The case is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Pangasinan, Urdaneta, Branch 49 finding accused Arthur de Leon y Lagmay guilty of four counts of statutory rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape and to indemnify the complainant in the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages and costs.1 [Original Record, RTC Decision, penned by Judge Illuminado C. Meneses, pp. 457-472.]

Based on a sworn complaint dated March 15, 1993,2 [Original Record, Vol. 1, Criminal Complaint, p. 3.] filed by Rosalinda Q. Madriaga, mother of the ten-year old offended party, Maria Adelina Madriaga, on July 12, 1993, 3rd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jaime V. Veneigas filed with the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pagasinan four (4) Informations for rape, as follows: Misact

Accused Arthur de Leon y Lagmay failed to file his counter-affidavit despite extension granted by the court. Acctmis

On May 10, 1993, the trial court issued a Joint Resolution7 [Original Record, Vol. 2, pp. 24-27.] finding the existence of probable cause that the crime of rape in each of the four cases had been committed and that the accused was probably guilty of the offenses.

Upon arraignment on September 15, 1993, in Criminal Cases Nos. U-7311 and U-7313,8 [Original Record ,Vol. 3, Crim. Cases Nos. U-7311 & U-7313, Order, p. 71.] and on October 14, 1993, in Criminal Case No. U-7310, accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.9 [Original Record, Vol. 1, Crim. Case No. U-7310, Order, p. 48.] Trial ensued. On motion of the accused, the trial court consolidated the cases 10 [Original Record Vol. 2, Order of Consolidation, p. 42.] and tried them jointly.

On October 20, 1995, the trial court rendered decision finding accused Arthur de Leon y Lagmay guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

Hence, this appeal.12 [Rollo, Appellant’s Brief, pp. 84-221.]

The facts are as follows:

On February 27, 1993, Maria Adelina Madriaga, who was then only ten (10) years old, was outside her house at Sison, Pangasinan, playing with her younger brother JR, under a mango tree. Their parents were not at home for they were gathering firewood at Barrio Amagbagan. Accused Arthur "Joel" de Leon came by and told her that he would give her money and candy. She refused and told him that her mama would get angry. Accused then slapped her and pulled her, frightening her younger brother JR into hiding inside their house. Newmiso

Accused Arthur de Leon y Lagmay slapped and pulled Maria Adelina towards the tobacco field north of her house. Accused brought Maria Adelina to the middle part of the tobacco plantation, where the plants were about one (1) meter high. The place was deserted. Accused then took off Maria Adelina’s short pants and panty and laid her down. He removed his pants and brief and placed himself on top of Maria Adelina. He was able to insert his organ into Maria Adelina's vagina. The little girl felt pain and noticed a sticky substance flowing from the organ of the accused. Jjlex

After consuming his passion, accused put on his brief and pants. Maria Adelina put on her panty and shorts, and the two headed for home with the accused constantly threatening Maria Adelina that she would be killed should she speak of their copulation to her parents. Maria Adelina was so afraid that she kept the incident to herself.13 [TSN, April 4, 1994, pp. 6-10.]

However, the lust of accused de Leon was not satiated. He sexually abused the girl three more times.

At around 11:00 in the morning of February 28, 1993, while Maria Adelina and her brother JR were at the back of their house sitting on a "papag", Maria Adelina saw Arthur de Leon approaching. Arthur told her that he would give her money and candy if she would come with him. Maria Adelina told him that her mother would get angry, but Arthur was insistent and pulled her right arm. Her brother JR hid inside their house. Arthur again dragged her in the middle of the tobacco plantation and there Arthur undressed her and placed himself on top of her. She felt pain in her vagina and saw something come out of Arthur’s penis. After that, Arthur put on his brief and pants and Maria Adelina also put on her panty and skirt. She noticed that blood was coming out of her vagina. Arthur told her that he would kill her if she told her parents. Maria Adelina did not reveal her ordeal to her parents because of fear.14 [Ibid, pp. 12-16.]

