People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Bondoy

The credible and positive testimony of a rape victim, even if uncorroborated, is sufficient to sustain a conviction; the presence or absence of spermatozoa is not determinative of the crime, because the essential element of rape is penetration of the pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid. Accordingly, the finding of guilt was sustained notwithstanding the medical technologist's testimony that the sperm cells recovered from the complainant were non-motile. The Court likewise ruled that where the information charges rape with the use of a deadly weapon but does not specifically allege the offense of physical injuries or cite the provision of law punishing it, the physical injuries sustained are deemed part and parcel of the rape and the ambiguity in the information must be resolved in favor of the accused.

Patria V. Sabularce, married to Domingo Sabularce, lived in a one-bedroom house with a store in Sagurong, San Miguel Island, Tabaco, Albay. A native of Lubang, Mindoro, she and her husband arrived in Sagurong in December 1983 to put up a business, as the factory where they were employed allowed them only three working days. She first met Rogelio Bondoy through Milagros Boral, her husband's sister, who recommended him to her as a baggage carrier. The offense was prosecuted under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalized rape with the use of a deadly weapon, and the penalty of death that would otherwise have been warranted by the attendant aggravating circumstances was unavailable by reason of the constitutional ban on that penalty.

Patria V. Sabularce, married to Domingo Sabularce, lived in a one-bedroom house with a store in Sagurong, San Miguel Island, Tabaco, Albay. A native of Lubang, Mindoro, she and her husband had arrived in Sagurong in December 1983 to put up a business, the factory where they were employed having allowed them only three working days. She first met Rogelio Bondoy through Milagros Boral, her husband's sister, who recommended him to her as a baggage carrier.

On August 12, 1986, Patria's house was burglarized by Bondoy, who took cash worth P800.00, twenty-two bottles of beer, several bottles of gin, and bars of health soap after attacking her with a kitchen knife and inflicting physical injuries upon her. Desiderio Boral, Milagros's husband, whipped Bondoy three times on the chest with an iron bar. Bondoy was accordingly charged with robbery with physical injuries before the Municipal Trial Court of Tabaco.

On the night of September 14, 1986, about a month after the robbery, Patria slept in the room beside the kitchen with her seven- and nine-year-old children and her nephew Rommel Boral, the thirteen-year-old son of Milagros. At around 2:00 o'clock the following morning, she was roused from her sleep by the crushing noise of a wall being broken down. After hearing the sound of crashing bottles, she took her flashlight and made her way toward the kitchen, where Bondoy, who was at the doorway, immediately grabbed her right hand and poked a sharp instrument at her. He told her not to shout or else she would be killed, pulled her down to the earthen floor of the kitchen, and took her flashlight even as she cried. He said that he could do what he wanted with her because her defender, Desiderio Boral, was not around. When he asked her to withdraw the case she had filed against him, Patria told him she could not very well do it; whereupon Bondoy ordered her to take off her clothes. When she refused, a struggle ensued and she fell to the ground in a supine position. He attempted to rape her, but she fought back and was able to sit up; he nevertheless forcibly undressed her and tried to pull down her panty. As she continued resisting, Bondoy repeatedly asked her to withdraw the case, otherwise she and the children would all die. Upon her refusal to acquiesce, he ordered her to lie down; when she refused, he slashed her abdomen twice. Even as she fought back, he poked his knife at her, pinned both her hands to the ground with his left hand, lay on top of her, and pulled down her panty. Although she tried to wiggle away from him, he succeeded in consummating his bestial desire. Since Patria was shouting, he covered her mouth and then focused the flashlight all over her body looking for her moles. Although Bondoy placed a knife near Patria's left hand, it was beyond her grasp.

