332

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay
*

G.R.No.142985.August6,2002.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

RAYMUNDOMAGTIBAYyBACHOCO,accusedappellant.
Criminal Law; Rape; Witnesses; In crimes against chastity, the
primordial issue hinges on the credibility of the testimony of the
complaining witness.In crimes against chastity, the primordial
issue hinges on the credibility of the testimony of the complaining
witness.Whencredibilityisinissue,wehaveruledtimeandagain
that absent any showing that the trial courts assessments and
conclusions overlooked certain significant facts and circumstances
which would have affected the outcome of the case, the reviewing
courtisgenerallyboundbythetrialcourtsfindings.Wegenerally
defer to the findings of the trial court considering that it is in a
better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses
themselvesandobservedtheirdeportmentduringtrial.
Same; Same; The lack or even absence of resistance on the part
of the rape victim is not necessary because the law does not impose
upon her the burden of proving resistance.Rachelles failure to
offer adequate resistance or to make an outcry for help did not
negate the commission of rape upon her person. Rachelles fear of
physical harm cannot be tested by any hardandfast rule. It must
insteadbeviewedinthelightofherperceptionandjudgmentatthe
time of the crime. The lack or even absence of resistance is not
necessary because the law does not impose upon a rape victim the
burdenofprovingresistance.Whatisnecessaryisthattheforceor
intimidation is of such a degree as to impel the defenseless and
haplessvictimtobowintosubmission,asinthiscase.
Same; Same; Rape is not necessarily committed only in an
isolated place, for rapists have no respect for locale or time when
they carry out their evil deed.The presence and distance of other
houses near the locus of the crime is also of no consequence in the
commission of rape. Rape is not necessarily committed only in an
isolated place, for rapists have no respect for locale or time when
they carry out their evil deed. In a long line of cases, it has been
shownthatrapecanbecommittedineventheunlikeliestofplaces.
It can be committed in places were people congregate, in parks,
along the roadside, within school premises, inside an occupied
house, and even in a room where other members of the family are
also sleeping. There is no rule or norm that a woman can only be
rapedinseclusion.
_______________
* FIRSTDIVISION.

333

VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002

333

People vs. Magtibay

Same; Same; Witnesses; The crossexamination of a young girl,
not accustomed to public trial, could produce apparent
contradictions on minor details that would nevertheless keep intact
the credibility of the victim as to the fact of rape.Accused
appellants claim lacks merit. Rachelles testimony on cross
examination did not deviate from, much less impeach, the core of
her testimony as to the gravamen of the crime of rapesexual
congresswithawomanbyforceandwithoutconsent.Theforegoing
crossexamination by accusedappellants counsel merely injected
innuendoesofafabricatedchargebutfailedtoclearlydemonstrate
compelling reason why we should render Rachelles testimony less
worthy of belief. Notwithstanding the ambiguous questions asked
by accusedappellants counsel to Rachelle, we find her testimony
convincing and straightforward. The crossexamination of a young
girl, not accustomed to public trial, could produce apparent
contradictionsonminordetailsthatwouldneverthelesskeepintact
the credibility of the victim as to the fact of rape. At any rate,
accusedappellants contentions are nothing but indicia of his
desperateattempttoevadeliabilityforthecrimehecommitted.
Same; Same; Same; Once a person gains familiarity of another,
identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable
distance. The record shows that even before the rape incident
tookplaceRachellepersonallyknewaccusedappellantbecausethe
latterwasherbarriomatewhomsheoftensees.Sheevenattended
accusedappellants wedding day together with her mother on
March 19, 1998, roughly six months after the rape incident
occurred. Once a person gains familiarity of another, identification
becomesquiteaneasytaskevenfromaconsiderabledistance.
Same; Same; Same; The fact that the complainant conferred
with the government prosecutor before she testified in court is
immaterialthere is no law or jurisprudence that prohibits a
government prosecutor from conferring with his witnesses with
respect to the prosecution of a criminal case.ThefactthatRachelle
conferred with the government prosecutor before she testified in
courtisimmaterial.Thedutyofthegovernmentprosecutordoesnot
preclude him from meeting and conferring with the complaining
witnessastomattersconcerningacase.Accusedappellantfailedto
demonstrate any fact or circumstance which would prove that
Rachelles testimony were coached or supplied by his counsel.
Moreover,accusedappellantfailedtociteanylaworjurisprudence
that prohibits a government prosecutor from conferring with his
witnesseswithrespecttotheprosecutionofacriminalcase.
Same; Same; Same; It is unnatural for a mother to sacrifice her
own daughter, a child of tender years, and subject her to the rigors
and humiliation of a public trial for rape if she was not driven by
an honest desire to
334

