1

G.R. No. 181900 October 20, 2010 The first rape occurred at about 10:00 in the evening of May 18, 1999. At
the time, AAA was only twelve (12) years old. While BBB was out
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
gambling, AAA who was then sleeping in their house was awakened by
vs.
accused-appellant who had been drinking. He placed his hand over her
DEMETRIO SALAZAR, Accused-Appellant.
mouth, removed her panty, and inserted his penis inside her vagina. AAA
DECISION felt pain in her vagina and tried to scream but was stifled by accused-
appellants hand over her mouth. She cried instead. Afterwards, accused-
VELASCO, JR., J.: appellant stood up and returned to where he was previously sleeping.8
The Case When her mother had arrived, AAA told her about the rape. BBB, however,
This is an appeal from the June 8, 2007 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals did not believe her and simply dismissed her claims.9
(Cebu City) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00553 entitled People of the On June 25, 1999, at around midnight, accused-appellant again raped
Philippines v. Demetrio Salazar, which affirmed with modification the AAA. Accused-appellant first slapped her. He then placed a handkerchief
conviction of accused-appellant Demetrio Salazar in Criminal Case Nos. A- inside her mouth, spread her arms, and inserted his penis inside her
1620 and A-1621 for two (2) counts of Statutory Rape.
vagina while kissing her right cheek. After the act, accused-appellant stood
The Facts up, drank coffee, and proceeded to go to sleep. AAA again told the incident
to her mother, who had arrived from another bout of gambling. BBB
On September 6, 1999, two Informations were filed before the RTC confronted accused-appellant. After a short argument, BBB again
charging accused-appellant with two (2) counts of statutory rape. It was dismissed her daughters claims.10
alleged that accused-appellant, on two (2) separate occasions, had raped
a 12-year-old girl, AAA.2 The first Information reads: Later, AAA informed her aunt, DDD, about the second rape. Her aunt
brought her to the police station to report the incident. She was later
That on or about the 18st day of May, 1999, at about 10:00 o clock in the examined by the Municipal Health Officer of Lavezares, Northern Samar.11
evening more or less at [XXX], Municipality of Lavezares, Province of
Northern Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable For his part, accused-appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming
Court, the above-named accused, who is still at large, with abuse of that on the date of the alleged first rape, he was at his farm at Sitio
confidence being his step father, entered the bedroom where [AAA] was Napunod, Barangay Caburihan, Lavezares, Northern Samar, making
sleeping, with lewd designs, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and copra. He claimed that the farm is six (6) kilometers away and could only
feloniously, cover her mouth and by means of force and intimidation, and be negotiated by hiking for one (1) hour. He further claimed that he was at
taking advantage of his superior strength, undressed her, took off her the farm from May 15, 1999 to May 23, 1999.12
shorts and panty, place on top of her and have sexual intercourse with one As to the second alleged rape, accused-appellant alleged that while he
[AAA], who is a minor, 12 years of age, all against the will of the latter. was at their house in XXX, AAA was not there. He claimed that AAA and
CONTRARY TO LAW.3 her brother, EEE, asked permission from, and was allowed by, their mother
BBB to watch a show at the town proper of Lavezares in the evening of
While the second Information states: June 25, 1999. AAA and EEE allegedly returned home at 7:00 of the
That on or about the 25st day of June, 1999, at about 12:00 o clock following morning.13
midnight more or less at [XXX], Municipality of Lavezares, Province of At the hearing of the case, the prosecution presented, among others, DDD,
Northern Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable as a witness. DDD testified that AAA is her niece. She also presented a
Court, the above-named accused, who is still at large, with abuse of Certificate of Baptism wherein it is stated that AAA was born on April 10,
confidence being his step father, entered the bedroom where [AAA] was 1987.14
sleeping, with lewd designs, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, cover her mouth and by means of force and intimidation, and Dr. Ethel Parane Simeon, the Municipal Health Officer of Lavezares, was
taking advantage of his superior strength, undressed her, took off her also presented as a witness for the prosecution. She testified that she
shorts and panty, placed on top of her and have sexual intercourse with conducted a medical examination of AAA on June 28, 1999. She also
one [AAA], who is a minor, 12 years of age, all against the will of the latter. identified the Medico-Legal Certificate containing her findings on such
medical examination. In the certificate she found hematomas on the labia
CONTRARY TO LAW.4 majora and labia minora of AAA. She also found lacerations at the 3, 6,
On December 6, 1999, in his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not and 11 oclock positions in AAAs vagina. She concluded that AAA was
guilty. On December 13, 1999, pre-trial of the case was terminated. raped.15
Accused-appellant escaped from detention until he was caught, and the The defenses sole witness was accused-appellant, who alleged that the
hearing of the case began on July 27, 2000.5 relatives of the victims father, CCC, did not approve of his relationship with
Meanwhile, on February 22, 2000, AAA purportedly executed an Affidavit BBB. CCCs relatives wanted to take custody of AAA. Accused-appellant
of Desistance wherein she stated that she was not raped by accused- claimed that the instant cases were instituted to wrest custody of AAA from
appellant and that she no longer intends to pursue the cases filed against BBB and himself.16
accused-appellant. During the hearing, she explained that her own mother Thereafter, the RTC issued its Decision dated July 7, 2003, the dispositive
forced her to execute the affidavit upon threat of harm.6 portion of which reads:
The prosecution established that AAA is the daughter of BBB with whom WHEREFORE, in the light of the prevailing considerations, the court
accused-appellant was cohabiting. AAA, BBB, and accused-appellant all hereby sentences Demetrio Salazar GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
lived in the same one-room house located in XXX, Lavezares, Northern the two (2) counts of Statutory Rape as defined and penalized by Article
Samar. AAAs biological father, CCC, was serving time at the Bureau of 335 of the Revised Penal Code and amended by Republic Act No. 7659
Corrections in Muntinlupa when the incidents occurred.7 and sentences him to the supreme penalty of DEATH by lethal injection.
And indemnity is hereby imposed in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand
 2
Pesos (Php 75,000.00); moral and exemplary damages are awarded in the of desistance exonerating accused-appellant from the crimes charged. The
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00). CA, however, did not give any weight to such affidavit on the following
reasoning:
Let the records of the entire cases together with the transcript of
stenographic notes be forwarded to the Honorable Supreme Court for The affidavit of desistance relied upon by appellant could not be given any
automatic review. probative weight considering that it was not duly sworn to. Further, when
private complainant was confronted about it, she testified that her mother
SO ORDERED.17
threatened to kill her should she refuse to execute the affidavit.24
The records of the case were then transferred to this Court for automatic
In any event, AAAs purported Affidavit of Desistance cannot cause the
review. The parties were directed by the Court to submit their respective
dismissal of the case. It must be pointed out that the alleged affidavit was
briefs. However, in a Resolution dated June 7, 2005,18 the Court
executed after the case had already been instituted. Thus, the Court
transferred the case to the CA by virtue of its ruling in People v.
already had acquired jurisdiction over the case and control over the
Mateo19 providing for intermediate review by the CA of cases where the
proceedings. As the Court ruled in People v. Montes:25
penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment. As admitted by appellant, the alleged Affidavit of Desistance of the victim
was never identified by her, but submitted in court only after the institution
Thereafter, the CA issued the assailed decision, the dispositive portion of
of the rape cases. Such being the case, the Affidavit -- even when
which provides:
construed as a pardon in the erstwhile "private crime" of rape -- is not a
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this appeal is DENIED. The Decision ground for the dismissal of the criminal cases, since the actions have
dated 07 July 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, 5st Judicial Region, Branch already been instituted. To justify the dismissal of the Complaints, the
23, Allen, Northern Samar, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal
death penalty imposed on appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua; actions. (Emphasis supplied.)
appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each
In People v. Ramirez, Jr.,26 the Court was even more circumspect:
count of rape; appellant is likewise ordered to pay the complainant in
Criminal Case No. A-1620 the amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with
(P50,000.00) as moral damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) suspicion and reservation. Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such
as civil indemnity; and in Criminal Case No. A-1621 the amounts of Fifty affidavit as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily be secured from a
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, and Fifty Thousand poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary
Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity. consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability that it would later
on be repudiated, and criminal prosecution would thus be interminable.
SO ORDERED. 20

Indeed, the Affidavit of Desistance of private complainant is highly suspect.

The CA found accused-appellant guilty of two (2) counts of simple rape
Apparently, she executed it on the basis of a consideration of P5,000,
instead of statutory rape. The CA reasoned that the prosecution failed to
which was later increased to P100,000. After her testimony had been
adduce evidence to establish that the rape victim was twelve (12) years old
rendered, however, appellant refused to pay the amount agreed upon,
at the time of the crimes. Further, the CA stated that a baptismal certificate
thereby prompting her to recant the Affidavit.
is not sufficient proof of the age of a person. Thus, the victims age was not
established.21 The CA then modified the penalty imposed upon accused- She had stated therein that "the accused is indeed innocent of the crimes
appellantfrom death penalty to reclusion perpetua. charge[d] since in truth, he never molested me sexually as charged." Such
statement was a mere legal conclusion, bereft of any details or other
Hence, we have this appeal.
indicia of credibility, much less truth. More likely, it emanated not from this
The Issues young girls mouth, but from a trained legal mind. Moreover, while she
affirmed her Affidavit on the stand, she also declared, on clarificatory
Accused-appellant, in a Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated question from the judge, that she was 14 years old when she was molested
June 24, 2008,22 repleads and adopts all the defenses and arguments and raped by appellant. These facts raise doubts as to the reliability of her
raised in his Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated August 6, 2004,23 to wit: statements in her Affidavit.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS At this point, we reiterate that, by itself, an affidavit of desistance or pardon
I. is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once it has been instituted in
court. In the present case, private complainant lost the right or absolute
The Trial Court gravely erred in giving full faith and credence to the privilege to decide whether the rape charge should proceed, because the
testimony of the prosecution witness x x x and in totally case had already reached and must therefore continue to be heard by the
ignoring/disregarding the version of the defense. court a quo. (Emphasis supplied.)
II. Applying People v. Ramirez, Jr. to the instant case, we find that accused-
The Trial Court gravely erred in convicting him of the crime charged appellants contentionthat AAAs Affidavit of Desistance merits the
despite the fact that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. dismissal of the casehas no basis.
The Ruling of the Court Second Issue:
The appeal is bereft of merit. AAAs testimony should be given full weight and credence
First Issue: Next, accused-appellant questions the trial courts reliance on the
testimony of AAA. Citing People v. Domogoy,27accused-appellant posits
The victims Affidavit of Desistance cannot be given any weight that AAAs testimony must be received with caution.
Accused-appellant claims that the instant case should have been It must be stressed, however, that the victim in People v. Domogoy was
dismissed by the trial court, considering that AAA had executed an affidavit twenty-one (21) years old. Here, the contention is that AAA was only
 3
twelve (12) years old at the time that she was raped. This difference is d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
pivotal in light of our ruling in People v. Montes:28 demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be
present. (Emphasis supplied.)
In a litany of cases, this Court has ruled that the testimonies of child-victims
of rape are to be given full weight and credence. Reason and experience In order for the accused to be found guilty of the crime of statutory rape in
dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely understands sex and this jurisdiction, the Court held in People v. Tampos31 that two (2) elements
sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if must concur: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and
what she claims is not true. Her candid narration of how she was raped (2) that the victim is below twelve (12) years old, thus:
bears the earmarks of credibility, especially if no ill will -- as in this case --
The two elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal
motivates her to testify falsely against the accused. It is well-settled that
knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age.
when a woman, more so when she is a minor, says she has been raped,
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code is now in Article 266-A, par. 1-d, in
she says in effect all that is required to prove the ravishment. The accused
view of the amendments introduced by R.A. 8353. Statutory rape is
may thus be convicted solely on her testimony -- provided it is credible,
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under par. d, "when
natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal
the offended party is under 12 years of age."
course of things.
