SECOND DIVISION G.R. Nos. 124830-31 June 27, 2003 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. GERARDO GERR!

E"INA ! PAD#AL, Appellant. DECISION $ALLEJO, SR., J.: Before us is the appeal of appellant Gerardo Evina from the Decision of the !e"ional #rial Court, #aclo$an Cit%, Branch &, findin" him "uilt% of t'o counts of simple rape and sentencin" him to suffer the penalt% of reclusion perpetua for each count. On Novem$er ( , && , t'o Informations ( 'ere filed 'ith the !e"ional #rial Court of #aclo$an Cit% char"in" the appellant 'ith rape. #he accusator% portion of each of the Informations respectivel% read as follo's) #hat on or a$out the *rd da% Novem$er, && , in the Cit% of #aclo$an, +hilippines, 'ithin the ,urisdiction of this -onora$le Court, the a$ove.named accused, $% means of violence and intimidation, did, then and there 'il/l0full%, unla'full% and feloniousl% have carnal 1no'led"e of one 2A!I#ES CA#C-A!O 3sic4 a"ainst her 'ill and consent. CON#!A!5 #O 6A7* 8 #hat on or a$out the 9th da% Novem$er, && , in the Cit% of #aclo$an, +hilippines, 'ithin the ,urisdiction of this -onora$le Court, the a$ove.named accused, $% means of violence and intimidation, did, then and there 'il/l0full%, unla'full% and feloniousl% have carnal 1no'led"e of one 2A!I#ES CA#C-A!O 3sic4 a"ainst her 'ill and consent. CON#!A!5 #O 6A7: ;pon arrai"nment on Octo$er <, &&(, the appellant, assisted $% his counsel de oficio, pleaded not "uilt% to $oth char"es.= #hereupon, ,oint trial ensued. #he Case for the +rosecution< Spouses Basilio Catcharro and 6uciana Evaller lived in a one.$edroom house in +aseo de 6e"aspi, #aclo$an Cit%.9 #he% had a dau"hter, 2a. 2aritess Catcharro, 'ho 'as $orn on >ul% =, &?@? and 'as then a Grade III pupil at the Ani$on" Communit% School.& #he appellant 'as the son of 6ucianaAs second cousin and lived near$%. #here 'ere times 'hen the appellant and an older $rother of 2aritess slept in the attic of the Catcharro residence. An older sister slept in the $edroom, 'hile the couple and their other children, includin" 2aritess, slept in the sala. #he appellant e1ed a livin" as a porter at a $us terminal located 'ithin the cit%As reclamation area. @

In the evenin" of Novem$er *, && , 6uciana, alon" 'ith the appellantAs mother, 'ent to the $aran"a% captain to chec1 out a cash loan transaction. 6eft in the house 'ere Basilio, 2aritess, the latterAs older sister, and some visitors. Basilio 'as at the $alcon% 'hilin" a'a% time, ( and 2aritess 'as $us% pla%in" $% herself. * 2ean'hile, a drin1in" spree 'as on."oin" at the livin" room. : At around &)@@ p.m., 2aritess decided to retire for the ni"ht. She proceeded to the $edroom and thou"h it 'as not li"hted, = she sa' the appellant inside the room, ,ust sittin" there. < ;nconcerned, 2aritess 'ent to $ed to sleep. But $efore she finall% doBed off, she noticed that the appellant had loc1ed the door. 9 2aritess 'as suddenl% a'a1ened $% the appellant, 'ho immediatel% "a""ed her mouth 'ith her red dress. ? #he appellant tied her hands 'ith a $i" hand1erchief and po1ed a 1nife at her. & -e ordered 2aritess to 1eep Cuiet. (@ -e then too1 off her under"arment( and undressed himself.(( -e mounted 2aritess and thrust his penis into her va"ina. #he appellantAs penis penetrated her va"ina $% a$out half an inch. (* -e then made a push and pull movement. (: 2aritess felt eDcruciatin" pain. (= 7hile pumpin", he e,aculated.(< 2aritess felt somethin" come out from the appellantAs penis. (9 Satiated, he dismounted and untied 2aritess.(? -e 'arned her not to $reathe a 'ord of 'hat had happened, other'ise he 'ould 1ill her and the rest of her famil%. (& #he appellant then ordered 2aritess to leave the room. *@ 2aritess did as she 'as told, and 'ent to the sala 'here she 'atched television.