G.R. No.

134525 February 28, 2003

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ALFREDO DELOS SANTOS !ONDONG", accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
A#STRIA$%ARTINE&, J.:
On appeal is the decision dated May 8, 1998, endeed !y the "e#ional $ial Cout %&anch '() of San
Calos City, *an#asinan, findin# accused +lfedo Delos Santos alias ,Ondon#, #uilty of ape and
sentencin# hi- to suffe eclusion pepetua and to pay civil inde-nity in the a-ount of *'.,.......
On /uly 0', 1991, Do-in#o *. Caya!ya!, fathe of /oy Caya!ya!, filed a co-plaint cha#in# +lfedo
delos Santos 2 ,Ondon#, as follo3s4
,$hat on o a!out Nove-!e 0, 199', in &aan#ay Nalnean, Municipality of &asista, *ovince of
*an#asinan, *hilippines, and 3ithin the 5uisdiction of this 6onoa!le Cout, the a!ove-na-ed accused
!y -eans of foce o inti-idation, did then and thee, 3illfuly, unla3fully and feloniously have se7ual
intecouse 3ith his -ino dau#hte /oy 8. Caya!ya!, a -ino of 8 yeas old.
,Contay to +ticle 99' of the "evised *enal Code.,1
:pon aai#n-ent, accused pleaded not #uilty.0 $ial then ensued.
$he posecution pesented the victi- /oy 8. Caya!ya!, he siste /oan, thei paents Do-in#o and
Edivina, and the e7a-inin# docto Maia Salo-e "o-eo as 3itnesses.
/oy 8. Caya!ya! 3as ten %1.) yeas old and in ;ade I< at the ti-e of he testi-ony. 9 In !et3een teas
she testified as follo3s4 In the -onin# of Nove-!e 0, 199', 3hile she 3as defecatin# inside the
co-fot oo- of thei house in Nalnean, &asista, *an#asinan, she head so-e!ody =noc= and +lfedo
delos Santos alias ,Ondon#, enteed. Once inside, +lfedo loc=ed the doo and e-oved his touses
then he e-!aced and =issed he and put he on his lap.> She then de-onstated to the cout ho3 she
3as lifted !y the accused 3hile they 3ee facin# each othe and standin# inside the co-fot oo-. 6e
le#s 3ee spead apat !et3een the le#s of the accused then the accused inseted his o#an into he
va#ina. She said she felt pain.' $he accused told he not to tell he -othe 3hat happened, then he put
on his shots and left the victi- inside the co-fot oo-. 8ate, she 3ent to he siste, /oan, 3ho 3as
eatin# at thei dinin# ta!le and told he 3hat happened. ?hen thei paents etuned she did not tell
the- i--ediately 3hat happened !ecause she 3as afaid. It 3as /oan 3ho told the- 3hat happened.1
In the coss-e7a-ination, she ad-itted that she =no3s ho3 to !i=e and once used a !icycle at a #assy
yad. She also ad-itted that they have fuit tees in thei yad !ut said that she does not cli-! the-.(1a3phi1.n@t
/oan Caya!ya!, 3ho 3as ei#ht yeas old at the ti-e she 3as placed on the 3itness stand, testified,
thus4 In the -onin# of Nove-!e 0, 199', she 3as eatin# 3ith he siste /oy and =id !othe /ay-".
