Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 51

G.R. Nos.

144344-68 July 23, 2002


THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEVERINO GONDAWAY DULAY y CORONA, accused-
appellant.

PER CURIAM:

Under Republic Act No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, is resistance by the victim required to prove lack of consent to the
rape? If yes, how do we prove this resistance? These are the questions posed in the cases at bar.

On automatic review is the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 166, Pasig City in Criminal Cases Nos. 115366-H,
116085-H to 116108-H convicting accused-appellant Severino Gondaway Dulay y Corona for the crime of rape as charged in
twenty-five (25) Informations, and sentencing him to death in each of said twenty-five (25) counts.

On December 22, 1998, accused-appellant was charged with rape in 25 Informations under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353. The rapes were allegedly committed on December 13, 1998,1 September 14, 1998,
on or about September 15-20, 1998, on or about September 21-27, 1998, September 28-30, 1998, on or about October 1-4, 1998,
on or about October 5-8, 1998, on or about October 9-11, 1998, on or about October 12-15, 1998, on or about October 16-19,
1998, on or about October 20-23, 1998, on or about October 24-27, 1998, on or about October 28-31, 1998, on or about
November 1-3, 1998, on or about November 4-7, 1998, on or about November 8-11, 1998, on or about November 12-14, 1998, on
or about November 15-17, 1998, on or about November 18-20, 1998, on or about November 21-24, 1998, on or about November
25-27, 1998, on or about November 28-30, 1998, on or about December 1-4, 1998, on or about December 5-8, 1998, and on or
about December 9-12, 1998.2 Except for the dates of commission of the offenses, the 25 Informations read as follows:

"On or about [date of commission], in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, with lewd
design and by means of force, threats and intimidation, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
intercourse with his daughter, Juvelyn Dulay y Mones, thirteen (13) years old, against her will and consent.

Contrary to law.

Pasig City, December 22, 1998."3

Accused-appellant was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the offenses. At the trial, the prosecution presented four witnesses-
three principal and one rebuttal, namely: (1) Juvelyn Dulay, the victim; (2) Dr. Winston Tan, a medico-legal officer of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory; (3) Adrian Ruiz, a barangay tanod who arrested accused-appellant; and (4)
Alan Panotes, payroll master of the SR Santiago Construction Co., as rebuttal witness. The following facts were established: At
1:00 in the morning of September 14, 1998, Juvelyn4 Dulay, then thirteen years of age, was sleeping in her family home at No. 30
Mercedes Avenue, San Miguel, Pasig City. While asleep, she sensed someone touching her private parts. She woke up and saw
her father, herein accused-appellant, touching her. Juvelyn moved away but accused-appellant held her tightly against him. He put
his finger inside her vagina and, with his other hand, peeled off her short pants and panty. He got up and pulled down his shorts
and briefs and then went on top of her. He put his penis inside his daughter's vagina. Juvelyn felt pain. She pleaded with her father
to stop doing it but he said it would not take long. Juvelyn wanted to shout for help. Her two younger sisters, Liway and Jonalyn,
were sleeping also on the floor above their heads but Juvelyn was scared that if she shouted, accused-appellant might hurt them.
Slowly and silently, she tried to reach out to her sisters but could not touch them because there was a mosquito net separating
them. After three minutes, she felt something come out of accused-appellant. He pulled out his penis and licked his daughter's
vagina. She pushed his head away but he continued licking. He got up and put on his briefs and shorts and told her not to tell
anybody about the incident. Silently, the girl put on her panty and short pants and cried. Accused-appellant went out of the house
and returned after some ten minutes. He laid down beside Juvelyn and slept. Juvelyn stayed awake, crying silently over what had
just transpired. At 4:00 in the morning, she got up from bed to get ready for school. She was a student in sixth grade. Juvelyn took
a bath and was surprised to see blood in her panty. She washed the blood away. She dressed up and, before leaving for school,
glanced at her mother who was still asleep. She did not wake up her mother to tell her about the incident because she was scared
the latter might not believe her.

In school, the girl felt pain in her vagina. Although she managed to attend all her subjects, she cried and was in a daze the whole
day.5

The following night, she did not want to sleep beside her father. He got furious and Juvelyn acquiesced, not wanting to incur his
ire. Whenever accused-appellant got angry, he would hurt and kick her, her siblings and their mother. Sometimes, he would even
bring out his samurai sword and threaten to kill them with it. At that time, their mother was heavy with child.

At about 1:00 in the morning of September 16, 1998, Juvelyn was fast asleep. Again, she felt someone touching her private parts.
She woke up and saw her father. He put his finger in her vagina and pulled down her underwear and short pants. He went on top
of her and inserted his penis in her vagina. A few minutes later, he pulled out his penis and licked her vagina.

Accused-appellant did the same acts to Juvelyn at about the same time in the same room on two other days in September 1998,
i.e., on or about September 19 and 24, 1998. In October 1998, he also did the same acts on eight (8) different days. In November
1998, he did it nine (9) times, and in December, four (4) times, also on different days. These acts consisted of the following:
touching her private parts, inserting his finger in her vagina, removing his and her underwear, putting his penis inside her vagina,
pulling out his penis and then licking her vagina.6

On December 13, 1998, at about 6:00 in the evening, Juvelyn was in the living room of their house preparing for bed when her
father called her. He told her to get a lamp and a knife because he was going to fix something in the bathroom. When Juvelyn
handed him the lamp and knife, he pulled her inside the bathroom. He removed her shorts and panty. She begged her father not to
do what he was doing but he said it would not take long. While standing, accused-appellant put his penis inside his daughter's
vagina. A few minutes later, he pulled out his penis and licked her vagina. Juvelyn was so angry that she rushed out of the
bathroom.7

On December 19, 1998, appellant wanted to have sex with his daughter. She refused him. Fuming mad, appellant left the house
and had a drinking spree with his friends. Late in the evening, appellant returned home. When he saw Juvelyn, he kicked her and
shouted "Bakit mo ako ginagago?"8 Juvelyn ran to her mother. Appellant went out of the house and returned with a hammer. He
kicked Juvelyn again and struck her with the hammer. One of his drinking partners tried to stop appellant to no avail. Juvelyn's
mother, Lilia, who was carrying the newborn baby in her arms, tried to pacify appellant. He, however, punched her. Juvelyn ran to
her mother but appellant kicked his daughter again. Mother, daughter and the other children all fled the house.9

Out in the Street, a friend saw them and took pity on them. He brought them to a house in Tondo where they took shelter. That
night, Lilia asked Juvelyn why appellant got angry with her. It was then that the girl told her mother that her father had been
molesting her for the past several months and that night he got angry with her because she refused his sexual advances.10

The following day, Juvelyn and her mother went to the office of the barangay in Pasig City for assistance in retrieving their
possessions from their house. Several barangay tanods accompanied them. Upon reaching their house, they found accused-
appellant and his friends drinking. Lilia took appellant aside. When the tanods left, Lilia asked appellant if what their daughter
revealed to her was true. Appellant denied this and shouted: "Anong akala mo sa akin, baboy?" Then he lunged at Lilia. Terrified,
Lilia and her children all ran out of the house.

They went back to the barangay office where they reported everything to the tanod. That same day, the tanods arrested appellant
and brought him to the police station.

At the station, Juvelyn and her mother filed a complaint for rape against accused-appellant. The following day, Juvelyn and Lilia
gave their sworn statements to the police and the girl was subjected to a medical examination. Dr. Winston Tan, a medico-legal
officer at the PNP Crime Laboratory, found:

"FINDINGS:

GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:

Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female subject. Breasts are conical with pale brown areola. Abdomen is flat and
soft.

GENITAL:

There is scanty growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated with the pinkish labia minora presenting in
between. On separating the same, disclosed an elastic, fleshy type hymen with shallow healed laceration at 8 o'clock and a deep-
healed laceration at 6 o'clock positions."

CONCLUSION:

The subject is in a non-virgin state physically. There are no external signs of application of any form of trauma.

REMARKS:

Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for gram-negative diplococci and for spermatozoa.

xxx xxx x x x."11

For his defense, accused-appellant presented two (2) witnesses: his wife, Lilia, and himself. He claims that it was impossible for
him to have raped Juvelyn because he always slept with his wife. Lilia Dulay insists that she and her husband always slept
together and that there was never any instance when they did not sleep beside each other.12 Appellant also claims that on the
dates of the alleged rape, he was always at work. From September 1998 to December 1998, he was employed as driver of a
delivery van of the SR Santiago Corporation and his work hours were from 9:00 in the evening until 3:00 in the morning of the
following day. During the day, he worked as personal driver of his employer from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. He worked seven (7)
days a week, including Saturdays and Sundays, and he was never absent from his two jobs.13
On April 10, 2000, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty and sentenced him to death in each of the 25 counts of rape, to
pay the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each of the 25 cases, viz:

"WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Severino Gondaway Dulay y Corona GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape as charged in the twenty-five (25) Informations and is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of Death in each of the
twenty-five (25) cases and indemnify the victim, Juvelyn Dulay, the amount of P75,000.00 for each case and P50,000.00 also for
each case, as moral damages, or the aggregate sum of P3,125 ,000.00, plus the costs of the suit.

xxx xxx x x x."14

Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant claims that:

"I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE
WHEN THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."15

Accused-appellant stands charged with rape under "Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 8353,"
the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. On December 31, 1993, Article 335 of the RPC was amended by R.A. No. 7659. Rape then was
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious; or (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. On October 22, 1997, Article 335
was further amended by R.A. No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.16 R.A. No. 8353 reclassified rape, which under the RPC was
a crime against chastity, to a crime against persons, and at the same time, expanded rape to include other forms of sexual assault
on a person. The amendments removed certain aspects of the law prejudicial to women and which posed barriers to prosecution.
These changes addressed the plight of rape victims and survivors who, despite their tragedy, had to undergo the strict
requirements of prosecution;17 for R.A. No. 8353 was "borne out of the seeds of tragedy of the women victims of violence."18 It
was drawn from the richness of experience and collective consciousness of other women who have responded to the phenomenon
of gender violence.19

Among the innovations, R.A. No. 8353 added a fourth mode of committing rape on a woman, i.e., by fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority; and on the provision for statutory rape, also added that the same may be committed even though none of
the three other modes are present. The law likewise introduced as rape other forms of sexual assault which may be committed not
only on women but also on men. Thus:

"Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed.-Rape is Committed-

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;


b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present.

2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault
by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person."

In the cases at bar, the twenty-five (25) Informations charged accused-appellant with rape committed by "force, threats and
intimidation" under paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (a) of R.A. No. 8353, i.e., Article 266-A (1) (a). In fine, carnal knowledge of the
victim was made by force, threat, or intimidation.

The traditional concept of rape is that carnal knowledge is gained against or without the consent of the victim.20 If the rape is
made by force, violence or intimidation, it is self-evident that it was made against or without the victim's consent. To prove lack of
consent, the law requires resistance by the victim. R.A. No. 8353 specifies the kind of resistance and its proof, viz:

"Article 266-D. Presumptions - Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the
offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted
as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A."

Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the rape in any degree from the victim is admissible as evidence of lack of
consent. Tenacious resistance, however, is not required. Neither is a determined and persistent physical struggle on the part of the
victim necessary.

At the Bicameral Conference Committee Meeting on the disagreeing provisions of S.B. No. 950 and H.B. No. 6265, the
forerunners of R.A. No. 8353, the legislators agreed that Article 266-D is intended to "soften the jurisprudence of the 1970's"
when resistance to rape was required to be tenacious.21 The lawmakers took note of the fact that rape victims cannot mount a
physical struggle in cases where they were gripped by overpowering fear or subjugated by moral authority.22 Article 266-D
tempered the case law requirement of physical struggle by the victim with the victim's fear of the rapist or incapacity to give valid
consent.23 Thus, the law now provides that resistance may be proved by any physical overt act in any degree from the offended
party.

In the cases at bar, the victim testified that her father molested her against her will. Juvelyn testified twice on direct examination.
In Criminal Case No. 115366-H, for the rape committed on December 13, 1998, her testimony is as follows:

"xxx xxx xxx

FISCAL APOLO: Miss Dulay, on December 13, 1998 in Pasig, where were you then in the house? Where was your house then?

A: No. 30 Mercedes Avenue, San Miguel, Pasig City.


Q: On December 13, 1998, while you were at your house in Pasig City, do you remember any unusual incident that
transpired?
A: Yes.
Q: What was that unusual incident, Miss Dulay?
A: "Ginalaw po niya ako sa may banyo."
Q: What do you mean by "ginalaw ka niya sa may banyo?"
A: He inserted his penis inside my vagina.
Q: What was your position at that time as well as the accused?
A: We were both standing.
Q: So who was that person that you are referring to who inserted his penis into your vagina?
A: My father.
Q: What is the relation to the person who you just pointed to?
A: He is the same person.
Q: How many times did he insert his penis into your vagina on the day, December 13, 1998?
A: Once only.
Q: What was he holding at that time, if any?
A: None.
Q: So how did it happen, Miss Dulay?

COURT: Reform your question.

FISCAL APOLO: Before your father committed those sexual assault against you, what happened before that?

A: He told me to get the lamp and the knife.


Q: Did you comply with the order of your father?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What happened next after you brought the same things?
A: He said he will fix the bathroom.
Q: What did the accused do after you got those things?
A: While he was inside the bathroom, he removed my shorts and panty.
Q: What happened next?
A: He inserted his private parts [sic] into mine.
Q: And what was your reaction when your father removed your shorts and panty?
A: I told him not to do that but he said it will not take long.
Q: What happened after that?
A: When he was finished, he licked my private part.
Q: What was your reaction while your father was doing those acts to you?
A: I was angry.
Q: What did you do after that?
A: I got out of the bathroom.
Q: What action did you take after that sexual assault?
A: None.

COURT: Why?

A: Because I was afraid.


Q: Afraid of what?
A: Of my father.
Q: Why?
A: Because if I would report it to my mother, my father might hurt her and that time she just gave birth.
Q: When did you finally report the matter to your mother?
ATTY. ANTONANO: No basis.

COURT: Reform.

Q: Was it the first time that the accused did that sexual assault against your person?
A: No.
Q: So when was the first time that the accused had sexual intercourse with you?

ATTY. ANTONANO: Irrelevant.

Q: In connection with this case did you execute a sworn statement?


A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: If that will be shown to you, will you be able to identify that?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: I am showing to you the Sworn Statement of one Juvelyn Dulay consisting of two pages. Will you please examine this
and tell
the honorable court if this is the same statement that you executed?
A: That is my statement.
Q: There appears a signature above the name Juvelyn Dulay on the second page thereof. Do you know whose signature is
that?
A: That is my signature.

COURT: You make it of record that while the witness is testifying she is shedding tears.

Q: Do you confirm and affirm the contents of this?


A. Yes, ma'am.

FISCAL APOLO: We request that the Sworn Statement be marked as Exhibit "B" and the second page as Exhibit "B-1" and the
signature as Exhibit "B-2."

Q: How did you come to execute that Sworn Statement?


A: I was able to report what happened to me to my mother because he was trying to hurt us and he was even accusing me of
making a fool out of him, and my mother heard him say: "Bakit mo ako ginagago?" So that when I and my mother had a chance to
talk without the presence of my father, my mother insisted in knowing why my father uttered those words and she became
suspicious already and that is the time that I told my mother what happened to me.

Q: How did you feel?


A: I felt pain.
Q: Can you quantify in terms of money the moral sufferings that you felt?
A: I do not know.

FISCAL APOLO: We have no further...

xxx xxx xxx."24

In Criminal Cases Nos. 116085-H to 116108-H and also 115366-H, Juvelyn testified, viz:

"xxx xxx xxx

FISCAL PAZ: How many times were you raped by your father?

A: 25 times.
Q: When was the first time that you were raped by your father?
A: September 14, 1998.
Q: About what time?
A: 1:00 a.m.
Q: Where were [sic] at that time?
A: I was in our house.
Q: Where was your house located on September 14, 1998?
A: No. 30 Mercedes, San Miguel Avenue, Pasig City.
Q: What were you doing there at that time?
A: Sleeping.
Q: While you were sleeping was there anything unusual that happened?
A: While sleeping I was awakened when I sensed that somebody was touching my private part.
Q: You said you noticed that somebody was touching your private part but what were you wearing at that time?
A: T-shirt and short pants.
Q: What about panty?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And that short pants is that with a zipper or with a garter?
A: With garter.
Q: When you noticed that somebody was touching your private part, what did you do?
A: I tried to find out who was touching me and I saw my father.
Q: What did you do when you saw your father touching you?
A: I was resisting.
Q: What did he do then when you resisted?
A: He tried to position me facing him.
Q: Was he able to do that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How did he do that?
A: He held me tightly.
Q: After you were already facing him, what happened next?
A: He put his finger inside my panty and then in my vagina.
Q: And then what did you do next?
A: He pulled down my shorts and panty and then he also pulled down his shorts and brief.
Q: And what happened next?
A: He went on top of me and put his penis inside my vagina.
Q: Up to what extent did he lower down your panty and shorts?
A: Below my knees.
Q: What about his shorts and brief up to what extent did he lower them?
A: Below his knees also.
Q: When your father was doing this to you, he went on top of you and inserted his penis, what did you do?
A: I was telling him not to do it but he said it will just take a short time.
Q: And what happened after that?
A: And then I sensed that something came out of him.
Q: How long was the penis of your father inside your vagina?
A: About three minutes.
Q: And what did you feel then when the same was inserted to your vagina?
A: I felt pain.
Q: Now after your father removed his penis from your vagina, what happened next?
A: He licked my private parts.
Q: How long?
A: Short only.
Q: What did you do when your father was doing that to you?
A: I was pushing away his head but he was insisting.
Q: What happened after the licking of your vagina by your father?
A: After that he put on his brief and shorts and told me not to tell anybody.
Q: What did you tell him?
A: I did not answer him, I just put on my panty and shorts and I was crying.
Q: And where did your father go, did he go somewhere else after that?
A: He went out.
Q: What about you?
A: I remained lying down crying.
Q: Did your father come back?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: About how many minutes or hours later?
A: About 10 minutes.
Q: What did he do when he came back?
A: He lied down and then slept.

Q: Where?
A: Beside me.
Q: Does your father always sleep beside you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who else sleeps with you?
A: None, only the two of us.
Q: Where does your mother sleep?
A: Inside the room.
Q: And how far is that from the place where you were sleeping?
A: Very near, it is only separated by a "dingding."
Q: Did you shout when your father was doing these things to you?
A: No sir.
Q: Why?
A: Because I was afraid.
Q: Why were you afraid?
A: Because that time it was very dark, we have no light and my mother was pregnant and they might quarrel.
Q: Why, what would your father do to your mother when they quarrel?
A: Sometimes he kicks and brings out his samurai.
Q: How many times have you seen your father doing this to your mother?
A: Many times.
Q: And what about you and the other members of the family what if any, did your father do to you whenever he quarrels with
your mother?
A: He kicks my other siblings.
Q: How many brothers and sisters do you have?
A: That time we were six.
Q: How many were staying with you in your house?
A: Only 3 of us brothers [sic] and sisters.
Q: And who were these two others who were with you?
A: Jonalyn and Liway.
Q: How old is Liway?
A: 9 years old.
Q: What about Jonalyn?
A: 11 years old.
Q: Where were these two sleeping on that day?
A: They were sleeping near our heads.
Q: Why did you not wake them up at the time your father was doing this to you and ask for help?
A: Because that time it was very dark and there was a mosquito net and I could not reach them.
Q: Why did you not shout to them?
A: I was afraid because my father might hurt me.
Q: You said after your father came back, he slept and you were then crying, were you able to sleep that night?
A: I was not, sir.
Q: Why were you not able to sleep the whole night?
A: Because I was thinking of what happened and I continued crying.
Q: What then did you feel when you rose up the following day?
A: I stood up at about 4:00 a.m. because I was going to school.
Q: You were still studying then?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where?
A: San Miguel Elementary School.
Q: What grade?
A: Grade 6 (six).
Q: And after you got up what did you do?
A: I took a bath.
Q: When you took a bath what if any did you notice?
A: I noticed blood in my panty.
Q: And what did you do when you noticed blood in your panty?
A: I was surprised and I just wash [sic] it.
Q: Did you see your mother on that day?
A: Yes, but she was still sleeping.
Q: What time did you go to school?
A: 5:30 a.m.
Q: Did you tell your mother what happened to you the night before that day?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why?
A: I was afraid and that my mother might not believe me.
Q: Why would you say that?
A: Because she might think I am just fooling her.
Q: You said . . .