* 2aritess did not tell her father a$out the harro'in" incident $ecause she feared that she and her famil% mi"ht indeed $e 1illed. 2uch later, 6uciana returned home from her errand and noticed the appellant comin" out of the $edroom. She did not suspect that an%thin" 'as amiss. She 'ent into the room and sa' her dau"hter 2aritess, alread% sleepin". *( At a$out =)@@ p.m. of Novem$er 9, && , 2aritess 'as left at home alone. ** -er mother had earlier "one to her fatherAs place of 'or1. *: 2aritess 'as pla%in" at the $alcon% 'hen the appellant arrived, apparentl% loo1in" for somethin". *= #hereafter, the appellant called 2aritess to the $edroom and told her to lie do'n. *< 7hen she refused, the appellant forced her to lie do'n, "a""ed her mouth and tied her hands. *9 -e po1ed a 1nife at her and touched her thi"h. #he appellant undressed her, then himself, and inserted his penis into 2aritessA va"ina. *? #he penis, as $efore, penetrated the va"ina $% a$out half an inch. A"ain, 2aritess eDperienced eDcruciatin" pain. *& After satisf%in" his lust, the appellant 'arned her not to tell an%one a$out the incident, other'ise he 'ould 1ill them all. Because 2aritess had alread% seen the appellant 1ill someone, :@ she feared that the appellant mi"ht ma1e "ood his threat. She did not reveal her traumatic ordeal to her parents or to an%one. On Novem$er *, && , the appellant arrived at the Catcharro residence and proceeded to the $edroom. 2aritess, 'ho 'as inside the $edroom, ran out and told her mother 'ho 'as a$out to leave) E2ama, do not leave us alone. +apa Gerr% mi"ht rape me a"ain.E: 6uciana 'as shoc1ed at her dau"hterAs revelation. She eDamined the va"ina of 2aritess and sa' pus cells and $lood. 6uciana $rou"ht her dau"hter to the police station, 'here she 'as advised to have 2aritess eDamined $% a doctor. :(

#he follo'in" da%, 2aritess 'as $rou"ht to the #aclo$an Cit% 2edical Center 'here she 'as eDamined $% Dr. Giovanni Filmar and Dr. 2a. >o%ce !. 6iao. #he ph%siciansA findin"s 'ere as follo's) OB.G5NE findin"s) EDternal "enitalia . "rossl% normal Introitus . ne"ative h%menal laceration noted +elvic eDam . patient refused pelvic eDam. . 7ith %ello'ish sli"ht mucoid dischar"es noted. Va"inal smear for #2G G positive pus cells. Gram ne"ative diplococci D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D.D EDtracellular 3HHH4 Va"inal smear. spermatoBoa seen Intracellular 3HHH4:* Because the appellant admitted the authenticit% of the 2edico.6e"al !eport, Dr. Giovanni FilmarAs testimon% 'as dispensed 'ith. #he Evidence of the Appellant #he appellant denied the char"es and raised the defense of ali$i. -e claimed that he 'as a victim of circumstances, and that the char"es 'ere fa$ricated $% 2aritessA famil%, 'ho hated his "uts.:: #he appellant testified that on Novem$er *, && , he 'as at a $us terminal in #aclo$an Cit% 'or1in" as a porter until @)@@ p.m. := After 'or1, he left the terminal and 'ent home.:< On Novem$er 9, && , he left earl%, at around 9)@@ a.m., and 'or1ed the entire da% at the $us terminal until @)@@ p.m. After'ards, he 'ent strai"ht to his house, :9 'hich 'as a$out one 1ilometer a'a%. :? -e testified that it too1 him ten to fifteen minutes to 'al1 from his house to the terminal, and vice.versa. :& #he appellant declared that Basilio and his famil% 'ere his nei"h$ors and distant 1in, $ut averred that he had not $een to their house for several %ears. =@ On Au"ust :, &&=, the trial court rendered ,ud"ment convictin" the appellant of t'o courts of rape, the decretal portion of 'hich reads)