8ate, he siste 3ent inside the co-fot oo- to defecate. She sa3 accused follo3, ente the co-fot
oo- and stay inside fo a!out half an hou. She 3as still eatin# at the ta!le 3hen the t3o ca-e
out.8 $he accused then 3ent ho-e i#ht a3ay 3hile /oy sat !eside he and evealed that Ondon#
inseted his pivate o#an into he va#ina.9
Do-in#o Caya!ya!, fathe of /oy, testified that4 on Nove-!e 0, 199', he and his 3ife attended a
paye 3oship at the I#lesia Ni Cisto chapel at &aan#ay Nalnean, &asista, *an#asinanA upon
eachin# ho-e, he noticed that his 8-yea old1. dau#hte, /oy, 3as pale and 3as co3ein# in feaA and
3hen he as=ed 3hat happened, /oy naated that 3hile she 3as inside the co-fot oo- defecatin#,
accused +lfedo enteed, =issed he, touched he !east, !ou#ht out his penis and inseted it into he
va#inaA11 he %Do-in#o) epoted the incident to Calo Ca!ota5e, the Ministe of the I#lesia Ni Cisto in
thei aea, and to the *N* Station of &asista, *an#asinanA his dau#hte then unde3ent -edical
e7a-ination and afte3ads, he 3ent to the *osecutoBs Office to file a co-plaint.10
Edivina Caya!ya!, -othe of the victi-, testified as follo3s4 In the -onin# of Nove-!e 0, 199', she
and he hus!and Do-in#o Caya!ya! attended a fello3ship in the I#lesia Ni Cisto chapel at Nalnean,
&asista, *an#asinan.19 $hey ate !ea=fast at aound 84.. oBcloc= in the -onin# and afte3ads, she
stated cleanin# thei house. ?hile cleanin# the co-fot oo-, she noticed a !lood spot on the floo that
-ade he suspicious. $heeafte, he dau#hte /oan epoted that Ondon# enteed the co-fot oo-
3hile /oy 3as inside. ?hen she as=ed /oy if it 3as tue, /oy ans3eed that the accused indeed enteed
the co-fot oo- and the latte =issed he, touched he !east, and inseted his penis into he
va#ina.1> 8ate, she %Edivina) epoted the incident to the -iniste of the I#lesia Ni Cisto in thei chapel
3hile he hus!and epoted the incident to the &asista Municipal 6all.1'
Cinally, D. Maia Salo-e ;. "o-eo of the San Calos ;eneal 6ospital testified that on Nove-!e 18,
199', /oy Caya!ya! 3as efeed to he fo e7a-inationA11 that she found the follo3in#4
,I.E. 6DMEN4 E ?I$6 *+"$I+8 8+CE"+$ION +$ 1F0 OBC8OCG *OSI$ION
,<+;IN+8 C+N+84 E +DMI$S $I* OC $6E EH+MININ; CIN;E",1(
that the patial laceation -i#ht have !een caused, a-on# othes, !y the se7ual o#an of the opposite
se7.18 On coss-e7a-ination, she claified that the laceation could also !e caused !y !icycle-idin#,
cli-!in#, scatchin#, stetchin# the le#s and si-ila activities.19
Co the defense, Calo Ca!ota5e, Sevulo /acinto, and the accused +lfedo delos Santos 3ee
pesented !efoe the cout.
Calo Ca!ota5e testified that4 he 3as the esident Ministe of the I#lesia Ni Cisto in Nalnean, &asista,
*an#asinan. So-eti-e in Nove-!e, 199', the Caya!ya! fa-ily co-plained that +lfedo =issed
/oyA0. he called the paties to a confeence and leaned that +lfedo =issed and touched the pivate
pats of /oyA he then told the paents of /oy to su!-it the child fo -edical e7a-inationA in his epot to
his supeio, he consideed the incident as -eely an act of lasciviousnessA the case 3as efeed to a
hi#he office in 8in#ayen, *an#asinan then it 3as elevated to thei -ain office in ManilaA 01 he advised
the co-plainants not to pusue the case any-oe since the accused 3as aleady #iven the e7te-e
penalty of e7pulsion fo- the I#lesia Ni Cisto.00 Ca!ota5e futhe testified that duin# his investi#ation,
Edivina Caya!ya! co-plained that the accused =issed the #ils, touched thei pivate pats and nothin#
-oe.09 In his e-diect e7a-ination, Ca!ota5e elated that duin# the confeence, CoaIon 8edes-a,