FISCAL PAZ:

May we put on record that all the time this witness was testifying, she is crying.

Q: When was the second time that you were raped by your father?
A: Maybe after two days, that was on the 16th.
Q: Where were you at that time?
A: Inside the house.
Q: What time?
A: About the same time 1:00 o'clock in the morning.
Q: What were you doing then?
A: I was sleeping.
Q: While you were sleeping what happened?
A: He repeated what he did to me.
Q: Did he again touch your private part with his hand?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did he insert his penis again?
A: Yes, sir.

COURT:

Very leading.

Q: What did he do after touching your private part?

COURT:

When you said he repeated again what he did to you, what were those things?

A: Touching, holding my private part, inserting his finger inside my vagina, inserting his penis inside my vagina and licking
my
vagina.
Q: When was the third time that he raped you?
A: Maybe September 19.
Q: About how many days after the second rape incident?
A: About after three days.
Q: And what did he do to you?
A: The same, sir.
Q: How many days in a week your father do these things to you?
A: About twice a week.
Q: When was the fourth time that he did that to you?
A: I can not recall anymore.
Q: About how many days after the third rape incident?
A: Maybe after five days.
Q: And that was still in the month of September?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What time did he do that to you?
A: About the same time.
Q: What did he do to you?
A: The same, he does the same things.
Q: How many times were you raped in September?
A: About four times.
Q: On October, how many times were you raped the fifth time [sic]?
A: About the second day of October.
Q: And where did that happen?
A: In our house also.
Q: What time did that happen?
A: Almost the same time.
Q: What were you doing at the time he did that to you?
A: Sleeping.
Q: And what happened when you were sleeping?
A: I woke up because I felt somebody was touching my private part.
Q: What did you see when you woke up?
A: I saw my father.
Q: What was he doing?
A: Touching my private part.
Q: What else did he do?
A: The same thing he did previously, that is what he does every time.
Q: And when was the sixth time that he raped you?
A: I can not recall.
Q: Was it still in October?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: About how many days after the fifth incident?
A: Maybe after four days.
Q: Where did he rape you?
A: The same place, in our house.
Q: And what did he do to you?
A: The same things, what he is doing to me.
Q: When was the seventh time?
A: I can not recall.
Q: How many days after the sixth?

A: Maybe 3 to 4 days.
Q: Where did he do this?
A: Same place.
Q: And what did he do to you?
A: The same things, what he always does to me.
Q: When was the eighth time?
A: I can not recall.
Q: About how many days after the seventh time?
A: I can not recall the date but maybe three to six days after the seventh time.
Q: And where did that happen?
A: The same place, our house.
Q: What did he do to you?
A: The same thing.

ATTY. ANTONANO:

May I request if just to abbreviate, because this is 25 counts of rape, if we can have all rapes by the month and then what
happened there and where it happened?

COURT:

That is what Fiscal is doing. So you want the Fiscal to ask the witness by the month?

ATTY. ANTONANO:

Yes, your Honor.

Q: How many times were you raped in the month of October?


A: 8 times.
Q: And in all those times that you were raped, where did these rape incidents happen?
A: In the same house, our house.
Q: And what were you doing in those incidents?
A: I was sleeping.
Q: And what did your father do to you inside your house while you were sleeping?
A: The same thing, he raped me.
Q: And what were those things?
A: Touching my private parts, inserting his finger inside my vagina, inserting his penis inside my vagina and he licks my
vagina.
Q: In the month of November, how many times were you raped by your father?
A: Nine times.
Q: And where did these rape incidents happen?
A: In our house in Pasig.
Q: What time?
A: The same time about 1:00 o'clock in the morning.
Q: And what did your father do to you?
A: The same.
Q: What were these things that he did to you?
A: Touching my private parts, inserting his finger inside my vagina, inserting his penis inside my vagina and he licks my
vagina.
Q: And in December, how many times were you raped by your father?
A: Four times.
Q: Where did this happen?
A: The first three happened in the same place, in our house, and the fourth in our bathroom.

ATTY. ANTONANO:

The fourth incident was already testified to by the witness.

Q: Where is this bathroom located?


A: It is outside, near the back of our house.
Q: You stated that the first three times that you were raped by your father during the month of September happened inside the
house, what time?
A: The same time.
Q: And in these three occasions, what did your father do to you?
A: The same as what he did previously.
Q: And these were?
A: Touching my private parts, inserting his finger inside my vagina, inserting his penis inside my vagina and licking my
private
parts.
Q: In all these occasions except for the last incident because that was already testified to when your father did these things to
you,
what did you do, if any?
A: I was resisting but he was forcing me.
Q: Having in mind the first rape incident that happened on September 14, 1998, why did you still sleep with your father?
A: After that, I did not want to sleep beside him but he got angry and whenever I go to sleep, he sleeps beside me.
Q: Will you please tell us what your father would usually do whenever he is angry?
A: He hurts us.
Q: And how many months pregnant was your mother at that time?
A: Five months.
Q: In all these occasions did you ever tell your mother about any of these incidents?
A: I was able to tell my mother in December already.
Q: Why did you tell to your mother about these rape incidents only in December 1998?
A: Because on December 19, he again wanted to use me but I resisted so my father had a drinking spree.

xxx xxx x x x."25

Juvelyn testified that her father violated her against her will. In the first rape, accused-appellant touched her private parts, and she
moved away from him. He, however, held her tightly against him. She pleaded with him to stop and pushed his head away, but he
overpowered her. In all the twenty-four (24) subsequent sexual violations, she resisted her father and begged him to stop. Still, he
persisted with his dastardly acts. In the last rape on December 13, 1998, the evidence shows that accused-appellant again removed
her shorts and panty, the victim once more pleaded with him to desist but he refused saying the act would not take long. She was
furious and rushed out of the bathroom right after accused-appellant satisfied his lust.

In all the twenty-five (25) incidents, there is no doubt that accused-appellant forced his daughter to submit to his carnal desires.
His daughter bore everything silently, terrorized by the thought that if she struggled tenaciously, her father would get violent. She
also wanted to save her then pregnant mother from her father's wrath. From experience, she knew that whenever accused-appellant
got angry, he would kick everyone in the house, bring out his samurai sword and threaten to kill all of them. It was only four
months later, after Lilia gave birth,26 that Juvelyn gathered the guts to refuse her father's immoral advances. True enough,
accused-appellant beat her and her mother, who was then even carrying the newborn baby in her arms.

Contrary to accused-appellant's allegation, it was not impossible for Juvelyn to remember with certainty the number of times she
was violated. On cross-examination, she testified:

"x x x xxx xxx

Q: By the way, you said that you were raped by your father 25 times, what time does your father usually rape you during
those
times?
A: About 1:00 in the morning.

Q: In your sworn Statement which you identified during the previous hearing of this case, there was a question posted to you
by
the police. Question No. 7 - you were asked mga anong oras ka palaging ginagalaw ng tatay mo? Sagot -Tuwing
madaling
araw po pag tulog na yung mga kasama namin sa bahay. Do you still maintain your answer?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And when you said 'patay na po ang ilaw,' does it mean to say no lights at all whenever you sleep, Miss Witness?
A: No more light in the house.
Q: And during the previous hearing you also testified that when you noticed that somebody was touching your private parts
you
tried to find out who was touching you and you saw your father?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And how come you were able to see your father despite the fact that there is no more light left Miss Witness?
A: Because there was moonlight and beside [us] was a window.
Q: But aside from the moonlight there were no other light that penetrate your house Miss Witness?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: You said that your father abused you 25 times or approximately twice a week, you seemed to have remembered very well
the
number of times you were abused by your father, how is that Miss Witness?
A: Because I noted them down but I do not have it with me anymore.
Q: When did you lose that [sic] notes, Miss Witness?
A: I can not recall.
Q: But are you sure that you were raped 25 times by your father?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Before your statement was taken by the police, do you still have with you that [sic] notes?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And where do you usually keep those notes Miss Witness?
A: The place where I kept my clothes.
Q: Did you not take extra protection in order that the said notes will [not] be lost thinking that the same will be useful in
making
the charges against your father?
A: I thought of that.
Q: When your statement was taken by the police, do you have with you at that time your notes?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: And what made you so sure as to the number of times that you were abused by your father when you do not have with you
at
that time the said notes?
A: Because before I gave my statement to the police investigator, I used to read that [sic] notes.
Q: So you are saying to us that you already have by heart the notes that you have listed thereat?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: In the said notes you also listed the exact date when you were abused for the first time up to the 25th time by your father?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Miss Witness, do you remember the exact date when you were abused the second time by your father?
A: I think that was September 16 because it was two days after the first.

xxx xxx x x x."27

Juvelyn stated that she jotted down in her notebook the dates she was molested by her father. She memorized these dates. On the
witness stand, however, she forgot the exact dates and could not refresh her memory because she lost the notebook when she left
the family home. Despite the little lapse, she was able to approximate said dates, but notably, she was very sure of the number of
times she was abused.

The mental lapse on the part of Juvelyn does not detract from the veracity of her testimony. It even indicates that her account was
neither rehearsed nor contrived.28 Moreover, it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the
offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense.29 For in rape cases, the date of commission is not an
essential element of the offense; what is material is its occurrence.30 The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a
date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission.31

Juvelyn's testimony is clear, categorical and straightforward. She did not waver in her narration of all the twenty-five (25) rape
incidents and was unshaken even on cross-examination. She recounted accused-appellant's dastardly acts vividly, but shedding
tears silently at her painful and traumatic experience. By her detailed account, the spontaneity of her testimony and the candidness
of her demeanor, it is hard to imagine that she was impelled by an evil scheme to accuse her father of a crime punishable with
death.

Moreover, Juvelyn's claim of sexual violation is supported by the medico-legal report stating that the victim had "shallow-healed
laceration at 8 o'clock and deep-healed laceration at 6 o'clock."32 Dr. Winston Tan testified that these lacerations could have been
caused by a hard blunt object such as an erect male genitalia or any other object of the same consistency.33 The lacerations were
fresh and could have been inflicted approximately twenty (20) days before December 21, 1998, the date of examination. Dr. Tan
declared that his findings are consistent with the victim's claim that she was raped from September 1998 to December 1998.34

Accused-appellant argues that it is highly incredible for him to have raped his daughter in their cramped sleeping quarters "25
times in a span of four months, at regular intervals in the same place and at the same time" without detection by his wife and other
children beside them. He alleges that it was error for the trial court to ignore his arguments with the rule that lust is no respecter of
time and place, quoting an excerpt from a decision of this Court.35

At the time of the alleged rape, Juvelyn had three (3) sisters living in the family home, namely: Glenda, 18 years of age, Jonalyn,
10 years of age and Liway, 8 years old.36 Except for the last rape, all the twenty-four (24) rapes were committed while the victim
was sleeping inside the family home. This home measures 6 meters by 4 meters and has a makeshift wall dividing the area into a
living room and kitchen on one side and a dressing room on the other.37 At the back of the house was the bathroom separated by a
wall.38 At night, the whole house serves as the family bedroom. Accused-appellant and his wife sleep in the dressing room while
the children sleep in the living room and kitchen. Accused-appellant alleges that he always slept with his wife, Lilia, and there was
never any instance when they slept apart from the other. Lilia corroborates this claim.39
The records, however, will reveal that accused-appellant admitted on cross-examination that there were times from September
1998 to December 1998 when he and Juvelyn slept together.40 His wife also confirmed on cross-examination that during the said
period, she was pregnant and slept with Glenda, Jonalyn and Liway while accused-appellant slept with Juvelyn on the other part
of their house.41 Thus, by accused-appellant's and Lilia Dulay's own admissions, it was not impossible for accused-appellant to
have carnal knowledge of his daughter regularly for four (4) months without detection from his wife and other children. The
sexual abuses were made in the wee hours of the morning when everyone was fast asleep and the lights were out. Juvelyn declared
that she did not wake up her mother and sisters for fear that her father would beat them. Lilia only found out about the rapes when
accused-appellant got violent after Juvelyn refused his advances four (4) months later.

Accused-appellant's alibi that he was never absent from his two jobs as driver of a delivery van of the SR Santiago Construction,
Co. and as personal driver of his employer has been rebutted by the prosecution. Alan Panotes, payroll master of the SR Santiago
Construction, Co. for whom accused-appellant worked, testified that accused-appellant never served as personal driver of Mr.
Santiago because the latter had his own driver.42 Accused-appellant was actually employed in the construction firm from 1995 to
December 1998 as a carpenter and delivery van driver.43 From September 1998 to November 11, 1998, he worked as driver and
from November 12, 1998 to December 22, 1998, he was a carpenter. In both jobs, accused-appellant worked for an average of
eight (8) hours daily, six (6) days a week from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.44 He rendered overtime for only fourteen (14) days in
September 1998, four days in October 1998 and only several hours in November and December 1998. For the period September
1998 to December 1998, he rarely worked overtime and in fact, incurred absences during his regular work hours.45 And he never
worked on Sundays. It is clear from the evidence that from September 1998 to December 1998, it was not impossible for accused-
appellant to have been in their house and that he molested his daughter.

The twenty-five (25) Informations alleged that accused-appellant is the father of the victim and that the victim was then thirteen
(13) years of age at the time of the rapes. The prosecution presented Juvelyn's birth certificate indicating her date of birth as
February 7, 1985 and accused-appellant as her father.46 Even accused-appellant and his wife admitted that Juvelyn is appellant's
daughter.47 Under Article 266-B, paragraph (6), sub-paragraph (1) of the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, if the victim was under
eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the rape and the offender is a parent, the penalty for the crime shall be death. The victim's
minority and her relationship with the offender having been alleged and proven, this Court has no option but to impose the penalty
of death on accused-appellant.

In addition to the award of civil indemnity and moral damages, the award of exemplary damages is in order to deter fathers with
perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their daughters.48

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 166, Pasig City in Criminal Cases Nos. 115366-H,
116085-H to 116108-H is affirmed with the modification that exemplary damages is awarded in addition to the civil indemnity
and moral damages in each case. In each of the said twenty five (25) cases, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
death49 and to indemnify the victim, Juvelyn Dulay y Mones the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, for the aggregate sum of P3,750,000.00.

In accordance with Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, upon finality of
this decision, let certified true copies of the records of these cases be forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise
of executive clemency.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr.*, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-
Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., no part. Did not participate in deliberations.
G.R. No. 142985 August 6, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAYMUNDO MAGTIBAY y BACHOCO, accused-appellant.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Before us on appeal is the Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch XLII, in Criminal
Case No. P-5775, finding accused-appellant guilty of rape and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The Information against accused-appellant states:

That on or about the 15th day of September, 1997, at 8:00 o’clock 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 above-named
accused, with lewd and unchaste design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one
RACHELLE RECTO y Rafal, by means of force and threats to kill, to the irreparable damage of the said Offended Party.

CONTRARY TO ART. 335 of the RPC AS AMENDED BY R.A. 7659.2

When arraigned on July 7, 1998, accused-appellant, with the assistance of counsel, entered a plea of not guilty to the crime
charged. Thereafter, trial ensued.

The version of the prosecution is as follows: On September 15, 1997, at about 8:00 in the evening in Barangay Sagana,
Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, Rachelle went to the store of Ka Emma Hernandez, about 40 meters from their house to buy
cigarette and ice. When she got to the store, she saw accused-appellant standing there. She noticed that the latter kept staring at
her.

On her way home, when she was some distance from the store, accused-appellant approached her and pulled her right hand. He
covered her mouth and told her that he will kill her if she tried to shout for help. Accused-appellant made her lie on a grassy place
and removed her shorts and panties. Accused-appellant then undressed, placed himself on top of Rachelle and inserted his penis
into her vagina.

Because of accused-appellant’s threat on her life, Rachelle kept silent about the incident. It was not until she became pregnant that
she was constrained to tell her mother what happened. She eventually gave birth to a baby boy.3

Rachelle’s mother, Gaudiosa Recto, testified that she only came to know about the rape incident after Dr. Fetalberto required
Rachelle to have an x-ray examination at Bongabong Hospital. The results showed that Rachelle was pregnant. She also testified
that Rachelle refused to tell her about it because accused-appellant threatened to kill her several times whenever he saw her.4

Dr. Ronaldo Fetalberto, the Municipal Health Officer of Bongabong South, Oriental Mindoro, testified that Rachelle was brought
to his clinic by her relatives after they noticed that her abdomen was bulging. Rachelle also complained of irregular bowel
movement. The laboratory results showed that Rachelle was pregnant. Upon the request of Rachelle’s relatives, he examined the
private parts of the patient.5 The Medico Legal Report6 stated the following:

General Physical Examination:

Conscious, coherent, hearing-impaired, abdomen enlarged fundic height of 23 cm. FHT of 130 beats/min. located at RLQ.

Genital Examination:

Pubic hair minimal growth, vulva purplish, co-aptated labia majora, laceration in the labia minora at 8 o’clock position (+) whitish
discharge.

There is a positive fetus during the radiological examination.

xxx xxx xxx

Remarks:

1. Fetus (+) in radiologic exam

2. x x x.

In his defense, accused-appellant 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 parents-in-law at Sitio Suli, Sagana, Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro. On September
15, 1997, his wife, Merlyn Magtibay, asked her mother for medicine. On that same day, while he was recuperating from his
sickness, Remuel Gallos, the son of their Brgy. Captain, came over and asked him to drive his tricycle. He refused because of his
illness. He also testified that when the alleged rape incident happened he was still in the house of his parents-in-law because of his
sickness.7

The wife of accused-appellant, Merlyn Magtibay, corroborated his testimony that he was ill at the time of the alleged rape. She
also testified that on September 15, 1997, accused-appellant was bedridden and could hardly stand because he had flu since
September 14, 1997. Her husband recovered only on September 19, 1997.

Remuel Gallos testified that accused-appellant was the driver of his tricycle since 1996. On September 15, 1997, he went to the
house of accused-appellant to ask him to drive his tricycle because he had to work at his farm. He found accused-appellant lying
in his bed and suffering from influenza.8

On August 5, 1999, the trial court rendered judgment as follows:

ACCORDINGLY, accused RAYMUNDO MAGTIBAY y BACHOCO, is hereby sentence (sic) to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA, together with the accessory penalty provided by law and to pay the cost.

Accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the victim Rachelle Recto the amount of P50,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment.

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 convicted prisoners, otherwise he shall be entitled to only four fifths of the
preventive imprisonment.

SO ORDERED.9

Accused-appellant appealed to this Court and contends that:

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE IMPLAUSIBLE AND REHEARSED
TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.