Again, in the afternoon of March 6, 1993, when Maria Adelina’ parents were away gathering firewood, Arthur went to the house of Maria Adelina and found Maria Adelina and her brother JR playing. Arthur forced Maria Adelina by pulling her left arm and dragging her to the middle portion of the tobacco field. Arthur removed everything that Maria Adelina was wearing and when the girl was naked, he laid her down and placed himself on top of her, mashed her breast and inserted his penis in her vagina. Maria Adelina saw something come out of Arthur's penis and after the sexual act, he put on his pants and brief and Maria Adelina put on her clothes. Arthur threatened Maria Adelina not to tell her parents about what happened.15 [Ibid, pp. 16-21.]

In the evening of March 13, 1993, for the fourth time, Arthur repeated the sexual assault. He went to the house of Maria Adelina and forced her by pulling her and dragging her to the middle portion of the tobacco plantation. Arthur slapped and undressed Maria Adelina, then removed his brief and pants and had sexual intercourse with Maria Adelina. After the act, Arthur put a sour candy in the mouth of Maria Adelina. She fell asleep and awakened only at around 11:00 in the evening.16 [Ibid., pp. 22-26.]

On the night of March 13, 1993, the luck of Arthur de Leon ran out. The parents of Maria Adelina came home that night and found that Maria Adelina was not home, so they searched for her. They did not find her and so they proceeded to report to the police. After they reported to the police, somebody informed them that Maria Adelina was at home. When her parents arrived, they noticed that the clothes of Maria Adelina were dirty and full of dried grass. Her mother asked her what happened and the little girl finally broke her silence and told her parents that she was raped. However, still gripped with fear, she did not disclose the identity of the accused. Misjuris

The next day, after much prodding from Fiscal Federico Quinit, a relative, Maria Adelina finally revealed the name of her molester, accused Arthur de Leon y Lagmay.

Maria Adelina’s parents reported the incident to the police. Dr. Mario Duque of the Rosario District Hospital examined her on March 14, 1993, and found that there were linear abrasions on Maria Adelina’s nostril and legs and hematoma on the right chin. Upon internal examination, Dr. Duque found that Maria Adelina’s vaginal canal easily admitted the right ring finger and that her hymen was no longer intact. There was likewise a healed lacerated wound in her vaginal canal at about 4:00 or 5:00 o’clock.17 [Original Record Vol. 2, Medical Certificate, p. 8.]

The trial court in convicting the accused relied on the testimony of Maria Adelina. She testified that Arthur de Leon, on four occasions, sexually abused her. On the stand, she categorically identified the accused.18 [Original Record Vol. 1, Decision, p. 468.]

On the other hand, accused-appellant relied on his defense of denial and alibi. He testified that at the time of the rape, he was working with his wife in the field. Jurissc

In his appellant’s brief, accused-appellant assigned eight errors alleged to have been committed by the trial court.19 [Rollo, Appellant’s Brief, pp. 87-88.]

In sum, the issue centers on the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, especially the victim, Maria Adelina Madriaga. Scjuris

Accused-appellant points to inconsistencies in the statements of the victim Maria Adelina Madriaga. According to accused-appellant, during the cross-examination of Maria Adelina, she stated that on February 27, 1993, when accused-appellant was dragging her by the arm, the latter was also covering her mouth with his other hand. She also stated that the accused was holding his pants. Accused claimed that it would be impossible for him to be doing all these at one time with only two hands.20 [Rollo, Appellant’s Brief, 4th paragraph, p. 103.]

Also in the sworn statement, Maria Adelina never described how accused brought her to the tobacco plantation, but during direct examination, she said that she was pulled and dragged by the accused.21 [Ibid., p. 110.]

Accused-appellant further states that in the sworn statement of Maria Adelina on the rape that occurred on February 27,1993, she declared that accused Arthur de Leon’s penis was no longer hard and was soft as a marshmallow, thus the impossibility of any penetration.22 [Rollo, Appellant’s Brief, p. 109.]

The inconsistencies pointed out are minor that cannot be considered as prevarication. On the contrary, minor inconsistencies are signs that the witness was not rehearsed and that she was telling the truth. "Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony. Although there may be inconsistencies on minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailants."23 [People vs. Vicente Valla, G. R. No. 111285, January 24, 2000.]

