Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CRISANTO OLIVER, accused-appellant.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

In denying this appeal, the Court reiterates the following doctrines: (1) the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witness and their testimonies is entitled to great respect; (2) the presence of the spermatozoa in the sex organ of the victim is not necessary to prove rape; and (3) alibi is weak defense and connot overcome the positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.

Crisanto Oliver appeals before this Court the August 8, 1995 Decision ¹ of the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, ² which convicted him of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

On January 10, 1995, Erlinda G. Olivario filed before the Fifth Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Ligo-Oas ⁴ a Complaint charging appellant with rape. ⁴ After conducting a preliminary investigation, the MCTC issued a Resolution dated February 28, 1995, finding "sufficient evidence which engenders a well founded belief that the crime of [r]ape . . . has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof, hence, he must stand for trial" ⁵

With the assistance of Counsel Ingersoll Ramirez, appellant pleaded not guilty during his arraignment on May 23, 1995. ⁷ After due trial, the court a quo rendered on August 8, 1995 its assailed Decision which disposed as follows:

Hence, this appeal filed directly with this Court. ⁹

The Office of the Solicitor General ¹⁰ submits the following version of the facts:

In his Brief, ¹² appellant sets up the defense of alibi and alleges the following:

On the basis of the victim's candid and straightforward testimony which was corroborated by the physical evidence, the trial court convicted appellant of the crime charged. It also ruled that rape was committed when the male genitalia touched, however slightly, that of the woman; hence, the presence of spermatozoa was not an element of the crime. Lastly, the court disbelieved appellant's alibi.

The defense argues that the trial court erred in the following manner:

The trial court, assessment of a witness' credibility will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, ¹⁵ In the present case, the defense has given us no sufficient reason to reverse or alter this finding. Indeed, the clear, consistent and straightforward manner in which Erlinda Olivario narrated her ordeal confirms the trial court's assessment of her reliability. ¹⁶ She testified thus:

Furthermore, the defense failed to show that Erlinda had any ill motive to testify falsely or to accuse the appellant, her own neighbor, of so grave a
felony. ¹⁸ Besides, no woman will cry rape, allow an examination of her private parts, subject herself to humiliation, go through the rigors of public trial and taint her good name if her claim is not true. ¹⁹

We are not persuaded by appellant's argument capitalizing on the absence of spermatozoa in the victim's organ. Erlinda testified that while there was penile penetration of her sex organ, there was no seminal discharge. Indeed, the presence of sperms is not a requisite for rape. ²⁰ Such crime is consummated when the penis touches the pundendum, however slightly. ²¹

As to who had defiled her, Erlinda positively identified Oliver as the culprit. On cross-examination, she clearly and consistently declared that when appellant embraced and dragged her away from her house, he was "in front" of her. ²² There is no better way for a victim to get a good look at her rapist than to see him face to face.

As an element of rape, force or intimidation need not be irresistible, but just enough to bring about the desired result. ²³ Further, it should be viewed from the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime. Force is therefore sufficient if it produces fear in the victim as when the latter is threatened with death. ²⁴

In this case, fear and helplessness gripped Erlinda. With her jogging pants wrapped around her head, her ability to raise a defense was impaired. She was also terrorized into choosing between life and death. She thought appellant would kill her if she did not give in to his lust. Clearly, the sexual congress was without her consent. As intimidation was established, physical resistance did not have to be proven. ²⁵

Alibi is inherently weak and easily contrived. ²⁶ This is why the accused must prove with clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been present at the place and the time the felony was
committed. ²⁷ This the appellant failed to do.

The distance between the appellant's house and the locus criminis is approximately 300 meters ²⁸ (or one-third kilometer) only. ²⁹ Thus, it was not impossible for Oliver to leave and, after raping Erlinda, to return to his house without his guests noticing his absence.

Even Defense Witnesses Tirzo Pagayonan ³⁰ and Bernardo Ros ³¹ failed to establish the whereabouts of the appellant at the time the victim was ravished. Both testified that they were at the appellant's house around four o'clock in the afternoon of January 8, 1995, and stayed there until the next day. Further, both attested that, with Oliver and a few others, they went to the dance at nine o'clock in the evening of January 8, 1995. However, neither was able to state positively that appellant was entertaining his guests at the very time the rape was being committed.

In any event, alibi cannot overcome the categorical and credible testimony of the victim identifying the appellant as the rapist. Basic is the rule that positive identification prevails over alibi. ³²

Although we affirm the findings and conclusion of the trial court, we cannot sustain the award of indemnity. In conformily with prevailing jurisprudence, ³³ the P30,000 awarded to the victim should be increased to P50,000.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the indemnity ex delicto is increased to P50,000. Costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.