After raping her, Bondoy stood up and held her by the neck. In her haste, she wore her underwear wrong side out. As she was still crying, Bondoy asked for the key to the kitchen door and unlocked the same. As she sat exhausted on the kitchen floor, she heard her child call out, "Mama." Bondoy ordered her to go upstairs while pointing the knife menacingly at her. Once inside the room, he held the hands of her two children, kicked Rommel, and told him not to shout, otherwise he would kill them all. As he ordered them to go to the store, Bondoy told Patria that they would go to town to withdraw the case against him. Patria told him that she could not very well go with him without her clothes on, and Bondoy flicked the knife at her abdomen. Upon seeing this, Rommel pleaded with Bondoy, "Manoy Rogel, do not do that to Tiya. It's a pity." Bondoy hit Rommel, and as the latter reeled, his forehead hit the wall. Patria pleaded with Bondoy to spare the children and, promising that she would go with him, asked for the sharp instrument he was holding. As she approached him, she held his hand that was holding the sharp instrument; having succeeded in taking the knife, she stabbed Bondoy near the armpit. Struggling for possession of the weapon and having retaken it, Bondoy stabbed her right forearm, whereupon she managed to shout for help. Somebody responded, "What's that, Patty?" Bondoy then dashed out of the house through the kitchen, leaving his t-shirt behind. Patria was left crying on the ground until, espying her duster, she put it on.

According to Milagros Boral, at around 2:00 o'clock in the morning of September 15, 1986, she was awakened by a call of nature and, rising, went to their kitchen, opened its door, and went out. She then heard someone weeping from the store of Patria, which was more or less two and a half meters from her own kitchen door, and was surprised to see that the wall of Patria's store had been destroyed. Overcoming her fear, she went to Patria's house, peeped through the pantry, and saw Bondoy poking a sharp instrument at Patria and telling her not to make a noise, otherwise he would kill all of them; Bondoy also said in Tagalog, "Wala ang tagapagtanggol mo rito na si Derio." She recognized Bondoy because of the lighted lamp in Patria's house. As her husband was out at sea, Milagros sought the help of Manuel Bermal, whose house was just beside her own; Manuel replied that due to his old age he was in no position to help, but told her to go instead to Alfredo Boqueo, the husband of her eldest sister. When he peeped through the bamboo slats of Patria's house, Manuel also saw Bondoy pointing a knife at Patria and heard him ordering her to withdraw the case she had filed against him; both Bondoy and Patria were in their underwear. Manuel likewise heard Bondoy order Patria to lie down, and when she asked why, he saw Bondoy slash Patria's stomach twice even as she was already begging for mercy; he then left, as he could no longer stomach what he was witnessing. Milagros fetched Alfredo Boqueo, and the two ran the 200-meter distance downhill to Patria's house. When they learned from Manuel that Bondoy was still inside, the two men told her to fetch Domingo, Patria's husband, at the Hacienda. Milagros went to a neighbor who owned a motorboat and lied that Patria's daughter was ailing, because the son of the motorboat owner was the compadre of Bondoy. She was still at the shore of the Hacienda when she began calling for her brother Domingo, and posthaste they went back to Sagurong. Learning from Manuel that Bondoy was still inside Patria's house, she held Alfredo and Domingo by their pants, pleading with them not to enter the house as something untoward might happen; but when they heard Patria shouting for help, the two men ran to give succor. Gathering her wits about her, Milagros accompanied the two men who entered the house of Patria, and they found a semi-conscious Patria sitting in the store dressed in a torn duster and with a bleeding arm. Milagros massaged Patria's chest and decided that they should bring Patria to Tabaco.

Thirteen-year-old Rommel Boral testified that he was awakened by the kick delivered by Bondoy and saw Bondoy embracing his aunt with a knife poked at her. Bondoy then brought him and Patria's two children to the store and told Patria to come with him, but Patria retorted that she could not do so as she was naked, as in fact she was only wearing her panty. After Bondoy slashed Patria's stomach, Rommel tried to restrain Bondoy from further harming Patria, but Bondoy pushed him hard such that he hit his forehead on a hard object. Rommel heard Patria telling Bondoy to give her his knife before they left; suddenly, he saw Patria stab Bondoy and the two struggle for possession of the knife. Having succeeded in grabbing the weapon, Bondoy stabbed Patria on her right arm. It was at this moment that Patria shouted for help and somebody from outside the house asked, "What happened, Patty?" Bondoy then left the house through the kitchen.

