Time and again, this Court has condemned in no unequivocal terms the bestial acts of rape perpetrated against women. Though our laws have imposed stiffer penalties, the influx of rape cases has not waned. The case before us now is no different.

This is an appeal from the decision1 [Penned by Hon. Christopher O. Lock.] of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, Branch 88, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape in violation of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code.2 [Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, which defines and penalizes the crime of rape, providing thus:

On January 17, 1995, accused-appellant HENRY DE GUZMAN y PASCUAL was charged of the crime of Rape. The information reads as follows:

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

The facts of the case are summarized by the trial court on the basis of the testimony of the complainant:

At around eight o’clock in the evening of October 30, 1994, complainant Rosario Lian, then 13 years old and a resident of Ligtong, Rosario, Cavite,4 [TSN, March 13, 1995, p.4.] passed by the house of her friend and neighbor, Mary Ann Paredes (Mary Ann), as previously agreed upon. Both then proceeded to the "Kamalig" at the Cuevas Subdivision in Noveleta, Cavite.5 [Id., at 32-34.] The "Kamalig" is a rundown and abandoned house,6 Id., at 54-55.] to where Rosario usually went to sit and talk with her friends. They were going there that evening because Jay Bangsangan, who is a resident of that subdivision, invited them.7 [Id., at 24-25.] As she had not seen Grace, (Jay’s sister) for quite some time, she decided to accept the invitation.8 [Id., at 47-48.]

They reached the "Kamalig" at about eight-thirty that evening, expecting to see Jay and Grace there, but they were not around. Complainant and Mary Ann waited for about thirty minutes, but Jay and Grace as well as their other friends failed to arrive.9 [Id., at 8-9, 26.]

Soon accused-appellant, Henry de Guzman (Henry), appeared at the scene, approached the two and asked Rosario Lian whether he could talk with her for a while. She agreed and the two of them proceeded to the yard outside Henry’s hut just five meters away from the "Kamalig."10 [Id., at 56-57.] Henry asked her who her boyfriend was. She told him that the name of her boyfriend is Marjon Pejeña.11 [Id., at 9-10.] Later, she asked the accused-appellant for a glass of water. He told her to just go inside his hut a few meters away and get the water herself. She went inside his house and got water, but was not able to drink it because Henry suddenly closed the door and started kissing her. She tried to shout, but nobody responded. She struggled, but was overcome with fear when Henry got a bolo and pointed it at her neck and told her that if she resisted he would kill her. Henry then tied her hands behind her back with a piece of rag. Henry pulled her shirt up and removed her pants and panty. He also removed his clothing and made her lie on the floor. He kissed her and inserted his penis into her private parts. She felt pain. Henry was on top of her and doing push and pull movement.12 [Id., at 11-15.]

After raping her, Henry untied her hands and told her to dress up. He threatened to kill her if she would tell anybody about the incident.

At this juncture, Henry called Marjon to join them in the hut. Marjon asked her why she was crying, but she did not answer.13 [TSN, April 26, 1995, pp. 34, 37.] Henry asked her whether she and Marjon loved each other, but she just kept quiet. Henry then ordered Marjon and Rosario to have sexual intercourse, threatening to kill them if they did not obey.14 [TSN, March 13, 1995, pp.16-17.] Despite the threat, the couple refused. Henry then asked both of them to sleep in the hut. The three lay on the floor, with Marjon between Rosario and Henry. She could not sleep. Henry allowed them to go home at about five o’clock the following morning.15 [TSN, April 26, 1995, pp. 37-39. ]

When she arrived home, her mother asked her where she had gone, to which she replied that she attended a wake.16 [Id., at 17.] Later, she told her grandmother what happened to her. Her grandmother advised her to file a case against the accused-appellant. On November 11, 1994, she was physically examined at the Dra. Salamanca Hospital, after which she, assisted by her grandmother, filed a case of rape against the accused-appellant.17 [Rollo, pp. 20-22.]

The other prosecution witness, Dr. Remigio Camerino, testified that he is a resident physician of the Dra. Olivia Salamanca Memorial Hospital, Cavite City, since May 1991. On November 11, 1994, he examined private complainant Rosario Lian as she was complaining that she had been raped. He found that the victim's hymen had a healing laceration at the 5 o'clock position. This hymenal laceration could have been caused by the introduction into the vaginal canal of any hard object, instrument or an erect penis. On the basis of his findings, Dr. Camerino stated that it is possible that the victim had sexual intercourse on October 30, 1994. He further testified that there was no total penetration of the vagina, but there was penile penetration up to the superficial part of the vagina.18 [TSN, May 29, 1995, pp. 3-13. ]

On the other hand, the defense presented Arnel Luna and the accused-appellant himself.

