G.R. No. 121627 November 17, 1997
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Roger Evangelista, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On November 1, 1991, an eleven-year-old girl, Analiza Paraat, was sent home from a community dance in Sitio Dubdub, Libacao, Negros Occidental, where she and her family were selling beer. While walking home, a man forcibly grabbed her, covered her mouth, and dragged her to a sugarcane field. At knifepoint, he ordered her to undress, kissed her all over, licked her vagina, and told her to masturbate him. He attempted to penetrate her with his penis but failed due to the small size of her genitalia. He then inserted his finger into her vagina. He attempted penetration a second time but again failed. They remained in the field until around 5:00 a.m. Upon leaving, the accused instructed her to take a different route. On her way home, she met her mother and later told her sister, Margie, about the rape. While narrating the incident, the accused emerged from the sugarcane field, and Analiza immediately pointed him out to Margie as her assailant. Margie recognized the accused as Roger Evangelista, a co-worker of her husband. The accused fled but was later apprehended by police. Analiza was medically examined. The accused appealed, contending that the victim failed to sufficiently identify him as her attacker, arguing the crime occurred at night and her identification was prompted by police.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the victim, Analiza Paraat, positively and credibly identified accused-appellant Roger Evangelista as the person who raped her.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the victim’s identification of the accused was positive, credible, and sufficient. Although she did not know his name at the time of the assault, she recognized his face and spontaneously pointed him out to her sister upon seeing him the morning after the incident, and again positively identified him in court. The Court cited People v. Abella, stating that knowing the attacker’s name is not required for positive identification. The circumstance of nighttime did not preclude identification, as they were together for several hours until dawn, providing sufficient opportunity to recognize him, consistent with the ruling in People v. De Guia. The Court found her testimony credible and consistent, with no evidence of improper motive against the accused. Regarding the nature of the crime, the Court rejected the alternative plea for conviction only of acts of lasciviousness. It ruled that the crime was consummated rape, as full penetration is not necessary; penile contact with the labia, however brief, under force or intimidation constitutes rape. The trial court’s decision finding Roger Evangelista guilty of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua was affirmed, with the modification that the “subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency” was deleted and replaced with “with the accessory penalties provided by law.” He was also ordered to indemnify the victim P100,000.00.