334

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay

have her daughters transgressor punished accordingly.Accused

appellantsallegationthatRachellesmotherinstructedheronwhat
shewouldsayonthewitnessstanddoesnotdiminishthereliability
of her statements. A mother whose daughter, more so if still a
minor, have been subjected to the beastly actof rape, cannot be
expected to learn the details of her daughters harrowing
experience.Besides,therecordisbarrenofanyevidencetosupport
accusedappellants contention. It is unnatural for a mother to
sacrificeherowndaughter,achildoftenderyears,andsubjecther
totherigorsandhumiliationofapublictrialforrapeifshewasnot
driven by an honest desire to have her daughters transgressor
punishedaccordingly.
Same; Same; Same; It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies
of childvictims are given full weight and credit, since when a
woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says
in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.
Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and
sincerity.The trial court correctly gave full faith and credence to
Rachelles testimony. There was no showing that Rachelle had an
improper motive to testify against accusedappellant. The non
attendance of any ill motive on the part of Rachelle gains more
weightinthelightofMerlynMagtibaysdescriptionofRachelleasa
nice person. Accusedappellant also had no reason why Rachelle
would falsely accuse her of such serious crime as rape if she were
notmotivatedtobringherperpetratortojustice.Needlesstosay,it
is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of childvictims are given
full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a
minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessarytoshowthatrapewascommitted.Youthandimmaturity
aregenerallybadgesoftruthandsincerity.
Same; Same; Alibis and Denials; A mere denial, like alibi, is
inherently a weak defense and constitutes selfserving negative
evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than
the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative
matters.In the light of the positive identification of accused
appellant, his defense of denial and alibi cannot sustain his
acquittal for rape. A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak
defenseandconstitutesselfservingnegativeevidencewhichcannot
be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of
credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. For alibi to
prosper, accusedappellant must prove not only that he was
somewhereelsewhenthecrimewascommittedbuthemustlikewise
demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the
sceneofthecrimeatthetimeofitscommission.
335

VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002

335

People vs. Magtibay

Criminal Procedure; Informations; Right to be Informed; The
requisite for complete allegations on the particulars of the

indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed

of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately
prepare for his defense, pursuant to the due process clause of the
Constitution.It appears that there was no allegation of the age
andminorityofthevictimintheInformation,hence,thetrialcourt
was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
requisite for complete allegations on the particulars of the
indictmentisbasedontherightoftheaccusedtobefullyinformed
ofthenatureofthechargesagainsthimsothathemayadequately
prepare for his defense, pursuant to the due process clause of the
Constitution.
Criminal Law; Rape; Acknowledgment and Support of Child;
With the passage of the Family Code, the classification of
acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal
fiction was eliminated and they now fall under the specie of
illegitimate children, and since parental authority is vested by
Article 176 of the Family Code upon the mother and considering
that an offender sentenced to reclusion perpetua automatically loses
parental authority over his children, no further positive act is
required of the parent as the law itself provides for the childs
statushence, the accused should only be ordered to indemnify
and support the victims child.The record shows that when
Rachelles mother, Gaudiosa Recto, discovered about her ordeal,
Rachelle was already eight months pregnant. She eventually gave
birth to a baby boy. These facts confirm the commission of rape
sometime in September 1997. There was no showing that Rachelle
has previously been sexually abused or she had sexual relations
with other men during that time. Thus, with respect to the
acknowledgment and support of the child born out of rape our
recent ruling in People v. Justiniano Glabo states: Concerning the
acknowledgmentandsupportoftheoffspringofrape,Article345of
theRevisedPenalCodeprovidesforthreekindsofcivilliabilitythat
may be imposed on the offender: a) indemnification, b)
acknowledgment of the offspring, unless the law should prevent
him from so doing, and c) in every case to support the offspring.
With the passage of the Family Code, the classification of
acknowledgednaturalchildrenandnaturalchildrenbylegalfiction
was eliminated and they now fall under the specie of illegitimate
children. Since parental authority is vested by Article 176 of the
Family Code upon the mother and considering that an offender
sentenced to reclusion perpetua automatically loses parental
authority over his children, no further positive act is required of
the parent as the law itself provides for the childs status. Hence,
accusedappellantshouldonlybeorderedtoindemnifyandsupport
thevictimschild.However,theamountandtermsofsupportshall
be determined by the trial court after due notice and hearing in
accordancewithArticle201oftheFamilyCode.
336

336

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay

APPEALfromadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
Pinamalayan,MindoroOriental,Br.42.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
The Solicitor Generalforplaintiffappellee.

