Accused-appellant Bonifacio Torejos y Pañares @ Boning was convicted for raping a three-year-old child and was meted the supreme penalty of death. The Judgment1 [Penned by Judge Renato A. Fuentes] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 17, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 is now before us on automatic review.

Bonifacio Torejos (TOREJOS) was charged with raping Mary Cris Cerna (MARY CRIS) in an information that reads:

On October 25, 1984, the accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.3 [Record, p. 15-a.]

The RTC summarized the facts of the case as culled from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as follows: MisÓ sc

Accused-appellant vehemently denied having committed the offense charged. He claimed that he was in the house of the complainant at 3:00 p.m. on January 7, 1997 to get his share in the proceeds of the sale of firewood from Luciano Cerna, the father of Mary Cris, and went to the back of the house to drink water when he saw Mary Cris at the bench about to fall; he went near the child and held her, so that she will not fall to the ground.5 [T.S.N., April 7, 1997, pp. 4-5.]

On April 25, 1997, the RTC rendered its decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape the dispositive portion of which reads:

Hence this appeal where the accused-appellant assigns this sole error: Miso

In support of his appeal, the accused-appellant maintains that the evidence presented by the prosecution is "not clear, convincing and unnatural." First of all, the testimony of the mother of the alleged victim, Rosalie Cerna, is contrary to human experience for if she in fact saw the accused-appellant raping her daughter, she would have made an outcry for help to rescue and prevent him from accomplishing his sexual desire. This she did not do. In fact, she did not do anything at the very moment she allegedly saw her daughter being raped. This puts in question her credibility. Second, it is highly improbable that the accused-appellant raped MARY CRIS considering that the alleged rape took place in broad daylight and at a public place. Rape is essentially done in secret away from prying eyes unlike the present case where the rape is alleged to have been committed in a place that was in full view of the victim's father and mother. Finally, Rosalie Cerna herself admitted that MARY CRIS was not crying after the sexual assault was allegedly committed. The victim, who is of tender age, would naturally have cried due to the terrible pain caused by the infliction of a wound on her labia minora. With these factors in mind, it is contended that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused-appellant mandated by the Constitution must prevail and the accused-appellant must be acquitted of the crime charged.8 [Appellant's Brief, pp. 7-17; Rollo, pp. 56-66.]

After a thorough review of the records, we resolve to deny the appeal.

Rosalie Cerna (ROSALIE), the eyewitness and mother of the victim, established the fact of rape and the age of the victim, MARY CRIS. She gave a clear and convincing account of the unfortunate event that transpired as follows: Nexâ old

ROSALIE is sure that MARY CRIS was raped since she saw TOREJOS "insert his organ to the vagina of my daughter, but it was not yet in, he tried to insert."10 [Ibid., at p. 14.]

Accused-appellant's attempt to discredit ROSALIE is unconvincing. The assessment of credibility of witnesses is primarily the function of the trial court. It is well established in this jurisdiction that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless the court a quo overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.11 [People vs. Chua, G.R. No. 127542, March 18, 1999 at p. 9.] The evaluation or assessment made by the trial court acquires greater significance in rape cases because from the nature of the offense the only evidence that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant's testimony.12 [People vs. Alitagtag, G.R. Nos. 124449-51, June 29, 1999 at p. 8.] We find no cogent and legal basis to disturb the finding of the trial court upholding the credibility of the complainant ROSALIE who "despite hard questions of the court, to test and ascertain her credibility of viewing the incident, clearly stood firm on what happened."13 [Judgment, p. 11; Rollo, p. 22.]Scsä daad

The fact that ROSALIE did not do anything when she saw TOREJOS ravishing her daughter does not cast doubt on her credibility. She explained that she did not do anything when she saw TOREJOS raping her daughter because she was engulfed with fear; she was afraid of what TOREJOS might do to MARY CRIS and to her younger brother who was nearby.14 [T.S.N., March 17, 1997, pp. 6 and 10.] This is understandable considering that she was experiencing the initial shock of what was happening. The workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable, such that people react differently to startling situations: some may shout; some may faint; some may be shocked into insensibility; others may openly welcome their intrusion.15 [People vs. Bersabe, 289 SCRA 685 at p. 698 [1998].]Jurisä