II

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME HAS
BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.10

In crimes against chastity, the primordial issue hinges on the credibility of the testimony of the complaining witness. When
credibility is in issue, we have ruled time and again that absent any showing that the trial court’s assessments and conclusions
overlooked certain significant facts and circumstances which would have affected the outcome of the case, the reviewing court is
generally bound by the trial court’s findings. We generally defer to the findings of the trial court considering that it is in a better
position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment during trial.11

After a thorough review of the evidence on record, the transcript of stenographic notes of the testimonies of the witnesses,
especially that of Rachelle, and the pleadings of both parties in this appeal, we find no cogent reason to reverse the trial court’s
judgment of conviction. The prosecution has established by proof beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellant in
this case.

Contrary to the claim of accused-appellant, his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, as shown by the following:

Q: On September 15, 1997, around 8:00 o’clock in the evening, where were you?
A: I was at the store of Ka Emma.
Q: What is the surname of this Ka Emma?
A: Hernandez, sir.
Q: Why were you there in the store of Emma Hernandez?
A: I bought cigarette and ice, sir.
Q: While you were buying cigarette and ice in the store of Ka Emma, were there other persons thereat?
A: None, sir.
Q: How about the accused you pointed a while ago, where was he at that time?
A: He was at the store of Ka Emma, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

FISCAL (Continuing):

Q: And what was he doing in the store?


A: He was standing, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: After buying ice and cigarette, where did you go?


A: I returned home, sir.
Q: How far is the house of Ka Emma to your house?
A: 40 meters, more or less, sir.
Q: While you were on your way home coming from the store of Ka Emma, do you remember of an unusual incident that
transpired?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what was that? Please tell the court?
A: He was always looking at me, sir.
Q: Who was that person always looking at you?

Witness:

A: Raymundo Magtibay, sir.

FISCAL (Continuing):

Q: After looking at you, what happened next?


A: When I was a little bit far from the store, he approached me, sir.
Q: After the accused approached you, what did he do next?
A: He pulled my right hand, sir.
Q: After pulling your right hand, what did he do if any?
A: He covered my mouth, sir.
Q: With what instrument did he cover your mouth?
A: He told me that he will kill me if I shout.
Q: After telling you that he will kill you if you shout, what did he do next if any?
A: He told me that he will kill me.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: You stated that the accused held your right arm and covered your mouth and thereafter threatened you not to shout or else you
will be killed. After doing these things, what else did he do to you if any?

Witness:

A: He placed himself on top of me and inserted his penis.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Was he successful in inserting his penis?


A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did you feel after he successfully and forcibly inserted his penis?
A: I felt pain, sir.
Q: You stated that he placed himself on top of you, what was your position when he placed himself on top of you?
A: I was lying faced upward.
Q: In what place were you lying upward?
A: At the grassy place sir (damuhan).
Q: Before he was able to successfully insert his penis, what did he do to you or your garments or pantie (sic)?
A: He removed my short and my pantie.

xxx xxx xxx

FISCAL (Continuing):

Q: How about Raymundo Magtibay, what did he do before placing himself on top of you?
A: He removed his pants and brief, sir.
Q: Because of the threat of the accused that he will kill you if you will reveal this to anybody, will you tell the court if you
acceded to
the threat of the accused?
A: No, sir.
Q: What do you mean, "no sir"? Did you report or reveal this to your mother of father?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why did you not reveal this to your parents?
A: He was threatening me to be killed, sir.12

The foregoing testimony clearly shows that Rachelle was unable to ward off accused-appellant’s sexual advances because of fear
for her life. While she cowered in terror, accused-appellant succeeded in consummating his bestial acts on her.

Rachelle’s failure to offer adequate resistance or to make an outcry for help13 did not negate the commission of rape upon her
person. Rachelle’s fear of physical harm cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule. It must instead be viewed in the light of her
perception and judgment at the time of the crime.14 The lack or even absence of resistance is not necessary because the law does
not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.15 What is necessary is that the force or intimidation is of such a
degree as to impel the defenseless and hapless victim to bow into submission, as in this case.16

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 shown that rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest of places.17 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 raped in seclusion.
18

Accused-appellant claims that the testimony of Rachelle was rehearsed, and cites the following excerpts from the testimony
during cross-examination:

ATTY. JOYA:

Q: Is it not a fact that you have made the affidavit you have just identified only on May 5, 1997, am I correct?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: And that you, together with your parents went to the police station of Bongabong, purposely to give your affidavit thereat.
Correct?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: Who was the police officer who took your statement?
A: I do not know him ma’m.
Q: But your are very sure that the one who took your affidavit is a police officer?
A: Yes, ma’m.

Q: Is it not a fact that when you arrived at the police station of Bongabong on May 5, 1998, this affidavit of yours has already
been
prepared?
A: Not yet, ma’m.
Q: Because the police officer was just preparing or typewriting (sic) the same when you arrived at the place; Am I correct?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: And while typewriting (sic) the same, the police officer was occasionally asking questions from your mother. Am I correct?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: That the police officer occasionally ask questions to your mother, and not to you?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: And after that, your affidavit was prepared and asked you to sign your name on top of your typewritten name. Correct?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: You will agree with me that you have met this Raymundo Magtibay while you were at the police station?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: That he was presented to you among with other male persons of his age. Am I correct?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: And that you were asked by the police officers to point Raymundo Magtibay but when you cannot point to Raymundo
Magtibay,
the police officers instructed you to point Raymundo Magtibay?
A: I pointed him.
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, ma’m.

COURT:

Q: What do you mean by "yes"?


A: "Totoo po".

ATTY. JOYA:

Q: Before you testified here in Court you have had a chance to talk with your lawyer. Correct?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: And at his office, he interviewed you as what you are going to testify today?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: Before you went to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, along the way and in your house, you and your mother were discussing
as to
what you are going to testify today?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: And your mother told you that you should testify in the manner you did, today. Correct?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: She told you to testify on the manner you did when you were directly examined by the prosecutor?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: That because you love your parents very much, you will follow your parents. Am I correct?
A: Yes, ma’m.19

Accused-appellant’s claim lacks merit. Rachelle’s testimony on cross-examination did not deviate from, much less impeach, the
core of her testimony as to the gravamen of the crime of rape -- sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent.20
The foregoing cross-examination by accused-appellant’s counsel merely injected innuendoes of a fabricated charge but failed to
clearly demonstrate compelling reason why we should render Rachelle’s testimony less worthy of belief. Notwithstanding the
ambiguous questions asked by accused-appellant’s counsel to Rachelle, we find her testimony convincing and
straightforward.1avvphi1 The cross-examination 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. At any rate,
accused-appellant’s contentions are nothing but indicia of his desperate attempt to evade liability for the crime he committed.

As regards the drafting of Rachelle’s sworn affidavit,21 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 the answers Rachelle gave in her
affidavit. The inquiry fell short of exhibiting the verity of its claim that Rachelle’s answers in her sworn statement were supplied
by her mother. Be that as it may, Rachelle’s ex-parte affidavit will generally be considered incomplete and inaccurate and will not
thus prevail over her statements on the stand.22

We likewise find nothing objectionable in Rachelle’s positive identification of her defiler at the Police Station of Bongabong,
Oriental Mindoro. The identification made at the police station did not foreclose the admissibility of the independent in-court
identification.23 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 from any taint of irregularity.24

The record shows that even before the rape incident took place Rachelle personally knew accused-appellant because the latter was
her barrio mate whom she often sees.25 She even attended accused-appellant’s wedding day together with her mother on March
19, 1998, roughly six months after the rape incident occurred.26 Once a person gains familiarity of another, identification
becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance.27

Furthermore, the in-court positive identification of accused-appellant gains more significance when Rachelle categorically
narrated that she was forced to lie down on a grassy place facing her attacker, whom she categorically and unflinchingly identified
as the accused-appellant. There is no evidence that Rachelle’s vision of her rapist was obstructed or that she was rendered
unconscious at the time of rape.

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 from meeting and conferring with the complaining witness as to matters concerning
a case. Accused-appellant failed to demonstrate any fact or circumstance which would prove that Rachelle’s testimony were
coached or supplied by his counsel. Moreover, accused-appellant failed to cite any law or jurisprudence that prohibits a
government prosecutor from conferring with his witnesses with respect to the prosecution of a criminal case.

Accused-appellant’s allegation that Rachelle’s mother instructed her on what she would say on the witness stand does not
diminish the reliability of her statements. A mother whose daughter, more so if still a minor, have been subjected to the beastly act
of rape, cannot be expected to learn the details of her daughter’s harrowing experience. Besides, the record is barren of any
evidence to support accused-appellant’s contention. 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 have her
daughter’s transgressor punished accordingly.28

Aside from this self-serving claim of the accused-appellant that Rachelle’s testimony was rehearsed, no other reason is shown
why the testimony given by Rachelle on the witness stand is not credible.

The trial court correctly gave full faith and credence to Rachelle’s testimony.1âwphi1 There was no showing that Rachelle had an
improper motive to testify against accused-appellant. The non-attendance of any ill motive on the part of Rachelle gains more
weight in the light of Merlyn Magtibay’s description of Rachelle as a nice person.29 Accused-appellant also had no reason why
Rachelle would falsely accuse her of such serious crime as rape if she were not motivated to bring her perpetrator to justice.30
Needless to say, it is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims 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.31

A girl of such age as the victim would not concoct a tale of 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 raped.32 If the accused-appellant had really nothing to do with the crime, it would be against the natural order of
events and of human nature, and against the presumption of good faith, that a prosecution witness would falsely accuse him of
such a serious crime as rape.

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 defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded
greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.33 For alibi to prosper,
accused-appellant must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but he must likewise
demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

As correctly found by the trial court:

It is very easy for anybody to pretend to be sick and that headaches 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.

Accused likewise claims that after taking some medicine, he was 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, and the required physical impossibility of being present at the situs of the crime therefore becomes unavailing to him.
(Citations omitted)34

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 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.35

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 the award of moral damages in
the amount of P50,000.00 to 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 their youthful feminine psyche. It may be awarded without
need of showing that the victim suffered mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety and the like.36

Finally, the record shows that when Rachelle’s mother, Gaudiosa Recto, discovered about her ordeal, Rachelle was already eight
months pregnant.37 She eventually gave birth to a baby boy.38 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 Glabo39 states:

Concerning the acknowledgment and support of the offspring of rape, Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code provides for three
kinds of civil liability that 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 acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction 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 child’s status." Hence, accused-appellant should only be
ordered to indemnify and support the victim’s child. However, the amount and terms of support shall be determined by the trial
court after due notice and hearing in accordance with Article 201 of the Family Code.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated August 5, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental
Mindoro, Branch XLII, in Criminal Case No. P-5775, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-
appellant 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 victim’s child
born out of the rape, subject to the amount and terms to be determined by the trial court in a proper proceeding.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.
G.R. Nos. 121651-52 August 16, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.FERNANDO WATIMAR, accused-appellant.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Incestuous rape, such as that committed by a father against his own daughter, is a dastardly and repulsive crime1 that has no place
in our society. Time and again the Court has condemned in no unequivocal terms the bestial acts of rape perpetrated by fathers
against their daughters. The case before us now is no different.

On the basis of two (2) sworn criminal complaints executed by the offended party, accused Fernando Watimar was charged with
the crime of Rape in two (2) Informations. The Information in Criminal Case No. 5513-AF2 alleges –

That on or about the 26th day of March 1990, in Sitio Tingga, Brgy. Macapsing, Municipality of Rizal, Province of Nueva Ecija,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused father of the victim, with lewd design
and at the point of a knife and threat to kill, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of her
(sic) daughter MYRA WATIMAR.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The other Information in Criminal Case No. 5514-AF is a virtual reproduction of the above–quoted information, the only
difference being that the rape was committed on November 28, 1992.3

Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.4 Trial thereafter ensued, after which the Regional Trial Court of
Cabanatuan City, Branch 25, rendered judgment5 against accused, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows, viz:

1. In Crim. Case No. 5513-AF, the Court finding the accused Fernando Watimar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
RAPE, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with the accessory penalty of the law, to pay the
complaining witness Myra Watimar P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00, as exemplary damages, without, however,
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs; and

2. In Crim. Case No. 5514-AF, the Court finding the accused Fernando Watimar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
RAPE, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with the accessory penalty of the law, to pay the
complaining witness Myra Watimar P50,000.00, as moral damages, without, however, subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Accused-appellant interposed this appeal alleging that –

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESS MYRA WATIMAR WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MEDICAL FINDINGS WHICH WOULD BE
MATERIALLY AND ESSENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE CRIME CHARGED.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING ANY CREDENCE WHATSOEVER TO THE DEFENSE
INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

III

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTNG THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF
THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

The facts as found by the trial court are:

Myra Watimar, 20 years old when she took the witness stand, single, farm helper and a resident of Macapsing, Rizal, Nueva Ecija,
testified that she is the complainant in the two (2) criminal cases; that she stated that ‘in the evening of March 26, 1990, she slept
together with her brothers and sisters, namely: Bernardo, Marilou, Leonardo, Ariel and Lea, without her mother who went to the
hospital as her aunt was about to give birth; that her father slept with them in the same room; that at about 2:00 in the early dawn
of March 26, 1990, she felt that somebody was on top of her and [was] kissing her neck; that she recognized him to be her father
Fernando Watimar, but when she recognized him, her father talked and a knife was pointed at her neck with an instruction that she
should not resist, otherwise, she will be killed; that despite the threat of her father, she resisted and told her father not to molest
her, because she is his daughter (the witness was crying); that despite the resistance and plea of the daughter, her father went on
top of her, removed her panty and placed himself on top of the complaining witness; that he was able to do the bestial act despite
the resistance made by kicking him; that after the father succeeded in sexually molesting her on March 26, 1990, she just kept
crying in the corner of their house.

That on November 28, 1992, at 10:00 o’clock in the evening while the complaining witness was cooking alone, she was surprised
when somebody was at her back who happened to be Fernando Watimar, her father, who suddenly kissed her and pulled her
bringing her to the place where they used to sleep; that she resisted and wanted to extricate herself from her father by kicking him,
but the accused is stronger than she is; she pleaded to her father not to molest her again but the father did not heed her plea and he
again succeeded in having his sexual desire, on this point, the testimony of the victim is as follows:

Q- How can he succeed with his desire to sexually abuse you?


A- He forcibly opened my thigh[s] and I was appealing to him that I am his daughter, yet he did not heed my plea, sir.
Q- Did you offer any resistance when he was trying to separate your thigh[s]?
A- Yes, sir.
Q- How did you resist your father when he was trying to separate your thigh[s]?

Court Interpreter:

The witness is demonstrating that she is placing her two (2) legs together, yet, the father started to hurt her.

Pros. R. Beltran:

Q- How did he hurt you at that time?


A- He pushed my thigh[s], sir.
Q- Did he push your thigh[s] hardly (sic)?
A- Once, only, sir.
Q- After that what happened?
A- That was the time he succeeded with his lust, sir.6

On the other hand, the defense’s version of what transpired can be gleaned from the testimony of accused-appellant as
summarized thus in his brief, to wit:

Fernando Watimar testified that he is 50 years old, married, a thresher by profession, and a resident of Sitio Tingga, Macapsing,
Rizal, Nueva Ecija xxx.

On direct examination, he testified that during the month of March 1990, he was working as a thresher operator. He testified that
he arrived at 1:00 o’clock a.m. on March 27, 1990 and found his family sleeping. His wife woke up and gave him something to
eat. Later that same day, his wife was no longer at home when he woke up but his daughter Myra Watimar, the herein complainant
was still asleep. Nothing unusual happened from the time he arrived home until the time he woke up and readied himself to report
for work. He reported for work to Valentin Santiago at the latter’s residence in Vega, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, which was about 1
kilometer away from his house. When he inquired from his children as to the whereabouts of his wife, he was told that the latter
had brought the wife of his brother-in-law to the hospital to give birth. His wife did not leave any messages for him nor did she
ask his permission before leaving the house. Upon his arrival at the house of Valentin Santiago, the latter instructed him to thresh
the palay of a certain person whose name, due to lapse of time, he could no longer recall. That morning, he prepared breakfast for
himself and did not order his daughter Myra to serve him because she was a lazy person and did not even wash clothes when told
to do so.

In November 1992, particularly on the date when she allegedly raped his daughter again, he testified that he was working as a
truck helper for Valentin Santiago in Angeles City. On that date, the truck was in Angeles City before proceeding to Ilocos. There
were three of them on that truck, the accused-appellant, the truck driver and the merchant or biyahero. In Angeles City, they went
to the Tibagan Market to load the truck with watermelons which would be brought to Manila. They arrived in Angeles City
around 11:00 o’clock in the morning after departing from Bongabon, Nueva Ecija at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening on Nov.
28, 1992. He left Angeles City at around 7:00 o’ clock in the evening and proceeded to Ilocos where they again loaded the truck
with watermelons. According to him, he was unable to go home for a period of one month due to his work as truck helper.

He also testified that he could think of no reason why his daughter would charge him falsely but he knew that the false accusations
had been instigated by his father-in-law who had told him that it was "better that the family name Watimar will sink rather than
the family name Benolias". According to the accused-appellant, this was because the one who caused the pregnancy of his
daughter was his brother-in-law Celestino Benolias, Jr., the youngest brother of his wife. He learned all this when he asked his
daughter at one time why she no longer went to her grandmother’s house and she had answered that she would not do so "as long
as that man is there", supposedly referring to Celestino Benolias, Jr. He was never in good terms with his brother-in-law to the
extent that the latter had threatened him at gun point and even mentioned "salvaging" him and throwing him in the river. He also
characterized his brother-in-law as a drug user who, when he was under the influence, had twice poked a gun at him. Accused-
appellant could not remember when he brought his daughter to the hospital but remembered that he was one of those who had
brought her to the hospital. He no longer stayed at the hospital because he still had work to do. He also said that he gave a total of
P3,000.00 for his daughter’s hospitalization but that, as he had already been apprehended, he no longer knew what happened to
the money. He only learned about his daughter’s giving birth the following afternoon. The knowledge of his daughter’s condition
affected him so much that, had he known for certain who caused her pregnancy, he would have killed that person. He said he did
not notice his daughter’s pregnancy. He asked his daughter who the father of her child was but the latter did not reply. When he
asked his wife, the latter merely insisted that his surname should be given to the child, a fact he disagreed with. It was out his
hands, however, as his sister-in-law affixed the name Watimar on the birth certificate. He is convinced now that the father of the
child is none other than his brother-in-law Celestino Benolias, Jr.

In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: 1.] to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove it is
difficult though the accused may be innocent; 2.] considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in
the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and 3.] the evidence for the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense.7 Corollary to the foregoing legal yardsticks is the dictum that when a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she
says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets the test of
credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.8

The Court has said time and again that in reviewing rape cases, it will be guided by the settled realities that an accusation for rape
can be made with facility. While the commission of the crime may not be easy to prove, it becomes even more difficult for the
person accused, although innocent, to disprove that he did not commit the crime. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of
rape where only two persons are normally involved, the testimony of the complainant must always be scrutinized with great
caution.9 Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant’s credibility becomes the single most important issue.10

Guided by these principles, the Court has meticulously scrutinized the testimony of complaining witness Myra Watimar and
ultimately reached the conclusion that the acts charged did in fact occur. Myra’s testimony on the acts of rape perpetrated against
her by her father is clear and could have only been narrated by a victim subjected to those sexual assaults. Nowhere is accused-
appellant’s bestiality graphically detailed than in the following narration of the victim:

Q. At about 2:00 in the early morning of that date, was there anything unusual that happened to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that?
A. On that night, sir, I was sleeping and there was somebody on top of me and kissing my neck.
Q. Were you able to recognize that somebody who was kissing your neck?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was he?
A. Fernando Watimar, sir.
Q. How did you recognize him?
A. I recognized him, sir, because he talked and a knife was pointed at my neck, and he instructed me not to resist because,
otherwise
he will kill me, sir.
Q. What did you do when he pointed that knife on your neck and threatened you?
A. I resisted him, sir, and told him not to do it to me because I am his daughter.