/oyBs #and-othe stood up and said that they 3ant the fa-ily of the accused to vacate thei land. 0> In
his e-coss e7a-ination, Ca!ota5e stated that in thei chuch, it is pohi!ited to file a case a#ainst a
fello3 -e-!e, 3hich e#ulation 3as not co-plied 3ith !y the Caya!ya! fa-ily.0'
Defense 3itness Sevulo /acinto, testified that as head deacon of the I#lesia Ni Cisto, it 3as epoted
to hi- that on Nove-!e 0, 199', a =issin# incident 3as co--itted !y +lfedo delos Santos a#ainst the
child /oy Caya!ya!A that afte eceivin# the epot, he 3ent to the house of the Caya!ya!s and as=ed
/oy 3hat happenedA that /oy ans3eed that +lfedo delos Santos =issed he and nothin# -oe.01
+ccused +lfedo delos Santos #ave his testi-ony as follo3s4 6e =no3s /oy and /oan Caya!ya! since
thei !ith and has al3ays teated the- as his =id sistes. It is not tue that on Nove-!e 0, 199', at
(4.. oBcloc= in the -onin#, he enteed the co-fot oo- 3hee /oy 3as, and aped he. In a
confeence !efoe Deacon Sevulo /acinto, the t3o #ils, in the pesence of thei paents, even stated
that he -eely =issed the- and nothin# -oe. $he t3o 3ee also !ou#ht !efoe Calo Ca!ota5e and
once -oe, the #ils said that they 3ee =issed !y hi-. Othe confeences 3ee held in 8in#ayen,
*an#asinan and at the Cental Office of the I#lesia Ni Cisto in JueIon City, and as in the othe
confeences, 3hen the #ils 3ee as=ed 3hat happened, they ans3eed ,he =issed us., $he accused
also stated that the paents of /oy and /oan 3ee e7pelled fo- the con#e#ation !ecause of thei false
accusation a#ainst hi-. 6e li=e3ise e7plained that CoaIon 8edes-a, the #and-othe of /oy 3ants to
e5ect his fathe fo- he land. Cailin# in this, CoaIon theatened his fathe that cases 3ill !e filed
a#ainst all of the-.0(
In e!uttal, the posecution pesented Edivina Caya!ya!. She claified that 3hen the -eetin# 3as held
!efoe Calo Ca!ota5e, she epoted only a =issin# incident !ecause she did not 3ant to spead pu!licly
3hat happened to he dau#hte. +lso, at that point, he dau#hte has not yet unde#one -edical
e7a-ination hence she 3as still uncetain of the e7tent of the in5uy suffeed !y he dau#hte. She
denied the state-ent of Calo Ca!ota5e that she did not accept the advice to su!-it he dau#hte fo
-edical e7a-ination to dete-ine the in5uy she suffeed.08 She futhe stated that they 3ee e7pelled
fo- thei chuch due to thei efusal to accept the settle-ent of the case.091aKLMphi1.net
CoaIon 8edes-a, #and-othe of /oy Caya!ya!, testified that the accused is the son of he tenant
&ienvenido delos SantosA that the epot -ade to Calo Ca!ota5e 3as not -eely =issin# !ut apeA and
that afte the accused 3as e7pelled, they filed a case a#ainst hi-.9.
+s su-e!uttal 3itness, the defense pesented the fathe of the accused, &ienvenido delos Santos. 6e
testified that he =no3s CoaIon 8edes-a, the #and-othe of /oy Caya!ya!, !ecause she is his
landlady. +ccodin# to hi-, she 3as e5ectin# hi- fo- the land he is tillin#A she even !ou#ht the -atte
to the 8and "efo- Office at &asista, *an#asinanA ho3eve, 3hen she 3as not a!le to e5ect hi-, she
concocted the ape case a#ainst his son.91
On May 8, 1998, the tial cout endeed its decision thus4
,?6E"ECO"E, pe-ises consideed, the cout finds the accused +lfedo delos Santos #uilty !eyond
easona!le dou!t of "+*E defined unde +ticle 99' of the "evised *enal Code, as a-ended, and
hee!y i-poses upon the said +lfedo delos Santos the sentence of "eclusion *epetua and is odeed
to pay civil inde-nity in the a-ount of*'.,.......