7-E!EIO!E, premises considered, the Court here$% finds accused GE!A!DO EVINA 5 +AD;A6 "uilt% $e%ond reasona$le dou$t of the crime of !ape on t'o 3(4 counts and considerin" the a"e of the victim to $e ten 3 @4 %ears old, the Court here$% imposes upon said accused the penalt% of !eclusion +erpetua on each of the a$ove. named cases. SO O!DE!ED.= In convictin" the appellant, the trial court discounted the defense of ali$i put up $% the defense. It ratiocinated that it 'as not ph%sicall% impossi$le for the appellant to $e at the scene of the crime, ta1in" into account the "eo"raphical proDimit% of the appellantAs house to the Catcharro residence. #he trial court ruled that 2aritessA positive identification of the appellant prevailed over the latterAs uncorro$orated and self.servin" ali$i. #he trial court further stated that the appellantAs adamant insistence that he had not visited the Catcharro residence for %ears 'as far.fetched and contrived, considerin" that the% lived in the same nei"h$orhood and 'ere even $lood.related. #he appellant see1s the reversal of the trial courtAs decision, contendin" that) ASSIGN2EN# OI E!!O!S I #-E #!IA6 CO;!# G!AVE65 E!!ED IN GIVING I;66 7EIG-# AND C!EDENCE #O #-E EVIDENCE OI #-E +!OSEC;#ION #-AN #-A# OI #-E DEIENSE. II #-E #!IA6 CO;!# G!AVE65 E!!ED IN IINDING ACC;SED.A++E66AN# G;I6#5 BE5OND !EASONAB6E DO;B# OI #-E C!I2E C-A!GED.=( #he appellant ar"ues that the evidence of the prosecution failed to achieve the test of moral certaint%. -e contends that rape is hard to prove, $ut harder for him to disprove, even thou"h he is innocent. #he testimon% of 2aritess should $e carefull% scrutiniBed, and he should not $e convicted unless her testimon% is found to $e impecca$le. =* #he appellant also asserts that 2aritessA testimon% is incredi$le as 'ell as inconsistentJ hence, $arren of pro$ative 'ei"ht. At first, 2aritess testified that the appellant follo'ed her to the room and then raped her. But 'hen Cueried $% the court a Cuo, 2aritess narrated that the appellant 'as alread% inside the $edroom 'hen she "ot thereJ that she slept, then the appellant 'o1e her up and raped her. #he appellant alle"es that the inconsistenc% in her testimon% impaired her credi$ilit%. =: 2aritessA testimon% is even discordant 'ith her motherAs account of events) 2aritess testified that it 'as on Novem$er 9, && 'hen she told her mother that the appellant had raped her, 'hile 6uciana testified that 2aritess made the revelation on Novem$er *, && .

#he contention of the appellant does not persuade. #he inconsistenc% in 2aritessA testimon% is too minor and trivial to impair the inte"rit% of the prosecutionAs evidence as a 'hole. It cannot affect the veracit% or the 'ei"ht of her testimon%. 7hether the appellant preceded or follo'ed 2aritess in the $edroom pertains onl% to a collateral matter 'hich does not have an%thin" to do 'ith the essential elements of the offenses 'ith 'hich the appellant 'as char"ed. 7hat is of primordial importance is that 2aritess positivel%, cate"oricall% and in a strai"htfor'ard manner, narrated ho' and 'hen the appellant raped her. 2aritess testified, thus) +ros. -omeres K) 7hen %ou 'o1e up 'hat did he doL A) -e tied m% mouth. K) 7hat did he use to tie %our mouthL A) 2% red dress. K) 7h% did he tie %our mouthL A) I do not 1no'. K) After %our mouth 'as tied 'ith %our dress 'hat did he doL A) -e also tied m% hands. K) 7ith 'hat material did he use in t%in" %our handsL A) -and1erchief. 8 K) After Benedicto Evina alias Gerr% tied %our mouth and hands 'hat else did he do if an%L A) -e pointed a 1nife at me. 3'itness points to the left side of her $od%4 K) After he pointed a 1nife to %our $od% 'hat else did he do to %ouL A) -e too1 off m% pant% and then he also too1 off his pants. K) After that 'hat happenedL A) And then he placed his penis in m% va"ina.