Also, we have repeatedly held that if there exists an inconsistency between the sworn statements and the testimony in open court, the testimony commands greater weight.24 [People vs. Loveria, 187 SCRA 47 (1987).]

According to accused-appellant, on the day and time of the rape, he was in his farm working with his wife. Accused-appellant presented witnesses to prove that he was in the farm on February 27 and 28, 1993 and on March 6 and 13, 1993. Defense witness Demetrio Aquino, a neighbor of the accused-appellant, testified that on February 27 and 28, 1993, Saturday and Sunday, he saw accused-appellant in his farm at 6:00 in the morning and 2:00 in the afternoon. Juris

Virginia de Leon, wife of the accused-appellant, testified that she was with her husband on March 6 and 13, 1993 tending to their farm the whole day.

We are not convinced. In many cases, we have held that for alibi to prosper as a defense, accused must not only prove that he was not at the scene of the crime, but he must also prove the physical impossibility of being at the scene of the crime. It was not physically impossible for the accused Arthur de Leon y Lagmay to be at the scene of the crime.25 [People vs. Vicente Alib, G. R. No. 130944, January 18, 2000, citing People vs. Baniel, 275 SCRA 654 (1997).] Neither Demetrio Aquino nor Virginia de Leon could guarantee that accused-appellant during the entire day was at the farm.

As to the testimony of accused’s wife, the same cannot be given too much weight coming from a party whose interest is necessarily to help her husband.

"While denial is a legitimate defense in rape cases, bare denials cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim."26 [People vs. Elraine Martinez , G. R. No. 130606, February 15, 2000, citing People vs. Masalihit, 300 SCRA 147 (1998) and People vs. Taneo, 284 SCRA 251 (1998).]

As to the claim that the testimony of the victim was not given in a straightforward and convincing manner, and that there were discrepancies in her testimony in open court and the sworn statements she executed, we find the claim without merit. Suprema

Firstly, the victim was a ten-year old girl from the barrio. A child witness could not be expected to give a precise response to every question posed to her. Her failure to give an answer to the point as to be free of any minor inconsistencies is understandable and does not make her a witness less worthy of belief.

Secondly, "we have repeatedly held that when there is an inconsistency between affidavits and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight."27 [People vs. Milliam, G. R. No. 129071, January 31, 2000, citing People vs. Castro, 276 SCRA 572 (1997), citing People vs. Ponayo, 235 SCRA 226 (1994) and People vs. Loveria, 187 SCRA 47 (1990).]

We believe in the testimony of the victim, Maria Adelina Madriaga. She was unwavering and consistent. She never hesitated nor recanted her testimony that accused Arthur de Leon y Lagmay raped her four times. She may have confused certain very minor details such as which hand was holding her, pulling her or covering her mouth, but she was consistent in her statements identifying accused as the rapist. Scsdaad

As to the failure of the trial court to consider the delay in complainant’s revealing the rape to her parents as a sign that there was no truth to the charges, "[T]his Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim. A rape victim’s action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than reason. It is fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness."28 [People vs. Caballero, G. R. No. 129693, January 24, 2000, citing People vs. Melivo, 253 SCRA 347, 356 (1996).]

The trial court did not commit any error in finding the accused-appellant Arthur de Leon y Lagmay guilty as charged of four counts of statutory rape. Sdaad

At the time of the commission of the offenses, Maria Adelina Madriaga was below twelve (12) years of age. In fact, she was ten years old. This will not be erased from her mind and will haunt her throughout her life and will leave a scar that not even time can heal. Sdaamiso

Under prevailing jurisprudence, the victim is entitled an indemnity ex delicto in the amount of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos, in addition to the moral damages awarded by the court.29 [People vs. Bacule, G. R. No. 127568, January 28, 2000; citing People vs. Emocling, 297 SCRA 214 (1998).]

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Urdaneta Pangasinan in Criminal Case Nos. U-7310; U-7311; U-7312 and U-7313 sentencing accused Arthur de Leon y Lagmay to reclusion perpetua in all four cases with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered to pay complainant the amount of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as civil indemnity in each case in addition to the fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos award for moral damages.

Costs against accused-appellant. Scncm

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.