,SO O"DE"ED.,90
$he accused i--ediately filed an appeal !efoe this Cout, aisin# the follo3in# eos4
,I- $6E 6ONO"+&8E CO:"$ + J:O E""ED IN I$S CINDIN;S OC C+C$S ?6IC6, 6+D
$6ED &EEN IN +CCO"D+NCE ?I$6 $6E E<IDENCE +DD:CED, ?I88 S:CCICE $O
S:**O"$ + /:D;MEN$ OC +CJ:I$$+8 CO" +CC:SED-+**E88+N$.
,II- $6E 6ONO"+&8E CO:"$ + J:O E""ED IN CON<IC$IN; +CC:SED-+**E88+N$ CO"
"+*E.,99
+ppellant a#ues that the tial cout eed in constuin# ,the -i7ed e7pessions of sadness and an#e
sho3n in %/oyBs) face duin# he testi-ony, 777 %as si#ns) that she 3as tellin# the tuth., +ccodin# to
appellant, said -i7ed e7pessions could !e due to the fact that it 3as he fist ti-e to testify in coutA o
that she and he siste 3ee =issed !y appellantA o po!a!ly !ecause she had difficulty ecallin# 3hat
she 3as tau#ht to testify. $hese e7pessions, appellant assets, do not necessaily pove that she 3as
aped.9>
+ppellant also calls attention to the testi-onies of the -inistes of the I#lesia Ni Cisto and the enties in
the lo#!oo=s of the confeences conducted !efoe the- 3hee it 3as found and ecoded that 3hat
too= place 3as ,pan#hahali= n# !ata, pan#hihipo n# ai., Since these 3ee the only co-plaints -ade
!efoe the I#lesia Ni Cisto, only such should !e !elieved, i.e., no ape too= place !ut only =issin# and
touchin# of pivate pats.9'
+ppellant also cites a potion of /oanBs testi-ony, 3hee she said that he Guya Ondon# =issed he and
this is also 3hat he did to he siste /oy, 3hich state-ent she also -ade !efoe *asto Ca!ota5e of the
I#lesia Ni Cisto.91
Cuthe, appellant assails the e7planation of the posecution that 3hen the Caya!ya! fa-ily 3ent to the
I#lesia Ni Cisto 3hat they naated 3as not the 3hole tuth !ecause they 3ee not cetain of the eal
stoy at the ti-e. $his, accodin# to appellant, is had to !elieve and is contay to hu-an
e7peience.9( +ppellant insists that the failue to epot that /oy 3as aped !efoe *asto Ca!ota5e
ceates seious dou!ts on pivate co-plainantBs clai- that appellant aped heA that 3hen dou!t e7ists,
this should al3ays !e esolved in favo of the accused.98 $he appellant also e-inds the Cout that the
paents of pivate co-plainant 3ee e7pelled fo- the I#lesia Ni Cisto !ecause of the fa!icated
cha#e of apeA that this indicates that the evidence of the posecution fails to stand the test of eason
and is not sufficient to sustain conviction.99
$he Solicito ;eneal contends that the testi-ony of /oy Caya!ya! should !e #iven full cedit as this
3as coo!oated !y thee othe 3itnesses and the findin#s of fact of tial couts -ust !e accoded
espect.>.
$he Solicito ;eneal futhe a#ues that the lo#!oo= containin# -inutes of the confeences !efoe the
I#lesia Ni Cisto 3hich 3as pesented !y appellant !efoe the tial cout has no evidentiay value, the
sa-e not !ein# an official docu-ent as it 3as not identified duin# the tial. +lso,
assu-in# arguendo that the lo#!oo= did contain the foe#oin# enties, the veacity theeof is vey -uch
in Nuestion considein# the policy of the I#lesia Ni Cisto not to allo3 suit a-on# its -e-!es.>1
?e find the appeal devoid of -eit.