Public Attorneys Officeforaccusedappellants.

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
1

Before us on appeal is the Decision of the Regional Trial

Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch XLII, in
CriminalCaseNo.P5775,findingaccusedappellantguilty
of rape and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
TheInformationagainstaccusedappellantstates:
Thatonoraboutthe15thdayofSeptember,1997,at8:00oclock
in the evening, more or less, in Barangay Sagana, Municipality of
Bongabong, province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused,
with lewd and unchaste design, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one
RACHELLERECTOy Rafal, by means of force and threats to kill,
totheirreparabledamageofthesaidOffendedParty.
CONTRARY TO ART. 335 of the RPC AS AMENDED BY R.A.
2
7659.

When arraigned on July 7, 1998, accusedappellant, with

theassistanceofcounsel,enteredapleaofnotguiltytothe
crimecharged.Thereafter,trialensued.
The version of the prosecution is as follows: On
September 15, 1997, at about 8:00 in the evening in
BarangaySagana,Bongabong,OrientalMindoro,Rachelle
wenttothestoreofKaEmmaHernandez,about40meters
fromtheirhousetobuycigaretteandice.Whenshegotto
the store, she saw accusedappellant standing there. She
noticedthatthelatterkeptstaringather.
Onherwayhome,whenshewassomedistancefromthe
store, accusedappellant approached her and pulled her
righthand.Hecoveredhermouthandtoldherthathewill
killherifshetriedto
_______________
1PennedbyJudgeManuelC.Luna,Jr.;Records,pp.5962A.
2Records,p.4.

337

VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002

337

People vs. Magtibay

shoutforhelp.Accusedappellantmadeherlieonagrassy
place and removed her shorts and panties. Accused
appellantthenundressed,placedhimselfontopofRachelle
andinsertedhispenisintohervagina.
Because of accusedappellants threat on her life,
Rachellekeptsilentabouttheincident.Itwasnotuntilshe
became pregnant that she was constrained to tell her
motherwhathappened.Sheeventuallygavebirthtoababy
3
boy.
Rachellesmother,GaudiosaRecto,testifiedthatsheonly
came to know about the rape incident after Dr. Fetalberto
required Rachelle to have an xray examination at

BongabongHospital.TheresultsshowedthatRachellewas
pregnant.ShealsotestifiedthatRachellerefusedtotellher
about it because accusedappellant
threatened to kill her
4
severaltimeswheneverhesawher.
Dr. Ronaldo Fetalberto, the Municipal Health Officer of
BongabongSouth,OrientalMindoro,testifiedthatRachelle
wasbroughttohisclinicbyherrelativesaftertheynoticed
thatherabdomenwasbulging.Rachellealsocomplainedof
irregular bowel movement. The laboratory results showed
thatRachellewaspregnant.UpontherequestofRachelles
5
relatives,heexaminedtheprivatepartsofthepatient.
The
6
MedicoLegalReport statedthefollowing:
GeneralPhysicalExamination:
Conscious, coherent, hearingimpaired, abdomen enlarged fundic
heightof23cm.FHTof130beats/min.locatedatRLQ.
GenitalExamination:
Pubic hair minimal growth, vulva purplish, coaptated labia
majora, laceration in the labia minora at 8 oclock position (+)
whitishdischarge.
Thereisapositivefetusduringtheradiologicalexamination.
xxxxxxxxx
_______________
3TSN,November10,1998,pp.39.
4TSN,September22,1998,pp.1012.
5Ibid.,pp.89.
6Id.,p.4;ExhibitA,Records,p.8.

338

338

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay

Remarks:
1. Fetus(+)inradiologicexam
2. xxx.

In his defense, accusedappellant claimed that he was

bedridden due to influenza from September 14, 1997 to
September 19, 1997. He was then residing in the house of
his parentsinlaw at Sitio Suli, Sagana, Bongabong,
OrientalMindoro.OnSeptember15,1997,hiswife,Merlyn
Magtibay, asked her mother for medicine. On that same
day, while he was recuperating from his sickness, Remuel
Gallos,thesonoftheirBrgy.Captain,cameoverandasked
him to drive his tricycle. He refused because of his illness.
He also testified that when the alleged rape incident
happened he was still7 in the house of his parentsinlaw
becauseofhissickness.
The wife of accusedappellant, Merlyn Magtibay,
corroboratedhistestimonythathewasillatthetimeofthe
allegedrape.ShealsotestifiedthatonSeptember15,1997,
accusedappellant was bedridden and could hardly stand