Here, while it is undisputed that the first element is present, accused-
While in the more recent People v. Basmayor,29 the Court ruled:
appellant questions the presence of the second. Conformably, the CA ruled
This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who that indeed the fact that the victim was twelve (12) years old at the time of
are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young the commission of the crimes was not sufficiently established.32 However,
woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, contrary to such finding of the CA, this Court has ruled in People v.
allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by Ramos33 that in statutory rape cases, a baptismal certificate is sufficient to
being the subject of a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the prove the age of the victim.
desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and
Thus, without a doubt, the baptismal certificate of AAA that was presented
immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is highly improbable that a girl
during the trial of the case coupled with the testimony of DDD, the aunt of
of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would
AAA, sufficiently established that the victim was twelve years old at the
impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not
time the crimes were committed. Having been born on April 10, 1987,
true.
when the first rape occurred on May 18, 1999, AAA was exactly 12 years,
Clearly, the trial court correctly gave great weight to the testimony of AAA. one month, and 8 days old at the first rape incident.
Moreover, given the fact that the CA upheld the findings of the trial court on Considering, however, that AAA was already 12 years old when she was
the factual issues of the case, the Court is bound by the trial courts raped, the second element for statutory rape that "that the victim is below
assessment of the witnesses, as the Court held in People v. Ducabo:30 twelve (12) years old" is not present. Consequently, the finding of the
appellate court for simple rape is correct, not on the ground of the age of
It is well-entrenched that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of a
AAA not being proved, but on the fact that she was no longer below 12
witness deserve great weight, given the clear advantage of a trial judge in
years of age at the time the crime was committed.
the appreciation of testimonial evidence. We have recognized that the trial
court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their Fourth Issue:
testimonies, because of their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses
Reclusion Perpetua is the proper penalty
first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling
examination. These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of The crime of simple rape having been established, the next question is
witnesses, in the process of unearthing the truth. The rule finds an even what penalty should be imposed upon accused-appellant.
more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the
Court of Appeals. Thus, except for compelling reasons, we are doctrinally At the time the crimes were committed by accused-appellant, the penalty
bound by the trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses. for the crime of simple rape was contained in Art. 266-B of the Revised
(Emphasis supplied.) Penal Code:

Third Issue: Article 266-B. Penalty.Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Accused-appellant is guilty of simple rape
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two
The relevant portions of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code define or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
the crime of rape, as follows:
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become
Chapter Three insane, the penalty shall become reclusion perpetua to death.
Rape
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed.Rape is committed: the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to
death.1avvphi1
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances: When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the
penalty shall be death.
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
unconscious;
l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
 4
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The June 8, 2007 CA Decision in
parent of the victim; CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00553 is hereby AFFIRMED, with the
MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is found guilty of two (2) counts of
x x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
simple rape, and is ordered to pay the offended party, AAA, PhP 30,000 as
Thus, simple rape, when qualified by the circumstance that the offender is exemplary damages for each count of rape, in addition to the award of PhP
a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or 50,000 as civil indemnity and PhP 50,000 as moral damages, also for each
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the count of rape.
parent of the victim, would be properly punishable with the death penalty.
No costs.
Otherwise put, when the two circumstances of minority and relationship
concur, then the proper imposable penalty shall be deathnow qualified SO ORDERED.
by Republic Act No. 9346.34
In the instant case, aside from minority of the victim it was alleged in the
informations filed before the trial court that accused-appellant is the victims
stepfather. Minority of AAA and her relation to accused-appellant was the
qualifying circumstance that the trial court considered in imposing the
penalty of death on accused-appellant. However, in order to become the
victims stepfather, accused-appellant must necessarily have been legally
married to AAAs mother. This was not the case. No evidence was
adduced during the trial to establish that AAAs mother and accused-
appellant were ever legally married. Moreover, although the fact that
accused-appellant was the common-law husband of the victims mother,
such circumstance cannot be appreciated, although proved during the trial,
as it was not alleged in the informations and would thereby violate the
constitutional right of accused-appellant to be informed of the charges
against him. Thus, we held in People v. Negosa:35
We agree with the appellants contention that he is guilty only of simple
statutory rape and not of rape in its qualified form under Article 335,
paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The prosecution
was burdened to prove the allegation in the Information that the appellant
was the stepfather of the victim. However, the prosecution failed to prove
the same. The evidence on record shows that the appellant was merely the
common-law husband of the victims mother. This special qualifying
circumstance, that the appellant was the common-law husband of the
mother of the victim, was not alleged in the Information. Even if such
special qualifying circumstance was proved, it cannot be appreciated
against the appellant in order to qualify the crime; otherwise, the appellant
would be deprived of his right to be informed of the charge lodged against
him. This was the ruling of the Court in People vs. Lizada, thus:
We agree with the accused-appellant that he is guilty only of two counts of
simple rape, instead of qualified rape. The evidence on record shows that
the accused-appellant is the common-law husband of x x x, the mother of
the private complainant. The private complainant, as of October 1998, was
still 13 years old, and under Article 335 as amended by Republic Act 7659,
the minority of the private complainant, concurring with the fact that the
accused-appellant is the common-law husband of the victims mother, is a
special qualifying circumstance warranting the imposition of the death
penalty. However, the said circumstance was not alleged in the
Informations as required by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure which was given retroactive effect by this Court
because it is favorable to the accused. Hence, even if the prosecution
proved the special qualifying circumstance of minority of the private
complainant and relationship, the accused-appellant being the common-
law husband of her mother, accused-appellant is guilty only of simple rape.
Under the given law, the penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Consequently, the CA imposed the correct penalty of reclusion perpetua
against accused-appellant as provided under Art. 266-B in relation to Art.
266-A, paragraph (a) of the Revised Penal Code, there being no qualifying
circumstances.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, exemplary damages of PhP 30,000 in
each case shall be awarded to AAA.36
 5
G.R. No. 146803 January 14, 2004 children by Judith and two other persons, Marlon Ayaton and Rosendo
Barrios, who were then working for him. Appellant denied having sexually
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
molested Elgie on the evening of 22 April 1996. The "truth," he claimed,
vs.
was that, at about ten oclock that night, he mauled Elgie after seeing her in
CLEMENTINO LOU y GALINDO alias "Junior," appellant.
bed with Marlon and Rosendo. Days later, policemen invited him to the
DECISION police station and put him in jail. He was told that Elgie had accused him of
raping her three times.
VITUG, J.:
The trial court saw the case for the prosecution; it found appellant guilty
On appeal to the Court is the decision, dated 09 November 2000, in beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape for which it meted the death
Criminal Case No. 3635 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, 1 of penalty.
Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, finding appellant Clementino Lou y Galindo
guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the commission of the crime of rape In this automatic review of the case, appellant, through counsel, would
"defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as contend that
amended by R.A. No. 7659, Section 11 thereof." The trial court imposed
"I.
upon appellant the death penalty and the payment of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) by way of civil indemnity to the victim. "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE.
The accusatory information read:
"II.
"That on April 22, 1996 at about 12:00 oclock midnight in the premises and
vicinity particularly at the house of the victim located at Bayugan 3, "EVEN ASSUMING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS TRULY GUILTY
Rosario, Agusan del Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this OF HAVING RAPED THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, NONETHELESS,
Honorable Court, the above-named accused with the use of his superior THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON HIM THE SUPREME
strength, with intent of lewd design, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully PENALTY OF DEATH."4
and feloniously with force and intimidation, succeed in having sexual
In reviewing rape cases, the Court is so guided, as usual, by these
intercourse with his stepdaughter ELGIE S. BULAQUEA, a girl who was
principles: That -
then fifteen (15) years old, and a woman of good reputation, against her
will and consent to the damage and prejudice of the said victim which "x x x First, the prosecution has to show the guilt of the accused by proof
damage consists of actual, compensatory and moral damages."2 beyond reasonable doubt or that degree of proof that, to an unprejudiced
mind, produces conviction. Second, unless there are special reasons, the
At his arraignment, appellant, with the assistance of counsel, pled not guilty
findings of trial courts, especially regarding the credibility of witnesses, are
to the charge.
entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. Third, the
The prosecution presented its evidence tending to prove that disposition of rape cases are governed by the following guidelines: (1) an
accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more
At midnight of 22 April 1996, Elgie S. Bulaquea was already asleep in
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of
their house in Purok 8, Balite, Sinug-ang, Bayugan III, Rosario, Agusan del
the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually
Sur, when she was awakened by appellant. He lifted her skirt, removed her
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
panty, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina but initially failed as she
extreme caution, and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall
made "some movements." Although he finally succeeded in inserting his
on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
penis into her vagina, the penetration, however, was not completely
evidence of the defense."5
achieved. Elgie cried, but, afraid of his threat to kill her, Elgie remained in
the room and did not tell her mother, Judith Bulaquea, about what had The crime of rape can be committed by, among other ways, "having carnal
transpired. Instead, she asked the help of her uncle who, thereupon, knowledge of a woman" with the use of force or intimidation.6 Intimidation
accompanied her to the police station. The police had Elgie medically is subjective, and it is addressed to the mind of the person against whom it
examined at the rural health center. is employed at the time and occasion of the crime. While there is no hard
and fast rule to test its presence,7 one accepted norm, nevertheless, is
Dr. Rebecca R. Aquino examined Elgie on 24 April 1996, and prepared a
whether the intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the
medico-legal report. She found Elgie to have had "completely healed
victim that if she were to resist or were not to yield to the desires of the
lacerations" at the 3 and 8 oclock hymenal positions but that there were no
malefactor, the threat would be carried out.8
abrasions, hematoma and contusions. Dr. Aquino explained that the
laceration could have been caused by sexual intercourse, "medical The victim was still young when she began to live with her mother and
instrumentation," the "passage of clotted blood thru menstruation," or appellant, her mothers common-law husband, whom she recognized to be
"severe physical exertion." a "stepfather." The relationship between appellant and the victim was far
from ideal. Appellant repeatedly maltreated the girl, a fact that he himself
On 25 April 1996, Elgie, assisted by her mother Judith, filed a complaint for
admitted. The threat of another round of abuse proved all too real that
rape, on three counts, against appellant, one committed "on or about 3:00
midnight of 22 April 1996, when appellant verbalized his intention to harm
oclock day time of 1995," the second "on February 7, 1996 [at] 2:00
her upon entering her room. It was not unnatural that the young girl would
oclock in the afternoon" and the third on "April 22, 1996 [at] 12:00 oclock
be cowed by appellant. The victim testified:
night time right in the residence of the victim particularly at Balite, Purok 8,
Bayugan 3, Rosario, Agusan del Sur."3 (Still, for unexplained reasons, the "Q What happened while you were sleeping in your house?
Provincial Prosecutor of Agusan del Sur filed the information, hereinbefore "A While I was sleeping I was awakened, sir.
quoted, charging only one crime of rape, i.e., that which was averred to "Q What happened?
have been committed at midnight on 22 April 1996.) "A He got inside the room and said `Do not tell. If you will tell I will kill you,
sir.
Appellant testified in his defense. He claimed that Judith, Elgies mother,
"Q And what did he do to you if any?
was his common-law wife from 1991 to 1996. Judith thereafter lived with
another man. On 22 April 1996, appellant said he was at home with his two

"A He lifted my skirt and removed my panty and inserted his penis to my
vagina, sir.
"Q What did you do when he inserted his penis to your vagina?
"A I kept on crying, sir.
"Q And after that what happened if any?
"A After that he went out and my mother arrived, sir.
"Q What did you do after your mother arrived in your house?
"A I still remained inside the room and I did not tell my mother because if I
told her he would kill me, sir."9
Contrary to the claim of appellant, the victims submission to his lust was
not free from struggle. She did resist the sexual advances.
"Q You said that accused inserted his penis in your vagina, can you tell us
how deep was the penetration?
"A At first it did not insert because I made some movements, Your Honor.
"Q My question is how deep was it penetrated?
"A The penis did not penetrate completely, Your Honor.
"Q It penetrated but not completely is that what you mean?
"A Yes, Your Honor."10
The medical report that there have been "healed lacerations" found in the 3
and 8 oclock hymenal positions would not refute the existence of rape.