In evie3in# ape cases, the Cout is #uided !y the follo3in# pinciples4 %1) an accusation fo ape can
!e -ade 3ith facilityA it is difficult to pove !ut -oe difficult fo the peson accused, thou#h innocent, to
dispoveA %0) in vie3 of the intinsic natue of the ci-e 3hee only t3o pesons ae usually involved, the
testi-ony of the co-plainant should !e scutiniIed 3ith #eat cautionA and %9) the evidence fo the
posecution -ust stand o fall on its o3n -eits and cannot !e allo3ed to da3 sten#th fo- the
3ea=ness of the evidence of the defense.>0
&asic is the pinciple that 3hen the issue is on the cedi!ility of 3itnesses, appellate couts 3ill
#eneally not distu! the findin#s of the tial cout on the #ound that the tial cout had the oppotunity
to o!seve the 3itnessesB depot-ent and -anne of testifyin#.>9 :nless it is sho3n that the tial cout
has oveloo=ed, -isundestood o -isappeciated cetain facts and cicu-stances 3hich if consideed
3ould have alteed the outco-e of the case, appellate couts ae !ound !y the findin#s of facts of the
tial cout.>>
In ape cases, the accused -ay !e convicted solely on the testi-ony of the victi-, povided that such
testi-ony is cedi!le, natual, convincin# and consistent 3ith hu-an natue and the no-al couse of
thin#s.>' + thoou#h evie3 of the ecods eveals that the testi-ony of /oy Caya!ya! 3ithstands the
test of cedi!ility. ?e find that the tial cout has not co--itted any eo in its appeciation of the case.
Mino /oy Caya!ya! 3as consistent in he testi-ony and thou#h hi#hly e-otional, she 3as a!le to
elate to the cout in #eat detail the assault that 3as done to he peson. $3ice, he diect testi-ony
had to !e eset due to out!ust of teas. 6e depot-ent !efoe the tial cout as she elated the events
that happened to he lead to no othe conclusion othe than that she 3as tellin# the tuth. +s 3e have
consistently held, a youn# #il 3ould not concoct a ape cha#e, allo3 the e7a-ination of he pivate
pats, then pu!licly disclose that she has !een se7ually a!used, if he -otive 3ee othe than to fi#ht fo
he hono and !in# to 5ustice the peson 3ho defiled he. Co-plainantBs testi-ony on ecod is too
candid and stai#htfo3ad to !e -ee fa!ication. She !aed details 3hich could not !e concocted
easily even !y an in#enious o i-a#inative naato. She cied fo seveal -inutes, 3hile she testified,
enhancin# he testi-onyBs cedi!ility. ?e find that co-plainantBs testi-ony deseves full faith and
cedence.>1
In a si-ila case, co-plainants Ma5oita and Ma. <ictoia 3ee ten and eleven yeas old, espectively,
3hen they testified in cout. In said case 3e held, ,OaPt such tende yeas, they 3ee still unfa-ilia 3ith
and naive in the 3ays of the 3old that it is Nuite un!elieva!le that they could fa!icate such a sodid
stoy of pesonal defloation. $hei testi-onies theefoe cannot !e dise#aded.,>(
$he i-putation of the defense that /oy 3as po-pted !y he fa-ily to accuse heein appellant of the
ci-e of ape !ecause they could not evict the fa-ily of appellant fo- the popety of /oyBs
#and-othe, is co-pletely outa#eous and uttely despeate. $his Cout has noted that not a fe3
accused in ape cases have atti!uted the cha#es !ou#ht a#ainst the- to fa-ily feud, esent-ent, o
even#e. &ut such alle#ations have neve s3ayed this Cout fo- lendin# full cedence to the testi-ony
of the co-plainant 3hee she e-ains steadfast in he diect and coss e7a-ination.>8 It is unli=ely fo
a youn# #il and he fa-ily to i-pute the ci-e of ape to anothe and face social hu-iliation if not to
vindicate the hono of co-plainant. >9 Indeed, it is had to fatho- that paents 3ould use thei
offspin#s as en#ines of -alice, especially if the sa-e 3ould su!5ect the- to hu-iliation and
sti#-a.'. Even as to #andpaents, it is not !elieva!le that they 3ho nutued and loved the victi-
3ould e7pose an innocent #il to hu-iliation and sti#-a of a ape tial si-ply to #et !ac= at the
accused.'1
In his &ief, appellant calls attention to the fact that the cha#es a#ainst hi- !ou#ht !y the Caya!ya!
