THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 102723-24. June 19, 1997.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . EDUARDO

CABALLES and REYNALDO MABINI , accused, EDUARDO CABALLES ,
appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; HOW COMMITTED. — The law provides that carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following instances constitutes rape: (1) when
force or intimidation is used; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and (3) when she is under twelve (12) years of age.
2. ID.; ID.; ABSENCE OF SPERMATOZOA OR LACERATION DOES NOT
NECESSARILY NEGATE RAPE. — It is well-settled that the absence of spermatozoa in
the victim's vagina does not necessarily negate the commission of rape. Neither is the
existence of laceration indispensable. What is essential is that there be penetration of
the sexual organ no matter how slight. DcCHTa

3. ID.; ID.; USE OF FORCE AND INTIMIDATION; MANIFESTED BY HYPEREMIA

OF THE VICTIM'S SEXUAL ORGAN. — Forced coitus is corroborated by the ndings of
the physician who examined Miguela on the very evening after the sexual abuse was
consummated. In his examination of the victim's genitalia, Dr. Gilberto Magallon of the
Cebu City Medical Center said that the cervix was "hyperemic with edema of the
anterior lip." He added that such condition of the cervical layer was not normal for a
woman, and explained that the probable cause thereof was trauma resulting from
forced contact applied on the affected part. Gathering from the testimony of the victim,
the forceful "push and pull movements" of appellant could well have been the cause of
hyperemia in her sexual organ. Clearly then, appellant committed the felony under the
first circumstance, i.e., with the use of force and intimidation.
4. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; WHEN A WOMAN SAYS THAT
SHE HAS BEEN RAPED, SHE ALMOST SAYS IT ALL. — Indeed, no young woman of
decent repute would publicly expose herself to the shame and embarrassment of
admitting having been sexually abused by two men successively within each other's full
view if such were not the truth. No ulterior motive was offered by the appellant to
explain why Miguela would falsely charge him with the serious offense. Neither did
appellant attempt to explain the disparity between his testimony and that of his co-
accused, a disparity which supported the victim's contentions. The only logical
conclusion is that no other reason impelled the complaining witness to come to court
than to seek justice for the dastardly crime committed against her virtue. Even her sole
testimony which is credible su ces to make a conviction, for when a woman says that
she has been raped, she almost always says it all.
5. ID., ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT, GENERALLY
ACCORDED GREAT RESPECT. — It is doctrinal that the evaluation by the trial court of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 the testimony of a witness is generally accorded great respect because of its direct
opportunity to observe the witness' demeanor on the stand and to determine whether
she is telling the truth. Such assessment is generally binding on this Court except when
the same was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could have
affected the disposition of the case. None of these exceptions is found in the instant
case. aHcDEC

6. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; EVIDENT

PREMEDITATION; ELEMENTS. — For evident premeditation to be appreciated, it is
necessary that the prosecution prove the following elements: (1) the time when the
accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act showing that the accused clung
to their determination to commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a period of time
between the decision and the execution of the crime su cient to allow the accused to
reflect upon the consequences of the act.
7. ID., ID.; ID.; CANNOT BE MERELY INFERRED FROM CONJECTURES AND
CONCLUSION. — The prosecution, however, failed to establish with clear and convincing
evidence the attendance of any of these elements which cannot be inferred merely from
conjectures and suppositions.
8. ID.; ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES; RELATIONSHIP; WHEN
AGGRAVATING. — In order that the alternative circumstance of relationship may be
taken into consideration in the imposition of the proper penalty, the offended party
must either be the (a) spouse, (b) ascendant, (c) descendant, (d) legitimate, natural or
adopted brother or sister, or (e) relative by affinity in the same degree, of the offender.
9. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT APPRECIATED WHEN NOT CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. — The
complaining witness simply stated that accused-appellant was related to her husband
through their grandparents. And although appellant admitted being related with the
private complainant's husband, he said that he was a third-degree cousin of the
former's grandmother. Neither the prosecution nor the defense counsel attempted to
clarify the witnesses' statements. We cannot positively conclude from such bare
declarations that appellant is an ascendant or descendant by a nity of the
complainant. It seems rather doubtful that the relationship between the offended party
and the offender falls within the statutorily de ned concept of relationship
determinative of the penalty to be imposed. Since the degree of relationship was not
clearly established to be one of those provided for by law, we cannot use such
circumstance against the accused.
10. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; NIGHTTIME AND UNINHABITED
PLACE; MUST BE PURPOSELY SOUGHT AND TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF IN THE
COMMISSION OF CRIME. — The prosecution merely showed that the crime was
committed at nighttime and in an uninhabited place. These circumstances, by
themselves, do not aggravate the offense. Nighttime and uninhabited place, to be
appreciated, must have been purposely sought and taken advantage of in order to
facilitate the commission of the offense. There is nothing in the records, however, to
show that appellants had deliberately chosen or used these circumstances to their
advantage.
11. ID.; ID.; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH AND USE OF KNIFE, INTEGRAL
PART IN RAPE CASES COMMITTED WITH USE OF FORCE AND INTIMIDATION. — The
trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength. Although the trial court did not elaborate on the basis of its conclusion, it
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 relied apparently on the nding that the crime was committed by two persons who also
use a knife to terrorize the victim into submission. We cannot sustain this view. The use
of a knife or the commission of the crime by two persons cannot be considered as
generic aggravating circumstances in rape, for they are included as an integral part of
the crime. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "[w]henever the crime of
rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death."
12. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; MORAL DAMAGES; PROPER WHERE THE VICTIM
SUFFERED FROM DEPRESSION, SHOCK OR SLEEPLESS NIGHT. — The trial court
correctly awarded moral damages to the victim, pursuant to Articles 2217 and 2219 of
the Civil Code. Miguela testi ed in court that as a consequence of the vicious and
detestable act perpetrated upon her by the accused, she suffered from depression,
shock and sleepless nights. In the exercise of our discretion, and since an appeal in a
criminal case throws the whole case open for review, it is proper for this Court to
impose additional damages upon appellant. Appellant is therefore liable for the
increased amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape.
13. ID.; ID.; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; PROPER WHERE THERE IS ONE OR
MORE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES. — The award of exemplary damages is not
justi ed, however, in view of the failure of the prosecution to prove one or more
aggravating circumstances. cASEDC

14. ID.; ID.; P50,000.00 INDEMNITY FOR EACH RAPE. — The trial court further
erred in not granting civil indemnity to the private complainant which, as we explained at
the outset, is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other
than the fact of the commission of the offense. Indemnity of P50,000.00 should,
therefore, be reckoned for each count of rape committed by the accused. He is
additionally liable to Miguela Baculi in the amount of P100,000.00 as indemnity for the
two counts of rape committed against her.
15. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; APPEAL; ADDITIONAL PENALTIES
ADJUDGED APPELLANT CANNOT PREJUDICE ACCUSED WHO DID NOT APPEAL. — The
same cannot apply, however, in the case of Reynaldo Mabini who did not appeal his
conviction. Additional penalties cannot prejudice him, but modi cations to the
judgment bene cial to him are considered in his favor. Because of the deletion of the
award of exemplary damages, he is only liable, jointly and severally with Appellant
Caballes, for the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages for the two counts of rape as
adjudged by the trial court. Moreover, he is not affected by the increase in the amount
of the said award. In the same vein that the additional moral damages can no longer be
imposed upon Reynaldo Mabini, so we cannot order him to pay civil indemnity.
16. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; PENALTY FOR TWO COUNTS. — Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code provides that whenever the crime of rape is committed by two or
more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that
appellant is answerable for two counts of rape, we nd no error in the imposition by the
trial court of the double penalty of reclusion perpetua upon him.TEAaDC