PROSECUTOR R. BELTRAN:

At this point, Your Honor, may I place on record that the witness is crying.

COURT:

Place that on record.

PROSECUTOR R. BELTRAN:

Q. What happened to your plea to your father not to molest you because you are his daughter?
A. He continued his lust to me, sir.
Q. After that what happened?
A. I was appealing to him, sir, but because of his superior strength he continued with his lust. I pleaded to him but he continued by
removing my panty, sir.
Q. Did he succeed in removing your panty?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What happened when your panty was removed?
A. He placed his body on top of me, sir.
Q. After placing his body on top of you, what happened next?
A. I continued pleading to him, sir, but he successfully inserted his penis.
Q. How did he succeed in inserting his penis inside your private organ?
A. He forcibly opened my thigh, sir.
Q. When he forcibly opened your thigh, did you not make any resistance or whatsoever?
A. I resisted, sir, I pulled him, sir, I was kicking but because he is stronger than me he succeeded.

COURT

Proceed.

PROSECUTOR R. BELTRAN

Q. How many times did you kick him?


A. Many times, sir, I cannot remember anymore how many.
Q. Nobody was awakened in your house at that time?
A. Nobody, sir, because they were sleeping then.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. Was that the only occasion when you were sexually abused by your own father?
A. It was repeated for several times, sir.
Q. Can you remember the dates when you were sexually abused by your father?
A. What I remember, sir, is November 28, 1992 when I gave birth, sir.
Q. Where were you on November 28, 1992 at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening?
A. I was at home, sir.
Q. What were you doing on that date and time?
A. I was then cooking, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. While you were cooking at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening on November 28, 1992, was there anything unusual that
transpired?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was that unusual thing that happened to you?
A. I was surprised, sir, when somebody was at my back.
Q. Who was that somebody that was at your back?
A. Fernando Watimar, sir.
Q. You are referring to the accused in this case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What happened when all of a sudden the accused Fernando Watimar appeared at your back?
A. He suddenly kissed me, sir, and he pulled me.
Q. Where did he pull you?
A. He pulled me and brought me to the place where we used to sleep, sir.
Q. Did you offer any resistance when your father pulled you at that place where you used to sleep?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you resist him?
A. I resisted, sir, I wanted to extricate myself, sir.
Q. How did you try to extricate yourself from the hold of your father?
A. I was kicking him, sir, but he is stronger than me, sir.
Q. So, what happened after that?
A. He was able to let me down to the place where we used to sleep, sir.
Q. After that what happened?
A. I was then pleading to him not to do it again to me, sir.
Q. Did he heed to your plea?
A. No, sir.
Q. So what happened after that?
A. He again succeeded with his desire, sir.
Q. How can he succeed with his desire to sexually abuse you?
A. He forcibly opened my thigh and I was appealing to him that I am his daughter, yet, he did not heed my plea, sir.
Q. Did you offer any resistance when he was trying to separate your thigh?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you resist your father when he was trying to separate your thigh?
A. I was struggling, sir.
Q. How would you describe your struggling (pagkukumusot) with your father while he was opening your thigh?

COURT INTERPRETER

The witness is demonstrating that she is placing her two (2) legs together, yet the father started to hurt her.
PROS. BELTRAN

Q. How did he hurt you at that time?


A. He pushed my thigh, sir.
Q. Did he push your thigh hardly?
A. Yes, Sir.
Q. How many times did he push your thigh?
A. Once only, sir.
Q. After that what happened?
A. That was the time he succeeded with his lust, sir.

Accused-appellant insists that the foregoing narration of the victim "deserves scant consideration as it is tainted with factual
infirmities and contrary to human experience and conduct."11 To buttress his claim of innocence, accused-appellant first adverts
to the supposed impossibility of consummating the crime in a room measuring "a mere two meters in area" where the victim was
sleeping beside her five other brothers and sisters. According to him: "It boggles the mind and confounds reason to accept the
proposition that the accused-appellant was able to consummate the act despite the fact that she attempted to resist and in fact
caused some commotion in her determined efforts to extricate herself from her father and none of her brothers and sisters were
alerted to the event then transpiring."12

The argument is tenuous.

The possibility of rape is not negated by the presence of even the whole family of the accused inside the same room with the
likelihood of being discovered. Indeed, the Court pointed out only recently in People v. Arteche Antonio y Payagan13 that "for
rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, or the weather to be fine, for rapists bear no respect for locale
and time when they carry out their evil deed.14 Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or
while the rapist’s spouse was asleep, or in a small room where other family members also slept, as in the instant case. The
presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act."15 Verily –

…The court has time and again held that ‘the evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place,
driving him to commit rape anywhere – even in places where people congregate such as parks, along the road side, within school
premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.’16 ‘Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated
place and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual
advances.’17 Indeed, no one would think that rape would happen in a public place like the comfort room of a movie house and in
broad daylight.18

Suffice it to state in this regard that the argument that rape cannot be committed in a house where other members of the family
reside or may be found is a contention that has long been rejected by the Court, rape being no respecter of time and place.19

Accused-appellant further contends that the victim did not do everything in her power to prevent the assault on her virtue. He
argues that the complaining witness admitted that although accused-appellant initially threatened her at knife point, both his hands
were free when he finally committed the act. Accused-appellant states that it is inexplicable why she did not seize this opportunity
to make good her efforts.20

The contention fails to persuade.

The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance,21 especially where there is intimidation.22 In fact,
physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself against
her will to the rapist’s lust because of fear for her life or personal safety.23 Indeed, it has been said that in rape cases, it is not
necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death24 or sustained injuries in the hands of the rapist.25 It suffices that
intercourse takes place against her will or that she yields because of a genuine apprehension of great harm.26 In incestuous rape,
actual force and intimidation is not even necessary.27 The reason for this is that in a rape committed by a father against his own
daughter, the moral ascendancy of the former over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.28

Accused-appellant next claims that the complete absence of any medical finding or examination which would directly contribute
to establish that rape was indeed committed is a point too glaring to be ignored in the light of the fact that the complainant allowed
more than two (2) years to pass before filing the case.29

The argument is likewise unpersuasive.

A medical examination is not indispensable to the prosecution of rape as long as the evidence on hand convinces the court that
conviction for rape is proper.30 As recently pointed out by the Court in People v. Wilson Dreu @ "Adang Dreu"31 -

…Although the results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence to prove that the victim was raped, such
evidence is not indispensable in establishing accused-appellant’s guilt or innocence. In People v. Docena we stated:32
That there was no medical examination report presented, sign of resistance during the actual copulation, or proof of violence
committed against MARGIE does not detract from our conclusion that she was raped. A medical examination is not indispensable
in a prosecution for rape. Medical findings or proof of injuries, virginity, or an allegation of the exact time and date of the
commission of the crime are not essential in a prosecution for rape…

… [The defense’s contention is not bolstered by the victim’s] failure to put up a strong resistance or shout for help, nor by the fact
that there was no sign of force or intimidation, which should be viewed in the context of the victim’s perception and judgment at
the time of the commission of the offense. It is subjective, thus, lack of physical resistance cannot be considered consent.

Accused-appellant further points out that his characterization as being a good father and husband by his wife, Isabelita Watimar,
echoed by his employer, Valentin Santiago as well as his father-in-law, Celestino Benolias, Sr., juxtaposed with complainant’s
characterization of him as being temperamental and unduly harsh, would at the very least generate reasonable doubt as to his
being the perpetrator of the acts charged against him.33

This claim deserves short shrift.

Suffice it to state that no young and decent woman would publicly admit that she was ravished and her virtue defiled unless such
was true for it would be instinctive for her to protect her honor.34 A daughter would not concoct a story of defloration against her
father, accuse him of so grave a crime as rape, allow an examination of her private parts, submit herself to public humiliation and
scrutiny via an open trial, if she were not truly aggrieved or her sordid tale was not true and her sole motivation was not to have
the culprit apprehended and punished.35 In short, a teenage unmarried lass would not file a rape case against anybody, much less
her own father, if it were not true.36

Accused-appellant, lastly, faults the complainant for tarrying for three (3) long years before telling her mother about his nefarious
conduct despite ‘countless’ opportunities to seek the aid of her mother and other relatives particularly her grandfather who lived a
mere ten (10) meters from her house. He insists that even assuming arguendo that the initial shock was so great as to deprive her
of the facility to report these misdeeds to anyone, it is stretching the realm of logic and reason to accept her belated claims at face-
value three (3) years after the operative fact giving rise to her trauma.37

The contention deserves scant consideration.

As aptly stated in People v. Arthur De Leon y Lagmay @ "Joel":38 "This Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape
incidents in the face of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim. A rape victim’s action is oftentimes overwhelmed by
fear rather than reason. It is fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme
psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness."39 While indeed the complainant
may have tarried in reporting her defilement, the three-year hiatus in reporting the crimes adverted to by accused-appellant will
not extricate him from his predicament. This is especially so considering the Court’s recent pronouncement in People v. Conrado
Cabana @ Randy,40 which states that –

... The delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is neither unknown or uncommon.41
As held in the case of People vs. Malagar:42

Vacillation in the filing of [a] complaint by [a] rape victim is not an uncommon phenomenon. This crime is normally
accompanied by the rapist’s threat on the victim’s life, and the fear can last for quite a while. There is also the natural reluctance
of a woman to admit her sullied chastity, accepting thereby all the stigma it leaves, and then to expose herself to morbid curiosity
of the public whom she may likely perceive rightly or wrongly, to be more interested in the prurient details of the ravishment than
in her vindication and the punishment of the rapist. In People vs. Coloma43 we have even considered an 8-year delay in reporting
the long history of rape by the victim’s father as understandable and so not enough to render incredible the complaint of a 13-year
old daughter.

Zorayda was only sixteen years old when she was subjected to the lustful desires of the accused; thus, she was understandably
cowed into silence as the accused-appellant warned her not to tell her mother about the incident. No woman especially one of
tender age, practically only a girl, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter
expose herself to a public trial if she were not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished44 to
avenge her honor45 and to condemn a grave injustice to her.46

Accused-appellant merely raised denial and alibi as his defense. The Court has consistently held in previous cases too numerous to
cite that for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that
it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and unless
supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim who, in a simple
and straightforward manner, convincingly identified accused-appellant as the defiler of her chastity. Succinctly stated, the positive
assertions of accused-appellant’s daughter that he raped her is entitled to greater weight.47 While denial and alibi are legitimate
defenses in rape cases, bare assertions to this effect cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim.48
All told, we find no reason to reverse the ruling of the trial court. The acts of rape are rendered all the more heinous and
reprehensible in this case inasmuch as the perpetrator is the father of the victim. People v. Lao49 scathingly condemned this kind
of criminal thus:

Such a "father" deserves no place in society, and more especially in a country like the Philippines whose fundamental law
considers the family as a basic autonomous social institution and the foundation of the nation, recognizes the sanctity of family
life and mandates the State to defend the right of children to special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development.

The two acts complained of in this case were committed in 1990 and 1992, respectively, at which time Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, provided:

ART. 335. When and how rape committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:

1. By using force and intimidation;


2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding
paragraphs shall be present.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever 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.

xxx xxx xxx


Considering that a deadly weapon was employed in the commission of the offenses charged in this case, the imposable penalty
ranges from reclusion perpetua to death. The use of the bladed weapon already qualified the acts of rape.50

A circumspect scrutiny of the record shows that none of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in Article 14 of the Revised
Penal Code was alleged and proven by the prosecution. Where there is no aggravating circumstance proved in the commission of
the offense, the lesser penalty shall be applied.51 While the employment of the knife was sufficiently established by the
prosecution, such clear showing can not justify the imposition of the death penalty in the absence of an aggravating circumstance.
Furthermore, at the time of commission of the crimes in this case, the imposition of the death penalty was suspended.52 Hence,
the trial court correctly sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.53

The Court notes that the court a quo, while awarding P50,000.00 as moral damages in each count of rape, did not award any
indemnity ex delicto which current jurisprudence has fixed at P50,000.00.54 It needs be stressed in this regard that civil indemnity
is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases.55 Pursuant to controlling
case law, the award of P50,000.00 ex delicto is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.56 Moral damages are additionally
awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.57 1âwphi1 This is because it is recognized that the victim’s injury
is concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odiousness of the crime to warrant per se the award of moral damages.58

The anguish and the pain a victim had to endure are evident.59 The Court need not belabor the fact that the offended party in a
rape case is victim many times over. In our culture which puts a premium on the virtue of purity or virginity, rape stigmatizes the
victim more than the perpetrator.60

Considering that the offender is the father of the victim, we agree with the trial court that accused-appellant should likewise pay
the victim exemplary damages.61 Accused-appellant should, therefore, be liable for exemplary damages of P25,000.00 for each
count of rape.62

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision appealed from, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of two counts of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each crime, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS
that the accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim Myra Watimar for each count of rape the amounts of P50,000.00 by way of
civil indemnity ex delicto, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 137969-71 August 15, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RAFAEL SALALIMA y GARCIA, accused-appellant.

QUISUMBING, J.:

Before us for automatic review is the consolidated decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lianga, Surigao del Sur, Branch 28,
promulgated on February 10, 1999, in Criminal Case Nos. L-1449, L-1450 and L-1451 finding appellant guilty of three counts of
rape and sentencing him to suffer in each case the maximum penalty of death. In said decision the trial court decreed:

1. In Criminal Case No. L-1449, accused Rafael Salalima y Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined
and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
maximum penalty of Death by Lethal Injection. To pay the victim Miladel Escudero P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the
costs.

2. In Criminal Case No. L-1450, accused Rafael Salalima y Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined
and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
maximum penalty of Death by Lethal Injection. To pay the victim Miladel Escudero, P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the
costs.

3. In Criminal Case No. L-145l , accused Rafael Salalima y Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as defined
and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
maximum penalty of Death by Lethal Injection. To pay the victim Miladel Escudero P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the
costs.

Pursuant to Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659, let the criminal records in Criminal Cases Nos. L-1449, L-1450 and L-1451 be
forwarded to Supreme Court of the Philippines for automatic review within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen days after
the promulgation of these judgments.

SO ORDERED.1

These consolidated cases herein stem from separate informations dated March 21, 1997. Prosecutor Zacharias Joven charged
appellant with three (3) counts of rape allegedly committed as follows:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. L-1449

The undersigned Prosecutor, upon a sworn complaint originally filed by the offended party, MILADEL Q. ESCUDERO and her
mother Mrs. Erenita Salalima, hereby accuses RAFAEL SALALIMA y GARCIA of the crime of RAPE committed as follows:

That sometime during the month of March, 1996 or thereabout, in the residence of spouses Laudemir Salalima and Erenita
Salalima in Sitio Ebo, Barangay Tambis, Municipality of Barobo, province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines and within the
jurisdjction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by the use of force and intimidation, armed with a sharp pointed
bolo, ordered Miladel Q. Escudero to removed her underwear and to lay down on the floor and with lewd designs, taking
advantage of the tender age of the offended party, a thirteen (13) year old minor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloneously have carnal knowledge with Miladel Q. Escudero against her will, to the damage and prejudice of the victim.

CONTRARY TO LAW. (In violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA No. 7659).

CRIMINAL CASE NO. L-1450

The undersigned Prosecutor, upon a sworn complaint originally filed by the offended party, MILADEL Q. ESCUDERO and her
mother Mrs. Erenita Salalima, hereby accuses RAFAEL SALALIMA Y GARCIA of the crime of RAPE committed as follows:

That sometime during the month of April, 1996 or thereabout, in the residence of spouses Laudemir Salalima and Erenita Salalima
in sitio Ebo, barangay Tambis, municipality of Barobo, province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused by the use of force and intimidation, armed with a sharp pointed bolo, ordered
Miladel Q. Escuedro to removed her underwear and to lay down on the floor and with lewd designs, taking advantage of the
tender age of the offended party, a thirteen (13) year old minor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloneously have
carnal knowledge with Miladel Q. Escudero against her will, to the damage and prejudice of the victim.

CONTRARY TO LAW. (In violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659).

CRIMINAL CASE NO. L-145

The undersigned Prosecutor, upon a sworn complaint originally filed by the offended party, MILADEL Q. ESCUDERO and her
mother Mrs. Erenita Salalima, hereby accuses RAFAEL SALALIMA Y GARCIA of the crime of RAPE committed as follows:
That sometime during the month of May, 1996, or thereabout, in the residence of spouses Laudemir Salalima and Erenita Salalima
in sitio Ebo, barangay Tambis, municipality of Barobo, province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused by the use of force and intimidation, armed with a sharp pointed bolo, ordered
Miladel Q. Escudero to removed her underwear and to lay down on the floor and with lewd designs, taking advantage of the
tender age of the offended party, a thirteen (13) year old minor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloneously have
carnal knowledge with Miladel Q. Escudero against her will, to the damage and prejudice of the victim.

CONTRARY TO LAW. (In violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659).2

Upon arraignment appellant, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty to all charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

Complainant Miladel Q. Escudero, aged 15, with address at Poblacion, Barobo, Surigao del Sur, testified that sometime in March
1996, after her mother Erenita left for the poblacion to work, appellant Rafael Salalima arrived at her house to eat breakfast.
Complainant went inside the room to take care of her younger sister Lovelymae. While she was in the room, appellant went inside
while she went out of the room. When she returned to the room, appellant left and went to the mountain. Complainant slept with
her younger sister in the room.

While asleep, she was awakened and felt on the left side of her neck a bolo held by appellant. Appellant told her not to shout or
else he would kill her and her mother. When appellant started undressing her, she tried to move but appellant threatened her again
with the bolo. After undressing himself, appellant put himself on top of complainant. Then he inserted his penis inside her vagina
and commenced the motion of push and pull until he ejaculated. Complainant felt pain but could not resist nor shout because of
fear. After satisfying his lust, appellant walked away, warning again complainant not to reveal what had happened, otherwise he
will kill her and her mother.

Complainant recalled that she was also sexually abused by appellant the following month that year. It took place in the kitchen of
their house while her mother was in the poblacion. According to her, while she was washing the plates, appellant was sitting on a
bench. When she passed by, appellant blocked her way and pointed a bolo on her neck and told her not to shout. Afterwards,
appellant undressed her and he removed his clothes too. He placed the bolo on the floor. Appellant inserted his penis in her organ
while they were still standing. Appellant then lifted her by holding her thighs. After satisfying his lust, appellant warned her again
not to report the incident or else she and her mother would be killed. She cried while she was being abused but she did not report
to her mother because of appellant's threats.

The abuse was repeated in May 1996. She was sexually molested again in the room of their house. She testified that appellant
threatened her with a bolo and then removed her pants and her panty. After removing also his pants, appellant put himself on top
of her. She felt the pain while appellant's penis was being inserted in her vagina. She did not resist nor shout because she was
afraid of his threats.