becausehehadflusinceSeptember14,1997.Herhusband
recoveredonlyonSeptember19,1997.
Remuel Gallos testified that accusedappellant was the
driverofhistricyclesince1996.OnSeptember15,1997,he
wenttothehouseofaccusedappellanttoaskhimtodrive
his tricycle because he had to work at his farm. He found
accusedappellant
lying in his bed and suffering from
8
influenza.
OnAugust5,1999,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentas
follows:
ACCORDINGLY,accusedRAYMUNDOMAGTIBAYyBACHOCO,
is hereby sentence (sic) to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA, together with the accessory penalty provided by law
andtopaythecost.
Accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the victim Rachelle
RectotheamountofP50,000.00withoutsubsidiaryimprisonment.
Finally, accused shall be entitled to the full term of his
preventive imprisonment if he has any to his credit, provided that
he shall agree to abide with the disciplinary rules imposed upon
convictedprisoners,other
_______________
7TSN,March3,1999,pp.36.
8TSN,February22,1999,pp.24.

339

VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002

339

People vs. Magtibay

wise he shall be entitled to only fourfifths of the preventive
imprisonment.
9
SOORDERED.

AccusedappellantappealedtothisCourtandcontendsthat:
I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND
CREDENCE TO THE IMPLAUSIBLE AND REHEARSED
TESTIMONYOFTHEPRIVATECOMPLAINANT.
II
THECOURTA QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT
OF THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT FOR THE CRIME HAS BEEN
10
PROVENBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.

In crimes against chastity, the primordial issue hinges on

thecredibilityofthetestimonyofthecomplainingwitness.
Whencredibilityisinissue,wehaveruledtimeandagain
thatabsentanyshowingthatthetrialcourtsassessments
and conclusions overlooked certain significant facts and
circumstanceswhichwouldhaveaffectedtheoutcomeofthe
case, the reviewing court is generally bound by the trial
courts findings. We generally defer to the findings of the
trialcourtconsideringthatitisinabetterpositiontodecide
the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and

11

observedtheirdeportmentduringtrial.
After a thorough review of the evidence on record, the
transcript of stenographic notes of the testimonies of the
witnesses,especiallythatofRachelle,andthepleadingsof
both parties in this appeal, we find no cogent reason to
reverse the trial courts judgment of conviction. The
prosecution has established by proof beyond reasonable
doubttheguiltoftheaccusedappellantinthiscase.
Contrarytotheclaimofaccusedappellant,hisguiltwas
provenbeyondreasonabledoubt,asshownbythefollowing:
_______________
9Rollo,p.20.
10Rollo,p.55.
11People

v. Navida,346SCRA821(2000).
340

340

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay

Q: OnSeptember15,1997,around8:00oclockinthe
evening,wherewereyou?
A: IwasatthestoreofKaEmma.
Q: WhatisthesurnameofthisKaEmma?
A: Hernandez,sir.
Q: WhywereyouthereinthestoreofEmmaHernandez?
A: Iboughtcigaretteandice,sir.
Q: Whileyouwerebuyingcigaretteandiceinthestoreof
KaEmma,werethereotherpersonsthereat?
A: None,sir.
Q: Howabouttheaccusedyoupointedawhileago,where
washeatthattime?
A: HewasatthestoreofKaEmma,sir.

xxxxxxxxx

FISCAL(Continuing):
Q: Andwhatwashedoinginthestore?
A: Hewasstanding,sir.

xxxxxxxxx

Q: Afterbuyingiceandcigarette,wheredidyougo?
A: Ireturnedhome,sir.
Q: HowfaristhehouseofKaEmmatoyourhouse?
A: 40meters,moreorless,sir.
Q: Whileyouwereonyourwayhomecomingfromthe
storeofKaEmma,doyourememberofanunusual
incidentthattranspired?
A: Yes,sir.
Q: Andwhatwasthat?Pleasetellthecourt?
A: Hewasalwayslookingatme,sir.