Patria was in a state of shock when she was brought by motorboat to the Tabaco police headquarters; Milagros tried to talk to her, but Patria kept on crying. From the police headquarters, she was taken to the Ziga Memorial Hospital by her husband, where Dr. Sonny Sta. Rosa conducted a vaginal examination on her which revealed the presence of spermatozoa in the cervical opening of her vaginal pool and canal. He thereupon issued a medical certificate showing that Patria sustained an incised 1.5 cm. wound at the lateral aspect of her right forearm and multiple abrasions, and later testified that the incised wound could have been caused by a sharp instrument and that the other abrasions indicated in the certificate, which could also have been caused by a sharp instrument, were three in number and located in the area surrounding the umbilicus or navel. Lilia Colar, the medical technologist at the Ziga Memorial Hospital, examined the specimen of vaginal discharge taken from Patria and found that it was "positive for sperm cells," but declared that the sperm cells were non-motile or dead.

The defense theory was that Bondoy could not have had sexual intercourse with Patria without her consent because they were lovers. To prove this, the defense presented Emelita Bondoy, the defendant's wife, who testified that on the night of February 27, 1986, her husband asked her to watch his motorboat; after he left, she slept but was awakened by an aching tooth, and when she went to Patria's store to buy medicine, she heard someone crying and, peeping through a hole, saw Patria sitting on the lap of her husband with her head on his chest, telling him to leave his family and go with her to Manila. Bondoy retorted that he would go with Patria only if she gave him five thousand pesos, which he would leave with his family; inasmuch as Patria said she had only two thousand pesos, Bondoy proposed that they had better stay where they were as they could still be happy. Emelita heard Patria say that she wanted vengeance on her husband Domingo, who was having an affair with Normilita, Patria's own sister. As she could no longer bear the conversation, Emelita went home and cried all night; when Bondoy returned the following morning, she confronted him and he admitted that he was indeed having a relationship with Patria, consoling her, however, that he still loved his family. After that incident, Emelita noticed that Bondoy and Patria were always together; thus, in March, the two boarded a "sibid-sibid" and went to Hacienda. After her husband had been charged with robbery, Bondoy's family transferred to Rawis and returned to Sagurong in September, although she admitted not knowing anything about the September 15, 1986 incident because she and her children were in Rawis. On cross-examination, Emelita testified that on September 14 her husband left for Sagurong and returned only at 9:00 o'clock in the morning of September 15; on further questioning, she said that her husband was sleeping with her between 2:00 and 3:00 o'clock in the morning of September 15. Inspite of her knowledge about the relationship between Patria and her husband, she kept silent about it because she wanted to avoid a scandal, and did not tell even her own parents, although she confided the same to Bondoy's own parents. To buttress her testimony on the relationship, she produced in court a ring which Patria allegedly gave her husband; the ring was given to her by her husband after the rape case had been filed against him or just before she testified, and she had seen the ring on Patria's finger even before the robbery case was filed. When asked by the fiscal to wear the ring, it fitted Emelita's ring finger.

Juan Bongalos, the brother-in-law of Bondoy, testified that around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of September 14, he had supper with Bondoy, whom he had invited, and they talked about Bondoy's intimate relationship with Patria. After supper, he accompanied Bondoy home because Patria's relatives had been threatening Bondoy. Along the way, Patria called Bondoy and told him to go with her to her house. Bondoy, who had his shirt slung on his shoulder, reached only the kitchen door of Patria's house; Patria was forcing Bondoy to go inside her house, but he declined the invitation. While Bondoy was raising his left hand, Patria suddenly stabbed him on his left side; Bondoy ran away and Juan followed him. Testifying on his own behalf, Bondoy corroborated Bongalos' story on how he was wounded by Patria, adding that Patria stabbed him because he wanted to end their relationship, and repeated Emelita's story about the February 27 incident. He also testified that he operated a motor banca between Sagurong and Tabaco to ferry cargo and passengers like Patria, admitted having been employed by Patria as a baggage carrier and that she had been paying him for his services until they had a "love relationship" for one and a half years, during which he "used" her. Bondoy related that on one occasion, while riding together in a "sibid-sibid" towards Hacienda, he and Patria kissed each other and Patria gave him a ring as a symbol of her love for him. He admitted wearing the ring on his left little finger, but when asked by the fiscal to try on the ring, the court noticed that it did not fit him.