K) Did his penis penetrate %our va"inaL A) It 'as not a$le to penetrate deepl%. K) -o' lon" did the penetration ta1e placeL A) It did not ta1e lon". K) -o' deep 'as the penetration of his penis to %our va"ina, if %ou can demonstrateL A) 7itness sho'ed her middle fin"er and sho'ed a len"th of a little more than M( of an inch. K) Do %ou 1no' if an%thin" happened to his penis 'hen it sli"htl% penetrated %our va"inaL A) #here 'as a 'hitish su$stance. K) Comin" from 'hereL A) It came from his or"an.== 8 +ros. -omeres K) 7hat happened 'hen %ou refused to lie do'nL A) -e 'as the one 'ho laid me do'n. K) 7hen %ou 'ere laid do'n $% him 'hat happenedL A) -e tied m% mouth as 'ell as m% hands. K) After %our mouth and hands 'ere tied 'hat happenedL A) -e pointed a 1nife at me. K) Did he touch %our private partsL A) 5es. K) 7hat part of %our $od% 'as touched $% himL A) 2% thi"hs.

8 K) 7hat happened 'hen %ou 'ere laid do'nL A) -e too1 off m% pantie 3sic4 and he also too1 off his pants. K) After he too1 off %our pantie 3sic4 and he also too1 off his pants 'hat happenedL A) -e place 3sic4 his penis in m% va"ina. K) Did his penis penetrate %our va"inaL A) A little. K) -o' deepL A) 7itness sho'ed a$out M( inch of her forefin"er. =< #he appellant avers that 6ucianaAs credi$ilit% 'as impaired 'hen she testified that it 'as on Novem$er *, && 'hen 2aritess revealed that the appellant had raped her 'hen, in fact, it 'as actuall% on Novem$er 9, && . 6uciana indeed erred on this point in her testimon%. -o'ever, 'e a"ree 'ith the findin"s of the trial court that althou"h 6uciana had her dates miDed up, it 'as $ut an honest mista1e) In ans'er to the Cuestion as to ho' she came to 1no' a$out the rape of her dau"hter on Novem$er * and 9, && , 2rs. Catcharo 3sic4 made the follo'in" ans'er) E6ast Novem$er * 'hen I 'as a$out to leave the house, Gerr% Evina 3Gerardo Evina4 came up the house. -e 'ent directl% to the room. After'ards, 2arites Catcharo 3sic4 came out and said, N2ama, do not leave us alone, +apa Gerr% mi"ht rape me a"ain.A After 'hich I $rou"ht m% dau"hter to the police station. #he follo'in" da%, I had her medicall% eDamined.E Apparentl%, 'itness 6uciana Catharo 3sic4 'as mista1en a$out the date of Novem$er *, && . She must have $een mista1en of 'hat she meant $% Novem$er *, 'as actuall% Novem$er 9. 8=9 6i1e'ise $arren of merit is the appellantAs contention that 2aritess could not have identified him as the rapist, considerin" that it 'as &)@@ p.m. 'hen 2aritess 'as raped and it 'as pitch dar1 in the $edroom 'here the crime 'as committed. =? 7e a"ree 'ith the encompassin" ruminations of the Office of the Solicitor General on the matter, to 'it) Iirstl%, it must $e stressed that the victim personall% 1ne' appellant since the latter is a relative 'ho freCuents their house and 'ho lives onl% one house a'a% from the victim 3pp. :, (, #SN, Novem$er (, &&(J p. 9, #SN, Septem$er <, &&:4. Secondl%,

appellant 'as positivel% identified in court $% the victim 'ho testified in a cate"orical, strai"htfor'ard, spontaneous, and fran1 manner and remained consistent in cross. eDamination 3p. :, #SN, Novem$er (, &&(4. #hirdl%, $% the victimAs account, it can $e deduced that there 'as enou"h li"ht in the $edroom 'hich ena$led the victim to see and reco"niBe appellant even if the first rape occurred at a$out &)@@ in the evenin". Besides, appellant did not raise this issue durin" the trial nor 'as the victim cross. eDamined on 'hether it 'as dar1 or not inside the $edroom on Novem$er *, && at &)@@ oAcloc1 in the evenin". 2oreover, it must $e pointed out that the second incident of rape occurred at =)@@ in the afternoon onl%, thus the $edroom ma% $e illuminated $% natural li"ht since it 'as still da%time 3p. 9, Novem$er (, &&(4. And si"nificantl%, appellant repeated almost all the same acts he did durin" the first incident of rape. #his, therefore, points to no other conclusion than that it 'as appellant 'ho violated appellant on Novem$er *, && .=& #he room ma% have $een unlit at the time of the rape, $ut this does not mean that there 'as total dar1ness as to preclude 2aritess from identif%in" the malefactor. 