On appeal is the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Branch 1, in Criminal Cases Nos. 6775, 6787, 6788, and 6789, promulgated on March 10, 1995, finding appellant Gonzalo Penaso guilty of rape in Criminal Case No. 6775, and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua while acquitting him in the other cases. The fallo reads:

The facts of this case, as culled from the records, are as follows:

On April 16, 1990, private complainant, assisted by her mother Rosalina Lacar, filed with the 8th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Candijay-Anda, Bohol, a complaint for multiple rape, docketed as Criminal Case No. 372, stating:

Following the preliminary investigation on April 25, 1990, the municipal circuit court issued an order for the arrest of the accused who, by then, had left Bohol for Misamis Oriental.

Meanwhile, on July 10, 1990, appellant was arrested in Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental, for illegal possession of firearms. Notwithstanding the warrant of arrest for rape against him, he posted bail for the case for which he was arrested, and then he disappeared.

On July 16, 1990, private complainant gave birth to a baby boy.

In August 1990, private complainant filed three additional complaints for rape with the circuit court, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 397,3 [Exhibit "B", Exhibit "3", Index of Exhibits, p. 2.] 398,4 [Exhibit "C", Exhibit "4", Id. at 5.] and 399.5 [Exhibit "D", Exhibit "5", Id. at 8.] These rapes allegedly took place in November and December 1989. She likewise amended her complaint in Criminal Case No. 372, limiting it to just one charge of rape allegedly committed on November 16, 1989.6 [Supra Note 1, at 63.]

On August 27, 1990, the Provincial Prosecutor of Bohol filed an information for the first rape complained of, to wit:

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 6775 in the RTC of Tagbilaran City and raffled to Branch 1 of said court.

On September 3, 1990, the Provincial Prosecutor filed with the RTC three additional informations docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 6787, 6788, and 6789. Except as to the dates of the incidents complained of, the informations in these three cases were virtually identical to the information in Criminal Case No. 6775.

On April 17, 1991, appellant was arrested in Magallanes, Agusan del Norte.

On May 5, 1991, appellant escaped from his police escort in Cebu City while being transported from Agusan del Norte to Bohol.8 [Id. at 41.]

In March 1993, police operatives in Cagayan de Oro City finally apprehended appellant.

When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty to the four counts of rape. The cases were consolidated and trial on the merits ensued. Appellant raised the defenses of denial and alibi.

After trial, the court summarized its factual findings as follows:

The trial court convicted appellant in Criminal Case No. 6775 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

Hence, this appeal with the sole assignment of error, as follows:

In his brief, appellant assails the trial court for giving credence to private complainant’s account and disregarding his alibi. He submits that the rape charges against him are fabricated.

In rape cases the issue, more often than not, is the credibility of the victim. Rape is generally unwitnessed and very often the victim is left to testify for herself. Her testimony is most vital and must be received with the utmost caution.10 [People v. Domogoy, et al., G.R. No. 116738, March 22, 1999, p. 11, citing People v. Casim, 213 SCRA 390 (1992).] When a rape victim’s testimony is straightforward, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, then it deserves full faith and credit and cannot be discarded. Once found credible, her lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction.11 [People v. Caratay, G.R. Nos. 119418, 119436-37, October 5, 1999, p. 8.]

In assessing the credibility of witnesses, we are guided by the following doctrinal principles:

Applying these guidelines, we find no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of private complainant’s credibility. Appellant has shown no reason whatsoever for us to doubt her testimony. The records show that private complainant testified as to her ravishment in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank manner. She positively identified appellant as her rapist. She was consistent in her narration of how she was dragged inside appellant’s house, boxed into submission, and ravished.13 [Records, p. 6-8.] We find that private complainant did not waiver in her account of her harrowing experience under intense and grueling cross-examination14 [TSN, August 13, 1993, pp. 12-20; TSN, August 24, 1993, pp. 3-6.] Absent any showing that the trial court’s assessment of her credibility was flawed, we are bound by its findings.15 [People v. Mengote, G. R. No. 130491, March 25, 1999, p. 8.]

We also note the finding of the trial court that:

A woman who says she has been raped, as a rule, says almost all that is necessary to signify that the crime has been committed.17 [People v. Tumala, Jr., 284 SCRA 436, 439 (1998).] More so, if she was crying throughout her testimony, for we have found the same to be a badge of truthfulness.18 [People v. Mosqueda, G.R. No. 131830-34, September 3, 1999, p. 10; People v. Bea, Jr., G.R. No. 109618, May 5, 1999, p. 5; People v. Maglantay, G.R. No. 125537, March 8, 1999, p. 7; People v. Ramos, 296 SCRA 559, 570 (1998).]