The trial court found the complainant's testimony credible, observing that the sordid details she related about how, when, and where the crime was committed belied the accused's denial and protestation of innocence, and that her deportment on the witness stand and her willingness to divulge even the intimate details of the incident were enough to convince the court. It found that the testimony of the examining physician and of the medical technologist, as well as their respective written findings, corroborated rather than contradicted the complainant's testimony, and it rejected the claim of an amorous relationship, noting that Patria's behavior after the commission of the crime spoke of a desire to abide by the law and let the courts of justice take care of the wrong done to her.

• Absence of Sexual Intercourse: Appellant contended that the lower court erred in finding that he had sexual intercourse with Patria on September 15, 1986, stressing that since not one of the other prosecution witnesses was able to confirm or corroborate Patria's testimony on the matter, that testimony should be treated with extreme caution.
• Non-Motile Spermatozoa: Appellant placed undue emphasis on the fact that the spermatozoa found by the medical technologist in the specimen taken from the complainant was non-mobile, arguing therefrom that no sexual intercourse could have occurred between him and Patria in the early morning of September 15, 1986.
• Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses: Appellant assailed the trial court's stamp of credibility on the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies, enumerating circumstances which he claimed belied the victim's claim of rape: that Patria shouted for help only after she was stabbed in the forearm; her failure to shout when she was raped; her conversation with appellant on a topic different from the alleged crime of rape, referring to his order that she drop the robbery charge; his having asked her to go to town at 2:00 o'clock in the morning; his having asked for a key when the kitchen door was already open after he had made his entry; and Patria's failure to testify that he removed his pants.
• Amorous Relationship: Appellant insisted that rape could not have been committed because of the alleged amorous relationship between him and the complainant, and presented the testimony of his wife and of his brother-in-law to establish that the complainant was his paramour and that she had stabbed him when he sought to end the relationship.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Appellant claimed that the lower court erred in finding that he is guilty of the crime charged and/or that the prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Lifespan of Spermatozoa: The Solicitor General expounded that Dr. Sta. Rosa's testimony that a spermatozoon has a lifespan of 72 hours simply means that it can live up to 72 hours, and by the same token it can die within the same period; its presence in the specimen taken from the body of Patria reveals that she indeed had sexual intercourse with appellant.
• Sperm Test Not Determinative: The prosecution maintained that the presence or absence of spermatozoa in the vagina is not determinative of the commission of rape, a sperm test not being a sine qua non for the successful prosecution of a rape case, and that the lack of spermatozoa in the victim's body does not even negate the crime.
• Credibility and Corroboration: The prosecution defended the trial court's evaluation of the witnesses' credibility and the sufficiency of the complainant's testimony, which was corroborated by the testimonies and written findings of the examining physician and the medical technologist as well as by the circumstantial evidence supplied by the other witnesses.

• Sufficiency of the Uncorroborated Testimony: Whether the lower court erred in finding that appellant had sexual intercourse with the complainant on September 15, 1986, given that no other prosecution witness corroborated her testimony on the matter.
• Effect of Non-Motile Spermatozoa: Whether the presence of non-motile spermatozoa in the complainant's vaginal specimen negated the commission of rape.
• Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the lower court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies, in light of the circumstances allegedly belying the victim's claim of rape.
• Claim of Amorous Relationship: Whether the alleged amorous relationship between appellant and the complainant precluded the commission of rape.
• Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the prosecution was able to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Physical Injuries Not Alleged in the Information: Whether the physical injuries sustained by the complainant may be separately appreciated as "rape with physical injuries" where the information neither specifically alleged the offense of physical injuries nor cited the provision of law punishing it.
• Penalty and Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed in light of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and unlawful entry and the qualifying circumstance of breaking down a wall.
• Award of Damages: Whether the damages imposed by the lower court should be sustained.