Q: Whowasthatpersonalwayslookingatyou?
Witness:
A: RaymundoMagtibay,sir.
FISCAL(Continuing):
Q: Afterlookingatyou,whathappenednext?
A: WhenIwasalittlebitfarfromthestore,heapproached
me,sir.
Q: Aftertheaccusedapproachedyou,whatdidhedonext?
A: Hepulledmyrighthand,sir.
341

VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002

341

People vs. Magtibay

Q: Afterpullingyourrighthand,whatdidhedoifany?
A: Hecoveredmymouth,sir.
Q: Withwhatinstrumentdidhecoveryourmouth?
A: HetoldmethathewillkillmeifIshout.
Q: Aftertellingyouthathewillkillyouifyoushout,what
didhedonextifany?
A: Hetoldmethathewillkillme.

xxxxxxxxx

Q: Youstatedthattheaccusedheldyourrightarmand
coveredyourmouthandthereafterthreatenedyounot
toshoutorelseyouwillbekilled.Afterdoingthese
things,whatelsedidhedotoyouifany?
Witness:
A: Heplacedhimselfontopofmeandinsertedhispenis.

xxxxxxxxx

Q: Washesuccessfulininsertinghispenis?
A: Yes,sir.
Q: Whatdidyoufeelafterhesuccessfullyandforcibly
insertedhispenis?
A: Ifeltpain,sir.
Q: Youstatedthatheplacedhimselfontopofyou,what
wasyourpositionwhenheplacedhimselfontopofyou?
A: Iwaslyingfacedupward.
Q: Inwhatplacewereyoulyingupward?
A: Atthegrassyplacesir(damuhan).
Q: Beforehewasabletosuccessfullyinserthispenis,what
didhedotoyouoryourgarmentsorpantie(sic)?
A: Heremovedmyshortandmypantie.

xxxxxxxxx

FISCAL(Continuing):
Q: HowaboutRaymundoMagtibay,whatdidhedobefore

placinghimselfontopofyou?
A: Heremovedhispantsandbrief,sir.
Q: Becauseofthethreatoftheaccusedthathewillkillyou
ifyouwillrevealthistoanybody,willyoutellthecourt
ifyouaccededtothethreatoftheaccused?
A: No,sir.
342

342

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay

Q: Whatdoyoumean,nosir?Didyoureportorreveal
thistoyourmotherorfather?
A: No,sir.
Q: Whydidyounotrevealthistoyourparents?
12

A: Hewasthreateningmetobekilled,sir.

The foregoing testimony clearly shows that Rachelle was

unable to ward off accusedappellants sexual advances
because of fear for her life. While she cowered in terror,
accusedappellant succeeded in consummating his bestial
actsonher.
Rachellesfailuretoofferadequateresistanceortomake
13
anoutcryforhelp did not negate the commission of rape
uponherperson.Rachellesfearofphysicalharmcannotbe
testedbyanyhardandfastrule.Itmustinsteadbeviewed
in the light
of her perception and judgment at the time of
14
the crime. The lack or even absence of resistance is not
necessary because the law does not impose
upon a rape
15
victimtheburdenofprovingresistance. Whatisnecessary
is that the force or intimidation is of such a degree as to
impel the defenseless and
hapless victim to bow into
16
submission,asinthiscase.
Thepresenceanddistanceofotherhousesnearthelocus
ofthecrimeisalsoofnoconsequenceinthecommissionof
rape.Rapeisnotnecessarilycommittedonlyinanisolated
place, for rapists have no respect for locale or time when
theycarryouttheirevildeed.Inalonglineofcases,ithas
been shown that rape
can be committed in even the
17
unlikeliest of places. It can be committed in places were
people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within
school premises, inside an occupied house, and even in a
room
_______________
12TSN,November10,1998,pp.37.
13People

v. Barcelona,325SCRA168(2000).

14People

v. Lustre,330SCRA189(2000).

15People

v. Ramos,345SCRA685(2000).

16 People

v. Lozano, G.R. No. 126149, 7 December 2001, 371 SCRA

546.
17People

v. Cortes,323SCRA131(2000).
343

VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002

343

People vs. Magtibay

whereothermembersofthefamilyarealsosleeping.There
is no rule
or norm that a woman can only be raped in
18
seclusion.
AccusedappellantclaimsthatthetestimonyofRachelle
was rehearsed, and cites the following excerpts from the
testimonyduringcrossexamination:
ATTY.JOYA:
Q: Isitnotafactthatyouhavemadetheaffidavityou
havejustidentifiedonlyonMay5,1997,amIcorrect?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Andthatyou,togetherwithyourparentswenttothe
policestationofBongabong,purposelytogiveyour
affidavitthereat.Correct?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Whowasthepoliceofficerwhotookyourstatement?
A: Idonotknowhimmam.
Q: Butyourareverysurethattheonewhotookyour
affidavitisapoliceofficer?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Isitnotafactthatwhenyouarrivedatthepolice
stationofBongabongonMay5,1998,thisaffidavitof
yourshasalreadybeenprepared?
A: Notyet,mam.
Q: Becausethepoliceofficerwasjustpreparingor
typewriting(sic)thesamewhenyouarrivedatthe
place;AmIcorrect?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Andwhiletypewriting(sic)thesame,thepoliceofficer
wasoccasionallyaskingquestionsfromyourmother.
AmIcorrect?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Thatthepoliceofficeroccasionallyaskquestionstoyour
mother,andnottoyou?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Andafterthat,youraffidavitwaspreparedandasked
youtosignyournameontopofyourtypewrittenname.
Correct?
A: Yes,mam.
_______________
18People