TOREJOS’ claim that ROSALIE and LUCIANO’s accusation of rape against him was motivated by an argument over the partition of LUCIANO’s and TOREJOS’ income (amounting to P800.00) from selling firewood does not inspire belief. Said misunderstanding is not a sufficient reason for the couple to fabricate and falsely implicate the accused in such a heinous crime. It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to embarassment and even stigma.16 [People vs. Galleno, 291 SCRA 761 at p. 774 [1998].]

Besides, ROSALIE’s testimony is corroborated by the testimonies of Dr. Uldarico C. Casquejo (CASQUEJO) and Luciano Cerna (LUCIANO). Scä juris

CASQUEJO testified on the findings17 ["FINDINGS:

3) 1/8 x ¼ cm. lacerated wound at 7:00 o’clock of the vaginal opening."] contained in the medical certificate18 [Record, p. 7.] he executed after he conducted an examination on MARY CRIS. In his testimony, CASQUEJO stated that MARY CRIS sustained a laceration in her vaginal opening (labia minora) just superior to the anal area which he concluded to be caused by the forced penetration of a penis.19 [T.S.N., March 19, 1997, pp. 4-5.]

LUCIANO testified that on the afternoon of January 7, 1997, his wife ROSALIE called him while he was planing lumber. To his surprise, he found ROSALIE crying while cradling their daughter MARY CRIS. He asked her why she was crying and she told him that MARY CRIS was molested by TOREJOS. LUCIANO confronted TOREJOS who denied molesting MARY CRIS and claimed that the merely placed a blanket on top of her. LUCIANO then inspected the vagina of MARY CRIS and discovered that there was blood and a laceration.20 [T.S.N., March 19, 1997, pp. 16-17.]

TOREJOS’ contention that it was improbable for him to rape MARY CRIS considering that the place where it was alleged to have happened was in full view of MARY CRIS’ parents is also untenable. Lust is no respecter of time or place and rape has been successfully consummated in places where people congregate, like parks or school premises, and even in a house where there are other occupants.21 [People vs. Alitagtag, Supra, at p. 10.] Besides, the evidence reveals that TOREJOS raped MARY CRIS at a time when no one was watching her since ROSALIE went to the store to buy refreshments while LUCIANO was tending to his carpenter who was doing work on the house next-door. TOREJOS obviously took advantage of the helpless child at a time he knew when no one was around.

Finally, the fact that MARY CRIS did not cry after she was raped does not prove that rape was not committed. While the presence of pain may be indicative of rape, the presence or absence of pain becomes irrelevant to prove the rape in the present case considering the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution which is of itself sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that MARY CRIS was raped. Jurisä sc

The crime of rape is punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659. It reads:

x x x

x x x

x x x"

The information filed against TOREJOS specifically alleges that he raped MARY CRIS, a three-year-old child. We therefore affirm the judgment of the RTC imposing the death penalty for being in accordance with law.

Four (4) members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People vs. Echegaray22 [267 SCRA 682 [1997].] that R.A. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death is unconstitutional, nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.

We however modify the amount of damages awarded by the RTC. The RTC ordered TOREJOS to pay P30,000.00 as civil indemnity to the parents of MARY CRIS. Considering that the crime was committed under circumstances which justify the imposition of the death penalty, the amount of civil indemnity is increased to P75,000.00.23 [People vs. Sugano, G.R. No. 127574, July 20, 1999 at p. 16; People vs. Alba, G.R. Nos. 131858-59, April 14, 1999 at p. 21.] Moreover, we also order TOREJOS to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.24 [Ibid.] Finally, the civil indemnity and moral damages should be awarded to MARY CRIS as the offended party.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Bonifacio Torejos is ordered to pay the offended party, Mary Cris Cerna the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Jjä lex

Upon finality of this decision, let certified true copies thereof as well as the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of his pardoning power.

No pronouncement as to costs.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Buena, J., on leave.