PANGANIBAN, J.:

This is an appeal from the February 20, 1992 Decision ¹ of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 5 ² in Criminal Case No. CBU-19353 convicting Accused Victoriano Pontilar, Jr. of the crime of rape. ³

Third Assistant Cebu Provincial Prosecutor Antonio T. Echavez filed an Information dated July 23, 1990 charging accused-appellant with the crime of rape allegedly committed as follows: ⁴

The accused, assisted by Counsel de parte Recto de Dios, pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. ⁵ Trial ensued in due course. On February 20, 1992, the trial court promulgated the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

The prosecution presented six witnesses: (1) Marilou Bornea, the rape victim and sole eyewitness to the crime, and her companions that morning, namely: (2) Anabel ⁷ Bacus, (3) Arnold Ares, (4) Sinforoso Ares, (5) Peter John Mangubat and (6) Ernie Nuñeza. In the appellee's brief, the Solicitor General gave the following summary of case facts:

Appellant denied that he raped Marilou Bornea. The defense presented five witnesses: the accused himself, his girlfriend Imelda Colis, Pedro Colis, Andres Colina, and Verna Pontillas. The trial court summarized the version of the defense as follows:

Accused-appellant submitted the following assignment of errors: ⁹

Appellant questions the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses including Marilou Bornea. He also bewails that there were no other eyewitnesses to the alleged rape save for the victim herself. The defense further contends that there was not even "an initial and manifest resistance on the part of the complaining woman." ¹⁰ It also brands as "unnatural" the reaction of the other prosecution witnesses who were with the victim until the time she was taken from their company and then raped by the accused — they did not even shout for help or run to the nearest house for succor. ¹¹

Well-settled is the rule that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted. ¹²

After a thorough review of the entire records of this case, we find no reason to reverse the trial court's assessment of the credibility of Marilou Bornea and the other prosecution witnesses. The testimonies of these witnesses palpably bear earmarks of truth and jibe on material points. The testimonies of Marilou and Anabel leave no doubt as to their veracity. Both recount (1) how their group ¹³ had been walking at Bactas, Catmon, Cebu around 5:00 a.m.; (2) how they were followed by two men — one of whom was Accused-appellant Pontilar, Jr. — who overtook them, blocked their path and ordered their group to stop walking; (3) that their four male companions were frisked; (4) that they were asked to identify themselves; (5) that afterwards Pontilar, Jr. initially ordered the group to go on walking except for the frightened Anabel who was to be left behind; (6) that Marilou chose to remain by her friend's side; (7) that while the group was walking, Pontilar, Jr. ordered them to stop and asked them what he said, to which Peter John Mangubat answered "Hinto"; (8) that Pontilar, Jr. got mad at Peter John, saying, "Putang ina mo" as he kicked the latter; (9) that upon reaching a tamarind tree Marilou was told to join the others and to leave Anabel behind; (10) that the group waited for Anabel; (11) that Pontilar, Jr. and Anabel walked towards the group; (12) that Pontilar, Jr. ordered Marilou to join him and Anabel — otherwise he would kill the latter; (13) that Marilou obliged Pontilar, Jr. who then ordered Anabel to join the group; and (14) that Pontilar, Jr. was armed with a grenade and pistol. Consistent with her account, Anabel also testified that she had already filed a criminal case for acts of lasciviousness against Accused-appellant Pontilar, Jr. ¹⁴

Furthermore, the Court observes that it is highly inconceivable that a fourteen-year-old-girl like Marilou Bornea, innocent and naive, would concoct a serious charge of rape against any man if this was not the truth. The embarrassment and stigma alone of allowing an examination of her private parts and testifying at a public trial on the painfully intimate details of her violation practically rules out the possibility of a false accusation of rape. It is difficult to imagine that a young girl would undergo the indignities and difficulties concomitant to a prosecution for rape unless motivated by a desire to have the offender apprehended and punished. ¹⁷

The accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi must fail in view of Marilou's convincing testimony and positive identification of the former as the culprit, as corroborated by the equally credible testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses. Alibi, like denial, is inherently weak and easily fabricated. For this defense to justify an acquittal, the accused must establish with clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene during its commission. Appellant failed to prove this. As found by the trial court, "the accused was a mere walking distance from the scene of the crime and it is probable that he was present at the place and time of the commission of the crime of rape. There was no physical impossibility for the accused to be at the scene of the crime, considering the distance between the place of the incident and the house of his girlfriend Imelda Colis." ¹⁹