v. Tagud, Sr.,G.R.No.140733,30January2002,375 SCRA

291.
344

344

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay

Q: Youwillagreewithmethatyouhavemetthis
RaymundoMagtibaywhileyouwereatthepolice
station?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Thathewaspresentedtoyouamongwithothermale
personsofhisage.AmIcorrect?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Andthatyou were asked by the police officers to point
Raymundo Magtibay but when you cannot point to
Raymundo Magtibay,thepoliceofficersinstructedyou
topointRaymundoMagtibay?
A: Ipointedhim.
Q: But you have pointed to Raymundo Magtibay after the
police officer have instructed you to point Raymundo
Magtibay because initially, you cannot point to him?
A: Yes, mam.
COURT:
Q: Whatdoyoumeanbyyes?
A: Totoopo.
ATTY.JOYA:
Q: BeforeyoutestifiedhereinCourtyouhavehada
chancetotalkwithyourlawyer.Correct?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Andathisoffice,heinterviewedyouaswhatyouare
goingtotestifytoday?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: BeforeyouwenttotheOfficeoftheProvincialFiscal,
alongthewayandinyourhouse,youandyourmother
werediscussingastowhatyouaregoingtotestify
today?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Andyourmothertoldyouthatyoushouldtestifyinthe
manneryoudid,today.Correct?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Shetoldyoutotestifyonthemanneryoudidwhenyou
weredirectlyexaminedbytheprosecutor?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Thatbecauseyouloveyourparentsverymuch,youwill
followyourparents.AmIcorrect?
345

VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002
People vs. Magtibay
A:

19

Yes,mam.

345

Accusedappellantsclaimlacksmerit.Rachellestestimony
on crossexamination did not deviate from, much less
impeach,thecoreofhertestimonyastothegravamenofthe
crimeofrapesexualcongresswithawomanbyforceand
20
without consent. The foregoing crossexamination by
accusedappellantscounselmerelyinjectedinnuendoesofa
fabricated charge but failed to clearly demonstrate
compelling reason why we should render Rachelles
testimony less worthy of belief. Notwithstanding the
ambiguous questions asked by accusedappellants counsel
to Rachelle, we find her testimony convincing and
straightforward.Thecrossexaminationofayounggirl,not
accustomed to public trial, could produce apparent
contradictions on minor details that would nevertheless
keepintactthecredibilityofthevictimastothefactofrape.
Atanyrate,accusedappellantscontentionsarenothingbut
indicia of his desperate attempt to evade liability for the
crimehecommitted.
21
As regards the drafting of Rachelles sworn affidavit,
the defense dismally failed to distinctly establish whether
all the answers supposedly given by Rachelle were indeed
supplied by her mother. It likewise faltered in eliciting
convincing proof that the questions asked by the police
officer to the mother of Rachelle were questions related to
theanswersRachellegaveinheraffidavit.Theinquiryfell
short of exhibiting the verity of its claim that Rachelles
answers in her sworn statement were supplied by her
mother.Bethatasitmay,Rachellesexparteaffidavitwill
generallybeconsideredincompleteandinaccurateandwill
22
notthusprevailoverherstatementsonthestand.
We likewise find nothing objectionable in Rachelles
positiveidentificationofherdefileratthePoliceStationof
Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro. The identification made at
the police station did not foreclose the admissibility of the
independentincourtidentifi
_______________
19Rollo,pp.5860.
20People

v. Dela Cruz,338SCRA582(2000).