Arnel Luna testified that he is a resident of Salcedo St., Cuevas Subdivision, Noveleta, Cavite. He is a carpenter and also a caretaker of a fishpond located inside the Cuevas Subdivision. He knows the complainant Rosario Lian and her boyfriend Marjon because he often sees the couple near the fishpond, Marjon being his neighbor on Salcedo Street. He has known accused-appellant since their childhood days because he resides near the fishpond where he (Arnel) stays. On October 30, 1994, between five o’clock in the afternoon and ten o’clock in the evening, he and his friends Bernardo Lopez and Boy Marmol had a drinking spree in front of his house near the fishpond. He did not see Rosario and Marjon nor accused-appellant Henry de Guzman that day. His (Arnel’s) house is about 4 houses away from the hut of Henry.19 [TSN, June 14, 1995, pp. 3 – 12.]

Accused-appellant declared that he is a laborer, and resides with his aunt, Loida Gatdula at Salcedo St., Noveleta, Cavite.20 [TSN, July 18, 1995, p. 3.] At about seven o’clock in the evening of October 30, 1994, he slept in the house of his auntie. At around eleven that evening, he decided to go to his aunt's hut near the fishpond which they used as a resthouse.21 [Id., at 7.] Upon reaching the hut, he noticed that the door's hook was not in its proper place. He pushed the door and entered the hut. When he lighted his lamp, he saw his neighbor Marjon Pejeña on top of a girl.22 [Id., at 11.] He got mad, and as soon as the couple got dressed, he drove them away. After they left, he slept inside the hut.23 [Id., at 13-14.] At about four o’clock in the afternoon of November 11, 1994, he was arrested by the police in his hut and brought to the police station. There, he was shown the statement of the complainant accusing him of raping her on October 30, 1994.24 [Id., at 25-26.] He did not tell the police that it was on that day that he saw his neighbor Marjon having sexual intercourse with the complaining witness.25 [Id., at 27.] Rosario Lian was, likewise, present at the police headquarters and pointed to him as the person who raped her.26 [Id., at 28.]

After trial, the regional trial court found the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of rape and sentenced him as follows:

Accused-appellant now seeks the reversal of his conviction, raising the following errors:

The accused-appellant points to the following pieces of evidence of the prosecution which he claims as "highly improbable and contrary to human conduct and behavior:"

At the onset, the issue of the illegal arrest has become moot and academic because of the arrest pursuant to a valid warrant of arrest and, hence, will not anymore be dealt with. Hence, in essence, the only issue before us is whether or not the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The theory of the prosecution, which rests mainly on the testimony of the offended party, is that the accused committed the alleged crime when Rosario went into the house of the accused to get a drink of water. On the other hand, the accused’s defense is one of denial. He instead claims that on the alleged night of the crime, he was the one who caught the complainant and her boyfriend making love at the supposed scene of the crime.

The appeal is without merit.

Our courts have been traditionally guided by three settled principles in the prosecution of the crime of rape: (1) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more difficult to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.30 [People vs. Abad, 268 SCRA 246, (1997)]

Indisputably, rape is a reprehensible crime and all those who are guilty must be severely punished. More often than not, the woman is a victim twice: first, of the sexual assault, and, second, of the social stigma that attaches to the victim, though undeserved. Nonetheless, the records of the case must be examined with due care and caution, the exacting standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt acquires more relevance in rape charges which are easy to make but harder to prove and harder still to defend by the party accused-appellant who may be innocent.31 [People vs. Bacdad, 196 SCRA 768 (1991)]

Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for the determination of the weight of a particular testimony. One without the other will seriously impair the credibility of any testimony. This principle could not ring any truer in this case where the case for the prosecution hinges mainly on the testimony of the complainant as corroborated by medico-legal findings of a physician.

While we find nothing wrong with rape convictions obtained mainly on the basis of the complainant's testimony, the testimony should be clear and consistent and supported by the physical evidence. That determination is made by the court which has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainant and the witnesses first hand and this Court will not, in the absence of a palpable misperception or misapprehension of facts, interfere with such court's original findings.32 [Ibid.] Generally, when it comes to the issue of credibility, the trial court’s assessment is entitled to great weight, even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. The trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying.33 [People vs. Narido, G.R. No. 132058. October 1, 1999.] Accused-appellant has not given us, and we do not find any reason to depart from or give exception to this principle

If a complainant’s testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the sole basis thereof.34 [People vs. Erese, 281 SCRA 316 (1997)] In a prosecution for rape, the complainant’s candor is the single most important issue.35 [People vs. Wilson Batoon, G.R. No. 134194, October 26, 1999 citing People vs. Gagto, 253 SCRA 455, 456 (1996)] We have thoroughly examined the records and find nothing that would cast doubt as to the credibility of the complainant’s testimony.

The accused-appellant asserts in his uncorroborated testimony that he caught Rosario and her boyfriend engaged in sexual intercourse and to avoid embarrassment, this case was filed against him. However, we are inclined to agree with the trial court, that Rosario Lian had no motive strong enough to prod her into concocting a rape charge that would lead to the examination of her private parts and undergo public trial. On this aspect, the findings of the trial court bear paramount significance, thus:

The testimony of Rosario appears firm, sincere and straight-forward, thus:

Miss Witness, do you know the accused in this case?