fa-ily !efoe the I#lesia ni Cisto consisted only of ,=issin# and touchin#,. +s convincin#ly e7plained !y
Edivina in he e!uttal, 3hen they 3ent to the I#lesia ni Cisto to epot appellant, she did not 3ant to
spead pu!licly 3hat had happened to he dau#hteA that thei child has not yet unde#one -edical
e7a-ination, and theefoe, they 3ee not yet sue as to the e7tent of the in5uies suffeed !y he. ?e
find this consistent 3ith the popensity of paents to potect the hono of thei fa-ily, a tait inheent to
the Cilipino cultue. ?e ae convinced that the discepancy in the co-plaint filed !efoe the I#lesia ni
Cisto and !efoe the e#ula cout is atti!uta!le to the stand of the fa-ily not to cy ape and thus taint
thei fa-ilyBs hono and eputation until thei dau#hte shall have unde#one -edical e7a-ination and
thee!y ascetain the e7tent of the da-a#e done to he puity. Indeed, it is hi#hly i-po!a!le that a ape
victi- and he fa-ily 3ould pu!licly disclose such an incident and thus sully thei hono and eputation
unless they ae cetain that the cha#e is tue.'0
$hus, 3e hold that the tial cout coectly found the accused #uilty of ape.
It cannot !e i#noed that the appellant co--itted ape 3ith the a##avatin# cicu-stance of dwelling as
the ci-e 3as co--itted 3ithin the house of the victi-. D3ellin# is consideed as an a##avatin#
cicu-stance pi-aily !ecause of the sanctity of pivacy the la3 accods to the hu-an
a!ode.'9 6o3eve, !ecause of the failue to state such cicu-stance in the co-plaint, the sa-e,
thou#h poven, cannot !e appeciated. Sections 8 and 9, "ule 11. of the "evised "ules on Ci-inal
*ocedue, 3hich too= effect on Dece-!e 1, 0..., povides that a##avatin# as 3ell as Nualifyin#
cicu-stances -ust !e specifically alle#ed in the info-ation, othe3ise they cannot !e consideed
a#ainst the accused even if they 3ee poven duin# the tial. &ein# favoa!le to the accused, this ule
has to !e applied etoactively to this case'>.
6o3eve, despite the pesence of the a##avatin# cicu-stance of d3ellin#, the penalty heein
of reclusion perpetua3ould not !e affected since unde +ticle 19 of the "evised *enal Code, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua should !e applied e#adless of any -iti#atin# o a##avatin#
cicu-stance that -ay have attended the co--ission of a ci-e.''
$he i-position of the penalty of reclusion perpetua is pusuant to paa#aph 9 of +ticle 99' of the
"evised *enal Code, the victi- !ein# unde t3elve yeas of a#e on the date of the co--ission of ape.
$he tial cout coectly odeed the pay-ent of Cifty $housand *esos %*'.,......) as civil
inde-nity ex delicto. 6o3eve, anothe Cifty $housand *esos %*'.,......) should have !een a3aded
to the victi- as -oal da-a#es 3ithout need of futhe poof, !ecause it is eco#niIed that he in5uy is
conco-itant 3ith and necessaily the esult of the odious ci-e.'1
Moeove, insofa as the civil aspect of the case is concened, the pesence of the a##avatin#
cicu-stance of d3ellin# -ay !e consideed as a !asis fo an a3ad of e7e-play da-a#es in the
a-ount of *0.,......, pusuant to ecent 5uispudence.'(
'HEREFORE, the assailed decision of the "e#ional $ial Cout, &anch '(, of San Calos City,
*an#asinan, findin# appellant +lfedo Delos Santos alias Ondon# ;:I8$D of ape and sentencin# hi-
to suffe "eclusion *epetua and to pay civil inde-nity in the a-ount of CIC$D $6O:S+ND *ESOS
%*'.,......) is +CCI"MED 3ith the MODICIC+$ION that appellant is also odeed to pay the offended
paty /oy Caya!ya!, CIC$D $6O:S+ND *ESOS %*'.,......), as -oal da-a#es, to#ethe 3ith the
costs.
SO O"DE"ED.