G.R. No. L-32996 August 21, 1974
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WENDELINO AMORES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On July 12, 1966, fourteen-year-old Petronila Baligasa and her eleven-year-old half-brother, Julito Santillan, were gathering cornstalks in a farm in Barrio Bungao, Valencia, Oriental Negros. The accused, Wendelino Amores, whom Petronila had long known, appeared with a companion. Amores seized Petronila, chased her when she fled, and overtook her when she stopped to remove a thorn from her foot. He then forced her to the ground and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her despite her continuous shouts for help and physical resistance. Julito witnessed the assault but ran away in fear. Petronila did not immediately report the incident but disclosed it to her grandmother five days later, leading to a medical examination.
Dr. Severiano Kho examined Petronila on July 17, 1966. His findings included abrasions on her legs, a punctured wound on her foot, and a hymen that was not intact, with the vaginal canal admitting one finger easily. He explained that the absence of spermatozoa was consistent with the five-day delay before examination. After failed attempts at amicable settlement, a verified complaint for rape was filed. The trial court convicted Amores, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and ordering indemnity. Amores appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Wendelino Amores of the crime of rape based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimonies of the victim and her brother credible and consistent. Petronila’s detailed account of the chase, resistance, and assault was corroborated by Julito’s eyewitness testimony. The medical findings, particularly the non-intact hymen and leg abrasions, objectively supported her claim of a struggle and sexual penetration, with the absence of spermatozoa adequately explained by the delay in examination. The Court emphasized that it is inconceivable for a young girl to fabricate a story of rape, undergo examination, and endure a public trial without a genuine desire for justice.
The defense of denial and alibi presented by Amores was deemed weak and insufficient to overcome the positive identification and straightforward narrative of the prosecution. The Court also dismissed the claim regarding an unoffered affidavit of desistance, noting it had no probative value and was superseded by Petronila’s formal complaint. However, the trial court erred in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua for simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the penalty was modified to reclusion perpetua, and the indemnity was increased to twelve thousand pesos. The appeal was devoid of merit.