Accused-appellant argues that there are inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence. However, the inconsistencies pointed out by the accused-appellant refer to inconsequential matters. For instance, the accused-appellant makes much of the fact that during cross-examination, private complainant answered "I do not know" to the question whether accused-appellant made good his threat if she and her boyfriend would not make love in the presence of the culprit. The question was nonsensical, in the first place, as the answer to it was obvious. Accused-appellant did not make good his threat as nothing happened to them.

The credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by the few minor inconsistencies in her testimony. Paradoxically, they may be badges of spontaneity, as they indicate that the witness was unrehearsed.44 [People vs. Abad, 298 SCRA 246, 255 (1997)] Hence, complainant's description of the rape incident was clear and convincing and worthy of this Court's full faith and credit.

The complainant asserts that in the evening of October 30, 1994 while she was inside the hut of the accused-appellant to get herself a glass of drinking water, the accused-appellant thereafter closed the door of the hut, and with the use of a bolo threatened to kill her and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her against her will.

The accused-appellant, however, denies having deflowered complainant. He claims that at about eleven o'clock that evening of October 30, 1994, when he went to his hut located near a fishpond inside Cuevas Subdivision, Noveleta, Cavite, he caught the complainant and her boyfriend Marjon Pejeña in the act of sexual intercourse. He berated them for what they did.

It is not disputed that Rosario suffered no physical injuries. Yet, the absence of external signs of injury does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, especially when the victim, as in this case, was intimidated by the offender into submission.45 [People vs. Arenes, 198 SCRA 172 (1991); People vs. Pasco, 181 SCRA 233 (1990)] Intimidation in this case was proven when the accused-appellant threatened to plunge the bolo he was holding into the neck of complainant by piercing her neck with said bolo, if she would resist his advances.

The complainant’s testimony that she was raped by accused-appellant was corroborated by the physician who examined her showing that she sustained hymenal laceration, which could have been caused by the introduction into her vagina of an erect penis.

The failure of the complainant to immediately report the rape to her family or to the police authorities does not detract from her credibility or an indication of a fabricated charge.46 [People vs. Perez, 270 SCRA 526 (1997); People vs. Tadulan, 271 SCRA 189 (1997)] Her seeming hesitation was attributable to her age, who was then only thirteen years, the moral ascendancy of the accused-appellant and his threats against her.47 [Ibid.] It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault on their virtue because of the rapists’ threats on their lives.48 [People vs. Devilleres, 269 SCRA 716 (1996); People vs. Roncal, 272 SRA 242 (1997)]

The accused-appellant also argues that the non-presentation of the witnesses who could corroborate the testimony of the private complainant is evidence that her testimony is fabricated. This is without merit. It is significant that the non-presentation of the alleged boyfriend, Marjon Pejeña was sufficiently explained. The boyfriend was not accessible after the incident. According to the complainant, Marjon was nowhere to be found after the incident. She was informed that his parents were hiding him.49 [TSN, August 8, 1995, pp. 15-16.]

In any case, the non-presentation of other witnesses to corroborate the testimony of the private offended party does not give rise to any negative presumption especially so when the trial court has found her testimony to be credible. Non-presentation of other witnesses is not crucial to the sufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution where the testimony would focus only on +--circumstances subsequent to the rape.50 [People vs. Corea, 269 SCRA 76 (1996)] Well-settled is the rule that the prosecution is not bound to present other witnesses other than the victim herself, as an accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the complaining witnesses, provided such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the course of things.51 [People vs. Gabayron, 278 SCRA 78 (1997)]

Lastly, as to accused-appellant’s contention that the lower court erred in awarding moral damages, both the arguments interposed and the case52 [Accused-appellant cites People v. Manoji, 68 Phil. 471 (1939). However, the case is not in point since: firstly, it involved Robbery with homicide and not rape; secondly, unlike in the case at bar, there is a finding of reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused in that case. For the latter reason, moral damages was not awarded. But in this case the accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. Hence, award of moral damages may be properly awarded.] cited in support thereof, are based on the premise that the accused is innocent. Inasmuch as Henry is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, Rosario is entitled to indemnity which current jurisprudence fixes at P50,000.00 by way of moral damages. Moral damages are imposed in rape cases involving young girls between thirteen and nineteen years of age, taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on their youthful feminine psyche.53 [People vs. Erese, 281 SCRA 316, 329 (1997)] It may be awarded without need of showing that the victim suffered mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, and the like.54 [People vs. Prades, G.R.No. 127569, 30 July 1999.] The regional trial court did not, therefore, commit any error in awarding the moral damages.

In sum, the guilt of the accused-appellant is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The records of the case have been thoroughly reviewed. We are convinced that the findings and conclusions of the court on the criminal liability of Henry de Guzman are completely supported by the facts and the law.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, in Criminal Case No. 19-95 finding accused-appellant HENRY DE GUZMAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the offended party, Rosario Lian, the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, plus the costs, is AFFIRMED.

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

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), on official leave abroad.