Proof of entry of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum is
sufficient.11 The full penetration of the victims sex organ is not required to
consummate the crime of rape. Neither is proof of hymenal laceration an
element of rape.12 In People v. Madronio,13 the Court has said that the
"presence of an old healed laceration on [the victims] hymen does not
negate the commission of rape," and that a "freshly broken hymen is not an
essential element of the crime." Moreover, a medico-legal report is not
indispensable in the prosecution of a rape case, it being merely
corroborative in nature.14 In this case, the medical report also reflects the
fact that the victim has had "[n]o abrasions, hematoma and contusions" in
"the vulva or in other parts of the body," that belie appellants claim that he
only "mauled" the victim with his bare hands, instead of sexually abusing
her, that night of 22 April 1996.
Appellant assails the credibility of the victim at the witness stand. Like require to be both alleged with certainty in the information and proven at
before, this Court must defer to the assessment and evaluation given by the trial.
6
desistance, create doubts on the veracity of the testimony given by
witnesses during the trial.19 The records do not here cast such doubts. A
rape victim, who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and
frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness.20 The victim in
this case has remained steadfast in her testimony despite a rigid cross-
examination made by the defense. The spontaneous emotional
breakdowns suffered by the victim occasioned by the forced recollection of
the sexual violation she has experienced from the hands of appellant
somehow would add to her credibility.21
There is merit, however, in the contention that the death penalty should not
be imposed upon appellant.
As so amended by Republic Act No. 7659, Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code provides:
"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;
"x x x xxx xxx
"The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
"x x x 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."
Circumstances that would warrant the imposition of the death penalty for
the crime of rape are in the nature of special qualifying circumstances that
22

the trial court on this issue. It is the trial court that would be in such unique The information averred that the victim was fifteen (15) years of age at the
a position as to be able to observe the deportment of the witness while time of the commission of the crime. On the witness stand, the victim
testifying.16 There is here no cogent reason to overturn the judgment of the claimed to be 16 years old, but no other evidence, testimonial or
trial court. documentary, was presented. It was the defense counsel who asked her
It is claimed that the victims motive in filing the rape charge has only been on cross-examination if she had a birth certificate to prove her age. Even
to exact vengeance and to get rid of appellant. The Court has consistently while the victim had testified to the existence of a birth certificate in the
disregarded this kind of assertion as being too trite to merit consideration. possession of her mother, the prosecution, however, failed to pursue the
In one case, the allegation that the rape victim has just wanted to "get rid" matter and ignored the disclosure. The information alleged the victim to be
of an accused due to the maltreatment which she and her mother have the "stepdaughter" of appellant, but the evidence adduced showed that
23

suffered in his hands has been held by the Court to be "too unnatural to the victims mother and appellant had only lived together for a while as just
merit faith and credit."16 Truly, as has so often been said, neither the victim common-law husband and wife.
nor a mother would expose the family to shame and scandal if the charge The crime committed by appellant is simple rape for which the penalty
were merely impelled by a motive other than to exact justice.17 of reclusion perpetua is prescribed. The trial court correctly awarded civil
Appellant argues that the victims getting married soon after her supposed indemnity of P50,000.00 but it has overlooked the prevailing rule that, in
horrendous ordeal is uncharacteristic of a rape victim. Appellant apparently rape cases, moral damages should similarly be awarded.
24

fits the fact of her marriage into his own desperate mold of defense. He WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED with
fails to consider the fact that different people react differently to given MODIFICATION in that appellant Clementino Lou y Galindo is hereby
situations and that there is no known standard form of human behavioral found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape for which
response when confronted particularly with a frightful experience.18 In any he shall suffer the penalty, not of death, but of reclusion
case, her subsequent marriage is of no moment; indeed, it could have perpetua. Appellant is further ordered to pay to the victim fifty thousand
even strengthened her determination to pursue her complaint to its just pesos (P50,000.00) moral damages in addition to the civil indemnity of fifty
conclusion. thousand pesos (P50,000.00) already decreed by the trial court. Costs de
On 27 September 2001, Elgie, after consulting with her mother, executed oficio.
and filed with this Court an affidavit of desistance. An affidavit of SO ORDERED.
desistance is not looked upon with favor on appeal following a conviction,
let alone as being the sole consideration for the reversal of that conviction.
There must be other circumstances which, when coupled with retraction or
 7
G.R. No. 170566 March 3, 2006 Noel testified that he saw how appellant raped his sister on both occasions
but pretended to be asleep out of fear. He did not report the matter to their
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, versus
parents upon instructions of Marinel and also because of the threats of the
ALEJANDRO CALONGUI y LOPEZ, Appellant. appellant.
DECISION Gracia, Marinels mother, testified that Marinel informed her of the rape
incidents on November 15, 1998. She thereafter accompanied her
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: daughter to the police authorities.
This is an appeal from the October 26, 2005 Decision[1] of the Court Dr. Salvacion Pantorgo, Medical Officer at the Bicol Medical Center in
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00125, affirming with modification the Naga City testified that on November 18, 1998, she physically examined
December 23, 2002 Judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Marinel and made the following findings:
Camarines Sur, Branch 33 in Criminal Case Nos. P-2813 and P-2814,
convicting appellant Alejandro Calongui y Lopez for two counts of rape; PPE: Sparse pubic hair; well-apposed labia majora and minora; (+) old
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to indemnify the superficial hymenal laceration at 3 and 4 oclock positions; (+) old complete
victim P50,000.00 as civil liability, P50,000.00 as moral damages and hymenal lacerations at 6 and 11 oclock positions. IE: Admits 2 fingers with
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of rape. ease; cervix closed, firm; uterus small; (-) adnexae; (-) vaginal bleeding.[6]
On July 6, 1999, two separate informations were filed against appellant Dr. Pantorgo found Marinel to be in a non-virgin state consistent with the
before the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, docketed as latters claim that appellant had sexual intercourse with her on two
Criminal Case Nos. P-2813 and P-2814. In Criminal Case No. P-2813, the occasions.
Information reads:
Appellant denied having sexual congress with Marinel on January 1,
That on or about the 1st day of January 1998 at about 2:00 oclock in the 1998. However, as regards the September 26, 1998 incident, he claimed
morning, at Tagbong, Pili, Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the that it was a consensual act considering that he and Marinel were
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with lewd design, sweethearts at that time.
and by means of threats, force and violence, and being the first-cousin of
After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment finding the accused
the complaining witness did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
guilty of two counts of rape, the dispositive portion of which reads:
feloniously lie, sexually assaulted and succe[e]ded in having carnal
knowledge with (sic) one Marinel O. Colangui, a 13 years old girl, at the WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered
latters house and against her will-to the latters damage and prejudice in finding the accused ALEJANDRO CALONGUI y LOPEZ, as follows:
such amount as may be proven in court.
1. In Crim. Case No. P-2813, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[3] crime of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a), of Republic Act No.
8353 and imposing upon him the penalty of imprisonment ranging from
The Information[4] in Criminal Case No. P-2814 is similarly worded except
TWENTY (20) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY TO FORTY (40) YEARS of
as to the alleged date and time of the commission of the rape which was
RECLUSION PERPETUA. Accused is likewise ordered to pay the offended
on September 26, 1998 at 3:00 a.m.
party, MARINEL O. CALONGUI, the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges.[5] Thereafter, joint trial on (P50,000.00) as civil liability; Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral
the merits ensued. damages; Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), as exemplary damages,
all in Philippine Currency.
The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely, Marinel Calongui, Noel
Calongui, Jr., Gracia Calongui, and Dr. Salvacion Pantorgo. 2. In Crim. Case No. P-2814, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a), of Republic Act No.
Marinel testified that she was 5 years old when her family took in appellant, 8353 and imposing upon him the penalty of imprisonment ranging from
who is her first cousin and who was then 21 years old, to live with them
TWENTY (20) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY TO FORTY (40) YEARS of
and help in the upkeep of the familys farm. RECLUSION PERPETUA. Accused is likewise ordered to pay the offended
On January 1, 1998, at 2:00 a.m., then 13-year-old Marinel, who slept in party, MARINEL O. CALONGUI, the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos
the same room as the appellant and her three siblings, awoke to find that (P50,000.00) as civil liability; Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral
appellant had removed her shorts and panties. The latter threatened to kill damages; Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages;
her and her siblings if she resisted his sexual advances. She tried to repel and
the sexual assault by moving her body and kicking the appellants thighs 3. To pay the costs of the suit.
but appellant succeeded in having sexual congress with her. The next
morning, she learned that her 12-year old brother, Noel, witnessed the The accused is credited in full for the period of his preventive imprisonment
incident but pretended to be asleep because the appellant might harm if he agreed voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules
him. Marinel told Noel not to tell anyone about what he saw. She also did imposed upon convicted prisoners; otherwise, with four-fifths thereof.
not report the matter to her parents for fear that appellant would make
SO ORDERED.[7]
good his threats.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal[8] with this Court. In a Resolution[9]
On September 26, 1998 at 3:00 a.m., appellant again raped Marinel which
dated September 8, 2004 and pursuant to our ruling in People v.
was likewise witnessed by Noel. She was undressed from the waist down
Mateo,[10] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals, which
and threatened that she and her siblings would be killed if she resisted.
rendered the assailed decision affirming with modification the judgment of
Shortly after the second rape incident, appellant stayed at the B-Meg the trial court thus:
barracks where he worked as a laborer. Emboldened by his absence,
WHEREFORE, the appealed Judgment dated December 23, 2002 is
Marinel told her mother of her ordeals which led to the filing of the instant
affirmed, subject to the modification of the imprisonment sentence of
criminal cases.
reclusion perpetua in each case, by deleting the period of twenty (20) years
 8
and one (1) day to forty (40) years. The Judgment is affirmed in all other A: He placed his sex organ or penis inside my
respects. (Witness is pointing to her sex organ, vagina.)[22]
xxxx
SO ORDERED.[11]
Q: What did you do also when he was kissing you when his penis
Hence, this appeal raising the sole issue of whether the prosecution proved inserted into your vagina?
appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A: I shouted.
Q: How loud did you shout?
The appeal is bereft of merit. A: Not so loud.[23]
Regarding the January 1, 1998 rape incident, appellant offers his bare and x x x x
unsubstantiated denial; a weak, negative and self-serving defense which Q: Why did you not report the matter to your mother or to your
cannot overcome affirmative testimonies from credible witnesses.[12] In parents?
the case at bar, the clear, candid and straightforward testimony of Marinel A: Because he told me that if I report the matter to my parents he will
firmly established that appellant raped her on January 1, 1998. kill us.[24]
xxxx
As regards the September 26, 1998 rape incident, we are not persuaded Q: When did he tell you that?
that what transpired between appellant and Marinel was consensual sexual A: When he was doing that thing which is bad to me.
intercourse. Well-settled is the rule that the sweethearts defense must be Q: Are you referring to his acts of rape to you?
proven by compelling evidence, specifically, that the accused and the A: Yes, sir.[25]
victim were lovers and that the victim consented to the alleged sexual x x x x
relations.[13] Appellants claim that he and Marinel were lovers remained Q: How did that rape incident happen on September 26, 1998 at
uncorroborated and unsubstantiated. No documentary evidence like around 3:00 oclock in the morning?
mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like were A: He took off my shorts and panty.
presented.[14] Marinel denied the alleged love relationship on direct[15] Q: Afterwards, what did he do?
and cross-examination.[16] Besides, the sweethearts defense does not A: He went on top of me.
rule out rape. Even if it were true, the relationship does not, by itself, Q: After he went on top of you, what did he do?
establish consent for love is not a license for lust.[17] A: He inserted his penis into my vagina.[26]
Appellant further claims that Marinel has bigger physique than him, hence x x x x
she could have resisted and overcome his advances; or she could have Q: Did you resist?
shouted for help because her siblings and parents were nearby. A: Yes, sir.
Q: How did you resist?