21ExhibitC;Records,pp.56.
22People

v. Castillo,335SCRA100(2000).
346

346

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay
23

cation. Police investigators are presumed to have

performed their duties regularly and in good faith and in
the absence of adequate proof to overthrow this
presumption, the identification
of an accused remains free
24
fromanytaintofirregularity.
Therecordshowsthatevenbeforetherapeincidenttook
place Rachelle personally knew accusedappellant because
25
the latter was her barrio mate whom she often sees. She
even attended accusedappellants wedding day together

with her mother on March 19, 1998,

roughly six months
26
after the rape incident occurred. Once a person gains
familiarityofanother,identificationbecomesquiteaneasy
27
taskevenfromaconsiderabledistance.
Furthermore, the incourt positive identification of
accusedappellant gains more significance when Rachelle
categoricallynarratedthatshewasforcedtoliedownona
grassy place facing her attacker, whom she categorically
andunflinchinglyidentifiedastheaccusedappellant.There
is no evidence that Rachelles vision of her rapist was
obstructedorthatshewasrenderedunconsciousatthetime
ofrape.
The fact that Rachelle conferred with the government
prosecutor before she testified in court is immaterial. The
duty of the government prosecutor does not preclude him
frommeetingandconferringwiththecomplainingwitness
astomattersconcerningacase.Accusedappellantfailedto
demonstrate any fact or circumstance which would prove
that Rachelles testimony were coached or supplied by his
counsel.Moreover,accusedappellantfailedtociteanylaw
or jurisprudence that prohibits a government prosecutor
from conferring with his witnesses with respect to the
prosecutionofacriminalcase.
Accusedappellants allegation that Rachelles mother
instructedheronwhatshewouldsayonthewitnessstand
doesnotdiminishthereliabilityofherstatements.Amother
whose daughter, more so if still a minor, have been
subjectedtothebeastlyactofrape,
_______________
23People

v. Pacistol,284SCRA520(1998).

24People

v. Gallego,338SCRA21(2000).

25ExhibitC,Records,p.5.
26TSN,January26,1999,p.6.
27People

v. Alagon,325SCRA297(2000).
347

VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002

347

People vs. Magtibay

cannot be expected to learn the details of her daughters
harrowing experience. Besides, the record is barren of any
evidence to support accusedappellants contention. It is
unnatural for a mother to sacrifice her own daughter, a
child of tender years, and subject her to the rigors and
humiliationofapublictrialforrapeifshewasnotdrivenby
an honest desire to28 have her daughters transgressor
punishedaccordingly.
Aside from this selfserving claim of the accused
appellantthatRachellestestimonywasrehearsed,noother
reasonisshownwhythetestimonygivenbyRachelleonthe
witnessstandisnotcredible.
The trial court correctly gave full faith and credence to
Rachelles testimony. There was no showing that Rachelle
had an improper motive to testify against accused
appellant.Thenonattendanceofanyillmotiveonthepart

of Rachelle gains more weight in the light of Merlyn

29
Magtibays description of Rachelle as a nice person.
Accusedappellant also had no reason why Rachelle would
falselyaccusehimofsuchseriouscrimeasrapeifshewere
30
notmotivatedtobringherperpetratortojustice. Needless
to say, it is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child
victims are given full weight and credit, since when a
woman,moresoifsheisaminor,saysshehasbeenraped,
shesaysineffectallthatisnecessarytoshowthatrapewas
committed. Youth and
immaturity are generally badges of
31
truthandsincerity.
Agirlofsuchageasthevictimwouldnotconcoctataleof
defloration, allow the examination of her private parts,
make public the offense, undergo the trouble and
humiliation of a public trial and endure the ordeal of
narrating
all its gory details, if she had not in fact been
32
raped. Iftheaccusedappellanthadreallynothingtodo
_______________
28People

v. Gopio,346SCRA408(2000).

29TSN,January26,1999,p.6.
30TSN,23March1999,p.7.
31People

v. Puerta,G.R.No.131609,27August2001,363 SCRA 684;

People v. Cledoro, Jr., G.R. No. 111860, 29 June 2001, 360 SCRA 338;
People v. De Villa, 351 SCRA 25, (2001); and People v. Juntilla, 314
SCRA568(1999).
32 People

v. Agustin, G.R. Nos. 13552425, 24 September 2001, 365

SCRA667.
348

348

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay

with the crime, it would be against the natural order of

eventsandofhumannature,andagainstthepresumption
ofgoodfaith,thataprosecutionwitnesswouldfalselyaccuse
himofsuchaseriouscrimeasrape.
In the light of the positive identification of accused
appellant,hisdefenseofdenialandalibicannotsustainhis
acquittalforrape.Ameredenial,likealibi,isinherentlya
weakdefenseandconstitutesselfservingnegativeevidence
which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than
the declaration of33credible witnesses who testified on
affirmativematters. Foralibitoprosper,accusedappellant
mustprovenotonlythathewassomewhereelsewhenthe
crimewascommittedbuthemustlikewisedemonstratethat
itwasphysicallyimpossibleforhimtobeatthesceneofthe
crimeatthetimeofitscommission.
Ascorrectlyfoundbythetrialcourt:
Itisveryeasyforanybodytopretendtobesickandthatheadaches
cannot be seen or felt except by one who claims to have it. The
defense of sickness cannot be taken with much doubt and
hesitation.
Accusedlikewiseclaimsthataftertakingsomemedicine,hewas
able to fully recover. A tablet of paracetamol and neozep doubly