7e do not consider the circumstance of ni"httime as a hindrance to 2aritessA identification of the appellant as the rapist. #he $edroom door 'as open 'hen 2aritess entered, and the li"ht in the sala illumined the $edroom.<@ Durin" rape incidents, the offender and the victim are as close to each other as is ph%sicall% possi$le. In truth, a man and a 'oman cannot $e ph%sicall% closer to each other than durin" a seDual act. < 2oreover, the appellant often slept in the attic of the CatcharroAs, and 'as a freCuent visitor thereat. Not surprisin"l%, therefore, 2aritess readil% and positivel% identified the appellant in court durin" the trial as the man 'ho raped her on Novem$er * and 9, && . <( Neither do 'e find merit in the appellantAs contention that) 3 4 it 'as impossi$le for him to have raped 2aritess in a cramped one.$edroom house 'ith so man% people 'ithin earshot, 'ithout an%$od% noticin"J and, 3(4 2aritessA failure to shout for help 'hen she 'as $ein" raped is contrar% to human eDperience. <* As succinctl% eDpostulated $% the Office of the Solicitor General) It is aDiomatic that there is no rule or standard $ehavior specif%in" ho' 'itnesses to a crime must react thereto 3+eople v. +ontilar, >r., (9= SC!A **? / &&904. In +eople v. +ardillo, >r., (?( SC!A (?< / &&904, this -onora$le Court noted that a rape victim 'ho is a "irl of such tender a"e could easil% $e intimidated and co'ed into silence even $% the mildest threat a"ainst her life, for silence is not an odd $ehavior of rape victim. #hus, althou"h other people ma% have shouted for help if "iven the chance, the %oun" victim in the instant case mi"ht have $een overcome $% fear and 'asnAt a$le to shout for help. Besides, appellant covered the victimAs mouth 'ith her dress 3p. 3sic4 #SN, Novem$er (, &&(4. 2oreover, the crime of rape, as in the instant case, could $e committed even in a short 'hile.<: 7e reiterate the dictum, dra'n from ,udicial eDperience, that lust is no respecter of time and place. As 'e have often held, rape can $e committed even in places 'here people

con"re"ate, in par1s, alon" the roadside, 'ithin school premises and even inside a house 'here there are other occupants or 'here other mem$ers of the famil% are also sleepin". #hus, it is an accepted rule in criminal la' that rape ma% $e committed even 'hen the rapist and the victim are not alone. !ape 'as held to have $een committed in the same room 'hile the rapistAs spouse 'as asleep, or in a small room 'here other famil% mem$ers of the victim also slept.<= #he a$sence of laceration in the h%men does not ne"ate rape. 1avvphi1 #he $are fact that the h%men of 2aritess 'as still intact does not impair her testimon% that she eDperienced eDcruciatin" pain 'hen the appellant ravished her. It has $een the consistent rulin" of the Court that a$sence of h%menal lacerations does not disprove seDual a$use especiall% 'hen the victim is of tender a"e. << A freshl% $ro1en h%men is not an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the medical report states that the h%men of the victim is still intact does not ne"ate rape. <9 Iull penetration is not even reCuired, as proof of entrance sho'in" the sli"htest penetration of the male or"an 'ithin the la$ia or pudendum of the female or"an is sufficient. <? It must not $e for"otten that 2aritess 'as merel% eleven %ears old 'hen she 'as t'ice ravished $% the appellant. She felt "reat pain $ecause in $oth instances, the shaft of the appellantAs phallus penetrated her va"ina $% half an inch. Surel%, such a modicum intrusion 'as enou"h cause for 2aritess, 'ho 'as still a vir"in, to eDperience such eDcruciatin" pain. In +eople v. 2ahina%,<& 'e held that in provin" seDual intercourse, it is enou"h that there is the sli"htest penetration of the male or"an into the female seD or"an. #he mere touchin" $% the male or"an or instrument of the la$ia of the pudendum of the 'omanAs private parts is sufficient to consummate the crime. On the 'hole, 'e have found nothin" in the records that 'ould compel us to distur$ the findin"s of fact and assessment of credi$ilit% of the 'itnesses made $% the trial court. #here is nothin" to indicate that the trial court