DECISION

PANGANIBAN , J : p

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 This Court is appalled at the unabated commission of heinous crimes in our
country. Particularly disheartening is the high incidence of rape perpetrated day by day
in urban and rural areas alike.
In this ponencia, the Court nds occasion to clarify existing jurisprudence on the
grant of damages in the crime of rape, which is likewise applicable to the crimes of
murder, homicide and parricide. Civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00
(consistent with prevailing jurisprudence) is automatically granted to the offended
party, or his/her heirs in case of the former's death, without need of further evidence
other than the fact of the commission of any of the aforementioned crimes. Moral and
exemplary damages may be separately granted in addition to indemnity. Moral
damages can be awarded only upon su cient proof that the complainant is entitled
thereto in accordance with Article 2217 of the Civil Code, while exemplary damages can
be imposed if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances
duly proven. The amounts thereof shall be at the discretion of the courts.
In the case before us, Appellant Eduardo Caballes is charged with two (2) counts
of rape allegedly committed in concert with Co-accused Reynaldo Mabini against
Miguela Baculi in the evening of September 26, 1987. The two Amended Complaints,
both dated October 26, 1987, sworn to by the victim and certi ed by 4th Asst. Fiscal
Rodulfo G. Ugsad, indicted the accused as follows:
"That on or about the 26th day of September, 1987, at about 8:00 P.M., in
the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping
each other, took turns in having sexual intercourse with the complainant by the
use of force and intimidation, that is, while accused Eduardo Caballes was having
sexual intercourse with the complainant, accused Reynaldo Mabini who at that
time was pointing a knife at the complainant pulled Eduardo on top of the
complainant, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of the complainant against her will." 1

And,
"That on or about the 26th day of September, 1987, at about 8:00 P.M., in
the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping
each other, to wit: while the two accused hold (sic) her body by the use of force,
violence and intimidation, accused Reynaldo Mabini hold (sic) her hands and
pointing a knife at her, pressing her to the ground, accused Eduardo Caballes did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the
complainant against her will, and in icting upon her the following physical
injuries:
CONTUSSION (sic) 1 x 1 CM (R) INFRAORBITAL; CONTUSSION (sic)
1 x 1 CM (R) ARM P/3 ANTERIOR; LINEAR ERUTHEMA (sic) 1 CM
CLAVICULAR (L) MEDIAL 3rd-LINEAR ERYTEMA (sic) (L) CM (R)
SUBMANDIBULAR, LINEAR ABRASION 0.5 CM (L) UPPER LIP MUCOSA." 2

The accused, with the assistance of their counsel de parte, 3 both entered a plea
of not guilty during their arraignment on January 13, 1988. 4 Trial ensued in due course
in the consolidated cases. 5 Thereafter, on July 16, 1991, Judge Priscila S. Agana of the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 24, rendered judgment 6 convicting both accused
of two counts of rape. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision is quoted
hereinbelow: cda

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 "THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING PREMISES, accused
Eduardo Caballes is hereby sentenced twice to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA. With respect to accused Reynaldo Mabini, he is hereby sentenced
twice to suffer an imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor
as minimum to eighteen (18) years of reclusion temporal as maximum, after
appreciating minority in his favor. Moral and exemplary damages to be paid
jointly and severally by the accused, in the sums of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00) and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) respectively, are hereby
awarded to the private complainant Miguela Baculi." 7