• Sufficiency of the Uncorroborated Testimony: No. The trial court's assessment of credibility stands absent a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance; a credible and positive testimony of the victim, even if uncorroborated, suffices to justify a conviction for rape.
• Effect of Non-Motile Spermatozoa: No. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is not determinative of the commission of rape, a sperm test not being a sine qua non; the important element is penetration of the pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid.
• Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses: No. Credibility is the sole province of the trial court, and the alleged lapses in the complainant's testimony were immaterial and explicable by the stress of the moment.
• Claim of Amorous Relationship: No. The claim was correctly disregarded, the complainant's conduct after the crime and appellant's forcible entry through the broken wall having belied the paramour defense.
• Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No. Guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt by the complainant's testimony and the corroborating circumstantial evidence.
• Physical Injuries Not Alleged in the Information: No. The physical injuries were part and parcel of the rape and could not be separately appreciated, having been neither specifically alleged in the information nor punished under any provision cited therein; the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the accused.
• Penalty and Aggravating Circumstances: Yes, with modification. Reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, dwelling and unlawful entry being aggravating; the breaking down of a wall is absorbed in unlawful entry, and death, though otherwise the proper penalty, is constitutionally banned.
• Award of Damages: Modified. The award is reduced to a P50,000.00 indemnity, the victim being entitled to moral damages under Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

• Sufficiency of the Uncorroborated Testimony: Although the testimony of a rape victim should be scrutinized carefully, considering the nature of the crime and the fact that the offense is, more often than not, committed without any witnesses, the Court has repeatedly held that when a woman says that she had been raped, she says all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed; if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted solely on its basis. Even if the victim's testimony on how she was raped is uncorroborated, it is sufficient to justify a conviction for rape as long as it is credible and positive and satisfies the court of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the complainant's testimony was not the only basis for the finding of guilt, since the testimonies of the other witnesses, although circumstantial in nature, likewise pointed to appellant's culpability.

• Effect of Non-Motile Spermatozoa: The medical findings corroborated rather than contradicted the complainant's testimony. Dr. Sta. Rosa's testimony that a spermatozoon has a lifespan of 72 hours simply means that it can live up to 72 hours; by the same token, it can die within the same period. Its presence in the specimen taken from the body of the complainant reveals that she indeed had sexual intercourse with appellant, and the complainant herself swore that before September 15, 1986, she had performed the connubial act with her husband on September 7, 1986. In any event, the presence or absence of spermatozoa in the vagina is not determinative of the commission of rape, because a sperm test is not a sine qua non for the successful prosecution of a rape case; the lack of spermatozoa in the victim's body does not even negate the crime. The important element in rape is penetration of the pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid.

• Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses: Credibility is the sole province of the trial court. In the absence of any showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case, the trial court's findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal, its evaluation deserving the utmost respect for it had the advantage of having directly observed the witnesses' demeanor in court. The alleged lapses in the complainant's testimony — such as her failure to testify on whether or not appellant removed his shorts before he violated her, or to notice whether he ejaculated — were immaterial and insufficient to reverse the finding of guilt, it being understandable that such details might have escaped her attention due to the stress of the moment and, furthermore, having simply not been asked of her. That, except for the physician and the medical technologist, the prosecution witnesses were all related to the complainant did not in the least weaken the prosecution's theory of the crime, for even appellant's own witnesses were related to him; the crime was committed in a remote rural island where everyone is kin to each other, and the relationship of the witnesses to the victim is immaterial as long as their testimonies, independent of the relationship, are not inherently improbable in themselves.

• Claim of Amorous Relationship: The claim was correctly disregarded by the lower court, which noted that the complainant's behavior after the commission of the crime spoke of a desire to abide by the law and let the courts of justice take care of the wrong done to her. She proceeded immediately to the police headquarters and later allowed an examination of her private parts, and at the trial she endured the shame and rigors of recalling her harrowing ordeal before complete strangers. If Patria had indeed had an illicit relationship with appellant even before he robbed her store, she would not have lodged the robbery charge, much less maintained the liaison, for such behavior would have been incongruous with the alleged facts. That appellant broke the wall of Patria's house to effect entry also belied the claim that she was his paramour; she could have allowed him easy access to her home as her husband was elsewhere, but she refrained from doing so. Appellant's tale that Patria openly asked him to come inside her house in the presence of his brother-in-law and, failing to get what she wanted, stabbed him, was incredulous, if not absurd.

• Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: On the basis of the testimonies presented, the Court was legally and morally convinced that appellant committed the crime of rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon, as defined and penalized in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution's evidence, taken together with the corroborating circumstantial testimonies of the other witnesses, established appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Physical Injuries Not Alleged in the Information: The Court found inaccurate the ruling below that the crime committed was "rape with physical injuries and use of deadly weapon." The physical injuries sustained by the complainant were part and parcel of the commission of the crime of rape, there being no separate treatment in the case of physical harm done to her. Moreover, although mentioned in the complaint filed by Patria, the crime of physical injuries (lesiones), whether serious, less serious, or slight, was not specifically alleged in the information — a deviation from the provision of Section 7, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, as the complaint or information did not even refer to the provision of law punishing the offense of physical injuries. As such, the ambiguity of the information in this regard should be resolved in favor of the accused.

• Penalty and Aggravating Circumstances: The lower court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua inasmuch as the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and unlawful entry. The qualifying circumstance of breaking down a wall should be deemed absorbed in unlawful entry. There being two aggravating and no mitigating circumstances, the penalty of death would have been the proper penalty were it not for the fact that such penalty is constitutionally banned.

• Award of Damages: The victim, being entitled to moral damages under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, appellant should be held liable in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as indemnity for the commission of the crime, instead of the total damages of seventy-five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) imposed by the lower court.

• Credibility of witnesses is the sole province of the trial court — The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses who appeared before the trial court is a matter committed to that court, which had the advantage of having directly observed their demeanor in court. Its findings will not be disturbed on appeal absent any showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. The Court applied this doctrine in declining to overturn the trial court's credence in the complainant and the other prosecution witnesses despite appellant's enumeration of alleged lapses in her testimony.
• Sufficiency of the rape victim's uncorroborated testimony — When a woman says that she had been raped, she says all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. If her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted solely on its basis; even if her testimony on how she was raped is uncorroborated, it is sufficient to justify a conviction as long as it is credible and positive and satisfies the court of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied this rule to sustain the conviction notwithstanding that no other witness corroborated the complainant's account of the sexual act itself.
• Spermatozoa is not an element of rape; penetration is the essential element — The presence or absence of spermatozoa in the vagina is not determinative of the commission of rape, because a sperm test is not a sine qua non for the successful prosecution of a rape case; the lack of spermatozoa in the victim's body does not even negate the crime. The important element in rape is penetration of the pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting appellant's reliance on the medical technologist's finding that the sperm cells recovered from the complainant were non-motile or dead.
• Amorous relationship as a defense in rape — A claim that the complainant was the accused's paramour is belied by conduct inconsistent with a consensual relationship, such as the accused's forcible entry into the complainant's dwelling and the complainant's prompt report to the police and submission to medical examination. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting the testimonies of appellant's wife and brother-in-law, noting that the complainant would not have lodged the robbery charge against appellant, much less maintained the liaison, had an illicit relationship existed.
• Relationship of witnesses to the victim — The fact that the prosecution witnesses are related to the victim does not weaken the prosecution's theory of the crime, especially where the accused's own witnesses are likewise related to him and the offense was committed in a remote rural community where everyone is kin to each other. The relationship is immaterial as long as the witnesses' testimonies, independent of the relationship, are not inherently improbable in themselves.
• Sufficiency of the information; resolution of ambiguity in favor of the accused — Section 7, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires that the complaint or information state the designation of the offense given by the statute and the acts or omissions constituting it. Where the information charges rape with the use of a deadly weapon but neither specifically alleges the offense of physical injuries nor refers to the provision of law punishing it, the physical injuries sustained are deemed part and parcel of the rape and the ambiguity in the information must be resolved in favor of the accused.
• Absorption of the qualifying circumstance of breaking down a wall in unlawful entry — Where the accused broke down a wall to effect entry into the victim's dwelling, that circumstance is absorbed in the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry and cannot be separately appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
• Constitutional ban on the death penalty — Where the crime is attended by two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty of death would otherwise be the proper penalty, but it cannot be imposed because such penalty is constitutionally banned; the penalty of reclusion perpetua is accordingly imposed.