On cross-examination, complainant testified that the sexual assaults were all committed by appellant during daytime. When asked
if the penis of appellant was able to penetrate her vagina, she frankly declared that in the first encounter only half of the penis
penetrated her vagina but in the second and third incidents, appellant's entire penis penetrated her vagina. She testified that
appellant, after abusing her, became jealous of her friend Robert though she had categorically stated that Robert is not her
boyfriend.3

The mother of the victim, Erenita Salalima y Quiawan, testified that she was 33 years of age, manicurist by occupation and
residing at Sitio Ebo, Barangay Tambis, Barobo, Surigao del Sur. She had two children by her first marriage to Pedro Escudero
namely: complainant Miladel Escudero and Mark Escudero. She declared that complainant was born on April 20, 1983 in Tambis,
Barobo, Surigao del Sur. After her first husband died, Erenita married Laudemir Salalima with whom she has two children, the
first died while the second is named Lovelymae. Erenita also said that she personally knew appellant being her father-in-law. In
fact, appellant lives with them and eats his meals in their house.

In December 1996, Erenita had an altercation with appellant. The quarrel became quite serious that appellant said something about
his relation with complainant by telling Erenita, "Ang imong anak dugay na nakong nakuha, siguro buntis na" ("I have had sexual
intercourse with your daughter a long time ago, maybe she is already pregnant"). When confronted by her mother, Miladel
revealed the sexual abuses done to her by appellant. Asked why she did not reveal these abuses, complainant told her mother that
appellant had threatened her. Erenita immediately brought complainant to the doctor for medical examination.4

Dr. Ma. Wilma Joji Yu, Chief of Hospital, Lianga District Hospital, examined the complainant. She later testified that the
hymenal tags of complainant's genitalia were no longer prominent nor intact especially at 12:00 o'clock to 6:00 o'clock position.
She opined that penetration had occurred and it could have been through sexual intercourse.5

On December 24, 1996 complainant, assisted by her mother, lodged complaints for rape against appellant. Afterwards, appellant
was arrested and detained.

Appellant denied all the accusations against him. He claimed that he is physically incapable of doing the sexual acts imputed to
him as he was sickly and already 66 years old at the time the alleged crimes were committed. He declared that Erenita's husband,
Laudimer, was his son and complainant called him "Lolo". According to him, he was charged with rape since Erenita had a
grudge against him because of his refusal to join their religious sect, Iglesia ni Kristo. He also stated that Laudimer's first child fell
and died while under the care of complainant. Apparently, Laudimer blamed complainant for the death of the baby. Appellant also
recalled that sometime in March 1996, a Sunday afternoon, he fetched water and saw complainant and a young man in the waiting
shed kissing each other. When complainant saw him, she shouted "Hala si Lolo" ("Beware, it's Lolo"), and they ran away
separately. At home, complainant whispered to him not to call the attention of her mother about the incident. Nonetheless, he told
Erenita what he saw that day but Erenita told him "You have no business what my daughter is doing".6

The trial court found the testimonies of witnesses for the prosecution credible. In contrast, it found appellant's denial flimsy.
Accordingly, the court found appellant guilty as charged. Hence, this appeal.

In his brief, appellant assigns the following errors:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT UNDER THE DEFECTIVE
INFORMATIONS WHEREIN THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ALLEGE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIMES CHARGED.

II

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE
CRIMES CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

III

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT THE MAXIMUM
PENALTY OF DEATH.7

The issues for resolution are:

(1) Whether or not the informations are defective;

(2) Whether or not the guilt of appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt;

(3) Whether or not death penalty was properly imposed.

Appellant contends that the informations are defective because the date and time of commission of the crimes are not stated with
particularity. He argues that the indefiniteness of the informations deprives him of his right to be informed of the offense charged
against him and of the opportunity to prepare for his defense.8

Appellant's contention is bereft of merit.

Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face.
The reason is obvious. The precise date or time when the victim was raped is not an element of the offense. The gravamen of the
crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. As
long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed an
information is sufficient. In previous cases, we ruled that allegations that rapes were committed "before and until October 15,
1994", "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter", "sometime in November 1995 and some occasions prior and/or
subsequent thereto" and "on or about and sometime in the year 1988" constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.9

In this case, although the indictments did not state with particularity the dates when the sexual assaults took place, we believe that
the allegations therein that the acts were committed "sometime during the month of March 1996 or thereabout", "sometime during
the month of April 1996 or thereabout", "sometime during the month of May 1996 or thereabout" substantially apprised appellant
of the crimes he was charged with since all the elements of rape were stated in the informations. As such, appellant cannot
complain that he was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the cases filed against him. Accordingly, appellant's
assertion that he was deprived of the opportunity to prepare for his defense has no leg to stand on.

Next, appellant challenges the credibility of complainant's testimony. He points out that during the second incident there was no
longer threat when he was undressing the victim, yet she did not resist his advances. He added that in all instances complainant
did not even attempt to arouse the attention of her relatives and neighbors considering that the incidents occurred at daytime.10

Appellant's claim that there was no tenacious resistance on the part of complainant fails to persuade. Physical resistance need not
be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's
embrace because of fear for life and personal safety.11 Intimidation includes the moral kind, such as the fear caused by
threatening a woman with a knife.12 As earlier stated, complainant was continuously threatened with death by appellant if she
would resist and report his sexual advances. Complainant's obedience to appellant's satyric acts were all caused by her fear of
appellant. Furthermore, the moral ascendancy exercised by appellant over complainant made his threat to her effective.
Accordingly, complainant's lack of stiff resistance is justified.

Likewise, that complainant did not seek help while the sexual advances were being made on her is not too difficult to
comprehend. Complainant's tender age and fear for life and safety against appellant's continuous threat that he will kill her and her
mother are factors that have heavily cowed her into submission.

As regards appellant's claim that at his age and physical condition, it is improbable for him to engage in sexual acts, the same is
merely self-serving. Other than appellant's assertion, there is no evidence presented to substantiate his alleged sexual dysfunction.
At any rate, advanced age does not mean that sexual intercourse is no longer possible as age is not a criterion taken alone in
determining sexual interest and capability of middle-aged and older people.13

Appellant also imputes ill motive on the part of complainant and Erenita in filing these cases. Appellant argues that it must have
been his having reported the clandestine tryst of complainant with her boyfriend and his refusal to join the Iglesia ni Kristo which
induced complainant and her mother to concoct the said cases.

The argument is shallow. Not a few accused in rape attributed the charges brought against them to family feuds, resentment or
revenge. But such alleged motives have never swayed the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of the complainant
who remained steadfast throughout her testimony especially a minor, as in this case.14 We have scrutinized the records of this
case, but we found no evidence showing that complainant had any improper motive to frame-up appellant. We are therefore
constrained to give full faith and credit to complainant's testimony.

However, we agree with appellant's assertion that the trial court erred in imposing on him the death penalty. Apparently, the trial
court imposed the death penalty in each of the three cases because complainant was then only thirteen years old and "the offender
is the father of [her] step-father so that the victim is a relative of the offender by affinity".15 The trial court had in mind the first
circumstance of the seventh paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No.
7659.1t provides:

ART. 335 When and how rape is committed. ---

xxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities.

3. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of
consanguinity.

4. When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.

5. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.

6. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law
enforcement agency.

7. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation.

But as consistently held by this Court in previous cases, the aforequoted seven new attendant circumstances partake the nature of
special qualifying circumstances, Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded.16 Moreover, under the first circumstance,
the minority of the victim and the offender's relationship to the victim must be taken together and constitute only one special
qualifying circumstance. Both must be alleged in the complaint or the information and duly proved by the quantum of proof in
criminal cases to justify the imposition of the mandatory death penalty, Thus, even if the victim is below eighteen years of age and
the offender is her parent or relative, but these facts are not alleged in the information, or that only one is so alleged, their proof as
such by evidence offered during the trial cannot sanction the imposition of the penalty.17

Further, we shall now take into account recent developments in criminal procedure. Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, requires that the complaint or information shall specify the
qualifying and aggravating circumstances of the offense. If not specified, these circumstances cannot be appreciated. This
provision may be given retroactive effect in the light of the well settled rule that statutes regulating the procedure of the court will
be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that
sense and to that extent.18
As noted by appellant, the informations in these three cases failed to allege the relationship of appellant to complainant, hence, he
cannot be convicted of rape under the first circumstance of paragraph 7, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended-by
Section 11 of RA No. 7659.

We hasten to add that the relationship of complainant to appellant was not clearly established. Erenita stated that appellant is her
father-in-law being the father of her second husband. Further, appellant said that complainant respects him and calls him "Lolo".
Other than these declarations, we find no factual basis to conclude with certainty that appellant is legally related to complainant. It
is doubtful whether the relationship between the offended party and the offender falls within the legally defined relationship
determinative of the penalty to be imposed. Strictly speaking, the offender in this case is neither parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian nor relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, of the victim. Nor is he the common-law spouse of
the parent of the victim.

However, the prosecution proved that appellant committed the crime of rape with the use of a deadly weapon, a circumstance
alleged in the information. Under our penal law, whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, such
as the knife used by appellant,19 the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death, a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties.
In the case at bar, there is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances that could be appreciated, thus, the lesser penalty of
reclusion perpetua is imposed.

Finally, we affirm the trial court's award of moral damages of P50,000.00 in each of the three cases. The award of moral damages
to a rape victim is proper even if there was no proof presented during the trial as basis therefor. In addition, civil indemnity must
be awarded to the victim since it is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape. The recent judicial prescription is that the amount
shall be P50,000.00 for each count of rape if death penalty is not imposed.20

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lianga, Surigao del Sur, Branch 28, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Appellant Rafael Salalima y Garcia is found guilty of three (3) counts of rape committed against private
complainant Miladel Escudero, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA as well as to pay
the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape, and the
costs.1âwphi1.nêt

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-
Santiago, De Leon., Jr., JJ., concur.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, on leave.
G.R. Nos. 137753-56 March 16, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NILO ARDON, accused-appellant.

PER CURIAM:

Before us for automatic review is the joint decision1 of 25 November 1998 of the Regional Trial Court of Polomolok, South
Cotabato, Branch 39, in Criminal Cases Nos. 316, 317, 318 and 319, finding accused-appellant Nilo Ardon (hereafter NILO)
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of rape committed against his daughter Jennilyn B. Ardon (hereafter
JENNILYN) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for one count of rape and death for each of the
remaining three counts.

These criminal cases stemmed from four separate informations filed against NILO. For the rape committed sometime in 1988
when JENNILYN was then 6 years old, NILO was charged with the crime of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 316.2 The information reads:

That sometime in 1988, at Sitio Salul, Barangay Palkan, Municipality of Polomolok, Province of South Cotabato, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there, by means of force and intimidation, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of her daughter JENNILYN B. ARDON, then 6 years old.

For the two acts of rape committed on 11 October 1994 and the rape committed on 12 October 1994, when JENNILYN was 12
years old, Nilo was charged in three separate informations with qualified rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by R.A. 7659 and were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 317, 318 and 319, respectively.3 Except as to the dates of the
commission of the crime, the informations commonly alleged as follows:

That on or about —, at Sitio Salul, Barangay Palkan, Municipality of Polomolok, Province of South Cotabato, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there, by means of force and intimidation, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of her daughter JENNILYN B. ARDON, a 12 year old girl.

On 8 December 1994, NILO, duly assisted by counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty in each of the four cases.4 Thereafter,
joint trial of the cases proceeded.

The prosecution presented JENNILYN; her mother, Jane Ardon; her uncle, Daniel Jordan; and the examining physician, Dr.
Porferio Pasuelo, Jr. As summarized by the trial court, the version for the prosecution is as follows:

The evidence for the prosecution can be summarized by the testimony of the complainant Jennilyn Ardon who testified during
direct examination on November 4, 1997, as follows: that she was born on May 13, 1982 at Barangay Palkan, Polomolok, South
Cotabato, and when she was six (6) years old, she lived with her parents at Barangay Solon, Palkan, Polomolok, South Cotabato;
that sometimes in 1988, at the age of six (6) her father, the accused in this case, abused her by kissing her neck and inserted one of
his fingers to her vagina; that in the same year, her father again abused her by inserting his penis and able to penetrate the same
successfully to her vagina; that she was not able to report these incidents immediately to her mother who was selling vegetables at
General Santos City most of the time; that later of the same year she was able to bring to the attention of her mother the abuses
done to her by her father but her mother would not believed her; that her father abused her every time her mother would not sleep
in their house as she was busy selling vegetables in General Santos City; that she was sexually abused by her father since she was
six (6) years old until she filed a case in court, that was from 1988 to October 12, 1994; that she was sexually abused twice-at
about 7:00 and 8:00 o'clock in the evening of October 11, 1994 and the third one at 3:00 o'clock in the morning of October 12,
1994; that after she was sexually abused three times of the previous nights, she went to her grandfather to hide herself from her
father; that when her uncle Daniel Jordan found her, she told everything about what had happened to her, and after which the same
was relayed to her grandmother who called her parents; that when her parent appeared before her grandmother, they discussed
what is the best for her father to put him on jail or not, but the decision reach was to put him on jail; and that because of such
decision, she filed a complaint against her father and such complaint was duly recognized when it was presented to her which was
subsequently marked as Exhibit "B" for the prosecution.

During the cross-examination, the private complainant testified in this manner: that when she was fingered for the first time her
mother was harvesting coffee and when she arrived home, she did not tell what had happened to her as she was threatened with
death by her father if she would report the same to her mother; that after she was raped by her father in 1988 she had already
reported the matter to her mother who would not believed her as she wants evidences; that her father usually had sexual
intercourse with her when she was gathering firewood or while weeding their vegetable garden; that sometimes she would pretend
to have stomachache so that she can refused to go with him whenever she will be invited to go somewhere else; that her father
boxed her on her stomach and manhandled her many times whenever she refused to go with him; that it was to her uncle Junior to
who she reported the matter on October 12.

The private complainant further testified during the cross-examination that she was six (6) years old when her father started raping
her and the last time she was sexually abused was when she already twelve (12) years old; that she got married three (3) years
after her father sexually abused her; that her main reason in filing the case against her father was because she was being
manhandled and sexually abused by him; that her mother decided to have her father arrested after her grandmother had talked to
her, and that was the time when her mother believed in her; that before the 1988 incident, her father was already cruel not only to
her but also to her brothers and sisters and even to her mother where he would sometimes placed a bolo on her neck; and that
because of the physical harassment and cruelty of her father, she hated him so much and even aspired that he will be sent to death
as she was very sure that she was really sexually abused from 1988 to 1994.

On redirect examination the private complainant explain to the Court that what she meant of the word abuse is that her father
kissed her breast, inserted his fingers and later on his penis to her vagina and afterwards has a sexual intercourse with her. She
testified that her father had a sexual intercourse with her twice on October 11, 1994 and another on October 12, 1994. She also
testified that when her father raped her in 1988, she reported the matter to her mother as well how she was raped by her own
father.

On January 6, 1998, the prosecution presented another witness in the person of Jane Ardon, 36 years old, housekeeper and a
resident of Barangay Palkan, Polomolok, South Cotabato, who took the witness stand and testified as follows: that she was the
mother of the complaining witness Jennilyn Ardon and the legal wife of the accused in this case; that she had seven (7) children
with the accused and the complainant is the eldest, that she was the one who assisted Jennilyn in filing the aforestated criminal
cases against her own father; that when Jennilyn Ardon reported to her that she was being raped by her father sometime in 1988,
she was hesitant to confront her husband because she was afraid that her husband might hack her with a bolo as the latter usually
have it with him while sleeping; that there was an occasion she was being manhandled and even tried to be hacked with a bolo by
her husband; that these cases were filed against her husband by her daughter with her assistance because her daughter ran away
and would not come home as she was being raped by her own father.

On cross-examination by the opposing counsel, witness Jane Ardon gave the following testimony: that the caused why she was
allegedly hacked by her husband in 1994 was because her husband got mad at her when she reprimanded him for mauling their
daughter Jennilyn; that she did not believe her daughter immediately when she reported that she was sexually abused by her own
father as she had not seen any evidence; that she was convinced that her daughter is telling the truth when she saw her panty with
blood stain under their bed and considering that she was not yet menstruating at that time; that as the breadwinner of the family,
she slept with her mother at the barrio that evening her daughter was manhandled by her husband; that it was only her children
and their father who were sleeping inside their house; that her husband kept on mauling and manhandled their daughter because
she was always going out; that at first she did not entertain what her daughter told her, but she was convinced later on when she
knew that her daughter would stowaway everytime she would go to General Santos City; and that her husband was no longer
communicating with her except through letters.

During the redirect examination of the aforesaid witness, she said that she once visited her husband at the Provincial Jail and she
was threatened that he would escape from prison and kill all of them. She also made mention that the contents of the letter sent to
her by her husband.

Likewise, on recross-examination same witness testified that one of the contents of the letter is that her husband was asking for
forgiveness and telling her why she sided in favor of her daughter who is sinful. In said examination she promised to bring to
court the letter on the next scheduled hearing of the cases.

On January 13, 1998, the mother of the complainant who is also a witness in this case was recalled in the witness stand for the
sake of identifying the birth certificate of Jennilyn Ardon, her daughter, who was born on May 13, 1982, and after identifying the
same it was marked as Exhibit "C" for the prosecution.

The next witness presented by the prosecution was Daniel Jordan, 45 years old, married, farmer, a resident of Barangay Palkan,
Polomolok, South Cotabato. The tenor of his testimony was that her niece, Jennilyn Ardon, told him that she was sexually abused
by her father and was asking that justice would be afforded to her. Thereafter, she brought her niece to the Lupon Tagapamayapa
where her mother, uncle and grandfather were summoned by Nilda Española, a Lupon Member. After which it has been agreed
upon that Nilo Ardon be arrested by the police, while he, together with her niece and her mother, went to the police station to file
a complaint and to have her niece underwent a medical examination.

When he was confronted during the cross-examination, he testified in this manner: that accused Nilo Ardon and Jean Ardon,
before they got married, they eloped and were accepted only by their parents after they returned; that he had no bad feeling with
the accused eversince except at present; that he was accustomed in helping his barriomates in bringing cases to the police and
even to the court without receiving any compensation; and that he has ten (10) children and as harvester, tuba gatherer and farmer
was his means of livelihood.

As early as July 14, 1997, Dr. Porferio Pasuelo Jr., married, Municipal Health Officer of Polomolok, South Cotabato, was
presented by the prosecution who testified on the medical examination conducted by him on Jennilyn Ardon last October 27, 1994
in connection with these cases filed against the accused Nilo Ardon. The medical certificate or medical examination of Jennilyn
Ardon was ordered marked as Exhibit "A" for the prosecution.

In the above-stated medical certificate of Jennilyn Ardon, Dr. Proferio Pasuelo, Jr. explained his findings, to wit: (1) Healed
Laceration 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock; (2) Easily admits the physician's forefinger. He said that in his first findings it means that there
was a forced penetration on the vaginal opening of the child, while on his second findings he testified that there were repeated
insertion on the vaginal opening of the child.5
On his part, NILO relied solely on his testimony, offering bare denials to the inculpatory testimonies of the victim and the
prosecution witnesses. He alleged that JENNILYN only concocted the charges because he whipped her for failure to obey his
order not to go to the house of her maternal grandparents. He also imputed ill motive on the part of his parents-in-law who from
the very beginning were against him. He claimed that his parents-in-law convinced JENNILYN to file these cases. In fact, both
his wife and JENNILYN visited him in jail for several times and even promised him that they will withdraw the complaint against
him. However, the promise was not fulfilled because his wife was already living with another man. NILO also presented the three
letters he received from his wife while he was in jail.