The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of the private complainant,
Miguela Baculi, twenty- ve (25) years of age and married. According to Miguela, on
September 8 26, 1987, while on her way home from work about 7:30 p.m., she was
accosted by Accused Eduardo Caballes and Reynaldo Mabini. She recognized both
because they had been her neighbors at Sambag 4, Guadalupe, Cebu City for the past
eight years. Upon confronting her, Mabini covered her mouth and pointed a knife at her
while Caballes held her hands. They led her to a secluded area where they initially
molested her. She was able to wriggle herself free and run for a short distance but her
abductors caught up with her. She was slapped, punched and strangled before she was
brought to another secluded and dark area farther away. While Mabini held her hands
and pointed a knife at her, Caballes raised her skirt and removed her underwear. She
was forced to lie down. Caballes next took off his own trousers and underwear,
mounted Miguela and inserted his erect penis into her vagina. After satisfying his lust,
Caballes exchanged positions with Mabini who likewise violated her chastity against
her will. Thereafter, Miguela was escorted towards her home by the accused. Mabini
threatened to kill her if she reported the incident to the police. After parting from her
attackers, the rape victim went home but, not nding her husband, proceeded to the
house of his relatives, the spouses Bernardo and Juanita Jumaoas, to whom she
related her shameful experience. It was the spouses Jumaoas who reported the rape to
the police which led to the arrest of the accused that same evening. 9
Miguela was thereafter examined at the Cebu City Medical Center. The medical
doctor who examined her genitalia found her cervix "hyperemic, with edema of the
anterior lip" which might have been caused by trauma or forced contact resulting in the
rupture of the capillaries, hyperemia and edema. Sperm analysis yielded negative result,
but the doctor explained that there might have been no ejaculation or it might have
happened outside the vagina. 1 0 The victim was further observed to have suffered
contusions below her right eye and on her right arm just below the shoulder, possibly
caused by a blunt object applied with force or a stic blow, and linear erythema
(redness) on the clavicle (collarbone), possibly caused by force applied to induce
choking. 1 1
Version of the Defense
In their respective testimonies, both accused admitted having had sexual
intercourse with Miguela successively in the same evening of September 26, 1987. But
they gave contradicting versions. According to Accused Eduardo Caballes, he and Co-
accused Reynaldo Mabini attended a dance-affair in the neighboring barrio that evening.
They had consumed about nine or ten bottles of Red Horse beer when they saw
Miguela Baculi a few meters away. Reynaldo approached her. From where he was
sitting, Eduardo saw his co-accused pulling the arm of Miguela who in turn appeared to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 be resisting. He approached both and asked what the commotion was about. Miguela
expressed her surprise why Reynaldo was pulling her; the latter said that he wanted to
tell her something. Eduardo convinced Miguela to walk along with them so they could
talk. Miguela allegedly went voluntarily with them. After a distance of about twenty (20)
meters, Eduardo told Miguela that he liked her and asked if he could touch her. Miguela
replied that she already had a husband. Eduardo assured her that nobody would know.
She did not resist when he kissed and embraced her. He then went to gather some
banana leaves which they used as a mat. Then they undressed themselves and had sex,
while Reynaldo waited about ve (5) meters away. Thereafter, at the suggestion of
Eduardo, Miguela allegedly agreed to have sex with Reynaldo also. Both accused later
walked Miguela to the corner of the road leading to her house. Before parting ways, she
allegedly even agreed to meet with them again if nobody would learn about their tryst.
Eduardo further testi ed that he did not know why Miguela led rape charges against
them. 12
The testimony in court of the other accused, Reynaldo Mabini, was delayed for
sometime because he was observed to be suffering from mental disorder. The
Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Dr. Renato D. Obra of the Southern Islands Medical
Center, Cebu City, however, indicated that he was capable of facing trial. 1 3 Mabini
scantly declared that in the evening of September 26, 1987, he drank beer and Añejo
rum with Eduardo Caballes. At around 8:00 p.m., they saw Miguela pass by. The
accused admitted that he made a "quick intimidation" of Miguela with the use of a knife,
and thus succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her against her will. 1 4
The Trial Court's Decision
In weighing the credibility of the witnesses, the court a quo declared:
". . . the Court is inclined to believe the testimony of the victim Miguela
Baculi to be credible and convincing. No Filipino woman would herself (sic) and
be exposed to public ridicule by concocting and inventing a story that she was
raped. It would be a great shame on her part if what she has told the court is not
true. And it must be noted that in this case Miguela Baculi was crying when she
narrated in court her sad story. She told the court how she was accosted by the
two accused, Mabini pointing a knife at her and gagging her mouth with his
hands and Caballes holding her hands. And then the accused dragged her to a
secluded place but on the way she was able to free herself. Unfortunately though,
she was caught by the accused only a few faces (sic) and through force and
intimidation she was brought to a secluded place where she was raped one at a
time by the two accused." 1 5