Appellants contentions are untenable. Marinel was only 13 years old at A: I kicked him.
the time of the rape incidents. At such a tender age, she could not be Q: After you kicked him twice, what happened?
expected to put up a resistance as would be expected from a mature A: He told me that I should stop moving otherwise he will kill us.[27]
woman. Besides, Marinel testified that she was not of bigger built than the x x x x
appellant at the time she was raped, although at the time she testified two Q: Did you not call your parents when he was raping you on
years after the incidents, she indeed look bigger than the September 26, 1998?
appellant.[18] Moreover, her failure to offer tenacious resistance did not A: No, sir.
make voluntary her submission to the criminal acts.[19] Q: Why did you not call them?
There is nothing unusual in Marinels testimony that the sexual intercourse A: Because he said that if I report the matter he will kill us.[28]
lasted for 30 minutes. A rape victim is not expected to recall every x x x x
peripheral and sordid detail of her horrible ordeal such as the exact Q: Why did it take you to report the matter until November of 1998,
duration of the sexual intercourse. Minor lapses are to be expected when when the rape were done to you on January 1 and September 26, 1998?
a person is recounting details of a traumatic experience too painful to A: Because he was practically watching my every move and would
recall.[20] watch me wherever I go and he was very watchful every time there are
conversations and story telling at home.[29]
The presence of force, threats, and intimidation during the two rape In sum, we find that the prosecution satisfactorily proved beyond
incidents was clearly established, thus: reasonable doubt that appellant had carnal knowledge of Marinel through
Q: Now, with respect to the rape incidents you alleged to have force, threats and intimidation on January 1, 1998 and September 26,
occurred on January 1, 1998 at around 2:00 oclock in the morning, please 1998. Under Articles 266-A[30] and 266-B[31] of the Revised Penal Code,
tell us how did it happen? as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997,
A: I was already asleep when I found out that I did not have my shorts simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Since the appellant is
anymore.[21] guilty of two counts of simple rape, the trial court correctly meted out the
xxxx penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape.
Q: When Alejandro was already on top of you without underwear, what Anent the award of damages, civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon
did he do? finding of the fact of rape[32] while moral damages is awarded upon such
A: He just rode on top of me. finding without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape
Q: What did he do when he rode on top of you? victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such
A: He held both my hands. award.[33] Thus, the trial court correctly awarded the sum of P50,000.00
Q: Why did he took hold of your two hands? as civil liability and P50,000.00 as moral damages to the offended party in
A: Because I was fighting him. accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[34]
Q: Why, what was he doing?
A: (Witness is crying.) He placed his ano in my ano. However, with respect to the award of exemplary damages, the trial court
Q: What is this thing that you named ano that was placed in your failed to cite any factual and legal bases therefor. In People v. Catubig,[35]
ano that you were referring to? we held that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether
 9
ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary
damages. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which took effect on
December 1, 2000 now provides that aggravating circumstances must be
alleged in the information in order to be validly appreciated by the
court.[36] However, the acts of rape and the filing of the two informations
in the instant case occurred prior to the effectivity of these rules. Pursuant
to People v. Catubig, the retroactive application of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure cannot adversely affect the rights of a private offended
party that have become vested before the effectivity of these
rules.[37] Thus, aggravating circumstances which were not alleged in the
informations but proved during the trial may be appreciated for the limited
purpose of determining the accuseds liability for exemplary damages.
This notwithstanding, a review of the records shows that there are no
aggravating circumstances present in the case at bar. Dwelling cannot be
appreciated because Marinel and the appellant lived in the same house at
the time of the rape incidents.[38] As a result, the rationale for considering
dwelling as an aggravating circumstance, i.e., the violation by the offender
of the sanctity of the home of the victim by trespassing therein to commit a
crime,[39] is absent. Night time cannot likewise be appreciated because
there is no proof that the appellant deliberately sought the cover of
darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime.[40]
Similarly, relationship is not aggravating because the relationship between
Marinel and the appellant as first cousins is not within the concept
contemplated in Article 15[41] of the Revised Penal Code.[42] Abuse of
confidence is likewise absent because the prosecution did not establish
that it facilitated the attainment of the rape. Finally, use of a deadly
weapon cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because
Marinels belated assertion on cross-examination that the appellant used a
knife to perpetrate the two rapes raised doubts as to the knifes
existence. She also stated on cross-examination that what she saw was
an object that looked like a knife.[43] In view of the foregoing, the award
of exemplary damages by the trial court should be deleted.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The October 26, 2005 Decision of
the Court Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00125 modifying the December
23, 2002 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 of Pili,
Camarines Sur in Criminal Case Nos. P-2813 and P-2814 is AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is
DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
10
 11
G.R. No. 175238 February 24, 2009 Appellant, in his own defense, denied the charges against him. He claimed
that he and AAA were lovers since November 1999, and that she had
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
consented to have sex with him even prior to February 2000. He
vs.
contended that she charged him because her parents were against their
ELMER BALDO y SANTAIN, Appellant.
affair, and that her parents learned of their relationship because two of their
DECISION neighbors saw them having sexual intercourse. He likewise denied poking
a knife at her when they "made love." To prove they are lovers, appellant
QUISUMBING, J.: presented two witnesses: Benjamin Eubra, Purok Maligaya Chairman, and
On appeal is the Decision dated July 4, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in Simeon de los Santos, appellants uncle and neighbor.
1

CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01930, which affirmed the Decision2 of the Regional Eubra and De los Santos testified that appellant and AAA were always
Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 73 in Criminal Case Nos. 00-18080 to together and held hands when walking. Being part of the barangay
00-18082, convicting and sentencing appellant Elmer S. Baldo to reclusion investigating team, Eubra said that the crime scene is a single-room house
perpetua for the crime of rape. separated from adjacent houses by plywood and located in a place where
On February 17, 2000, three Informations for rape were filed against market people usually hang out. He did not believe the charges because
appellant and were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 00-18080 to 00- the neighbors could always see and hear what the occupants inside the
18082. Except for the dates, all three informations were similarly worded as house were doing.8
follows: On September 26, 2002, the trial court found appellant guilty in Criminal
That on or about the 10th day of February 2000 in the City of Antipolo, Case No. 00-18080 but acquitted him in Criminal Case Nos. 00-18081 and
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- 00-18082. The fallo reads as follows:
named accused, while armed with a fan knife, by means of force and WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused ELMER BALDO y
intimidation, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have SANTAIN is hereby found guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt in
sexual intercourse with one [AAA],3against her will and consent.
Criminal Case No. 00-18080 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
CONTRARY TO LAW.4 of Reclusion Perpetua.
Upon arraignment on March 16, 2000, appellant pleaded not guilty to the He is further ordered to pay to the complainant, [AAA], the amount of Php
three charges.5 Trial on the merits thereafter ensued. 50,000 as indemnity.
The facts as established by the prosecution are as follows: Criminal Cases No[s]. 00-18081 and 00-18082 are hereby DISMISSED for
insufficiency of evidence.
Twenty-nine-year-old AAA, appellant, and Norman Echani were
housemates in a small one-room house in Purok Maligaya II, Mambugan, SO ORDERED.9
Antipolo City. Appellant is her nephew while Echani is her cousin. As AAA Since the penalty imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua, the case
recently resigned from her job and appellant worked during the night shift
was elevated to this Court for automatic review. Pursuant to People v.
in a factory, the two were always left during daytime when Echani was at Mateo,10 however, we referred the case to the Court of Appeals.
work.
On July 4, 2006, the appellate court affirmed with modification the trial
On February 10, 2000 at 1:00 p.m., appellant professed his love for AAA in courts decision. Its fallo reads:
their living room. She, however, admonished him against his protestation
for they are relatives. He then told her that if she ignores him, he would WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED,
rape her. She pleaded to him not to do anything against her will if he really with MODIFICATION by ordering accused-appellant Elmer Baldo y Santain
liked her. Appellant then held her left hand and poked a balisong (fan knife) to likewise pay [AAA] the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and the
at her, and then removed her pants and panty while she was seated at a amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
bench. Then he dragged her and laid her on the floor, removed his shorts
SO ORDERED.11
and brief, and placed himself on top of her. AAA tried to resist by kicking
him but he was stronger. Thereafter he placed the knife aside, then held Hence this instant petition based on a lone assignment of error:
and pressed her thighs. He then fingered her vagina with his right hand
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE
and inserted his penis into it. After two minutes, appellant stood up but
ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN
threatened to kill her if she reported the incident to their relatives. As she
[PROVEN] BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.12
was in shock, AAA just stayed in her room. Appellant thereafter left for
work at 5:30 p.m. The issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether the crime of rape,
particularly the element of force or intimidation, has been proved
According to AAA, appellant repeated his beastly act the following day,
sufficiently.
February 11 and on the next day, February 12, 2000.
Appellant insists that he and AAA are lovers and what happened between
In the evening of February 12, 2000, AAA decided to tell Echani what
them was consensual. He likewise capitalizes on AAAs admission that he
appellant had done to her. Echani and his brother, Abraham, then
was no longer holding the knife when he inserted his finger and
accompanied her to the barangay hall to file complaints against appellant.
subsequently his penis into AAAs vagina. Thus, she had all the opportunity
The medico-legal police officer who examined AAA on February 13, 2000 to resist his alleged sexual assault. Appellant further claims that AAAs
found "deep healing laceration" in her hymen, "compatible with recent loss failure to make an outcry to call the attention of their neighbors, as the
of virginity" but negative for spermatozoa.6 Dr. James Belgira testified that partition between the rooms was only made of plywood, and to immediately
the laceration could have been caused by a penetration of a hard object disclose the incident to her cousin Echani, showed she consented to the
like an erect penis. He also found contusions on AAAs left arm and sexual congresses. As he was not covering her mouth, she should have
thighs.7 made her protestations in a voice loud enough for others to hear.
 12
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that findings of fact of of P25,000 exemplary damages due to the presence of the aggravating
the trial court deserve respect and that witnesses are usually reluctant to circumstance of use of a deadly weapon (fan knife) is proper.26
volunteer information. It stresses that the elements of simple rape, to wit,
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 4, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in
carnal knowledge and force or intimidation, were proven during trial. Even
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01930 is AFFIRMED.
granting that appellant and AAA were lovers, such fact was not a valid
defense as a man cannot force his sweetheart to have sexual intercourse SO ORDERED.
with him. The OSG adds that AAAs account evinced sincerity and
truthfulness and she never wavered in her story, consistently pointing to
appellant as her rapist. Besides, no woman would willingly submit herself
to the rigors, humiliation and stigma attendant in a rape case if she was not
motivated by an earnest desire to punish the culprit.
In our considered view, the prosecution has proven all the elements of the
offense of simple rape, including the use of force or intimidation. We affirm
appellants conviction.1avvphi1.zw+
For conviction in the crime of rape, the following elements must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of
the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of
force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or
is demented.13
In this case, the presence of the first element is undisputed since
appellant admits his sexual congress with complainant. While making such
admission however, he contends that there is no force or intimidation to
speak of as it was consensual. Appellant alleges that AAA willingly
participated in the sexual act because they are lovers. He even presented
two witnesses to corroborate his claim. Their testimony, however, leaves
us unconvinced of appellants alleged innocence.
The "sweetheart theory" or "sweetheart defense" is an oft-abused
justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests
our patience.14 For the Court to even consider giving credence to such
defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence.15 The defense cannot
just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant
case. Independent proof is required -- such as tokens, mementos, and
photographs.16There is none presented here by the defense.
Moreover, even if it were true that they were sweethearts, a love affair
does not justify rape. As wisely ruled in a previous case, a man does not
have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires.17
In a desperate attempt to prove the alleged consensual nature of the
sexual intercourse, appellant capitalizes on AAAs failure to offer resolute
resistance despite the fact that he was no longer holding the knife while
consummating the sexual act. Appellant also points to AAAs failure to
shout or make an outcry so that their neighbors can come to her rescue.
AAAs failure to shout or to tenaciously resist appellant should not be taken
against her since such negative assertion would not ipso facto make
voluntary her submission to appellants criminal act.18 In rape, the force
and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victims perception and
judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in
our jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way.19 Some people may
cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while
others may appear to yield to the intrusion.20 Some may offer strong
resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at
all.21 Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape.22 A rape victim has no
burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or
intimidation employed upon her.23 As long as the force or intimidation is
present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.24 In this
case, the presence of a fan knife on hand or by his side speaks loudly of
appellants use of violence, or force and intimidation.