• "this Court has repeatedly held that when a woman says that she had been raped, she says all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. If her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted solely on its basis." — This passage states the ratio for sustaining the conviction notwithstanding the absence of corroboration of the complainant's account of the sexual act, and is the formulation commonly invoked for the sufficiency of a rape victim's sole testimony.
• "the presence or absence of spermatoza in the vagina is not determinative of the commission of rape because a sperm test is not a sine qua non for the successful prosecution of a rape case. Thus, the lack of spermatoza in the victim's body does not even negate the crime of rape." — This passage disposes of appellant's principal medical argument and defines the evidentiary weight, or lack thereof, of spermatozoa findings in rape prosecutions.
• "The important element in rape is penetration of the pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid." — This is the canonical statement of the essential element of rape relied upon by the Court in rejecting the significance of the non-motile sperm cells.
• "As such, the ambiguity of the information in this regard should be resolved in favor of the accused." — This passage supplies the rationale for the Court's modification of the judgment below, which had characterized the offense as "rape with physical injuries and use of deadly weapon" despite the information's failure to allege the offense of physical injuries or cite the provision of law punishing it.

• People vs. Biendo, G.R. No. 84731 (December 16, 1992) — Cited, together with People vs. Delos Reyes, as authority for the rule that when a woman says she has been raped, she says all that is necessary to show that rape was committed, and that a conviction may rest solely on her testimony if it meets the test of credibility.
• People vs. Villorente, G.R. No. 100198, 210 SCRA 647 (July 1, 1992) — Cited, together with People vs. Soliao, for the sufficiency of an uncorroborated but credible and positive testimony to justify a conviction for rape, and, together with People vs. Baduya, for the rule that the trial court's credibility findings will not be disturbed on appeal.
• People vs. Paciente, G.R. No. 94309, 210 SCRA 86 (June 18, 1992) — Cited, together with People vs. Baracia, People vs. Sonico, People vs. Managbanag, and People vs. Manaay, as authority for the rule that a sperm test is not a sine qua non for the prosecution of rape and that penetration, not emission of seminal fluid, is the essential element.
• People vs. Dacquel, G.R. No. 97917, 210 SCRA 215 (June 22, 1992) — Cited, together with People vs. Dela Cruz and People vs. Lim, for the rule that credibility is the sole province of the trial court and that its evaluation of the witnesses deserves the utmost respect.
• People vs. Bragaes, G.R. No. 62359, 203 SCRA 555 (November 14, 1991) — Cited as authority for the rule that the relationship of the prosecution witnesses to the victim does not weaken the prosecution where their testimonies are not inherently improbable in themselves.
• People vs. Tismo, L-44773, 204 SCRA 535 (December 4, 1991) — Cited as the basis for the award of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the commission of the crime.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes rape, including rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon. The Court held that appellant committed the crime of rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon as defined and penalized in this article, and affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the lower court.
• Article 64(a), Revised Penal Code — Cited in connection with the imposition of the penalty where aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime. The Court relied on it in holding that the lower court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua, the crime having been attended by the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and unlawful entry, with no mitigating circumstance and with the death penalty constitutionally unavailable.
• Article 2219, Civil Code — Enumerates the cases in which moral damages may be recovered. The Court invoked it in holding the victim entitled to moral damages, and accordingly directed appellant to indemnify the complainant in the amount of P50,000.00 instead of the total damages of P75,000.00 imposed by the lower court.
• Section 7, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Requires that the complaint or information state the designation of the offense given by the statute and the acts or omissions constituting the offense. The Court found a deviation from this provision because the information, although mentioning physical injuries in the complaint, did not specifically allege the crime of physical injuries (lesiones) nor refer to the provision of law punishing it; the resulting ambiguity was resolved in favor of the accused.
• 1987 Constitution (ban on the death penalty) — The Court noted that the penalty of death would have been the proper penalty given two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, were it not for the fact that such penalty is constitutionally banned; hence, reclusion perpetua was imposed.

Feliciano, J.; Bidin, J.; Davide, Jr., J.; and Melo, J., concurred in the decision.