With respect to the defense witnesses, the trial court characterized their
testimonies this wise:
". . . the testimony of accused Caballes cannot be given any importance at
all for it runs counter to the normal course of human nature. For the court cannot
believe him when he testi ed that Miguela Baculi consented to his having sexual
intercourse with her. Considering that Miguela is a decent, virtuous and a happily
married woman, it would be hard to imagine, nay impossible for her to give her
consent to have sexual intercourse with a man who conveyed to her his love for
the rst time and who was drunk at the time. Moreso (sic), to have carnal
knowledge with men one after another voluntarily in the presence of each other
accused (sic). The court is inclined to believe that accused Caballes did not tell
the truth.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 "And to top it all, the other accused Reynaldo Mabini admitted that he
raped Miguela Baculi. Although a medical certi cate (Exhibit 2-Mabini) was
presented and submitted in court regarding the mental capacity of the accused to
stand trial, nevertheless the attneding (sic) physicial (sic) recommended that
accused is (sic) ready to stand trial." 1 6

The court a quo further ruled that both accused had conspired in the commission
of the offense, observing that "the two accused planned to commit the crime of rape
before complainant showed up and they both executed the heinous act exactly as
planned." It thus held that two counts of rape were committed by each of the accused.
In addition, the trial court held that the crime was "aggravated by the fact that
both accused are relatives of the victim's husband . . ., the commission was planned
and premiditated (sic) after the accused nished drinking liquor, with abuse of superior
strength and use of a knife, in an uninhabited place and during nighttime." 1 7
From the above decision, only Eduardo Caballes appealed. 1 8
Issues
In his appeal brief, 19 Appellant Caballes attributes the following alleged errors
upon the trial court:
"I
The trial court erred in nding the accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
"II

The trial court erred in finding that the accused had pre-planned the alleged
act of rape before the complainant showed up and they both executed the
heinous act exactly as planned.
"III

The trial court erred in nding that the crime of rape was more aggravated
by the fact that both accused are relatives of the victim's husband and their
neighbor.
"IV
The trial court erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages to be paid
jointly and severally by the accused in the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00) AND FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) respectively." 20