As to the civil indemnity and damages, the trial court, as affirmed by the
appellate court, correctly awarded P50,000 civil indemnity and P50,000
moral damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence.25 Likewise, the award
 13
G.R. No. 129433 March 30, 2000 death, 5 hence this case before us on automatic review under Art. 335 of
the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659. 6
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,
vs. As may be culled from the evidence on record, on 25 April 1996, at around
PRIMO CAMPUHAN Y BELLO accused. 4 o'clock in the afternoon, Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan, mother of four (4)-
year old Crysthel Pamintuan, went down from the second floor of their
BELLOSILLO, J.:
house to prepare Milo chocolate drinks for her two (2) children. At the
On 3 April 1990 this Court in People v. Orita 1 finally did away with ground floor she met Primo Campuhan who was then busy filling small
frustrated rape 2 and allowed only attempted rape and consummated rape plastic bags with water to be frozen into ice in the freezer located at the
to remain in our statute books. The instant case lurks at the threshold of second floor. Primo was a helper of Conrado Plata Jr., brother of Corazon.
another emasculation of the stages of execution of rape by considering As Corazon was busy preparing the drinks, she heard one of her daughters
almost every attempt at sexual violation of a woman as consummated cry, "Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!" 7 prompting Corazon to rush upstairs. Thereupon,
rape, that is, if the contrary view were to be adopted. The danger there is she saw Primo Campuhan inside her children's room kneeling before
that that concept may send the wrong signal to every roaming lothario, Crysthel whose pajamas or "jogging pants" and panty were already
whenever the opportunity bares itself, to better intrude with climactic gusto, removed, while his short pants were down to his knees.
sans any restraint, since after all any attempted fornication would be
According to Corazon, Primo was forcing his penis into Crysthel's vagina.
considered consummated rape and punished as such. A mere strafing of
Horrified, she cursed the accused, "P - t - ng ina mo, anak ko iyan!" and
the citadel of passion would then be considered a deadly fait accompli,
boxed him several times. He evaded her blows and pulled up his pants. He
which is absurd.
pushed Corazon aside when she tried to block his path. Corazon then ran
In Orita we held that rape was consummated from the moment the offender out and shouted for help thus prompting her brother, a cousin and an uncle
had carnal knowledge of the victim since by it he attained his objective. All who were living within their compound, to chase the accused. 8Seconds
the elements of the offense were already present and nothing more was later, Primo was apprehended by those who answered Corazon's call for
left for the offender to do, having performed all the acts necessary to help. They held the accused at the back of their compound until they were
produce the crime and accomplish it. We ruled then that perfect advised by their neighbors to call the barangay officials instead of detaining
penetration was not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the him for his misdeed. Physical examination of the victim yielded negative
male organ, however slight, was sufficient. The Court further held that entry results. No evident sign of extra-genital physical injury was noted by the
of the labia or lips of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen medico-legal officer on Crysthel's body as her hymen was intact and its
or laceration of the vagina, was sufficient to warrant conviction for orifice was only 0.5 cm. in diameter.
consummated rape. We distinguished consummated rape from attempted
Primo Campuhan had only himself for a witness in his defense. He
rape where there was no penetration of the female organ because not all
maintained his innocence and assailed the charge as a mere scheme of
acts of execution were performed as the offender merely commenced the
Crysthel's mother who allegedly harbored ill will against him for his refusal
commission of a felony directly by overt acts. 3 The inference that may be
to run an errand for her. 9 He asserted that in truth Crysthel was in a
derived therefrom is that complete or full penetration of the vagina is not
playing mood and wanted to ride on his back when she suddenly pulled
required for rape to be consummated. Any penetration, in whatever
him down causing both of them to fall down on the floor. It was in this fallen
degree, is enough to raise the crime to its consummated stage.
position that Corazon chanced upon them and became hysterical. Corazon
But the Court in Orita clarified the concept of penetration in rape by slapped him and accused him of raping her child. He got mad but
requiring entry into the labia or lips of the female organ, even if there be no restrained himself from hitting back when he realized she was a woman.
rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, to warrant a conviction for Corazon called for help from her brothers to stop him as he ran down from
consummated rape. While the entry of the penis into the lips of the female the second floor.
organ was considered synonymous with mere touching of the external
Vicente, Corazon's brother, timely responded to her call for help and
genitalia, e.g., labia majora, labia minora, etc.,4 the crucial doctrinal bottom
accosted Primo. Vicente punched him and threatened to kill him. Upon
line is that touching must be inextricably viewed in light of, in relation to, or
hearing the threat, Primo immediately ran towards the house of Conrado
as an essential part of, the process of penile penetration, and not just mere
Plata but Vicente followed him there. Primo pleaded for a chance to explain
touching in the ordinary sense. In other words, the touching must be tacked
as he reasoned out that the accusation was not true. But Vicente kicked
to the penetration itself. The importance of the requirement of penetration,
him instead. When Primo saw Vicente holding a piece of lead pipe, Primo
however slight, cannot be gainsaid because where entry into the labia or
raised his hands and turned his back to avoid the blow. At this moment, the
the lips of the female genitalia has not been established, the crime
relatives and neighbors of Vicente prevailed upon him to take Primo to the
committed amounts merely to attempted rape.
barangay hall instead, and not to maul or possibly kill him.
Verily, this should be the indicium of the Court in determining whether rape
Although Primo Campuhan insisted on his innocence, the trial court on 27
has been committed either in its attempted or in its consummated stage;
May 1997 found him guilty of statutory rape, sentenced him to the extreme
otherwise, no substantial distinction would exist between the two, despite
penalty of death, and ordered him to pay his victim P50,000.00 for moral
the fact that penalty-wise, this distinction, threadbare as it may seem,
damages, P25,000.00 for exemplary damages, and the costs.
irrevocably spells the difference between life and death for the accused
a reclusive life that is not even perpetua but only temporal on one hand, The accused Primo Campuhan seriously assails the credibility of Ma.
and the ultimate extermination of life on the other. And, arguing on another Corazon Pamintuan. He argues that her narration should not be given any
level, if the case at bar cannot be deemed attempted but consummated weight or credence since it was punctured with implausible statements and
rape, what then would constitute attempted rape? Must our field of choice improbabilities so inconsistent with human nature and experience. He
be thus limited only to consummated rape and acts of lasciviousness since claims that it was truly inconceivable for him to commit the rape
attempted rape would no longer be possible in light of the view of those considering that Crysthel's younger sister was also in the room playing
who disagree with this ponencia? while Corazon was just downstairs preparing Milo drinks for her daughters.
Their presence alone as possible eyewitnesses and the fact that the
On 27 May 1997 Primo Campuhan y Bello was found guilty of statutory
episode happened within the family compound where a call for assistance
rape and sentenced by the court a quo to the extreme penalty of
could easily be heard and responded to, would have been enough to deter
 14
him from committing the crime. Besides, the door of the room was wide slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the
open for anybody to see what could be taking place inside. Primo insists pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it
that it was almost inconceivable that Corazon could give such a vivid can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.
description of the alleged sexual contact when from where she stood she
Judicial depiction of consummated rape has not been confined to the oft-
could not have possibly seen the alleged touching of the sexual organs of
quoted "touching of the female organ," 17 but has also progressed into
the accused and his victim. He asserts that the absence of any external
being described as "the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the
signs of physical injuries or of penetration of Crysthel's private parts more
pudendum," 18 or "the bombardment of the drawbridge." 19 But, to our mild,
than bolsters his innocence.
the case at bar merely constitutes a "shelling of the castle of orgasmic
In convicting the accused, the trial court relied quite heavily on the potency," or as earlier stated, a "strafing of the citadel of passion.
testimony of Corazon that she saw Primo with his short pants down to his
A review of the records clearly discloses that the prosecution utterly failed
knees kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas and panty were
to discharge its onus of proving that Primo's penis was able to penetrate
supposedly "already removed" and that Primo was "forcing his penis into
Crysthel's vagina however slight. Even if we grant arguendo that Corazon
Crysthel's vagina." The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is carnal
witnessed Primo in the act of sexually molesting her daughter, we seriously
knowledge of a woman below twelve (12), as provided in Art. 335, par. (3),
doubt the veracity of her claim that she saw the inter-genital contact
of the Revised Penal Code. Crysthel was only four (4) years old when
between Primo and Crysthel. When asked what she saw upon entering her
sexually molested, thus raising the penalty, from reclusion perpetua to
children's room Corazon plunged into saying that she saw Primo poking his
death, to the single indivisible penalty of death under RA 7659, Sec. 11,
penis on the vagina of Crysthel without explaining her relative position to
the offended party being below seven (7) years old. We have said often
them as to enable her to see clearly and sufficiently, in automotive lingo,
enough that in concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full
the contact point. It should be recalled that when Corazon chanced upon
penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the
Primo and Crysthel, the former was allegedly in a kneeling position, which
rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia
Corazon described thus:
by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to
constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching should be Q: How was Primo holding your daughter?
10

understood here as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labias
of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or A: (The witness is demonstrating in such a way that the chest of the
the pudendum. accused is pinning down the victim, while his right hand is holding his penis
and his left hand is spreading the legs of the victim).
In People v. De la Pea 11 we clarified that the decisions finding a case for
rape even if the attacker's penis merely touched the external portions of It can reasonably be drawn from the foregoing narration that Primo's
the female genitalia were made in the context of the presence or existence kneeling position rendered an unbridled observation impossible. Not even
a vantage point from the side of the accused and the victim would have
of an erect penis capable of full penetration. Where the accused failed to
achieve an erection, had a limp or flaccid penis, or an oversized penis provided Corazon an unobstructed view of Primo's penis supposedly
which could not fit into the victim's vagina, the Court nonetheless held that reaching Crysthel's external genitalia, i.e., labia majora, labia minora,
rape was consummated on the basis of the victim's testimony that the hymen, clitoris, etc., since the legs and arms of Primo would have hidden
accused repeatedly tried, but in vain, to insert his penis into her vagina and his movements from Corazon's sight, not to discount the fact that Primo's
right hand was allegedly holding his penis thereby blocking it from
in all likelihood reached the labia of her pudendum as the victim felt his
organ on the lips of her vulva, or that the penis of the accused touched Corazon's view. It is the burden of the prosecution to establish how
12

the middle part of her vagina. 13 Thus, touching when applied to rape cases Corazon could have seen the sexual contact and to shove her account into
the permissive sphere of credibility. It is not enough that she claims that
does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of
organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the she saw what was done to her daughter. It is required that her claim be
victim's vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient properly demonstrated to inspire belief. The prosecution failed in this
and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into respect, thus we cannot conclude without any taint of serious doubt that
the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for inter-genital contact was at all achieved. To hold otherwise would be to
resolve the doubt in favor of the prosecution but to run roughshod over the
an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. 14 As the labias, which
are required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their natural situs or constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent.
location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with Corazon insists that Primo did not restrain himself from pursuing his wicked
the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, intention despite her timely appearance, thus giving her the opportunity to
hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of fully witness his beastly act.
the pudendum constitutes consummated rape.
We are not persuaded. It is inconsistent with man's instinct of self-
The pudendum or vulva is the collective term for the female genital organs preservation to remain where he is and persist in satisfying his lust even
that are visible in the perineal area, e.g., mons pubis, labia majora, labia when he knows fully well that his dastardly acts have already been
minora, the hymen, the clitoris, the vaginal orifice, etc. The mons pubis is discovered or witnessed by no less than the mother of his victim. For, the
the rounded eminence that becomes hairy after puberty, and is instantly normal behavior or reaction of Primo upon learning of Corazon's presence
visible within the surface. The next layer is the labia majora or the outer lips would have been to pull his pants up to avoid being caught literally with his
of the female organ composed of the outer convex surface and the inner pants down. The interval, although relatively short, provided more than
surface. The skin of the outer convex surface is covered with hair follicles enough opportunity for Primo not only to desist from but even to conceal
and is pigmented, while the inner surface is a thin skin which does not his evil design.
have any hair but has many sebaceous glands. Directly beneath the labia
majora is the labia minora. 15 Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora What appears to be the basis of the conviction of the accused was
must be entered for rape to be consummated, 16 and not merely for the Crysthel's answer to the question of the court
penis to stroke the surface of the female organ. Thus, a grazing of the Q: Did the penis of Primo touch your organ?
surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is
not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the A: Yes, sir.