The trial court giving full faith and credence to the testimony of JENNILYN convicted NILO of four counts of rape in its decision
dated 25 November 1998. It characterized JENNILYN's narration of facts as "unbridled and unadulterated" and that she testified
"in a forthright manner without the least hesitation." It ruled that the spontaneity of JENNILYN's testimony could not be
discredited by NILO's mere denials. It rejected NILO's imputation of ill-motive on the part of JENNILYN, his wife and his
parents-in-law. The dispositive portion of the decision6 reads as follows:

Accordingly, on the foregoing considerations and in the light of the present law in force, this Court finds the accused Nilo Ardon
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of rape, one rape committed sometime in 1988, two rapes committed in October 11,
1994 and another one rape in October 12, 1994. The rape committed sometime in 1988 is considered as statutory rape as the
offended party was still six years old at the time the crime charged has been committed, and in view of the abolition of death
penalty in the 1987 Constitution, the accused Nilo Ardon is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in
Criminal Case No. 316. For the three counts of rape under Criminal Cases Nos. 317, 318 and 319, said accused is hereby
sentenced with the supreme penalty of DEATH for each of the three cases pursuant to Sec. 11 of R.A. 7659 which provides that
where the victim of the crime of rape is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is, inter alia, the parent of the victim, the
death penalty shall be imposed.

The aforesaid accused is further ordered to indemnify the offended party, Jennilyn Ardon, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages in each cases filed against him and to pay the cost.

By reason of the imposition of the extreme penalty of death in Criminal Cases Nos. 317, 318 and 319, the cases are now before us
for automatic review. The judgment in Criminal Case No. 316, where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, will be
considered to have been appealed to us despite absence of notice of appeal which was necessary pursuant to Section 3(c) of Rule
122 of the Rules of Court, considering that only one decision was rendered in these four consolidated cases.7

In the Appellant's Brief NILO interposes as his lone assignment of error that the trial court erred in convicting him of three counts
of rape in Criminal Cases Nos. 317, 318 and 319 despite the absence of force and intimidation. He claims that the prosecution
failed to prove resistance on the part of the victim or the use of force or intimidation on his part when the alleged three rapes were
committed.

In the Appellee's Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General recommends that, except for the award of damages which must be
increased, the decision of the trial court convicting NILO of four counts of rape be affirmed, the same being supported by the
evidence and consistent with law.

We affirm NILO's conviction.

The Court has repeatedly held that it will not interfere with the trial court's determination of the credibility of witnesses, unless
there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which had been overlooked or the significance of
which has been misinterpreted.8 The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to do so because it heard the
witnesses testify before it and had every opportunity to observe their demeanor and deportment on the witness stand.9

We have carefully gone through the records of this case and we find no reason to depart from the judgment of conviction of the
trial court. The prosecution has satisfactorily discharged its onus of proving that NILO committed the four (4) counts of rape
alleged in the informations against his daughter. During the direct examination, JENNILYN was able to give a thorough account
of her father's sexual assaults, thus:

Q Sometime in 1988 do you remember if there was something that happened to you?
A Yes.
Q What was that?
A I was abused by my father.
Q How did he abuse you?
A He kissed me on the neck.

COURT QUESTION:
Q How old were you when you were first abused?
A 6.

PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q Aside from kissing your neck what else did he do to you?
A He fingered me.
Q What part of your body did he finger?
A My vagina.
Q How many times did he finger you?
A Twice.
Q Is that on the same day or different day?
A Two (2) days.

COURT QUESTION:
Q That was when you were 6 years old?
A Yes, sir.

PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q After fingering you that was about 1988 what else did he do to you?
A He again abused me.
Q How did he abuse you?
A He inserted his penis to my vagina.
Q Was he able to penetrate your vagina?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you bleed?
A Yes.10

xxx xxx xxx


Q When your mother was not sleeping in your house what happened to you?
A My father abused me.
Q How many times do you think that your father able to abused you?
A Since I was 6 years old until I reported here in court?
Q About how often was your father doing this abuses on you? I will withdraw the question your Honor. Was your father
doing
these things on you weekly, monthly or what?
A If he would bring me to gather some firewood.

COURT QUESTION:

Q In 1988 how many times were you abused by your father?


A Many times.
Q More than 5 times in 1988?
A I cannot remember anymore.
Q How about in 1989 were you still abused by your father?
A Yes.
Q About how many times in the year 1989?
A I cannot remember anymore.
Q How about in the year 1990?
A Yes, sir.
Q About how many times?
A I cannot count anymore.
Q Until what year that your father kept abusing you?
A Up to 1994.
Q When was the last time that your father sexually abused you?
A October 11, 1994.

- Proceed Fiscal.

PROS. MADURAMENTE:

Q On October 11, 1994 you were already 12 years old?


A Yes.
Q Was there anything unusual that happened to you?
A Yes.
Q What was that incident about?
A He again abused me.
Q How did he abuse you?
A He again kiss me on my neck and he inserted his penis to my vagina.
Q How many times did he abuse you in October 11, 1994?
A 3 times.
Q And that was in one evening?
A Yes.
Q Now, of these three sexual assault that he did to you the third sexual assault what part of the evening did he do?
A 3:00 o'clock early morning.
Q On October 11, 1994 when did he first abuse you?
A About 7:00.
Q In the evening?
A Yes.
Q How about the second time that he abused you?
A 8:00 p.m.
Q And the third is about 3:00 o'clock in the morning of the following day?
A Yes.11

More importantly, JENNILYN's testimony of repeated carnal knowledge is supported by the medico legal evidence. The
examining physician testified as follows:

Q Will you explain to the court what is the meaning of this "healed laceration 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock Doctor?
A Well, if you look up the clock the laceration is 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock.
Q What does it mean Doctor?
A It means that there was a forced penetration on the vaginal opening of the child.
Q And in your second findings you stated easily admits the physician's forefinger?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, what is the full notation of these findings?
A It means that there were repeated entering on the vaginal opening of the child.
Q If the physician's forefinger easily admits on the vagina of the girl, what does it mean Doctor?
A It means that there were repeated insertions on the vaginal opening.12

The alleged absence of resistance, which is the main contention of the defense, cannot alter the condemnatory verdict against
NILO. The sexual molestation of JENNILYN started when she was just six (6) years old and lasted until she was twelve. Her
father raped her not only four times, as alleged in the information, but repeatedly since she was six (6) years old. Her father
continuously threatened to kill her if she will not yield to his bestial desires. Thus, it was then JENNILYN's tender age and
NILO's custodial control and domination over her, that rendered her so meek and subservient to his needs and desires, and became
an easy prey to NILO's lecherous advances. This psychological predicament, in the mind of the Court, explains why JENNILYN
did not give any outcry or offer any resistance when she became inured to the outrage repeatedly committed over a period of
time.13

It is a settled rule that in cases of rape by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the
latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. By abusing the reverence and respect which children have for their parents, the
rapist father can subjugate his daughter's will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.14 Rape is committed when
intimidation is used on the victim and this includes the moral kind of intimidation or coercion. Intimidation is a relative term,
depending on the age, size and strength of the parties, and their relationship with each other. It can be addressed to the mind as
well. For rape to exist it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be
resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.
Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the rape and not by any hard and
fast rule. It is therefore enough that it produces fear — fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused,
something would happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident.
Intimidation would also explain why there are no traces of struggle which would indicate that the victim fought off her attacker.15

Likewise, the failure of JENNILYN to immediately report the rape incidents would not diminish her credibility nor undermine the
charges of rape. It must be remembered that NILO continuously threatened to kill JENNILYN should she report the incidents. It
was this fear instilled in JENNILYN by her father who exercised moral ascendancy over her that effectively silenced her and
made her wary in disclosing to anybody what he had done to her. The silence of a victim of rape or her failure to disclose her
misfortune without loss of time to the authorities does not prove that the charges are baseless and fabricated. The victim would
rather bear the ignominy and pain in private than reveal her shame to the world or risk the rapist's making good the threat to hurt
her.16 It is a settled decisional rule that delay in reporting a rape case committed by a father against his daughter due to threats is
justified.17 JENNILYN, a young barrio lass and with a simple and unsophisticated mind cannot be expected to have the fortitude
and courage of an adult, mature and experienced woman who may disregard the threat and, with promptitude, condemn in the
open the shameful scandal wrought upon her by her very own father. It is not uncommon that young girls usually conceal for
some time the assault upon their virtue because of the threats on their lives.18

In many instances, rape victims simply suffer in silence. With more reason would a girl ravished by her own father keep quiet
about what befell her. Furthermore, it is unfair to judge the action of children who have undergone traumatic experiences by the
norms of behavior expected of mature individuals under the same circumstances.19

Even NILO's insinuation of ill motive on the part of JENNILYN in the filing of the rape charges against him is too lame and
flimsy. Parental punishment is not enough reason for a daughter to falsely accuse her father of rape. It takes depravity for a young
girl to concoct a story which would put her own father on death row and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of
shame.20 Mere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino family invent a charge that would
only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their own family and make them the object of gossip among their classmates and
friends.21

Neither can we sustain NILO's allegation that JENNILYN was prompted by her grandparents, who did not like him as their son-
in-law, to charge him with rape is not worthy of credit. This is not an uncommon defense, but such alleged motives as family
feuds, resentment or revenge have never swayed the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of a complainant who
remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross-examinations, especially a minor as in this case.22 We cannot believe that the
grandparents would expose their granddaughter, a young and innocent girl, to the humiliation and stigma of a rape trial just to stop
the relationship between the father and the mother of the victim. No grandparent would expose his or her own granddaughter to
the shame and scandal of having undergone such a debasing defilement of her chastity if the charge filed were not true.23

From the foregoing, the trial court did not err in finding NILO guilty of statutory rape for the rape committed sometime in 1988
when JENNILYN was only six years old, and three counts of qualified rape committed when she was twelve. Thus, the lower
court correctly imposed in Criminal Case No. 316 the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the rape charged having been committed on
January 26, 1992, before the effectivity of R.A. No. 7659. However, in Criminal Cases Nos. 317, 318 and 319, with the
concurrence of the special qualifying circumstances of relationship of accused-appellant NILO with the victim and the latter's
minority, the death penalty was properly imposed.24

The testimony of JENNILYN disclosed that NILO actually committed more than four acts of rape. However, considering that
NILO was charged only with four counts of rape, we can only affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction and its imposition of
the appropriate penalty for each of the four counts of rape alleged and proved. This is in compliance with the constitutional right
of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.25

As regards the civil aspect in these cases, we note that the trial court did not award any indemnity ex delicto, which is mandatory
upon the finding of the fact of rape. Thus, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, NILO has to pay the victim as civil indemnity the
additional amount of P50,000 in Criminal Case No. 316, where the penalty meted is reclusion perpetua and P75,000 in each count
of rape in Criminal Cases Nos. 317, 318 and 319, where the imposition of death penalty is warranted.26

The trial court's award of P50,000 as moral damages for each count of rape is upheld, the said award being imposable in rape
cases without need of proof. The award of exemplary damages of P25,000 in each case is likewise in order, to deter fathers with
perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior, like NILO, from sexually abusing their daughters.27

Four members of the Court have continued to maintain the unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 7659 insofar as it prescribes
the death penalty. However, they bow to the majority opinion that the said law is constitutional and thereunder, the imposition of
the death penalty is proper.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch 39, finding the accused-
appellant, NILO ARDON, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of rape and imposing upon him the penalty of
reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. 316 and Death for each rape in Criminal Cases Nos. 317, 318 and 319, is AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that apart from the award of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as moral damages and Twenty Five
Thousand (P25,000) as exemplary damages in each case, accused-appellant NILO is sentenced to pay civil indemnity of Fifty
Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos in Criminal Case No. 316 and Seventy-five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos in each case in Criminal
Cases Nos. 317, 318 and 319. Costs against the accused-appellant.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon the finality of this
decision, let the records of the case be forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C .J ., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes,
Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ ., concur.
G.R. Nos. 135976-80 June 20, 2001
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CLAUDIO GALENO Y MAGBANUA alias "ODING," accused-
appellant.

VITUG, J.:

A human being who indulges in an incest relationship descends, it is said, to the level of the beast and manifests a depravity of the
worst kind.1

At bar is a mandated automatic review on the findings of the Regional Trial Court ("RTC"), Branch 55, of Himamaylan, Negros
Occidental, which has found herein appellant CLAUDIO GALENO guilty, on five (5) counts, of rape committed against his own
daughter, Jenny Galeno, decreeing thereby the extreme penalty of death on him.

Appellant CLAUDIO GALENO, a.k.a. "Oding," was charged with the crime of RAPE in each of the following informations -

"`That, sometime in the month of August, 1995, in the Municipality of Himamaylan, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the father of the herein offended party, with
lewd design, by means of force, violence and intimidation, and with the use of a deadly weapon, did, then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of and/or sexual intercourse with JENNY GALENO y ABKILAN, 17 years
old, against her will.'

"and

"`That, sometime in the first week of September, 1995, in the Municipality of Himamaylan, Province of Negros Occidental,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the father of the herein
offended party, with lewd design, by means of force, violence and intimidation, and with the use of a deadly weapon, did, then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of and/or sexual intercourse with JENNY GALENO y
ABKILAN, 17 years old, against her will.'

"and

"`That, sometime in the second week of September, 1995, in the Municipality of Himamaylan, Province of Negros Occidental,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the father of the herein
offended party, with lewd design, by means of force, violence and intimidation, and with the use of deadly weapon, did, then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of and/or sexual intercourse with JENNY GALENO y
ABKILAN, 17 years old, against her will.'

"and

"`That, sometime in the third week of September, 1995, in the Municipality of Himamaylan, Province of Negros Occidental,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the father of the herein
offended party, with lewd design, by means of force, violence and intimidation, and with the use of a deadly weapon, did, then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of and/or sexual intercourse with JENNY GALENO y
ABKILAN, 17 years old, against her will.'

"and

"`That, sometime in the fourth week of September, 1995, in the Municipality of Himamaylan, Province of Negros Occidental,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the father of the herein
offended party, with lewd design, by means of force, violence and intimidation, and with the use of a deadly weapon, did, then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of and/or sexual intercourse with JENNY GALENO y
ABKILAN, 17 years old, against her will.'"2

Claudio Galeno pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charges. Joint hearings were conducted, following his arraignment, on the five
cases.

The evidence for the prosecution, in substance, was testified to by private complainant. JENNY A. GALENO, at the witness
stand, claimed to be 17 years old, single, a student and a resident of Sitio Limbo, Barangay Nabali-an, Himamaylan, Negros
Occidental. She was raped on five occasions, she said, by her own father.

The first incident occurred in August 1995 when she was barely sixteen years old. It was noontime. Not having school classes that
day, she was told by her mother to stay home to look after their animals and pets. Her mother and elder brother were then working
in the sugarcane field while her other brothers and sisters were not in the house attending to some other matters. She was resting
inside the room located on the first floor of the house when her father foisted himself upon her, pointed a long sharp bolo at her
neck and told her to completely undress. Overcome by fear, she did just as she was told. She resisted, although in vain, her father's
advances. After taking off his clothes, he forced her legs open and placed himself on top of her. She felt pain when he finally
succeeded in penetrating her. It took her father about half an hour, doing the "push and pull" motion, until she felt his discharge
inside her bleeding vagina. Withdrawing from her, appellant threatened to kill "them all" if she were to tell on him.

Once, during the first week of September 1995, about midnight, she was roused from bed by her father who already had a knife
pointed at her. Her mother was sleeping at the upper part of the house with her other brothers and sisters. Jerked from sleep, she
tried to shout but her father timely covered her mouth with his hand. She struggled to free herself but he was too strong for her. He
removed her panty, placed himself on top of her and, like before, succeeded in taking her.

A week later, the second week of September 1995, also about midnight, she awoke when her father held both her hands and
forthwith covered her mouth. He spread her legs open and raped her for the third time. By then, she was determined to report the
matter to her mother but as she was about to do so, her father looked at her with piercing eyes while holding a bolo in his hand.
She was immediately silenced.

Around the third week of the same month, at noontime, appellant, armed with the same weapon, forced himself on Jenny. When
she refused to submit to his sexual demands, appellant held her hands, covered her mouth and forced himself on her for the fourth
time.

The fifth and last incident happened during the fourth week of September 1995. It was no different from what she experienced
before – except that this time, the sexual assault by her father took place at the second floor of their house.

Alarmed by the fact that her monthly period had failed to arrive, Jenny took "penbid" drugs to induce her menstruation. On 04
March 1996, by now worried, she consulted Dr. Jocson at the Doctor's Hospital in Bacolod City. She was discovered to be
pregnant. On 31 May 1996, she delivered a baby boy. The "hilot," ELISA TEJIDO, testified that on 31 May 1996, about two
o'clock in the morning, she was fetched by OFELIA GALENO (mother of Jenny) to assist Jenny who evidently was experiencing
labor pains. When she asked who sired the child, Jenny answered that it was her father.

The defense, controverting the evidence given by the prosecution, submitted differently. Appellant Galeno testified that in August
1995, when the alleged rape took place for the first time, he was busily engaged in weeding the sugarcane field with his wife. The
couple did not go home for lunch because they brought along the food with them. It was only in the afternoon that they returned
home. During the first week of September 1995, when the second rape supposedly occurred, he left the house as early as four-
thirty in the morning. His wife joined him a few hours later. He went home at about four-thirty in the afternoon. Around the
second week of September 1995, when the third rape was said to have occurred, he was likewise in the sugarcane field, leaving
the house at five o'clock in the morning and going back home at four-thirty in the afternoon. When the supposed fourth and fifth
incidents of rape took place during the third and fourth week of September 1995, he was not home, having left with his wife, with
food provisions, at five o'clock in the morning for the sugarcane field where they stayed until about four-thirty in the afternoon.
On the whole, he asserted, there was never an instance when he was home at about noontime.

Later in his testimony, however, he changed tune and admitted having had sexual congress with his daughter. He testified:

"QUESTION: In the course of your testimony you admitted having a sexual intercourse with Gina?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: How many times?
"ANSWER: I cannot remember how many times.
"QUESTION: But the fact is there were many times?
"ANSWER: I just cannot be sure.
"QUESTION: Could have it been twice?
"ANSWER: Maybe more than two (2) times.
"QUESTION: Four (4) times.
"ANSWER: Maybe around that number.
"QUESTION: But definitely it was not six (6) times?
"ANSWER: No, sir.
"x x x xxx xxx

"QUESTION: The first time you fuck your daughter Jenny was she still studying?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: Where did you fuck your daughter the first time, in what place?
"ANSWER: In our house.
"QUESTION: What time did you did it happen?
"ANSWER: Night time.
"QUESTION: The second time?
"ANSWER: During the day time.
"QUESTION: Were you not confused that it might be at the first time in the noon and second, evening?
"ANSWER: I am sure the first time was during night time and the second time day time.
"QUESTION: During 3rd time?
"ANSWER: Also day time.
"QUESTION: The 4th time?
"ANSWER: Also day time."3

After hearing both parties at the trial, the court a quo passed judgment thusly:

"WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises and considerations, the court finds the accused, Claudio Galeno y Magbanua
alias `Oding', guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) counts of rape and he is hereby sentenced to suffer five (5) death
penalties.

"The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the victim the sum of P250,000.00 with accessory penalties."4

In his appeal to this Court, the convicted accused assigned a lone but encompassing error –

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT CLAUDIO GALENO Y MAGBANUA GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF FIVE (5) COUNTS OF RAPE AND IN SENTENCING HIM TO SUFFER FIVE (5)
DEATH PENALTIES"5 -

bewailing his conviction and the imposition of the penalty of death by the trial court.