In questioning the su ciency of the prosecution evidence, Accused-appellant

Caballes points to the absence of laceration and sperm in the victim's vagina, negating
forced penetration. Neither could he and his co-accused have preplanned their
advances on Miguela considering that they only chanced upon her and were under the
in uence of liquor. With the above circumstances, appellant avers that at most he could
be held guilty only of attempted rape with physical injuries. Furthermore, appellant
contends that for relationship to be appreciated as aggravating, it is the victim who
should be related by consanguinity to the perpetrator of the act. Finally, citing this
Court's 1990 decision in People vs. Timbang , 2 1 indemnity due the rape victim should
not exceed P20,000.00. 2 2
The Solicitor General, on the other hand, asserts that the private complainant's
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 testimony alleging she was raped is su cient to convict appellant and his co-accused
of the offense charged. A married woman will not publicly admit that she had been
sexually abused by two men unless that is the truth. Moreover, the contusions on
different parts of the complainant's body support her allegation that force was applied
on her by her offenders to make her submit to their abject sexual desires. Besides, the
absence of spermatozoa in the complainant's sexual organ does not negate the
commission of rape since it is penetration, however slight, that consummates rape. 2 3
In addition, the Solicitor General opines that there was conspiracy between the two
accused since, while one was ravishing the victim, the other was holding her hands and
vice versa, thereby facilitating the commission of rape. 2 4
The Court's Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
First Issue: Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
The law provides that carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
instances constitutes rape: (1) when force or intimidation is used; (2) when the woman
is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when she is under twelve (12)
years of age. 25
It is important to note that both accused admitted having had sexual congress
with the private complainant. Appellant claims though that said complainant copulated
with him voluntarily. However, the medical ndings on the victim, which included
contusions on various parts of her body, belie appellant's claim. Rather, they support
Miguela's declarations that she was manhandled by the accused before and during her
molestation.
It is well-settled that the absence of spermatozoa in the victim's vagina does not
necessarily negate the commission of rape. 2 6 Neither is the existence of laceration
indispensable. What is essential is that there be penetration of the sexual organ no
matter how slight. 2 7 In the instant case, the victim gave a spontaneous, positive and
unclouded picture of how appellant, with the help of his co-accused, disgustingly
consummated the rape:
"Q Now, considering that after you were molested the accused forced (you) to
stand up and brought you to a far secluded place, what happened next
when you arrived (at) that place?
A Mabini grabbed my hands and pointed a knife at me while Caballes raised
my skirt and took off my pantie (sic).
Q Considering that you were being held by the accused Mabini and (he was)
pointing a knife at you while this accused Caballes was removing your
pantie (sic), what happened next?
A They forced me to lie down on the ground.
Q Now, after you were forced to lie down on the ground, what happened next?
A Mabini lay at my side and pointed a knife at my neck while he was
grabbing my hands and Caballes took off his trouser and his brief and
expose(d) his organ.
Q After Caballes exposed his organ, what did he do with that?
xxx xxx xxx
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 A He penetrated me with his organ forcefully without my consent." 28
"Q Now, what was accused Caballes doing while he was inserting his sex
organ to your sex organ?
A He made a (sic) push and pull movements." 2 9