 15
But when asked further whether his penis penetrated her organ, she his own spontaneous desistance. All the elements of attempted rape
readily said, "No." Thus and only of attempted rape are present in the instant case, hence, the
accused should be punished only for it.
Q: But did his penis penetrate your organ?
The penalty for attempted rape is two (2) degrees lower than the imposable
A: No, sir. 20
penalty of death for the offense charged, which is statutory rape of a minor
This testimony alone should dissipate the mist of confusion that enshrouds below seven (7) years. Two (2) degrees lower is reclusion temporal, the
the question of whether rape in this case was consummated. It has range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.
foreclosed the possibility of Primo's penis penetrating her vagina, however Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the absence of any
slight. Crysthel made a categorical statement denying mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the maximum of the penalty to be
penetration, 27 obviously induced by a question propounded to her who imposed upon the accused shall be taken from the medium period
could not have been aware of the finer distinctions between touching and of reclusion temporal, the range of which is fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
penetration. Consequently, it is improper and unfair to attach to this reply of months and (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, while the
a four (4)-year old child, whose vocabulary is yet as underdeveloped as her minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which
sex and whose language is bereft of worldly sophistication, an adult is prision mayor, the range of which is from six (6) years and one (1) day to
interpretation that because the penis of the accused touched her organ twelve (12) years, in any of its periods.
there was sexual entry. Nor can it be deduced that in trying to penetrate
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo finding accused PRIMO
the victim's organ the penis of the accused touched the middle portion of
"SONNY" CAMPUHAN Y BELLO guilty of statutory rape and sentencing
her vagina and entered the labia of her pudendum as the prosecution failed
him to death and to pay damages is MODIFIED. He is instead found guilty
to establish sufficiently that Primo made efforts to penetrate
of ATTEMPTED RAPE and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of
Crysthel. 22Corazon did not say, nay, not even hint that Primo's penis was
eight (8) years four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium
erect or that he responded with an erection. 23 On the contrary, Corazon
as minimum, to fourteen (14) years ten (10) months and twenty (20) days
even narrated that Primo had to hold his penis with his right hand, thus
of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. Costs de oficio.
showing that he had yet to attain an erection to be able to penetrate his
victim. SO ORDERED.1wphi1.nt
Antithetically, the possibility of Primo's penis having breached Crysthel's
vagina is belied by the child's own assertion that she resisted Primo's
advances by putting her legs close together; 24 consequently, she did not
feel any intense pain but just felt "not happy" about what Primo did to
her. 25 Thus, she only shouted "Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!" not "Aray ko, aray ko!" In
cases where penetration was not fully established, the Court had anchored
its conclusion that rape nevertheless was consummated on the victim's
testimony that she felt pain, or the medico-legal finding of discoloration in
the inner lips of the vagina, or the labia minora was already gaping with
redness, or the hymenal tags were no longer visible. 26 None was shown in
this case. Although a child's testimony must be received with due
consideration on account of her tender age, the Court endeavors at the
same time to harness only what in her story appears to be true, acutely
aware of the equally guaranteed rights of the accused. Thus, we have to
conclude that even on the basis of the testimony of Crysthel alone the
accused cannot be held liable for consummated rape; worse, be sentenced
to death.1wphi1
Lastly, it is pertinent to mention the medico legal officer's finding in this
case that there were no external signs of physical injuries on complaining
witness' body to conclude from a medical perspective that penetration had
taken place. As Dr. Aurea P. Villena explained, although the absence of
complete penetration of the hymen does not negate the possibility of
contact, she clarified that there was no medical basis to hold that there was
sexual contact between the accused and the victim. 27
In cases of rape where there is a positive testimony and a medical
certificate, both should in all respects complement each other; otherwise,
to rely on the testimonial evidence alone, in utter disregard of the manifest
variance in the medical certificate, would be productive of unwarranted or
even mischievous results. It is necessary to carefully ascertain whether the
penis of the accused in reality entered the labial threshold of the female
organ to accurately conclude that rape was consummated. Failing in this,
the thin line that separates attempted rape from consummated rape will
significantly disappear.
Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code, rape is
attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than
16
 17
G.R. No. 117691 March 1, 2000 CONCIOUS (sic) COHERENT AMBULATORY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, PELVIC EXAMINATION
vs.
GROSSLY NORMAL FEMALE GENITALIA
EDUARDO SAMPIOR y BERICO, accused-appellant.
INTROITUS ADMITS 1 FINGER WITH EASE
QUISUMBING, J.:
HYMEN INTACT OPEN DISCHARGE
On appeal is the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Capiz, Branch 15,
dated June 29, 1994, in Criminal Cases Nos. C-4515 and C-4516, finding WHITISH MUCCIS A/P
appellant Eduardo Sampior y Berico guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two
SPERMATOZOA DETERMINATION NEGATIVE
counts of rape. Its decretal portion reads:
WHEREFORE, finding accused EDUARDO SAMPIOR Y BERICO guilty PREGNANCY TEST NEGATIVE
2

beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in Crim. Cases Nos. C-4515 On March 24, 1994, private complainant filed two separate complaints for
and C-4516, punishable under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as rape against her own father. The complaints were docketed as Criminal
amended by R.A. No. 7659, and without the presence of mitigating or Case Nos. C-4515 and C-4516. The complaint in Criminal Case No. C-
aggravating circumstances, and considering that his daughter-victim was 4515 states:
already 18 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, he is
hereby imposed with the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of the That on or about 10:00 o'clock in the morning of March 5, 1994, in the City
aforesaid criminal cases. However, he is entitled to be credited in the of Roxas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
service of his sentence for whatever imprisonment he had already the said accused, by means of force and intimidation, and exercising moral
undergone pursuant to Art. 29 of the same Code. and parental ascendancy over the person of the complainant who is his
natural daughter, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
SO ORDERED.1 had carnal knowledge with EVELYN SAMPIOR, an eighteen (18) year old
Noteworthy, appellant does not seek an acquittal, but contends that he girl, against her will.
should have been convicted of frustrated rape only, and that the sentence CONTRARY TO LAW.3
on him should be reduced, correspondingly.
The complaint in Criminal Case No. C-4516 reads:
The facts of this case, as gleaned from the records, are as follows:
That on or about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of March 5, 1994, in the City
On March 5, 1994, private complainant, who is the eldest of appellant's of Roxas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
nine children, was left in their house with her two younger sisters and a 2- the said accused by means of force and intimidation, and exercising moral
month old infant brother. Appellant had gone out to harvest palay with his and parental ascendancy over the person of the complainant who is his
parents and some of his sons. Private complainant's mother, in turn, had natural daughter, did then and there, wilfully (sic), unlawfully and
left to sell fruits in the Bagong Lipunan Trade Center in Roxas City. feloniously, had carnal knowledge with EVELYN SAMPIOR, an eighteen
(18) year old girl, against her will.
Around 10:00 o'clock' in the morning, appellant returned to their house
alone. He told the two small girls to go downstairs and play. The two CONTRARY TO LAW.4
obeyed, leaving only the appellant, the private complainant, and the
sleeping infant. After private complainant placed her charge in his cradle, On arraignment, appellant, assisted by the public attorney, pleaded "Not
appellant suddenly pulled her towards him and began to take off her shirt guilty" to each charge.
and panty. Private complainant resisted and told him that she did not like The two cases were then jointly tried.
that he was doing to her. Appellant persisted in his efforts. He forced her to
lie down on the floor and removed her panty. The accused then removed The prosecution presented three witnesses, including the complainant.
his pants and brief and placed himself on top of her. He held his penis and Dr. Toledo testified that he did not find any laceration of the complainant's
inserted it into the vagina of the complainant. After a short while, the hymen nor any contusions or other injuries in her body. However, he
appellant pulled out his genital organ, which emitted a fluid-like substance. pointed out that there are some hymens that are "thick, elastic and
He then told complainant to dress up. Assuring her that he loved her, he flexible,"5and thus, he could not discount the possibility that a rape victim's
warned her not to tell anybody about the incident, otherwise he would kill hymen would remain intact and exhibit no lacerations.6
them all. Shortly thereafter, appellant left the house.
Appellant did not take the witness stand. He chose not to present his side
At around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, appellant returned of the case. Instead, the defense presented the private complainant as a
home smelling of liquor. He found private complainant alone and sexually hostile witness to testify that there was no full penile penetration of her
abused her again. womanhood.
Private complainant says she did not report the rapes immediately to the On June 29, 1994, the trial court convicted appellant of two counts of rape.
police, since she was confused and undecided about what to do. She also
had her school examinations to contend with. She finally revealed her On appeal before this Court, appellant assigns the following errors:
ordeal to her mother. They agreed to report the matter to the police, but I
decided to wait for the proper time.
THE COURT OF ORIGIN ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
On March 14, 1994, private complainant, with her mother's consent, APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF CONSUMMATED RAPE.
reported the rapes to the police.
II
Private complainant was examined at the Roxas Memorial General
Hospital by Dr. Michael Toledo. His findings were as follows: THE COURT OF ORIGIN ERRED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY
OF RECLUSION PERPETUA AGAINST THE ACCUSED APPELLANT.7
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:
 18
The only issue before us is whether or not the trial court erred in finding appellant shall pay complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
that appellant is guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt, and sentencing indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary
him to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided by law. damages. Costs against appellant.1wphi1.nt
On the first assigned error, appellant's argues he should not have been SO ORDERED.
convicted of rape, but only of frustrated rape. Appellant avers that since
private complainant, as hostile witness, testified that the appellant's penis
"only touched the outer side of her vagina,"8 the two rapes were never
consummated. Appellant's claim, however, is contradicted by the records.
The transcripts show that private complainant categorically, credibly, and
convincingly testified that there was phallic penetration of her private
parts.9 In the instant case, appellant has shown no reason why the private
complainant's testimony should not deserve full credence.1wphi1 A
candid narration by a rape victim deserves credence particularly where no
ill motive is attributed to the rape victim that would make her testify falsely
against the accused. 10 For no woman in her right mind will admit to having
been raped, allow an examination of her most private parts and subject
herself as well as her family to the humiliation and shame concomitant with
a rape prosecution, unless the charges are true. 11 Where an alleged rape
victim says she was sexually abused, she says almost all that is necessary
to show that rape had been inflicted on her person, provided her testimony
meets the test of credibility. 12
Appellant vehemently insists that prosecution witness Dr. Michael Toledo
testified that he could not tell if there was penile penetration as there were
no lacerations in the private complainant's hymen, which was still
intact. 13Hence, appellant claims he should be given the benefit of the
doubt and should only be convicted of frustrated rape. But appellant's virgo
intacta theory has already received short shrift from this Court. A broken
hymen or laceration of any part of the female genitalia is not a prerequisite
for a rape conviction. 14 Nor is a medical examination indispensable to the
prosecution of rape, as long as the evidence on hand convinces the court
that a conviction for rape is proper. 15 A medical examination of the victim,
as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in
character. 16 What is important, the trial court said, is that the testimony of
private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal, and
credible. 17 A daughter would not accuse her own father of such an
unspeakable crime as incestuous rape had she really not been
aggrieved. 18
Appellant points to the old (1927) ruling in People v. Erinia, 19 where the
Court held that there being no conclusive evidence of the penetration of the
genital organ of the offended party, the defendant was entitled to the
benefit of the doubt, and could only be found guilty of frustrated rape.
However, later cases have overruled Erinia. We now hold that the crime of
frustrated rape is non-existent in our criminal law. 20 In abandoning Erinia,
the Court declared that the merest touch of the male organ upon the labia
of the pudendum, no matter how slight, consummates the rape. 21
On the second assigned error, we find that the appellant's conviction for
two counts of rape by the trial court is well supported by the evidence. It did
not err in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Section
335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. 22
We note, however, that the trial court awarded neither civil indemnity nor
moral damages to the offended party. Pursuant to current jurisprudence,
the private complainant is entitled to civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for each
count of rape. 23 An additional P50,000.00 as moral damages should
likewise be granted for each count of rape, 24 without need of further proof.
