANNA’s age at the time of the crime, LITO committed statutory rape, and carnal knowledge alone of JOANNA is rape. It is not required that LITO use force or intimidation, or that JOANNA be deprived of reason or be otherwise unconscious.14 [People v. Lagrosa, Jr., 230 SCRA 298, 305 [1994]; see People v. Diaz, 262 SCRA 723, 730 [1996].]

Finally, JOANNA is entitled to an award for moral damages which is hereby set at P50,000. The grant of moral damages is automatically made in rape cases without need of proof for it is assumed that the complainant has sustained mental, physical and psychological sufferings, thus entitling her to such award.15 [See People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411, 431 [1998]; People v. Yabut, G.R. No. 13386, 28 July 1999.] Miso

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 73, in Criminal Case No. 93-10481 finding accused-appellant LITO BAYGAR y ESCOBAR guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 335(3) of the Revised Penal Code, and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the modification, however, that in addition to the award of P50,000 as indemnity, accused-appellant is ordered to pay JOANNA KRISTIN F. NABLE the sum of P50,000 as moral damages.

Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.