On the basis of the above testimony, there was penetration of the victim's sexual
organ. Forced coitus is further corroborated by the ndings of the physician who
examined Miguela on the very evening after the sexual abuse was consummated. In his
examination of the victim's genitalia, Dr. Gilberto Magallon of the Cebu City Medical
Center said that the cervix was "hyperemic with edema of the anterior lip." 3 0 He added
that such condition of the cervical layer was not normal for a woman, and explained that
the probable cause thereof was trauma resulting from forced contact applied on the
affected part. 3 1 Gathering from the testimony of the victim, the forceful "push and pull
movements" of appellant could well have been the cause of hyperemia in her sexual
organ. Clearly then, appellant committed the felony under the rst circumstance, i.e.,
with the use of force and intimidation.
Indeed, no young woman of decent repute would publicly expose herself to the
shame and embarrassment of admitting having been sexually abused by two men
successively within each other's full view if such were not the truth. 3 2 No ulterior
motive was offered by the appellant to explain why Miguela would falsely charge him
with the serious offense. Neither did appellant attempt to explain the disparity between
his testimony and that of his co-accused, a disparity which supported the victim's
contentions. The only logical conclusion is that no other reason impelled the
complaining witness to come to court than to seek justice for the dastardly crime
committed against her virtue. 3 3 Even her sole testimony which is credible su ces to
make a conviction, 3 4 for when a woman says that she has been raped, she almost
always says it all. 3 5
Finally, it is doctrinal that the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a
witness is generally accorded great respect because of its direct opportunity to
observe the witness' demeanor on the stand and to determine whether she is telling the
truth. Such assessment is generally binding on this Court except when the same was
reached arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied
some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could have affected the
disposition of the case. 3 6 None of these exceptions is found in the instant case.
Second Issue: Attendance of Aggravating Circumstance
No Evident Premeditation
We nd merit in the contention of accused-appellant that the trial court wrongly
concluded that the sexual assault was planned and premeditated. For evident
premeditation to be appreciated, it is necessary that the prosecution prove the
following elements: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an
overt act showing that the accused clung to their determination to commit the crime;
and (3) the lapse of a period of time between the decision and the execution of the
crime su cient to allow the accused to re ect upon the consequences of the act. 37
The prosecution, however, failed to establish with clear and convincing evidence the
attendance of any of these elements which cannot be inferred merely from conjectures
and suppositions.
Degree of Relationship Between the Parties Not Aggravating
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 In order that the alternative circumstance of relationship may be taken into
consideration in the imposition of the proper penalty, the offended party must either be
the (a) spouse, (b) ascendant, (c) descendant, (d) legitimate, natural or adopted brother
or sister, or (e) relative by a nity in the same degree, of the offender. 38 The
complaining witness simply stated that accused-appellant was related to her husband
through their grandparents. 39 And although appellant admitted being related with the
private complainant's husband, he said that he was a third-degree cousin of the
former's grandmother. 40 Neither the prosecution nor defense counsel attempted to
clarify the witnesses' statements. We cannot positively conclude from such bare
declarations that appellant is an ascendant or descendant by a nity of the
complainant. It seems rather doubtful that the relationship between the offended party
and the offender falls within the statutorily de ned concept of relationship
determinative of the penalty to be imposed. Since the degree of relationship was not
clearly established to be one of those provided for by law, we cannot use such
circumstance against the accused.
Abuse of Superior Strength, Nighttime, and Uninhabited Place
The trial court further said that the crime was also aggravated by "abuse of
superior strength and use of a knife, in an uninhabited place and during nighttime." 4 1
Scouring the evidence on record, we do not nd any evidence by the prosecution to
support the unexplained conclusion of the trial court.
The prosecution merely showed that the crime was committed at nighttime and
in an uninhabited place. These circumstances, by themselves, do not aggravate the
offense. Nighttime 4 2 and uninhabited place, 4 3 to be appreciated, must have been
purposely sought and taken advantage of in order to facilitate the commission of the
offense. There is nothing in the records, however, to show that appellants had
deliberately chosen or used these circumstances to their advantage.
Furthermore, the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of superior strength. Although the trial court did not elaborate on the basis of its
conclusion, it relied apparently on the nding that the crime was committed by two
persons who also used a knife to terrorize the victim into submission. We cannot
sustain this view. The use of a knife or the commission of the crime by two persons
cannot be considered as generic aggravating circumstances in rape, for they are
included as an integral part of the crime. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that "[w]henever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more person, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death."
(Emphasis supplied.)
Third Issue: Damages
The trial court ordered the two accused separately to pay P50,000.00 as moral
and exemplary damages to the victim. In effect, the trial court imposed the amount of
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and another P25,000.00 as moral damages for
each count of rape.
The trial court correctly awarded moral damages to the victim, pursuant to
Articles 2217 and 2219 of the Civil Code. Miguela testi ed in court that as a
consequence of the vicious and detestable act perpetrated upon her by the accused,
she suffered from depression, shock and sleepless nights. 4 4 The award of exemplary
damages is not justi ed, however, in view of the failure of the prosecution to prove one
or more aggravating circumstances. 4 5