To serve as deterrent against sexual abuse of young women by their
fathers, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should also be
imposed for each count of rape. 25
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court sentencing appellant Eduardo
Sampior y Berico to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties
provided by law, for each one of the two counts of rape is hereby
AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that, for each count of rape,
 19
G.R. No. 130586 ; January 29, 2004 Appellant claims that Mylene is merely fabricating the charge against him
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.,appellee, vs. FRANCISCO BLANCAFLOR out of vindictiveness; that she is only making up the story about the rape
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: because she is mad at him for trying to discipline her. 10 He testified that
when Mylene started going to high school, she began to form a habit of
Before us is the automatic review of the judgment,1 dated August 9, 1997,
going out every evening and returning only at around 11:30 at night. He
of the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay (Branch 15) in Criminal Case
chastised Mylene about her conduct, but she only answered back, saying
No. T-2780, finding appellant Francisco Blancaflor guilty of Rape beyond
that he is "like a devil."
reasonable doubt and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death.
Both defense witnesses Antonio Bermundo, formely the appointed
On December 4, 1996, an Information was filed before the Regional Trial
Barangay Captain of the place where appellant and private complainant
Court of Tabaco, Albay (Branch 15), accusing appellant of the crime of
reside, and Leovigildo Barron, a resident of the same barangay and the
rape, thus:
neighbor of appellant, testified that as far as they know, appellant is a good
That sometime in the later part of July, 1995, at around 3:30 or 4:00 oclock person, with no derogatory record whatsoever in the barangay.11
in the morning, more or less, at Barangay Igang, Municipality of Bacacay,
The trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads as
Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
follows:
Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste designs and by
means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his own finding accused, FRANCISCO BLANCAFLOR (sic), guilty beyond
stepdaughter, MYLENE B. RUEDA, against her will and without her reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape defined under Sec. 11 of R.A. 7659
consent, to her damage and prejudice. and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death and to
indemnify Mylene Rueda the total amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
(P50,000.00) as actual, moral and exemplary damages and to finally pay
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the foregoing charge. the costs hereof.
Trial ensued.
SO ORDERED.12
The facts of the case, as established by the prosecution, are as follows:
In his appeal brief, appellant assigns the following errors of the trial court:
Fourteen-year old, high school student Mylene B. Rueda has been an
I
average student. However, sometime in 1996, Mrs. Adelaida Corla,
THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT,
Mylenes class adviser in high school, noticed that Mylene became absent-
RANGED AGAINST THE DENIAL OF THE ACCUSED, THE TESTIMONY
minded in class and sometimes she even found her crying. Mylene began
OF THE COMPLAINANT IS DECIDEDLY MORE CONVINCING AND
to get failing grades in one of her subjects, and so Mrs. Corla conferred
RATIONAL.
with Mylene, asking her why she was failing when she used to be good in
II
class. Mylene only cried. Mrs. Corla prodded on with more questions and
THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT MYLENE
was ultimately shocked to discover the gravity of Mylenes problem. 3
RUEDAS "FAILURE TO DIVULGE THE BESTIAL DEED AND
Mylene revealed to her class adviser that her "stepfather" had raped her. 4
DENOUNCE HER ATTACKER IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT TOOK PLACE
Mylene recounted that one very early morning sometime during the last IS NOT CONTRARY TO NORMAL BEHAVIOUR."
week of July, 1995, her mother, a fish vendor who leaves their home at III
dawn everyday, woke her up and asked her to transfer from the floor where THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER
she (Mylene) was sleeping, to the bed where her four-year old brother THE FACT THAT MYLENE RUEDA WAS ACTUATED BY ILL-MOTIVE
slept. Mylene then transferred and slept on the bed.5 At around 3:30 or AND RESENTMENT IN FILING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST
4:00 that same morning, she was again roused from sleep when she felt APPELLANT.
appellant on top of her, with his penis already at the entrance of her IV
vagina. She could not do anything as her hands were pinned against THE LOWER COURT LIKEWISE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
appellants chest and he was threatening to kill all of them with a gun that "ACCUSEDS DEFENSES OF ALIBI AND DENIAL DO NOT INSPIRE THE
was then just beside him. Appellant went on to push his penis into her SLIGHTEST BELIEF AND CONSIDERATION.
vagina, continuing to touch her breast and vagina.6
Appellant points out that he never advanced the defense of alibi; that his
For at least a couple of days after the incident, she did not attend only defense is denial; that there is no truth whatsoever to the claims of
school.7 She could not immediately overcome her fear of her stepfather. It Mylene.
took her three more weeks before she gathered the courage to tell her
Thus, the main issue here is the credibility of private complainant and her
mother about the incident. Mylenes mother and appellant quarreled about
testimony. Appellant points to several circumstances purportedly showing
the matter, but soon after, the two were in talking terms again and the
that Mylenes testimony is not worthy of belief.
matter was resolved with a mere promise from appellant that he will not do
it again. Appellant, however, went on touching or mashing Mylenes private First, he points out that there is no evidence that Mylene put up any
parts whenever he had a chance but Mylene no longer reported the resistance. In fact, her younger brother who was sleeping beside her was
incidents to her mother as she was afraid.8 not even roused from sleep when the alleged rape was taking place.
Hence, appellant contends that it is not true that he had to resort to force,
Thus, it was only when Mylene finally told her class adviser in high school
violence and intimidation to commit the alleged rape. Second, the delay of
about her traumatic experience that something was done about her
fourteen months before Mylene reported the alleged rape clouds her
predicament. When Mrs. Corla learned about the rape incident, she
credibility. Lastly. Mylenes filing of rape charges was merely motivated by
referred the problem to the schools guidance counselor, who in turn
her resentment against appellants efforts to instill discipline in her.
obtained help from COPE, an organization that helps rape victims. They
Appellant therefore posits that the uncorroborated testimony of
assisted Mylene in reporting the crime to the National Bureau of
complainant is weak and cannot be considered more convincing and
Investigation (NBI) and the case was filed in court. Custody over Mylene
rational than the defense presented by him.
was also turned over to the Dept of Social Welfare & Devt (DSWD).9

At the outset, we emphasize the settled rule that the testimony of a rape
victim of tender or immature age deserves full credit.13 At the time Mylene
testified, she was a mere fifteen-year old girl. Furthermore, reading from
the record, her testimony is clear, straightforward and bereft of material or
significant inconsistencies. Hence, the trial court correctly found Mylenes
testimony to be deserving of full faith and credit.
The trial courts findings on the credibility of witnesses carry great weight
and respect and will be sustained by the appellate courts unless the trial
court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance which will alter the assailed
decision or affect the result of the case.14 We find nothing on record that
would compel us to deviate from such well-entrenched rule or to overturn
the trial courts assessment of the credibility of Mylene.
Appellants contention that Mylenes testimony that she was raped should
not be trusted because there are no signs whatsoever that she put up any
resistance, is untenable. In People vs. Rodriguez,15 we held that it would
be plain fallacy to say that the failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance
makes voluntary the victims submission to the criminal act of the offender.
In People vs. Gutierrez,16 we enunciated that:
Physical resistance need not be proved in rape when intimidation is
exercised upon the victim and she submits herself, against her will, to the
rapists advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. It
suffices that the intimidation produces fear in the mind of the victim that if
she did not submit to the bestial demands of the accused, something
worse would befall her at the time she was being molested.
In this case, it is true that Mylene did not put up a struggle, hence, her four-
year old brother did not even notice what was happening between Mylene
and appellant. However, it should be noted that Mylene testified that she
was thinking of kicking and scratching him but she could not do so as the
body of appellant pinned her down, her hands were pinned against
appellants chest and appellant was threatening to kill all of them. She
testified thus:
Q: When Francisco Blancaflor did what you said he had done to you, what
did you do?
A: I was not able to do anything.
Q: Why were you not able to do anything?
A: He threatened me, sir.
PROSECUTOR BERANGO: (To witness)
Q: And how did he threatened (sic) you?
A: He told me that he will kill all of us.
xxx xxx xxx
COURT: (To witness)
Q: And when you discovered that his sex organ was already inside your
sex organ, what immediately did you do if ever?
A: It occurred to me to kick him but I cannot do it because I was pinned by In People vs. De Taza,23 the accused therein likewise used the argument
him and at the same time he was threatening me.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: In your estimate, how long did this incident happen from the moment thus:
when you discovered that this man was on top of you?
A: Fifteen (15) or twenty (20) minutes.
Q: In all the while what particular thing was he doing to you within fifteen
(15) or twenty (20) minutes?
A: He was moving his body.
Q: And all the while his sex organ was inside your sex organ?
A: Not actually inside, his penis was just at the entrance of my vagina while against the rapist for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain
he was moving.
Q: And all the while it was hurting you too much?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where were your hands then, what was your position?
A: I have my hands placed on his chest.
Q: How about his hands, if you recall?
20
A: His hands were placed on my vagina.
Q: You did not even bother to scratch his face?
A: I was not able to scratch his face with my hands because I had my
hands on his chest and it was being pinned.17
Mylene strongly believed appellant could carry out his threat, as there was
a gun beside him at the time he was raping her.18
Moreover, the fact that Mylene had been living with appellant since she
was a very young child and she considered him as her "stepfather" who
had considerable moral ascendancy over her, sufficiently explains why she
did not offer physical resistance. In People vs. Rodriguez,19 we held that:
The defense argument that the accused has not employed force upon his
daughter in order to have sex with him does not at all persuade. The force
or violence necessary in rape is a relative term that depends not only on
the age, size, and strength of the persons involved but also on their
relationship to each other. In a rape committed by a father against his own
daughter, the formers parental authority and moral ascendancy over the
latter substitutes for violence or intimidation who, expectedly, would just
cower in fear and resign to the fathers wicked deeds.20
In this case, appellant, who had been the common-law husband of
Mylenes mother for fifteen years, was practically the one exercising
parental authority over Mylene, as he himself testified that he took it upon
himself to try to discipline her. In People vs. Labayne,21 we ruled that a
child of tender years would blindly follow her "stepfather" who not only
exercised strong, moral and physical ascendancy over her, but who made
explicit threats on her life should she make any noise.
Thus, we find appellants contention that the delay of fourteen months in
reporting the alleged rape clouded her credibility, to be unmeritorious.
Mylene greatly feared appellant, believing him capable of carrying out his
threat to kill them all. Because of this, it took her three weeks before she
could muster the courage to tell her mother about the incident. But despite
having been apprised of her daughters sad fate, Mylenes mother failed to
take any positive act to bring appellant to justice for his evil deed. In fact,
as related by Mylene, which was not refuted by the defense, her mother
and appellant fought about it but after a while, they were on speaking terms
again.22 As a child of fourteen years at the time the crime was committed,
Mylene could hardly be expected to know how to go about reporting the
crime to authorities without the help of an adult. Verily, we see how Mylene
must have felt absolutely hopeless, believing that there is nobody who
could help her if her own mother would not even lift a finger to vindicate her
rights or to ensure that she would not be subjected to similar atrocity in the
future. It took Mylenes teachers who had enough concern for her well-
being that impelled them to bring the matter to the attention of law
enforcement agencies. Thus, the delay of fourteen months in reporting and
filing the case against appellant has been sufficiently explained.
that the victims delay in filing the rape case against him casts doubt on the
victims credibility, but we found such argument unmeritorious, and stated
Appellant posits that given the traumatic consequences of rape incidents, it
is inconceivable for Jocelyn not to report or confide to anybody what she
claims she went through, despite the fact that she was already far from his
reach and was already within the secure confines of her other relatives.
Many victims of rape, however, never complain or file criminal charges
rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders ire and
drive him to carry out his threats.
To this Court, Jocelyns delay in charging appellant does not infirm her
credibility.