overloo1ed, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of 'ei"ht and su$stance 'hich 'ould have affected the result of the case. #hus, 'e must %ield to the oft.repeated rule that the trial courtAs evaluation of the testimon% of a 'itness is accorded the hi"hest respect $ecause it had the direct opportunit% to o$serve the 'itnesses on the stand and to determine if the% 'ere tellin" the truth or not. Appellate ma"istrates, on the other hand, do not have this privile"e. As this Court has reiterated often enou"h, the matter of assi"nin" values to declarations at the 'itness stand is $est and most competentl% performed or carried out $% a trial ,ud"e 'ho, unli1e appellate ma"istrates, can 'ei"h such testimon% in li"ht of the accusedAs $ehavior, demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial. 9@ #he court a Cuo 'as correct in discardin" the appellantAs ali$i. Ali$i, li1e denial, is inherentl% 'ea1 and easil% fa$ricated. 9 Ior the defense of ali$i to prosper, it must $e esta$lished $% positive, clear and satisfactor% proof that it 'as ph%sicall% impossi$le for the accused to have $een at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merel% that the accused 'as some'here else. +h%sical impossi$ilit% refers to the distance $et'een the place 'here the accused 'as 'hen the crime happened and the place 'here it 'as committed, as 'ell as the facilit% of the access $et'een the t'o places.9( In the case at $ar, the element of ph%sical impossi$ilit% is a$sent $ecause the

appellantAs place of 'or1, 'here he alle"ed he 'as at the time the rapes 'ere committed, 'as onl% one 1ilometer a'a% from the Catcharro residence. #he appellant admitted that the distance could $e ne"otiated $% a ten to fifteen minute 'al1. #he appellant even failed to adduce an% documentar% evidence that he reported for 'or1 on Novem$er * and 9, && and the eDact time 'hen he left. 2oreover, the ali$i of the appellant must crum$le as he 'as positivel% identified $% 2aritess as the rapist. 9* Althou"h the special a""ravatin" circumstance of the use of a 'eapon 9: and the a""ravatin" circumstance of d'ellin" 'ere proven, these a""ravatin" circumstances cannot $e considered in fiDin" the penalt% $ecause the% 'ere not alle"ed in the information as mandated $% !ule @, Sections ? 9= and &9< of the !evised !ules of Criminal +rocedure. Althou"h the crimes char"ed 'ere committed $efore the effectivit% of the said rule, nevertheless, the same should $e applied retroactivel% $ein" favora$le to the appellant. Althou"h the a""ravatin" circumstances in Cuestion cannot $e appreciated for the purpose of fiDin" a heavier penalt% in this case, the% should, ho'ever, $e considered as $ases for the a'ard of eDemplar% dama"es, conforma$l% to current ,urisprudence. 99 #he trial court failed to a'ard civil dama"es eD delicto, moral dama"es and eDemplar% dama"es a"ainst the appellant in favor of the victim. #he decision of the trial court shall thus $e modified. #he victim, 2a. 2aritess Catcharro, is entitled to an a'ard of civil indemnit% eD delicto in the amount of +=@,@@@ for each count of rape. In addition, the victim is entitled to an amount of +=@,@@@ as moral dama"es for each count of rape, 'ithout need of pleadin" or proof of the $asis thereof. #he victimAs in,ur% is concomitant 'ith and necessaril% resultin" from the odiousness of the crime to 'arrant per se the a'ard of moral dama"es.9? Conforma$l% to the rulin" in +eople v. Catu$i",9& the victim is entitled to an a'ard of +(=,@@@ as eDemplar% dama"es for each count of rape. IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING , the Decision of the !e"ional #rial Court of #aclo$an Cit%, Branch &, in Criminal Cases Nos. & . (.9=& and & . (.9<@ is AIII!2ED 'ith 2ODIIICA#IONS. Appellant Gerardo EGerr%E Evina % +adual is found "uilt% $e%ond reasona$le dou$t of t'o counts of simple rape, and is here$% sentenced to suffer the penalt% of reclusion perpetua for each count. #he appellant is here$% ordered to pa% the victim 2a. 2aritess Catcharro the amounts of +=@,@@@ as civil indemnit%J +=@,@@@ as moral dama"esJ and +(=,@@@ as eDemplar% dama"es for each count. Costs a"ainst the appellant. SO O!DE!ED.