taken could easily subside the fever. It openly shows that the
sickness accused suffered is not so serious enough for him to be
bedridden and incapacitated to leave his house and do his usual
course. Accused house is around 100 meters from the scene of the
incident,andtherequiredphysicalimpossibilityofbeingpresentat
the situs of the crime therefore becomes unavailing to him.
34
(Citationsomitted)

It appears that there was no allegation of the age and

minority of the victim in the Information, hence, the trial
court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. The requisite for complete allegations on the
particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the
accusedtobefullyinformedofthenatureofthe
_______________
33People

v. Alayay,G.R.Nos.137199230,23August2001,363 SCRA

603.
34Rollo,p.19.

349

VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002

349

People vs. Magtibay

chargesagainsthimsothathemayadequatelypreparefor
his defense, 35pursuant to the due process clause of the
Constitution.
However, the award of damages by the trial court must
be modified. The trial court ordered the payment of
indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, but failed to take
into consideration the prevailing jurisprudence regarding
theawardofmoraldamagesintheamountofP50,000.00to
a rape victim. Moral damages are awarded in rape cases
involving young girls between 13 and 19 years of age,
taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on
theiryouthfulfemininepsyche.Itmaybeawardedwithout
need of showing that the victim suffered
mental anguish,
36
fright,seriousanxietyandthelike.
Finally, the record shows that when Rachelles mother,
GaudiosaRecto,discoveredaboutherordeal,Rachellewas
37
alreadyeightmonthspregnant.
Sheeventuallygavebirth
38
toababyboy. Thesefactsconfirmthecommissionofrape
sometime in September 1997. There was no showing that
Rachelle has previously been sexually abused or she had
sexual relations with other men during that time. Thus,
withrespecttotheacknowledgmentandsupportofthechild
born out
of rape our recent ruling in People v. Justiniano
39
Glabo states:
Concerning the acknowledgment and support of the offspring of
rape,Article345oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovidesforthreekinds
of civil liability that may be imposed on the offender: a)
indemnification,b)acknowledgmentoftheoffspring,unlessthelaw
should prevent him from so doing, and c) in every case to support
the offspring. With the passage of the Family Code, the
classificationofacknowledgednaturalchildrenandnaturalchildren
bylegalfictionwaseliminatedandtheynowfallunderthespecieof

illegitimate children. Since parental authority is vested by Article

176 of the Family Code upon the mother and considering that an
offender sentenced to reclusion perpetua automatically loses
parental authority over his children, no further positive act is
requiredofthe
_______________
35People v. Oscar Dante,G.R.No.127652,5December2001,371SCRA419.
36People v. Tagaylo,345SCRA284(2000).
37TSN,September22,1998,p.16.
38TSN,November10,1998,p.8.
39G.R.No.129248,7December2001,371SCRA567.

350

350

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay

parent as the law itself provides for the childs status. Hence,
accusedappellantshouldonlybeorderedtoindemnifyandsupport
thevictimschild.However,theamountandtermsofsupportshall
be determined by the trial court after due notice and hearing in
accordancewithArticle201oftheFamilyCode.

WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,theDecisiondated
August5,1999oftheRegionalTrialCourtofPinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro, Branch XLII, in Criminal Case No. P
5775, finding accusedappellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubtofthecrimeofrapeandsentencinghimtosufferthe
penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that accusedappellant RAYMUNDO
MAGTIBAY y BACHOCO is ordered to pay complainant
Rachelle Recto, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Accused
appellant is further ordered to provide support to the
victims child born out of the rape, subject to the amount
and terms to be determined by the trial court in a proper
proceeding.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan and
AustriaMartinez, JJ.,concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Notes.It is unthinkable for a twelveyear old girl,
especially one from the rural area, to publicly and falsely
accuse an old man of a serious offense as rape and then
undergothetraumaandhumiliationofapublictrialifher
accusations were merely concoctions of a scheming and
maliciousmind.(People vs. Pada,261SCRA773[1996])
The crime of rape committed carries with it, among
others, the obligations to acknowledge the offspring if the
characterofitsorigindoesnotpreventitandtosupportthe
same.(People vs. Namayan,246SCRA646[1995])
o0o
351

 Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.