Korteä

On appeal is the decision dated July 7, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 51, convicting accused-appellant of the crime of statutory rape, imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to indemnify the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.

Appellant Marlon Lerio1 [The Information and Decision did not indicate his middle name.] was 19 years old, single, farmer, and resident of San Macario Norte, Natividad, Pangasinan, while the victim was Jennifer M. Soriano, 11 years old and a grade five (5) student, at the time of the offense charged.

The fact as summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General, and which we find to be supported by the records, are as follows:2 [Rollo, pp. 95-97.]

On June 10, 1992, appellant was charged with the crime of rape under the following Information:3 [Records, p. 1.]

Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.4 [Id., at 54.] LexjÓ uris

At the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Barangay Captain Floro B. Volante; (2) Estrelita M. Soriano, the mother of the victim; (3) Jennifer M. Soriano, the victim; and (4) Dr. Perfecto B. Tebangin, Municipal Health Officer of Natividad, Pangasinan.

For the defense, appellant was the sole witness. His version of the incident is that on the night of January 22, 1992, he was at the house of his grandfather in San Macario, Natividad, Pangasinan watching television with his aunt and cousins. The house of his grandfather was located some two (2) meters away from the house of the victim. At around 7:30 in the evening, he went outside to urinate, and on his way back, he met the victim beside the house. He asked her to accompany him to get some ‘komiks’ from the house of his uncle. He held her hands and kissed her on the lips, but did not have sexual intercourse with her. He claims that the parents of the victim filed the rape charge against him because they were infuriated when they learned that he kissed their daughter.5 [TSN, April 5, 1994, pp. 2-20.]

On July 7, 1994, the trial court rendered a decision6 [Records, pp. 173-191.] finding appellant guilty of statutory rape under Article 335, No. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. The dispositive portion of the decision states:

Hence, the present appeal. Appellant makes the following assignment of errors:7 [Rollo, p. 46.]

In his brief, appellant assails the credibility of the victim and her witnesses arguing that her lurid story is not borne out by the medical findings. And even granting that he may have tried to force himself on the victim, the sexual act was never consummated because the victim, per her own testimony, was constantly struggling to be free.

For the State, the Office of the Solicitor General prays for the affirmance in toto of the trial court's decision, considering that jurisprudence is replete with rulings that rape may be committed even without vaginal lacerations or rupture of the hymen. Further, the OSG argues that the victim and her parents would not have made themselves the butt of barrio gossip by divulging that the victim was raped, if it were not true.

In sum, the issues revolve on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the probative value of the medical certificate that the hymen of the victim was still intact, and the sufficiency of evidence to convict appellant. Courtä

Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent any showing of palpable mistake or grave abuse of discretion.8 [People v. Vergel, G.R. No, 128813, October 4, 1999, p. 1.] The records show that the victim was placed on the stand no less than three (3) times, yet she never wavered under withering cross-examination. Her statements were categorical, straightforward, candid, and credible. The Court has time and again ruled that the sole testimony of the victim in a rape case is sufficient to sustain a conviction if such testimony is credible.9 [People v. Sugano, G.R. No. 127574, July 20, 1999, p. 8.]

Further, no ill-motive could be imputed against the victim or her parents to manufacture such an accusation against the appellant, particularly where appellant, by his own admission, is on good terms with the family of the victim.10 [TSN, April 5, 1994, p. 9.] The victim and her family could not raise such a serious charge against the appellant unless justifiably motivated by a sincere desire to seek justice for a wrong done, for such a charge if untrue would only expose the victim and her entire family to humiliation and stigma attendant to a rape trial.11 [People v. Cabebe, 290 SCRA 543, 554 (1998)] Moreover, we find that appellant's defense of denial and alibi could not stand, in the face of his positive identification as the offender, and in view of the credible testimonies of the victim, her mother and the barangay captain.

It was duly established during trial that the victim was only eleven (11) years old at the time of the rape. Where the girl is below twelve (12) years of age, violence or intimidation is not required,12 [People v. Lualhati, 171 SCRA 277, 283 (1989).] and the only subject of inquiry is whether "carnal knowledge" took place. In People v. Quiñanola, G.R. No.126148, May 5, 1999, pp. 20-21, we held that -

In this case, the victim testified that appellant "inserted his penis inside her vagina"13 [TSN, November 11, 1993, p. 6; TSN, January 20, 1994,43; TSN, January 26, 1994, p. 3.] and that she felt "pain at the center."14 [TSN, November 11, 1993, p. 6.] Appellant kept on making "push and pull motion until she felt something spread on the skin of her vagina."15 [Ibid.] Clearly, carnal knowledge took place. Supremeä

Appellant now desperately anchors his appeal on the lack of physical evidence of rape on the body of the victim. But his arguments are far from convincing. First, it is well-settled that rupture of the hymen or vaginal lacerations are not necessary for rape to be consummated.16 [People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 130514, June 17, 1999, p. 4; People v. Quiñanola, G.R.No. 126148, May 5,1999, p. 20; People v. Ayo, G.R. No. 123540, March 30,1999, p. 15; People v. Almaden, G.R. No.112088, March 25, 1999, p. 8, People v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 126714, March 22, 1999, p. 12; People v. de la Cuesta, G.R. No. 126134, March 2, 1999, p. 7; People v. Sagun, G.R. No, 110554, February 19, 1999, p. 10.] Second, a medical examination is not indispensable in the prosecution of a rape victim.17 [People v. Venerable, 290 SCRA 15,26 (1998)] Insofar as the evidentiary weight of the medical examination is concerned, we have already ruled that a medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction in rape.18 [People v. Brandares, G.R. No.130092, July 26, 1999, p. 6; People v. Dela Cuesta, G.R. No. 126134, March 2,1999, p. 13; People v. Taneo, 284 SCRA 251, 268 (1998)] What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible,19 [Ibid.] and this we find here to be the case. Moreover, Dr. Tebangin himself clarified that since he examined the victim some fourteen (14) days after the incident, it is possible that during examination, there was no longer any evidence of the injuries which she might have sustained as a result of the rape.20 [TSN, February 1, 1994, pp. 3-8; Exhibit "F".]

Considering, the evidence for the prosecution and for the defense, we are in accord with the verdict that the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

At the time of the commission of the rape, the penalty therefor under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code21 [Now Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which took effect on October 22, 1997.] was reclusion perpetua. Here, no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime. Hence the penalty imposed by the trial court is appropriate.

Pursuant to existing jurisprudence, the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity should be awarded to the victim.22 [People v. de Guzman, 265 SCRA 228, 246 (1996)] The award to her of P50,000.00 as moral damages should also be affirmed.23 [People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411, 431 (1998)]

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as to damages. Appellant MARLON LERIO is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is also ordered to pay the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Costs against appellant.