Appellant would have it that the coitus between him and his daughter were all consensual. She never had once resisted, he argued,
in any of the incidents of rape complained of. No weapon was used, nor was force or intimidation employed, in their sexual
intercourse. The complainant had all the opportunity to report the matter to her mother, brothers or sisters, or to the police, but she
instead kept mum and only mentioned it for the first time when she was discovered to be pregnant. The element of force or
intimidation, expressed in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, could not be substituted, appellant would claim, by the mere
moral ascendancy or influence he might have had on his daughter. In any event, he averred, he could only be held guilty of simple
rape, the prosecution having failed to conclusively establish that Jenny was under 18 years of age at the time the acts complained
of were committed.

Thus, like in most cases of this nature, it is the word of the complainant pitted against that of the accused. This issue, being one of
credibility or that which bears on the veracity of conflicting testimony, this Court would be rightly bound by the evaluation made
by the trial judge before whom the declarants have been seen, heard and observed during the oral testimony.

The Court finds no cogent reason to discard the assessment made by the court a quo giving full credence to the testimony of the
complainant and rejecting that of appellant who, in fact, has given a dissonant defense, at first claiming denial and alibi and then
ultimately asseverating consensuality in the incest relationship. There is no valid justification, upon the other hand, for
disbelieving Jenny Galeno whose testimony, the trial court has aptly described, appears to be "spontaneous, unflinching and
straightforward." Thus:

"QUESTION: Awhile ago, Miss Witness, you testified that you were raped by your father for the first time sometime in
August, 1995, could you please narrate to this Honorable Court what particular day in August, 1995 you were
raped by your father?
"ANSWER: There was no class at that day.
"QUESTION: What day of the week?
"ANSWER: I cannot recall what day but I can only remember that there was no class.
"QUESTION: What time of the day did your father rape you?
"ANSWER: It was noontime.
"QUESTION: Where were you raped by your father sometime in August 1995?
"ANSWER: Inside our house.
"QUESTION: Where is your house located?
"ANSWER: So. Limbo, Brgy. Nabali-an, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental.
"x x x xxx xxx

"QUESTION: Now, could you please narrate to this court how your father raped you in August, 1995?
"ANSWER: He pointed a long sharp bolo at my neck and told me to undress myself.
"QUESTION: What were you doing before your father raped you?
"ANSWER: I was sitting downstairs, lying and listening to the radio because I was alone.
"QUESTION: Now, you said that your mother was out at that time including your brothers and sisters, why is it that you were
alone in your house?
"ANSWER: Because I was told by my mother not to go out to watch our animals and pets around.
"QUESTION: You said that your father pointed a bolo at your neck before he raped you, why, where did your father bring you
and what part of your house were you raped by your father?
"ANSWER: Inside the room of our house.
"QUESTION: And could you describe in details how your father raped you?
"ANSWER: He pointed a bolo at my neck and told me to undress myself. I don't want to do it but I was afraid the bolo might
cut my neck, so, I obeyed what he said.
"QUESTION: You said that he told you to undress, did you undress?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: After you undress, what happened next?
"ANSWER: He laid me down.
"QUESTION: Did you lie down voluntarily?
"ANSWER: No, sir, he forced me to lie down.
"QUESTION: Did you struggle not to lie down?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: Were you able to free yourself?
"ANSWER: I struggled to free myself but he was stronger than I am, being a man, so, I was not able to do it.
"QUESTION: After you lay down what happened next?
"ANSWER: He also undressed himself.
"QUESTION: You said he took off something, what did he take off?
"ANSWER: His short pants.
"QUESTION: How about his clothes?
"ANSWER: Only his brief but his shirt was left.
"QUESTION: After he took off his brief, what happened next?
"ANSWER: He let me spread out my legs.
"QUESTION: Then after that, what happened?
"ANSWER: He placed himself on top of me.
"QUESTION: While he was on top of you, did you struggle?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: Were you able to free yourself when he was already on top of you?
"ANSWER: No, sir.
"QUESTION: After that, what happened next when he was already on top of you?
"ANSWER: He made a motion of push and pull.
"QUESTION: That was already when he was on top of you?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: When he was making this motion of push and pull, what did you do?
"ANSWER: I felt that there was something getting inside my vagina.
"QUESTION: Do you know what was that something getting inside your vagina?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir, his penis.
"QUESTION: And how long did he do that?
"ANSWER: About half an hour.
"QUESTION: And after half an hour, what did he do?
"ANSWER: He pull out his penis and I felt something hot inside my vagina.
"QUESTION: You said, awhile ago, that he was holding a bolo while he was on top of you, making a push and pull, where was
the bolo?
"ANSWER: The bolo was still pointing at my neck.
"QUESTION: And according to you, when you were already lying down, he took off his shorts, where was the bolo when he
was taking of his shorts?
"ANSWER: He was still holding the bolo.
"QUESTION: And could you show or describe to this Honorable Court how was he able to spread your legs?
"ANSWER: His other hand was holding my legs and his other hand was holding the bolo.
"QUESTION: For about thirty minutes, he withdrew his penis from your private part, after he withdrew his penis from your
private part, did you feel anything?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: What?
"ANSWER: Pain.
"QUESTION: In what part of your body did you feel the pain?
"ANSWER: In my vagina.
"QUESTION: Did you examine what was it, why it is that it was painful?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: Did you discover anything?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir, it was bleeding.

"x x x xxx xxx

"QUESTION: How did your father raped you for the second time during the first week of September, 1995?
"ANSWER: He pointed a knife at my leftside.
"QUESTION: What were you exactly doing when your father raped you for the second time?
"ANSWER: I was sleeping.
"QUESTION: Where?
"ANSWER: Downstairs.

"x x x xxx xxx


"QUESTION: According to you, your father pointed a knife at the left side of your body, after that, what did he do?
"ANSWER: He removed my panty and he placed himself on top of me.
"QUESTION: Awhile ago, you said that you were sleeping and then your father pointed a knife, were you surprised?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir, I was surprised.
"QUESTION: Did you shout because you were surprised?
"ANSWER: He covered my mouth with his hand.
"QUESTION: Did you struggle?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: Were you able to free yourself from him?
"ANSWER: No, sir.
"QUESTION: Why?
"ANSWER: Because he was strong.
"QUESTION: Can you describe how long was that knife?
"ANSWER: About 10 inches.
"QUESTION: After your father pointed a knife at the side of your body, what did he do?
"ANSWER: He removed my panty.
"QUESTION: What else did he do?
"ANSWER: He placed his body on top of me.
"QUESTION: What did he do while he was on top of you?
"ANSWER: He made a motion of push and pull.

"x x x xxx xxx

"QUESTION: Could you describe again to this Honorable Court how your father raped you for the third time in the second
week of
September, 1995?
"ANSWER: He was holding my hands so that I cannot move and at the same time covering my mouth.
"QUESTION: In what particular part of your house did your father rape you for the third time on the second week of
September,
1995?
"ANSWER: The same – downstairs.
"QUESTION: How did your father raped you?
"ANSWER: He was holding my hands and covering my mouth and then he spread out my legs.
"QUESTION: Since this happened at nighttime, where was your mother at that time?
"ANSWER: My mother was sleeping upstairs.
"QUESTION: How about your brothers and sisters?
"ANSWER: They were also sleeping.
"QUESTION: How about you, where were you sleeping at that time?
"ANSWER: I was sleeping downstairs.
"QUESTION: Who was your companion, if any, sleeping downstairs?
"ANSWER: My brother who was also sleeping on the other bed.
"QUESTION: How about your father?
Did you report this incident after your father repeatedly raped you for the third time?
"ANSWER: No, sir.
"QUESTION: Why?
"ANSWER: Because whenever I came near to my mother, he looked at me with a piercing eyes and at the same time he will
hold a bolo.
"QUESTION: How about the fourth time that your father raped you, where did this happen?
"ANSWER: The same – in our house.
"QUESTION: And how did your father raped you, will you please describe before this Honorable Court?
"ANSWER: He forced me even if I refused.
"QUESTION: Did he have any weapon when he raped you for the fourth time?
"ANSWER: Yes, sir.
"QUESTION: What?
"ANSWER: The same – knife.
"QUESTION: And could you remember the day of the week when he raped you for the fourth time?
"ANSWER: I think it was Saturday because I have no class at that time.
"QUESTION: What time of the day did your father rape you for the fourth time?
"ANSWER: Noon time.
"QUESTION: Do you have any companion when your father raped you for the fourth time on the third week of September
1995?
"ANSWER: I was alone.

"x x x xxx xxx


"QUESTION: How about for the fifth and the last time, how did your father rape you?
"ANSWER: If I will not submit to what he wants, he will kill us all.
"QUESTION: Where did he rape you?
"ANSWER: In our house also.
"QUESTION: In what particular part of your house?
"ANSWER: Inside our room.
"QUESTION: Ground floor or second floor?
"ANSWER: Upstairs."6

It is said that it would hardly be conceivable for a young lass, such as Jenny in this case, to weave a story against her own father
and put the family honor at stake, for no compelling and just cause. No woman, for that matter, would wish to go through the
humiliating trial for such an outrageous offense and senseless depravity unless she truly has been the victim of abuse.7 The
records do not disclose even an attempt to impute ill motives against Jenny other than an alleged intent to conceal an incestuous
sexual union.

The defense of "mutuality" is a much-abused defense that often derides the intelligence of a court and only serves to test its
patience. The failure of Jenny to shout or to successfully resist her father do not mean her having necessarily consented to the
dastardly acts. If resistance would be futile, then offering none certainly is no consent by the victim to the sexual act.8 It is, in fact,
a doctrine that in a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the
latter could be more than sufficient to cow the child-victim to submission. It is this rationale that the Court would at times state
that such ascendancy and influence could be equated to the requisite "violence or intimidation that normally is otherwise
characterized by physical acts or uttered threats."

Jenny may have failed to promptly report the matter to her relatives and to the police but that should not imply that her charges
have been fabricated. It is not unknown for rape victims to suffer, initially at least, in silence. The Court takes judicial notice of a
young woman's inbred modesty and shyness and her antipathy in publicly airing acts which blemish her honor and virtue.9 Rape
stigmatizes the victim not the perpetrator.10

Appellant, nevertheless, cannot be meted the capital penalty of death. Under Section 11(1) of Republic Act No. 7659,11 in
relation to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty may be imposed when the rape victim is under eighteen (18)
years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her filiation
with the accused is essential to qualify the crime and warrant the imposition of the death penalty.12 The twin circumstances are
required to be duly alleged and proved.13

While the father-daughter relationship of herein appellant and the complainant was alleged and established, the latter's minority,
however, although similarly alleged, was not satisfactorily established. Except for the bare testimony of complainant of being still
a minor when the offenses charged were committed, no other evidence was adduced to support the statement. It was not explained
why a duly certified certificate of live birth, that could have accurately shown the age of complainant, or a document recognized
to be competent evidence14 for like purpose, had not been duly presented. Nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every
fact necessary to constitute the crime must be substantiated for the extreme penalty of death to be upheld. Verily, the minority of
the victim should not only be alleged but likewise be proved with such equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.15

Relative to the award of damages in favor of complainant, the Court reiterates the rule that a rape victim is entitled to the grant of
P50,000.00 civil indemnity16 as being the equivalent and in the concept of compensatory damages,17 a separate award of
P50,000.00 moral damages based on a jural foundation that refers to the victim's shame, mental anguish, besmirched reputation,
moral shock and social humiliation which rape necessarily brings to the offended party,18 and a further amount of P25,000.00
exemplary damages on account of the relationship between the accused and the victim that exacerbates the offense.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the court a quo convicting the accused of five counts of rape is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that appellant should be, as hereby he is, sentenced to suffer five terms of reclusion perpetua and to pay
complainant Jenny Galeno P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00 moral damages, and P30,000.00 exemplary damages, for each
of the five counts of rape or, altogether, a grand sum of P650,000.00. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-
Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 125763 October 13, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMMANUEL PANIQUE, accused-appellant.

MENDOZA, J.:

For automatic review before this Court is the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 259, of Parañaque, rendered on August
12, 1996, in Criminal Case No. 96-533, finding accused-appellant Emmanuel Panique guilty of rape.

The complainant, Geraldine Panique, is the eldest child of accused-appellant by his wife Susana Buenaventura Panique. 1
Geraldine was born in Parañaque, Metro Manila, on May 13, 1981. 2 When her mother went to Hong Kong to work as a domestic
helper, 3 complainant and her siblings were left to the care of accused-appellant in the Philippines in their single-bedroom house
at 5208 P. Dandan Street, La Huerta, in Parañaque, Metro Manila. 4

Complainant slept in the same bedroom with her sister and accused-appellant. Complainant and accused-appellant shared the
lower bunk of a double-deck bed while her sister took the upper bunk. 5 At around 12:00 midnight of May 22, 1996, while
complainant was asleep, accused-appellant laid himself on top of her. When she awoke, she found accused-appellant fondling her
breasts even as he inserted his penis into her vagina. All she could do was cry, because she was afraid of her father whom she
knew was hooked on drugs. 6

Complainant related her ordeal the following day to her friends, Jenalyn Destreza and Graffe Janson. 7 She knew no one else to
turn to. On May 25, 1996, she attempted to kill herself by taking an overdose of drugs. 8 At the last minute, however, she sought
help from her uncle, Frederico Panique, the brother of accused-appellant. 9 Her uncle took her to Pasay City to her maternal aunt,
Josephine Buenaventura 10 who, upon learning what had happened to complainant, sent word to complainant's mother in Hong
Kong. The latter arrived in the Philippines the following day. Complainant, accompanied by her mother and aunt, went to Camp
Crame where she was examined. She, her mother Susana Panique, and aunt Josephine Buenaventura, gave sworn statements. 11

On June 5, 1996, an information for rape was filed against accused-appellant alleging —

That on or about the 22nd day of May, 1996, in the Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant Geraldine Panique against her will and consent.1âwphi1.nêt

CONTRARY TO LAW

Parañaque, Metro Manila

May 30, 1996. 12

The accused-appellant was thereupon arraigned, during which he entered a plea of not guilty. 13

During the trial, complainant recounted how she was ravished by her father, the herein accused-appellant. She testified that this
was not the first occasion that he had raped her. He had been sexually abusing her since March 1993, when she was only 12 years
old. 14 On cross-examination, complainant stated that she had no boyfriends nor suitors; 15 that accused-appellant had no history
of violence towards them except towards her brother; 16 that although she and her sister slept in the same room, the latter did not
notice anything during the incident; 17 that her academic performance in school had suffered as a result of her trauma; 18 and that
she did not report the first rape to anyone because her aunt had been very ill and she knew no one else to whom she could confide.
19

Susana Panique and Josephine Buenaventura also testified, affirming their sworn statements in which they narrated how they
learned of the rape.

The medico-legal report shows that complainant is a "non-virgin"; that there are no external signs of any form of violence; and
that complainant's vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative of spermatozoa. 20 Also offered in evidence for the prosecution
are the marriage certificate, dated May 22, 1980, between accused-appellant and complainant's mother; 21 complainant's birth
certificate; 22 the sworn statements of Susana Panique, 23 complainant, 24 and Josephine Buenaventura; 25 and the joint
affidavits of Police Inspector Romulo Reyes and PO3 Gil Ancheta. 26

When accused-appellant testified, he admitted that complainant is his daughter 27 and that he had sexual intercourse with her on
the night of May 22, 1996. 28 He testified that he had many problems and was angry at his wife 29 but denied using force of
intimidation against complainant. 30 Apart from accused-appellant's testimony, no other evidence was presented by the defense.

The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and
sentenced him as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding accused Emmanuel Panique GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt [of] the crime of
Rape as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 11, RA 7659, this Court hereby
sentences him [with] the penalty of DEATH and to suffer the accessory penalties provided by law specifically Art. 40 of the
Revised Penal Code. For the civil liability, he is hereby further condemned to indemnify the victim the amount of P50,000.00 in
line with existing jurisprudence; P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

The Clerk of Court, Atty. Clemente E. Boloy, is directed to prepare the Mittimus for the immediate transfer of accused Emmanuel
Panique from the Parañaque Municipal Jail to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City and finally to forward all the records
of this case to the Supreme Court for automatic review in accordance with Section 9 Rule 122 of the Rules of Court and Article 47
of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659.

SO ORDERED. 31

Accused-appellant's sole assignment of error in this appeal is that the prosecution failed to prove that he had used force or
intimidation in having sexual intercourse with his daughter. He claims that complainant's lack of resistance is proof that he did not
use force or intimidation.

Accused-appellant contends:

The evidence clearly show that resistance was not present when accused was on top of her and inserting his penis. She did not do
anything but yielded to the accused. As a matter of fact, after the sexual intercourse, accused lay beside her and place his legs on
top of her thighs and was touching her breast . . . .

xxx xxx xxx

Indeed, "a woman's most precious asset is the purity of her womanhood. She will resist to the last ounce of her strength any
attempt to defile it" (People vs. Tapao, 195 Phil. 203 (1981). It is all the more unnatural and unbelievable that a woman whose
honor had just been outraged would do nothing to immediately bring the culprit to justice (People vs. Estacio, G.R. No. 54221,
January 30, 1932; 111 SCRA 537). . .

Accused-appellant's contention has no merit.

It is settled that the evaluation of testimonies of the witnesses by the trial court is binding upon the appellate court in the absence
of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value
which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. 32 The affirmance of accused-appellant's conviction is in accordance with
standards which have guided this Court in evaluating evidence in cases of this nature, to wit: (a) an accusation of rape can be
made with facility; it is difficult to prove it but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (b) in view
of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 33

Indeed, the only question here is whether the prosecution's evidence shows the use of force or intimidation by accused-appellant
in order to have carnal knowledge of his daughter since accused-appellant admits having had sexual intercourse with complainant
on the night of May 22, 1996.

Complainant was not a flirt or seductress who tempted her father. What is "unnatural and unbelievable," to use accused-appellant's
words, is that she would want to have sex with her own father. To the contrary, the evidence shows there was intimidation.
Complainant testified —

Q: Now you claim that you know Emmanuel Panique, is he present in the courtroom?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you please point to him?
A: Yes, sir.
(Witness pointed to a man who identified himself as EMMANUEL PANIQUE)
Q: Ms. Witness, you are the private complainant who caused the filing of [a] criminal case for rape against your father?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you still recall Ms. Witness when was the last time your father allegedly raped you?
A: May 22, 1996, sir.
Q: Where did this alleged rape happen?
A: In our house, sir.
Q: Located where?
A: La Huerta, Parañaque, sir.
Q: Will you please tell this Honorable [Court] the specific address of your residence?
A: 5208 P. Dandan St., La Huerta, Parañaque, Metro Manila.