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 In view of the above discussion, the amount of moral damages should be
increased to P50,000.00 for each count of rape, but the award of exemplary damages
should be deleted.
The trial court further erred in not granting civil indemnity to the private
complainant which, as we explained at the outset, is automatically imposed upon the
accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of the offense.
Indemnity of P50,000.00 should, therefore, be reckoned for each count of rape
committed by the accused.
In the exercise of our discretion, and since an appeal in a criminal case throws
the whole case open for review, it is proper for this Court to impose additional
damages upon appellant. Appellant is therefore liable for the increased amount of
P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. He is additionally liable to
Miguela Baculi in the amount of P100,000.00 as indemnity for the two counts of rape
committed against her.
The same cannot apply, however, in the case of Reynaldo Mabini who did not
appeal his conviction. Additional penalties cannot prejudice him, but modi cations to
the judgment bene cial to him are considered in his favor. 4 6 Because of the deletion of
the award of exemplary damages, he is only liable, jointly and severally with Appellant
Caballes, for the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages for the two counts of rape as
adjudged by the trial court. Moreover, he is not affected by the increase in the amount
of the said award. In the same vein that the additional moral damages can no longer be
imposed upon Reynaldo Mabini, so we cannot order him to pay civil indemnity.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides that whenever the crime of rape
is committed by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
Considering that appellant is answerable for two counts of rape, we nd no error in the
imposition by the trial court of the double penalty of reclusion perpetua upon him. 4 7
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the assailed Decision of the trial court
convicting Appellant Eduardo Caballes of the crime of rape on two counts and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the
modi cation that, in addition to his joint and several liability with Accused Eduardo
Mabini for P50,000.00 as moral damages imposed by the trial court, appellant shall
further pay the following amounts to Miguela Baculi:
1. Additional amount of P25,000.00 as moral damages for each count
of rape, or a total of P50,000.00; and
2. Civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape or
a total of P100,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Davide, Jr. and Melo, JJ ., concur.
Francisco, J ., is on leave.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 2-3. (Emphasis in the original text.)

2. Ibid., pp. 4-5.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 3. Atty. Romeo Cañada.

4. Records, p. 31.
5. Criminal Case Nos. CBU-11780 and CBU-11781.

6. Rollo, pp. 24-34.

7. Ibid., p. 34.
8. In the transcripts of stenographic notes, the month of "February" instead of "September"
is sometimes indicated as the date of the incident. But no corrections or objections in
relation thereto were manifested by either party.

9. TSN, April 15, 1988, pp. 6-25; August 3, 1988, pp. 6-17.
10. TSN, November 25, 1988, pp. 4-5.

11. Ibid., pp. 10-11.

12. TSN, July 9, 1990, pp. 3-13.

13. Exhibit "2"; Records, p. 162.

14. TSN, January 8, 1991, pp. 4-6.

15. Assailed Decision, pp. 7-8; Rollo, pp. 30-31.

16. Ibid., p. 8; Rollo, p. 31.

17. Ibid., p. 10; Rollo, p. 33.
18. Records, p. 195.

19. Rollo, pp. 67-78.

20. Ibid., p. 69.
21. 189 SCRA 279, August 30, 1993.
22. Appellants' Brief, pp. 7-10; Rollo, pp. 75-78.

23. Appellee's Brief, pp. 9-10; Rollo, pp. 108-109.

24. Ibid., pp. 12-13; Rollo, pp. 111-112.

25. Article 335, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Diaz, G.R. No. 117323, October 4, 1993.

26. People vs. Digno, Jr., 250 SCRA 237, 242, November 23, 1995.
27. People vs. Andan, G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997.
28. TSN, April 15, 1988, pp. 14-16.

29. Ibid., p. 19.

30. Exhibit "A"; Records, p. 95.

31. TSN, November 25, 1988, pp. 4-5.

32. People vs. Apilo, G.R. No. 101213-14, October 28, 1996.
33. People vs. Saguban, 231 SCRA 744, April 25, 1994.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 34. People vs. Peralta, 251 SCRA 6, December 7, 1995.
35. People vs. Dela Cruz, 251 SCRA 77, December 8, 1995.
36. People vs. Atuel, G.R. No. 106962, September 3, 1996.
37. People vs. Layno, G.R. No. 110833, November 21, 1996.
38. Article 15, Revised Penal Code.

39. TSN, May 27, 1988, p. 20.

40. TSN, July 10, 1990, p. 2.

41. Assailed Decision, p. 10; Rollo, p. 88.

42. People vs. Rosario, 246 SCRA 658, July 18, 1995.
43. People vs. Cabiles, 248 SCRA 207, 220, September 14, 1995.
44. TSN, May 27, 1988, p. 7.
45. Article 2230, Civil Code.

46. Section 11, Rule 122, Rules of Court.

47. People vs. Villanueva, 254 SCRA 202, February 28, 1996.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com