G.R. No. 62088 March 6, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SAMSON SAMILLANO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Samson Samillano, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Antique for the crime of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. The prosecution’s evidence established that on May 16, 1981, in Barangay Zaragoza, Bugasong, Antique, the appellant, armed with a bolo, forcibly brought the 11-year-old victim, Elizabeth Ungsod, to a dry ditch, removed her panties, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will. The act was interrupted when the victim’s half-brother, Ruben Ungsod, arrived, causing the appellant to flee. The victim was medically examined on the same day, and the findings confirmed recent sexual intercourse and physical injuries consistent with rape. The appellant denied the charges, claiming he witnessed Ruben Ungsod and the victim engaging in sexual intercourse and that he was being made a scapegoat to avoid embarrassment for the family due to an alleged incestuous relationship. The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s version.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely erred in giving greater weight to the testimony of the victim and in convicting the accused of the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modifications. The Court held that:
1. The victim was under twelve years old at the time of the incident, which was sufficiently established by her birth certificate, school records, and the testimonies of herself and her father, making the case one of statutory rape where carnal knowledge alone is punishable.
2. The trial court’s findings on the credibility of the victim’s testimony are accorded utmost respect, as there was no showing of arbitrariness. The positive identification by the victim prevails over the bare denials of the appellant.
3. The prosecution’s non-presentation of the eyewitness, Ruben Ungsod, is not fatal, as the matter of presenting witnesses is within the prosecution’s discretion, and the defense could have compelled his testimony if it believed it would bolster its case.
4. The medical finding that the victim could have had prior sexual intercourse is immaterial to the determination of the appellant’s culpability for the rape committed on May 16, 1981, as even a woman with previous sexual experience may be raped.
5. The appellant’s claim of an incestuous relationship between the victim and her half-brother was unsupported by evidence and belied by the circumstances, such as the half-brother accompanying the victim for medical examination.
6. The trial court’s failure to award moral damages was rectified by awarding P50,000.00 to the victim for the mental anguish and suffering inherent in rape.
7. The penalty imposed was corrected to specify reclusion perpetua only, as “life imprisonment” is not a penalty under the Revised Penal Code and has different legal implications.
The decision was affirmed with the modifications of awarding moral damages and specifying the penalty as reclusion perpetua.