G.R. No. 121539 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HONESTO MANUEL Y PADILLA, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, Honesto Manuel, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code; there being no mitigating circumstances to offset the same, hereby sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, with the accessories provided for by law and to pay the costs. The accused is, likewise, ordered to pay the sum of P30,000.00 as moral damages. The preventive imprisonment already served by the accused shall be deducted in full from the principal term of his penalty." [2] In this appeal, accused-appellant assails the court a quos decision and submits the following: 1. The trial court gravely erred in giving credence to the untruthful and improbable testimony of prosecution witness Nestcel Marzo. 2. The trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Honesto Manuel guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds accused-appellants testimony neither credible nor trustworthy. Accused-appellant brands as dubious the testimony of the victim that "the accused undressed her, laid beside her and then held her organ as the accused wanted to insert his private organ to her organ." This Court finds nothing dubious about said testimony. On the contrary, the testimony was plausible in its entirety as Nestcel narrated chronologically how accused-appellant acted to consummate the crime. Accused-appellant further argues that if indeed it was his desire to ravish the complaining witness, he could have consummated his lustful act easily considering that the latter was already naked and helpless. Said reasoning is, not only irrational, but is belied by medical findings as well as the testimony [3] of the medico-legal officer, thus: "COURT: x x x x x x x x x Q - The victim you have examined is merely 11 years old? A - Yes sir. Q - Considering the nature of her genital organ at the time of your examination, can it be possible that there is some forcible entry? A - Yes, Your Honor. Q - But only up to the level of the hymen, there was no complete penetration and because the entry is only up to the hymen, could it be possible that the organ was able to penetrate at that distance? A - Yes, Your Honor." Accused-appellants insinuation that it was Nestcel who brought about such suggestive circumstance of lying by his side is not credible. This Court notes that Nestcel tried to close her legs. Such was an indication of resistance. But even if Nestcels feeble attempt to close her legs could hardly be considered as an indication of resistance, it should be remembered that Nestcel was then only eleven years old. She could not possibly resist accused-appellant who was trusted by her grandmother to act as guardian. Be that as it may, this type of rape is statutory in nature. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) By using force or intimidati