Appellant argues that he could not have raped complainant on November 16, 1989 at about 9:00 0’clock in the morning, since the latter was attending classes at the Bohol School of Fisheries in Cogtong, Candijay, Bohol, while he was in Sun-oc, Ubay, Bohol making banana chips. Inasmuch as they were in separate places, the rape could not have taken place. His wife and another defense witness corroborated his testimony. The latter’s testimony, was given scant consideration by the trial court, as said witness admitted receiving one hundred pesos (P100.00) from appellant’s wife before testifying. Appellant further points to the testimony of his daughter, Jonalou Penaso, who was the victim’s classmate, to the effect that the victim was attending classes with her at the Bohol Fisheries School at the time and date the rape took place, so it was impossible for the victim to have been at his house at that time.

We find complainant’s testimony credible, while appellant’s defenses of alibi and denial are lacking in truth and candor. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the complainant.19 [People v. Tabion, G.R. No. 132715, October 20, 1999, p. 18; People v. Accion, G.R. Nos. 122550-51, August 11, 1999, p. 11.] Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated.20 [People v. Hivela, G.R. No. 132061, September 21, 1999, p. 5.] Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.21 [People v. Hivela, supra. citing People v. Burce, 269 SCRA 293 (1997).] We find that despite his stance that several persons watched him demonstrate how to cook banana chips in Ubay, Bohol in the morning of November 16, 1989,22 [TSN, December 29, 1994, pp. 3-4.] appellant failed to present any disinterested witness to support his claim. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused show he was elsewhere at the time the crime was committed, but there must also be clear and convincing proof that it was impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.23 [People v. Agunos, G.R. No. 130961, October 13, 1999, p. 9.]

With respect to the appellant’s claim that the victim was attending her classes at the time she was raped, we note that complainant’s explanation that it was their vacant period,24 [TSN, August 13, 1993, p. 11.] was not rebutted by the defense. All told, we see no reason to depart from the rule that positive identification of the malefactor prevails over the defenses of alibi and denial.

Appellant insists that he did not get private complainant pregnant. He cites the testimony of defense witness Rafael Libres, a classmate of the victim, to the effect that complainant admitted to him that appellant had not caused her pregnancy. According to Libres, complainant identified either one Willy Guitano or a certain man from Sagumay, Candijay, Bohol as the possible father of her child. Appellant also points an accusing finger at private complainant’s stepfather as a possible culprit. This attempt to impugn the victim’s moral character by the appellant is self-serving and unsupported by the evidence. Furthermore, the question of who sired the victim’s child has no bearing here, for in rape cases, the identity of the father of the victim’s child is not an issue, pregnancy not being an element of the crime.25 [People v. Villaluna, G.R. No. 117666, February 23, 1999, p. 14; People v. Malapo, 294 SCRA 579, 588 (1998); People v. Sta. Ana, 291 SCRA 188, 214 (1998).]

In a last-ditch effort to win an acquittal, appellant asked for a DNA test or blood test.26 [Rollo, p. 116.] We find the motion futile. As held in one case:

Moreover, the records show that appellant escaped from his police escort while being transported to face charges, and then remained at large for two years. His claims of abduction by the members of the New People’s Army or by relatives of the victim are both incredible and wanting in substantive proof, given his admission that he hid out for a while with a relative in Metro Manila.28 [TSN, February 28, 1995, pp. 12-13.] Flight is an implied admission of guilt, and appellant’s escape betrays both his guilt and his desire to evade responsibility.29 [People v. Villanueva, 284 SCRA 501, 510 (1998).] A truly innocent person would naturally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and assert his innocence as to the crime imputed to him.30 [People v. Solis, 291 SCRA 529, 540 (1998).]

The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the pertinent elements of the felony of rape as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, namely: that appellant Gonzalo Penaso had carnal knowledge of the victim against her will and through the use of force and intimidation. No reversible error can be attributed to the trial court in finding appellant guilty of rape. Hence, his conviction must be upheld.

We note, however, that the trial court awarded only P50,000.00 as indemnity and moral damages. Pursuant to current jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.31 [People v. Maglente, G.R. Nos. 124559-66, April 30, 1999, p. 36.] In addition, moral damages amounting to P50,000.00 at the least should be imposed in rape cases involving young and immature girls between the ages of thirteen and nineteen, without need of further proof.32 [People v. Batoon, G.R. No. 134194, October 26, 1999, pp. 8-9.]

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo finding appellant Gonzalo Penaso guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that CIVIL INDEMNITY in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) and MORAL DAMAGES also in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) should be paid by appellant to private complainant, Basilisa Lacar. Costs against appellant.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Buena, J., on official leave.