Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
That sometime in the first quarter of the year 2002, in the municipality
of Angat, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed
weapon did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by
means of force, violence and intimidation and with lewd designs, have
carnal knowledge with his granddaughter AAA, then thirteen (13) years
old, against her will and without her consent.6
That on or about the 21st day of June 2002, in the municipality of Angat,
province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed
weapon did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by
means of force, violence and intimidation and with lewd designs, have
carnal knowledge with his granddaughter AAA, then thirteen (13) years
old and 9 months old, against her will and without her consent.7
The prosecution also presented Dr. Ivan Richard Viray, who examined
AAA on July 4, 2002. He presented his conclusion that AAA is no
longer a virgin; that there are no external signs of application of any
trauma; and that there was a shallow healed laceration at 9:00 o’clock
position on complainant’s hymen.9
On April 20, 2006, the trial court rendered its Decision convicting
accused-appellant Galvez in Criminal Case No. 3094-M-2002, but
acquitting him in the other four cases:
In arriving at the foregoing disposition, the trial court noted that there
was no testimony at all as regards the alleged rapes to which accused-
appellant was accused of in Criminal Case Nos. 3090-M-2002 and 3091-
M-2002. As regards Criminal Case Nos. 3092-M-2002 and 3093-M-
2002, the trial court found AAA’s testimony to be very general, as she
appeared to have failed to remember any detail other than that the
accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina.11 The trial court
likewise noted the discrepancy in AAA’s testimony on March 31, 2003
(wherein she testified that she was raped by accused-appellant for the
first time on June 21, 2002), and her testimony on February 2, 2004
(wherein she testified that she was raped many times before June 21,
2002).12 The trial court further found her statement that she was raped
many times contrary to the physical evidence presented, since Dr. Viray
found only one healed shallow laceration.13 The trial court therefore
acquitted accused-appellant in Criminal Case Nos. 3090-M-2002 to
3093-M-2002.
Accused-appellant claims that like the rest of the charges against him,
the complaint under Criminal Case No. 3094-M-2002 should suffer the
same fate. According to him, the discrepancy in AAA’s testimony on
March 31, 2003 and that on February 2, 2004 as to whether she was
raped before June 21, 2002 goes into her credibility and candor.
FISCAL DE GUZMAN:
Q: Who were with you, if any, at that time while you were then
sleeping?
A: None, Ma’am.
Q: And, you were then sleeping in your resident located at Bgy. Peri,
Sta. Lucia, Angat, Bulacan, is that correct?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: This house where you were then sleeping, how many rooms [does] it
have?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: That is a division from your place where you were sleeping and the
siblings where they were sleeping?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
A: None, Ma’am.
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: So, you mentioned that there was an unusual incident, what was that
unusual incident?
COURT:
What date?
FISCAL DE GUZMAN:
COURT:
Okay, answer.
WITNESS:
FISCAL DE GUZMAN:
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: So, for clarification, Madame Witness, you are living in the same
house with the accused in this case, with your lola BBB and your
siblings?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
xxxx
Q: Now, you mentioned that "Ginapang ka ni lolo Jose," after that what
happened?
Q: What did you feel when he inserted his penis on your vagina?
A: It hurts, Ma’am.
INTERPRETER:
FISCAL DE GUZMAN:
A: On my side, Ma’am.
Q: While he was inserting his penis on (sic) your vagina, where was that
knife?
Q: What else happen (sic) after he inserted his penis on your vagina and
you try (sic) to struggle?
A; My breast, Ma’am.
A: No more, Ma’am.
Q: How about your lolo, what did you do after touching your breast?
A: None, Ma’am.
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: He went out of the house that night?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
A: June, Ma’am.
Q: Could you still remember how many days after that incident
happened?
Q: During a service?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: I am referring to the raping incident, was that the first time that the
accused Jose Galvez raped you?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: What did the pastora do when you reported the incident to her?
A: We went to the police station, Ma’am.
A: Yes, Ma’am.20
The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe both AAA and
accused-appellant directly and to test their credibility by their demeanor
on the witness stand, was completely persuaded by the above testimony
of AAA as regards the events of June 21, 2002. Other than the fact that
we give great weight to the findings of fact of the trial court, an
independent reading of said testimony compels us to conclude that
AAA’s version is indeed worthy of credence especially when compared
to the bare denial of accused-appellant who did not even offer an alibi.
As observed by the Court of Appeals, AAA’s testimony is "unflinching
and resolute" and "passes the test of credibility nary any indication
whatsoever of a concocted testimony."21 Furthermore, it is almost
cliché to add that "[c]ourts usually give credence to the testimony of a
girl who is a victim of sexual assault, particularly if it constitutes
incestuous rape because, normally, no person would be willing to
undergo the humiliation of a public trial and to testify on the details of
her ordeal were it not to condemn an injustice."22
More importantly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that AAA
did not put up a struggle against accused-appellant, we have consistently
held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous
rape of a minor. 25 Thus, in the case at bar, we find that the moral and
physical dominion of the ascendant is sufficient to take the place of
actual force or intimidation.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Footnotes
3 Records, p. 1.
4 Id. at 8.
5 Id. at 11.
6 Id. at 13.
7 Id. at 15.
9 Records, p. 4.
10 CA rollo, p. 30.
11 Id. at 17-18.
12 Id. at 18.
13 Id. at 23.
14 Rollo, p. 6.
15 Id. at 14-15.
16 CA rollo, p. 48.
19 Id.
21 CA rollo, p. 104.
26 People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009, 599 SCRA
20, 46.