The defense attempts to inject doubt by arguing that the appellant's conviction for rape hinged basically on the sole testimony of the offended party Marilou Bornea and that there were no other eyewitnesses to the crime. This kind of reasoning is puerile. The mere fact that Marilou Bornea was raped in a secluded area, precluding the presence of other witnesses, does not at all detract from the weight of her testimony. The crime of rape, by its very nature, is normally committed away from public view without witnesses save for the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s) themselves. For this reason, "the lone testimony of the victim in the crime of rape, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction." ²⁰ As stated by this Court through Mr. Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa:

Appellant further argues that he cannot be convicted of rape because the complainant made no "initial" or "manifest" resistance to the alleged sexual assault. ²² It is contended that such resistance is absent in this case as Complainant Marilou Bornea "did not even attempt to rise, she DID NOT make any from of resistance. This is indeed a conduct very strange and unnatural for a woman who is supposed to place a high value on her honor and chastity." ²³

This argument is bereft of merit. We stress that rape may be committed not only by force but by also intimidation. ²⁴ The gravamen of the offense is sexual intercourse without the woman's consent. Intimidation rules out consent to the sexual congress. For this reason, "physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for life and personal safety." ²⁵ The testimony of Marilou sufficiently explains that her failure to make a more vigorous and determined resistance was due to fear for her life. It is not difficult to comprehend how a young girl of fourteen would easily be intimidated, overpowered and cowed into submission by the offender who represented himself as an NPA guerrilla and was armed with a grenade and a pistol to boot.

The defense also attempts to discredit the testimony of Anabel Bacus for being inconsistent with her affidavit. In the case against the accused for acts of lasciviousness, Anabel Bacus stated "that immediately after the incident when she saw Marilyn Bornea by the road, Miss Bornea told her that she was raped by Victoriano Pontilar Jr. In her affidavit, Annabel Bacus stated under oath that she was told by Miss Bornea that she was raped only after they had reached home." ²⁶ This contention is misleading. The salient portion of her testimony, quoted as basis of the defense's argument, reads:

The defense likewise argues that the "alleged presence of a companion of Victoriano Pontilar, Jr. at the scene of the alleged crime surfaced only during the cross-examination(s) of Anabel Bacus and Marilou Bornea. This was never stated in their affidavits although, indubitably, the same refers to a fact very material to the issues in this case." ²⁸ This belated argument does not help appellant. It is well-settled that alleged inconsistencies between testimonies in open court and ex parte affidavits do not necessarily discredit the witness since ex parte affidavits are almost always insufficient in details. A sworn statement or an affidavit is usually incomplete and generally considered to be inferior to testimony given in court. ²⁹

At any rate, the alleged inconsistency of Anabel's and Marilou's affidavits with their testimonies during the trial involves a minor detail which does not diminish their credibility as witnesses. These apparent lapses only show that their affidavits are "incomplete with respect to certain details which do not in any way detract from the overall veracity" ³⁰ of their court testimonies. The significance of this minor lapse in detail pales in comparison with their detailed narration of the whole sordid incident which clearly established the presence of the Accused-appellant Pontilar, Jr. at the crime scene, and the manner in which he intimidated Marilou Bornea and then raped her. ³¹

The seeming inaction and paralysis of the other prosecution witnesses (Marilou's companions) after they were ordered by Appellant Pontilar, Jr. to leave him with Marilou — when they were already convinced of appellant's evil intentions — are branded by defense as "highly unnatural." This argument is not persuasive.

After a thorough scrutiny of the records, the Court finds the reaction of the rape victim's companions to be compatible with human experience. It is a truism that "the workings of the human mind placed under a great deal of emotional and psychological stress are unpredictable, and different people react differently. There is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, starling, frightful or traumatic experience — some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility." ³² Thus, it was not at all unlikely that Marilou's companions were so shaken by the whole incident and frightened by the grenade/pistol-toting Accused-appellant Pontilar, Jr., who claimed to be an NPA guerrilla, that they were shocked into inaction. And although they may have reacted poorly to the situation, they could not be faulted for their indecision. For it is axiomatic that there is no rule or standard specifying how witnesses to a crime must react thereto. ³³

Based on all the foregoing discussion, the Court's conscience rests easy with the moral certainty that indeed Appellant Victoriano Pontilar, Jr. raped Marilou Bornea. However, the indemnity of P30,000.00 awarded by the trial court to Marilou Bornea must be increased to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. ³⁴

The defense contends that the trial court erred in ordering the appellant to acknowledge and support the offspring resulting from the crime. Appellant posits that Marilou Bornea was not pregnant when she testified in court seven months after the rape was supposedly committed. In his own words, appellant states that "(t)he court could have taken judicial notice that the complaining woman was NOT pregnant in January 1991, or seven (7) months after the date of the alleged rape. Neither was there any evidence presented by the prosecution to the effect that the complaining woman, Marilou Bornea, was pregnant." ³⁵