COURT:
How big is that house?
A: Small house and squatters area.
FISCAL:
How many room[s] does this house have?
A: 1 bedroom, sir.
Q: At around 12:00 midnight on May 22, 1996, where were you Ms. Witness?
A: I was sleeping.
Q: Where were you sleeping then?
A: In our bedroom, sir.
Q: Were you then [on] the floor sleeping or [on the] bed?
A: Bed, sir.
Q: When you woke up, what did you see if any?
A: I saw my father on top of me.
Q: Your father, Emmanuel Panique, the accused in this case?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was he then doing on top of you if any Ms. witness?
A: He was trying to insert his penis inside my organ and he was touching my breast.
Q: Why Ms. witness when you woke up, [w]hat was your appearance then?
A: I was shocked and I cried.
Q: Appearance Madam Witness?
A: My t-shirt was already raised up and my shorts were removed but my underwear is removed only from one leg.
Q: While your father the accused in this case was starting to insert his penis [into] your private organ, what did you do if
any?
A: Nothing, sir I just cr[ied] because I was so frightened.
Q: Why?
A: I was frightened because he might do something against me and I know he was using prohibited drugs.
Q: Ms. Witness, did he or did he not succeed in inserting his penis inside your private organ?
A: Yes, sir. He was able.
Q: Why do you say that he succeed[ed] in inserting his penis to your vagina?
A: Because I felt [hurt] inside my vagina, sir.
Q: Inside what?
A: Inside my vagina, sir.
Q: While your father has already inserted his penis inside your private organ, what was he doing while on top of you?
A: He was touching my breast.
Q: Aside from touching your breast?
A: He was on top of me.
Q: Did you not notice any movement on his part?
A: He was trying to push.
Q: Meaning to say, his body was undulating?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: After that, what happened next?
A: He stopped and he put his legs on my thighs and he lay beside me.
Q: While your father was doing that, what were you doing if any?
A: I was praying because I was frightened.
Q: After that, what happened?
A: He stood up. Then, he went back of the room and fixed my clothes.
Q: Meaning to say, your father was the one who put back your underwear and put your shorts into [the] proper place?
A: Yes, sir. 34

Complainant was afraid of accused-appellant. She feared she would be harmed if she resisted. She knew he was hooked on drugs.
She did not have to be intimidated in so many words in order to make her submit to his sexual desires. All she could do was cry
and pray.

Moreover, the assailant was her father who had considerable moral ascendancy and influence over her. As we have said in another
case:

In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitutes
for violence or intimidation. That ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the father's parental authority, which the
Constitution and the laws recognize, support and enhance, as well as from the children's duty to obey and observe reverence and
respect towards their parents. Such reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds of Filipino children and are recognized
by law. Abuse of both by a father can subjugate his daughter's will, thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants. 35

Accused-appellant's moral ascendancy over complainant was reinforced by the fact that since his wife had gone to Hong Kong to
work there, accused-appellant alone exercised parental authority over his children. The overpowering moral influence of accused-
appellant as a father took the place of violence and made his carnal knowledge of his daughter rape. 36

The fact that complainant was below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime and that accused-appellant is her
ascendant would have called for the imposition of the death penalty on accused-appellant. However, complainant's minority and
relationship to the offender were nor alleged in the information. The minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender
constitute a special qualifying circumstance which should be alleged in the information and proved to warrant the imposition of
the death penalty. 37 For this reason, the death penalty imposed on him should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

The trial court correctly awarded an indemnity of P50,000.00 in favor of complainant in line with existing jurisprudence. 38 In
addition, however, complainant should be paid P50,000.00 as moral damages. 39 On the other hand, the award of exemplary
damages should be deleted for lack of basis. 40

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 259, in Criminal Case No. 96-533 is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant's sentence is reduced to RECLUSION PERPETUA, but he is
ordered to pay complainant P50,000.00 as moral damages, in addition to the P50,000.00 he was ordered to pay as indemnity. The
award of exemplary damages is deleted.1âwphi1.nêt

SO ORDERED.

Melo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., are on leave on official business.
G.R. No. 126199 December 8, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO SEVILLA, accused-appellant.

PER CURIAM:

For automatic review here is the judgment rendered by Branch 90 1 of the Regional Trial Court in Dasmarinas, Cavite, finding
accused-appellant Ernesto Sevilla guilty of incestuous rape and sentencing him to suffer the ultimate penalty of DEATH.

Filed and docketed on March 21, 1994 as Criminal Case No. 3143-94, the Information indicting accused-appellant, alleges:

That on or about the 15th day of January 1994, in the Municipality of Dasmarinas, Province of Cavite, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, using force and intimidation, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, did then and
there, lie and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her (sic) fourteen (14) years (sic) old daughter Myra Sevilla y Deslate,
against her will and to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 2

With accused-appellant, assisted by his counsel, Atty. Noel R. Marquez, entering a plea of "Not Guilty" upon arraignment on
April 27, 1995, trial ensued.

On August 28, 1996, after trial, the lower court a quo came out with the Decision finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime
charged and sentencing him, thus:

WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused ERNESTO SEVILLA having been established beyond a scintilla of doubt, the Court
hereby pronounces him GUILTY of the indictment for Rape. Under the above-quoted law, the Court sentences him with the
penalty of DEATH. The aforenamed accused is also mandated to pay to the private complainant the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000) by way of moral damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

SO ORDERED. 3

In arriving at its aforesaid conclusion, the trial court gave credence to and placed reliance on the version of the complainant of
what the accused-appellant did to her, to wit:

On January 15, 1994, at about three o'clock dawn, she was sleeping soundly beside her younger brother in their one-roon (sic)
residence at Area G, Dasmarinas, Cavite. She and her brother were left in the sole care of their father, the accused herein, since
their mother was confined in a hospital due to an operation. On the said date and time, Myra reluctantly roused from her slumber
when she felt that somebody was touching her body. As her eyes got accustomed to the dimness, she was startled to behold her
father on top of her. She was then unceremoniously stripped of her clothing and while she cowered in her nudity, her father
proceeded to bare himself. Thereafter, the accused mounted her, spread her legs apart and thrust his manhood into her genitals.
Myra agonized in silence. Sheer terror effectively stifled her voice and waned her resolve to withstand the assault. In a few
moments, accused's libidinous desire was totally satiated. Nonchalantly, he dressed up, directed Myra to do the same and then
capped his lecherous act with a stern warning that she should not disclose the matter to anyone, or else, she, her mother and her
brother will be slain.

Soon it was daylight and the accused, a carpenter, casually left for work. Myra and her brother remained at home and whiled away
their time watching the television. At about seven o'clock in the evening of the same date (sic), their two aunts arrived and
informed them that their mother was already discharged from the hospital. Myra asked to be taken to her mother, and upon seeing
her, Myra refused to part with her. Unable to bear the dread and the disgrace brought about by her revolting ordeal, Myra broke
down and divulged how she was violated by her own father. She further revealed that he started making sexual advances on her
since she was six years old.

xxx xxx xxx

. . . . . . Myra, her mother and her aunt Elva trooped to the National Bureau of Investigation on January 19, 1994, to lodge a formal
complaint. Thereat, Myra executed a sworn statement (Exhibit "D") and signed a Complaint Sheet (Exhibit "E") stating therein the
circumstances that led to her physical defilement. She aslo (sic) willingly submitted to a medico-genital examination pursuant to
the request form which her mother was asked to sign (Exhibit "A"). . . . 4

Aside from complainant Myra Sevilla herself, Dr. Juan B. Zaldarriaga, Jr. of the Medico-Legal Division of the NBI testified for
the prosecution. Embodied in Living Case No. MG-94-72, 5 the findings of Dr. Zaldarriaga, Jr. indicated:

1. No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination.

2. Hymen, intact but distensible and its orifice wide (2.5 cms. in diameter) as to allow complete penetration by an average-
sized, adult, Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any hymenal laceration.
Accused-appellant put up the defense of denial. He theorized thus: On January 15, 1994, he reached home from work, at around
six o'clock in the evening, and slept at nine o'clock. 6 That night, his wife was not in their house as she was confined in the
hospital. 7 He, Myra and his two other children slept together, and as their house did not have any partition, the children slept near
the window while he slept near the door of the house. 8

Insisting that he could not possibly do such a dastardly act against his own daughter, accused-appellant contended that Myra must
have been coaxed by his sister-in-law, Elva Deslate, into lodging the present charge of rape against him. 9 As to the motive of his
sister-in-law in instigating the institution of the case, accused-appellant opined that he had a long-standing conflict with his sister-
in-law, 10 and he further incurred Elva's ire when he failed to attend to his wife's hospitalization. 11

Accused-appellant did not present any witness to reinforce his testimony.

The court a quo found the sum and substance of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses deserving of faith and reliance.
Convinced that accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and heeding the mandate of the law
under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 7659, the trial court unhesitatingly meted out the
prescribed penalty of death.

Represented by Atty. Ramon Gatchalian of the Public Attorney's Office, accused-appellant urges this Court to acquit him, on the
basis of lone assignment of error, that:

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF RAPE AND
SENTENCING HIM TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF DEATH.

In the Appellant's Brief, Public Attorney Gatchalian exhorts this Court to weigh and take into account "every minute inconsistency
and flaw in the evidence of the prosecution" since "a human life is at stake". 12 "Any iota of doubt that could be squeezed from
the same should be resolved in favor of the accused." 13

Rest assured, this Court has meticulously examined the records and the evidence on hand. Aware of the gravity and irreversibility
of the penalty attached to the offense of which accused-appellant was pronounced guilty by the court of origin, this Court studied
and viewed the arguments and evidence in proper perspective and exerted its utmost effort to ensure that no stone is left unturned.

To destroy the credibility of Myra's testimony which accused-appellant brands uncorroborated, the latter maintains that it is
"puzzling that in all those years of languishing in the shadow of the accused's licentious bestiality, the complainant never once
complained about the same to her mother nor to her aunties. Moreover, it is likewise perplexing that she would only complain
about one rape in the light of all those years of sexual abuse." 14 Accused-appellant further makes capital of the fact that Myra
"failed to scream or to shout during the alleged rape on January 15, 1994 to alarm her older sister and younger brother", 15
thereby shedding doubt on her credibility.

The Court is not persuaded by accused-appellant's submission.

As held by this Court in People vs. Miranda, 16 there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one has just been
confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience as heinous as the crime of rape and not every victim to a crime can be
expected to act reasonably and conformably with the expectation of mankind.

The fact that Myra did not complain to her mother or her aunts about the sexual abuses committed by her father against her for
eight long years, is of no moment. Myra, who was of a very tender age when the horrible events in her life began to unfold, could
have, in all probability, been confused and bewildered by her experience that for more than half of her young life, she was
shocked into utter insensibility.

It is not unlikely that it is for the same reason that she failed to scream or shout while she was being ravished by her own father on
the night of January 15, 1994. Shock must have totally overtaken the young Myra, so much so, that she was not able to signify
even a whimper of protest or call the attention of her other siblings who were sleeping in the same room. This is aside from the
fact that, as correctly rationalized by the trial court, fear and shame must have prevented the young girl from taking up the courage
to report the molestation at the soonest possible time. On direct examination by counsel, Myra testified thus:

xxx xxx xxx


Q And what did your father do when you tried to wiggle?
A He still inserted his organ inside my organ, ma'am.
Q Did you not shout for help when your father was doing that to you?
A No, ma'am.
Q Why?
A I was afraid of his strength and he said that he will kill all of us, ma'am. 17

During cross-examination, Myra also testified in this wise:


Q At the time you were being abused by your father, were you attending school?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you not reveal this to your guidance counsellor or to your teacher-in-charge?
A No, sir. I was embarassed about the situation.

xxx xxx xxx


Q You said you were boxed by your father. Where were you boxed?
A He boxed me on my thigh, sir, everytime he used me.
Q On January 15, 1994, how many times did he box you?
A Just once, sir.
Q On the following day, did you notice a contusion?
A It was slightly bruised, sir.
Q You also mentioned that you were threatened by your father. When were you threatened by your father?
A Since I was six years old up to now, sir.
Q How did your father threaten you?
A He threaten (sic) me by saying that I should not report this incident to my mother or to anyone or else, he would kill us
all.
Q But when your father made this threat, he was not holding any knife or bladed instrument?
A Yes, sir. 18

It bears stressing that in cases of incestuous rape, the father's moral ascendancy over the victim substitutes for violence or
intimidation and reinforces the fear which compels the victim to conceal her dishonor. Myra was sufficiently cowed into silence
by the physical and moral influence which accused-appellant exercised over her even though he may have been unarmed.

Accused-appellant argues "that there is a possibility that the current state of complainant's genitals was induced by the insertion of
a foreign object into the same". 19 More so, accused-appellant points out, that "complainant's non-virginity could have been
caused by anyone (sic) act of the alleged acts of lasciviousness committed against her by the accused." 20

Assuming for the sake of argument that Myra's non-virgin state could have been a result of acts other than the rape committed on
the night of January 15, 1994, the same does not altogether negate the fact of rape. It could very well be that Myra was deflowered
at some other time and circumstance, but this does not necessarily prove that the events leading to accused-appellant's indictment
did not happen. Clearly, the cause of Myra's non-virginity is immaterial in the present case. If at all, the "condition of
complainant's genitals" as contained in a medical report is merely corroborative and is not indispensable.

Besides, such an assumption cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal declaration of complainant that she was in fact
raped by her own father. On this point, Myra declared, thus:

xxx xxx xxx

Q When did this touching and kissing happen?


A It started when I was six years old.
Q How many times did your father touch you and kiss you?
A Several times, ma'am.
Q Where did he touch you?
A He touched my breasts, ma'am.
Q Where did he kiss you?
A He kissed me on my lips, ma'am.

Fiscal de Castro Aside from kissing you and touching you, what else did your father do to you?

Witness He did a lot of things to me, ma'am.

Q Can you tell the Honorable Court what those things are?
A He often looked at my organ, ma'am.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Now, madam witness, on January 15, 1994, at about 3:00 a.m/ (sic), do you remember where you were?
A I was in our house, ma'am.
Q What were you doing then?
A I was sleeping then, ma'am.
Q While you were sleeping on that date and time, do you remember any unusual incident that happened?
A I felt that somebody was touching me and when I woke up, I saw him on top of me, ma'am.
Q You said "him", who was that "him"?
A My father, ma'am.
Q After you woke up, what happened?
A When I woke up, I saw him on top of me and then he undressed me. He likewise undressed himself and then he placed
his sex organ on top of my organ. He thereafter made an up-and-down motion.
Q On that particular date, what did your father do to you?

Witness He undressed me and he likewise undressed himself. He then placed his organ in my organ and made an up-and-down
motion.

Q Did he insert his organ inside your organ?


A Yes, ma'am.
Q Was that the first time that your father placed his sex organ inside your sex organ?
A Yes, ma'am.

xxx xxx xxx 21

The Court finds no basis for reversing the finding below that the above-quoted testimony is truthful and credible. In the decision
under review, the trial court stated that "Myra Sevilla had indeed vividly displayed bitterness, anguish, and hatred when she took
the witness stand on October 26, 1994." 22 It also observed that Myra "likewise unmasked her sentiments through eloquent body
movements" 23 and so found that the straightforward and candid statements of the victim must perforce prevail over the bare
denials of accused-appellant.

As a general rule, this Court will not unduly disturb the findings of the trial court on matters relating to the issue of credibility of
witnesses. The determination by the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses is usually accorded great weight and respect
since the trial court had the distinct advantage and singular opportunity to observe the witnesses during examination through the
different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood. 24 Absent any showing that certain facts of substance and significance have been
plainly overlooked or that the trial court's findings are clearly arbitrary, 25 the conclusions reached by the court of origin must be
respected and the judgment rendered affirmed.

Accused-appellant flatly denies that the incident complained of ever took place. However, other than his own assertions, accused-
appellant did not come forward with any evidence which would convince the Court that he is innocent of the charge proffered
against him. This Court has consistently held in a long line of cases, 26 that with respect to denial, it is inherently a weak defense
which cannot prevail over positive identifications. It must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.
Otherwise, the same is self-serving and deserves no greater evidentiary value. Affirmative testimony like that of the victim is
stronger than a negative one.

In the case under scrutiny, although the narration of events was uncorroborated, the Court nonetheless upholds the same for the
reason that in crimes of the nature now on appeal, the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction if such
testimony is credible. Thus, accused-appellant's stance that the prosecution should have presented Myra's siblings as well as her
aunt, Elva Deslate, as corroborating witnesses in the case, does not hold water. By the very nature of rape cases, conviction or
acquittal depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony, the fact being that usually, only the participants
therein can testify as to its occurrence. 27 To repeat, the prosecution is not bound to present witnesses other than the offended
party and accused-appellant can be convicted on the sole basis of the victim's oral evidence.

Furthermore, a rape victim's testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative of having raped her, as in the
case of a daughter against her father. 28 Earlier and long standing decisions of this Court have likewise held that when a woman
testifies that she has been raped, she says all that is needed to signify that the crime has been committed. This is true when made
against any man committing the crime; it is more so when the accusing words are said against a close relative. 29

Accused-appellant's theory that the charges brought against him were concocted by his sister-in law, Elva, because he infuriated
the latter when he failed to take care of his wife in the hospital, is too preposterous to deserve any consideration. On this score, the
Court finds tenability in the contention of the Office of the Solicitor General that it is "not in accord with human experience for an
aunt of a girl to charge the girl's father with rape and expose her niece to public scrutiny and humiliation for the petty reason that
the father did not visit his wife in the hospital." 30

It cannot also be believed that accused-appellant's very own daughter would consent to the plan allegedly hatched by the latter's
aunt and allow herself to be perverted if she was not truly motivated by a desire to seek retribution for the abominable violation
committed against her by the father. It is extremely unlikely that the victim, presumably a virgin, an innocent and unsophiscated
girl, unexposed to the ways of the world, would concoct a reprehensible story of defloration, no less than against her own father,
allow an examination of her private parts and then subject herself to the rigors, trouble, inconvenience, ridicule and scandal of a
public trial, where she has to bare her harrowing and traumatic experience and be subjected to harassment, embarrassment and
humiliation during cross-examination, unless she was in fact raped and deeply motivated by her sincere desire to do so solely to
seek justice and obtain redress for the unforgivable and wicked acts done on her. 31 Moreover, the complainant does not appear to
have any strong reason or nefarious motive to fabricate the grave charges against her very own father and so expose not only
herself but the entire family to shame and scandal. 32

All things studiedly considered and viewed in proper perspective, the Court is fully convinced that:

. . . . . . . . . the accused had indeed assaulted not just the flesh but also the honor and integrity of his own offspring, a felony
undeserving of clemency and forbearance. This Court believes that guardians of the law should be doubly vigilant in safeguarding
the interests and welfare of the children. If children cannot be secured under the wings of their parents who are charged with the
natural right and duty over the person of their unemancipated children, then a breakdown in the family as a foundation of the
nation, will lamentably happen. This is the state which this Court is duty-bound to guard against. For if the father who is perceived
to be the protector of his brood can perniciously molest a helpless child, there is no reason why any stranger cannot be subjected
to this vicious torment. 33

Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, which took effect on December 31, 1993 34 or barely
fifteen (15) days before the perpetration by accused-appellant of his felonious acts, reads:

Art. 335.When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:

1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

xxx xxx xxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;

xxx xxx xxx

Following the aforecited provision of law in point and with the guilt of accused-appellant proved beyond reasonable doubt, the
Court cannot help but uphold the decision under automatic review, sentencing accused-appellant to suffer the supreme penalty of
DEATH.

Pursuant to the ruling of this Court in People vs. Victor, 35 the amount of P75,000.00 has to be awarded to the victim as
indemnity, the rape being qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the applicable law.
The said amount is in addition to the moral damages awarded by the trial court.

Four Justices of the Court maintain that R.A. No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. Nevertheless,
they submit to the majority opinion that the said law is constitutional and the death penalty can be properly imposed in this case.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant ERNESTO SEVILLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of incestuous rape and imposing upon him the penalty of DEATH is AFFIRMED with the modification that accused-
appellant is ordered to pay civil indemnity in the amount of Seventy-five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos, in addition to the moral
damages of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos awarded by the lower court.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this
decision, let the records of this case be forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-
Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Вам также может понравиться