In People vs. Gutierrez,24 we further held:
 21
Complainants failure to immediately report the rape does not diminish her The minority of the victim and the offenders relationship to the victim,
credibility. The silence of a victim of rape or her failure to disclose her which constitute only one special qualifying circumstance, must be alleged
misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove in the Information and proved with certainty. Recent rulings of the Court
that her charge is baseless and fabricated. It is not uncommon for young relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the
girls to conceal for some time the assault on their virtues because of the imposition of the penalty of death, there must be independent evidence
rapists threat on their lives, more so when the offender is someone whom proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution
she knew and who was living with her. The delay in this case was witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. xxx xxx xxx The
sufficiently explained and, hence, did not destroy complainants credibility. prosecution has the burden of proving all the elements of a crime, including
the qualifying circumstances, especially in death penalty cases.
Lastly, we find appellants assertion that Mylene falsely testified against
him out of revenge as she resented his efforts to discipline her, not For failure of the prosecution to properly allege in the Information the
plausible. We held in People vs. Viajedor25 that family resentment, revenge qualifying circumstance that the victim is under eighteen years of age and
or feud had never swayed the Court from giving full credence to the that the offender is a common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim, the
testimony of a complainant for rape, especially a minor who remained special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship could not be
steadfast in her testimony, throughout the direct and cross-examinations, taken into consideration and appellant could only be found guilty of simple
that she was sexually abused. In People vs. Cariaga26 we further rape which is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Thus, the trial court erred
observed that not a few accused convicted of rape have attributed the in imposing the penalty of death on appellant.
charges filed against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge.
As to damages, the trial court erroneously awarded the amount of
However, such alleged motives have never swayed us from lending full
P50,000.00 only for actual, moral & exemplary damages. Our recent ruling
credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained steadfast
in People vs. Viajedor,29 should provide guidance to trial courts, as follows:
throughout her direct and cross-examination.
The trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity in the amount of
Thus, we do not believe that she would willingly go through the traumatic
P50,000.00. This award is in the nature of actual or compensatory
experience of narrating the sordid details of a rape just to vex appellant
damages, and is mandatory upon a conviction for rape. The trial court,
who she considered as her stepfather. It is truly inconceivable for a girl of
however, erred is not separately awarding moral damages, which is distinct
such tender years to be able to concoct a story, provide details of a rape
from the civil indemnity awarded to rape victims. Private complainant is
and ascribe such wickedness to her "stepfather" just because she resents
entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 pursuant to Article
being disciplined by him, since by thus charging him, she would also
2219 of the Civil code, without the necessity of additional pleading of proof
expose herself to extreme humiliation, even stigma. Mylenes credible
other than the fact of rape. Moral damages is granted in recognition of the
testimony is unshaken by appellants weak claim that she was motivated
victims injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.
by ill-will in accusing him of rape.
Exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases as part of civil
The credibility of complainant Mylene having been firmly established, the
liability if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty of rape beyond reasonable
circumstances . . . . Hence, complainant is entitled to the award of
doubt.
exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in order to defer fathers
As to the proper penalty to be imposed on appellant, the applicable with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon
provision of the Revised Penal Code at the time of the commission of the their younger daughters.
crime was Article 335, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 which took
Herein appellants commission of the crime of rape against Mylene, the
effect on December 31, 1993, the pertinent portions of which read as
daughter of his common-law spouse, has been established beyond
follows:
reasonable doubt. Insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, this
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having entitles complainant Mylene to civil indemnity and moral damages.
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
As to exemplary damages, appellant admitted being the common-law
1. By using force or intimidation; x x x xxx xxx spouse of complainant Mylenes mother and that Mylene had lived with
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.x x x them since she was a very young child. Appellant was regarded as a
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed stepfather by complainant Mylene. Furthermore, appellant raped Mylene in
with any of the following attendant circumstances: their own home, a place where the latter should have been protected and
care for. Instead, their home became the most fearful place for Mylene.
1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
The act was thus committed with abuse of confidence and in the dwelling
parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
of the offended party, which are aggravating circumstances under Article
affinity within third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of
14, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Although these
the victim. x x x xxx xxx
circumstances could not be used to increase the penalty because the
The Information did not allege the qualifying circumstance of minority of
same were not alleged in the Information, they are sufficient basis to award
complainant & the fact that appellant is the common-law spouse of the
exemplary damages in the civil aspect of the case.
mother of the victim. Evidence show that the appellant is actually not the
stepfather of Mylene as it was duly proven in the trial court that appellant is WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay
merely the common-law spouse of Mylenes mother, not having been (Branch 15) dated August 9, 1997 in Criminal Case No. T-2780, finding
legally married.27 The correct allegation should have been that appellant is appellant Francisco Blancaflor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim, as contemplated by of rape and ordering him to pay private complainant Mylene B. Rueda civil
law, so that appellant may be fully apprised of the exact charge against indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is AFFIRMED with the
him. MODIFICATIONS that the death penalty imposed is reduced to reclusion
perpetua and that appellant is further ordered to pay private complainant
There was also no competent evidence presented below to establish the
Mylene B. Rueda, moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
age of the victim. In People vs. Viajedor, we held:
28
(P50,000.00) and exemplary damages in the amount of Twenty-Five
Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00). Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED.
22
 23
G.R. No. 177752 February 24, 2009 Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 against
[AAA], the Court imposes upon him the death penalty,5 and to pay private
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellant,
complainant moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000)
vs.
Pesos.
ROBERTO ABAY y TRINIDAD, Appellee.
SO ORDERED.
DECISION
The Court of Appeals (CA), on intermediate appellate review,6 affirmed the
CORONA, J.:
findings of the RTC but modified the penalty and award of damages.
On March 8, 2000, appellant Roberto Abay y Trinidad was charged with
In view of the enactment of RA 83537 and RA 9346,8 the CA found
rape in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in the Regional Trial
appellant guilty only of simple rape and reduced the penalty imposed
Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 41 under the following Information:
to reclusion perpetua. Furthermore, in addition to the civil indemnity ex
That sometime in December 1999, in the City of Manila, Philippines, delicto (which is mandatory once the fact of rape is proved)9 granted by the
[appellant] by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, RTC, it awarded P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary
unlawfully and knowingly commit sexual abuse and lascivious conduct damages. Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without
against [AAA], a minor, 13 years of age, by then and there kissing her need of proof other than the commission of the crime 10 while exemplary
breast and whole body, lying on top of her and inserting his penis into her damages are awarded by way of example and in order to protect young
vagina, thus succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her, against her will girls from sexual abuse and exploitation.11
and consent thereafter threatening to kill her should she report the incident,
We affirm the decision of the CA with modifications.
thereby gravely endangering her survival and normal growth and
development, to the damage and prejudice of [AAA]. Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 761012 in relation to RA 8353,13 if the
victim of sexual abuse14 is below 12 years of age, the offender should not
CONTRARY TO LAW.
be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-
Appellant pleaded not guilty during arraignment. A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code15 and penalized with reclusion
perpetua.16 On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the
During trial, the prosecution presented AAA, her mother BBB and expert offender should be charged with either sexual abuse17 under Section 5(b)
witness Dr. Stella Guerrero-Manalo of the Child Protection Unit of the of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the
Philippine General Hospital as its witnesses. Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both
AAA testified that appellant, her mothers live-in partner, had been sexually crimes18 for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be
abusing her since she was seven years old. Whenever her mother was prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a
working or was asleep in the evening, appellant would threaten her with a single criminal act.19 Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation
bladed instrument2 and force her to undress and engage in sexual of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code
intercourse with him. (on complex crimes),20 a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as
rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.21
BBB corroborated AAAs testimony. She testified that she knew about
appellants dastardly acts. However, because he would beat her up and In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old when the crime was
accuse AAA of lying whenever she confronted him, she kept her silence. committed against her. The Information against appellant stated that AAA
Thus, when she caught appellant in the act of molesting her daughter on was 13 years old at the time of the incident. Therefore, appellant may be
December 25, 1999, she immediately proceeded to the police station and prosecuted either for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under
reported the incident. Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. While the
Information may have alleged the elements of both crimes, the
According to Dr. Guerrero-Manalo, AAA confided to her that appellant had prosecutions evidence only established that appellant sexually violated the
been sexually abusing her for six years. This was confirmed by AAAs person of AAA through force and intimidation22 by threatening her with a
physical examination indicating prior and recent penetration injuries. bladed instrument and forcing her to submit to his bestial designs. Thus,
The defense, on the other hand, asserted the incredibility of the charge rape was established.23
against appellant. Appellants sister, Nenita Abay, and appellants Indeed, the records are replete with evidence establishing that appellant
daughter, Rizza, testified that if appellant had really been sexually abusing forced AAA to engage in sexual intercourse with him on December 25,
AAA, the family would have noticed. The rooms of their house were divided 1999. Appellant is therefore found guilty of rape under Article 266-A(1)(a)
only by -inch thick plywood "walls" that did not even reach the ceiling. of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to reclusion
Thus, they should have heard AAAs cries. Moreover, Nenita and Rizza perpetua. Furthermore, to conform with existing jurisprudence, he is
claimed that they "often caught" AAA and her boyfriend in intimate ordered to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity ex-delicto24 and P75,000 as
situations. moral damages.25
According to the RTC, one wrongly accused of a crime will staunchly WHEREFORE, the January 18, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeals in
defend his innocence. Here, appellant kept his silence which was contrary CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01365 is hereby AFFIRMED with modification.
to human nature. On the other hand, AAA straightforwardly narrated her Appellant Roberto Abay y Trinidad is hereby found GUIILTY of simple rape
horrifying experience at the hands of appellant. The RTC concluded that and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further
appellant had indeed sexually abused AAA. A young girl would not have ordered to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity ex-delicto, P75,000 as
exposed herself to humiliation and public scandal unless she was impelled moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
by a strong desire to seek justice.3
Costs against appellant.
In a decision dated November 25, 2003,4 the RTC found appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape: SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, finding [appellant] Roberto Abay y Trinidad guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of committing the crime of rape under Article 335 of the
24
 25
G.R. NO. 170191, August 16, 2006 on the passenger's side, while William was behind the wheel. The two
were alarmed when they saw shadows of persons near the truck. Clarissa
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RODOLFO SUYU @
suggested to William that they leave. The latter opened the window on his
RUDY, WILLY SUYU, FRANCIS CAINGLET AND ROMMEL
side halfway to check if there were persons outside. Suddenly, a man, who
MACARUBBO @ ROMMEL BARIUAN, APPELLANTS.
turned out to be Rommel Macarubbo, appeared in front of the truck,
DECISION
pointed a gun at them and said: "This is a holdup. If you will start the
CALLEJO, SR., J.: engine of the car, I will shoot you." Thereafter, another man, who turned
out to be Willy Suyu, lifted the lock on William's side and entered the pick-
On appeal is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR up. Clarissa told William to give everything so that they would not be
No. 01238 affirming, with modification, the Decision of the Regional Trial harmed. Willy Suyu then took Ferrer's wallet which contained around
Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City in Criminal Case No. 7177 convicting
P150.00. A third man, who turned out to be Francis Cainglet, took
petitioners Rodolfo Suyu, Willy Suyu, Francis Cainglet and Rommel Clarissa's jewelry valued at around P2,500.00 and cash amounting to
Macarubbo of robbery with rape. PI0.00. Thereafter, Willy Suyu clubbed William and dragged him out of the
The Antecedents truck. Fortunately, William was able to escape and immediately went to the
police station to report the incident.
An Information was filed with the RTC of Tuguegarao City charging
appellants with robbery with rape. The accusatory portion of the Meanwhile, Willy Suyu lifted the lock of the pick-up truck at Clarissa's side.
Information reads: Macarubbo then opened the door. The two and Cainglet dragged the girl to
a hilly place, not far away. Macarubbo and Willy Suyu held her by the
That on or about January 13, 1996, in the Municipality of Tuguegarao, arms, while Cainglet poked a fan knife at her. She pleaded for mercy as
Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, she was brought to a house near a muddy place. At that point, a man, who
the said accused, Rodolfo Suyu alias Rudy, Rommel Macarubbo y Licawan turned out to be Rodolfo Suyu, the half-brother of Willy Suyu, came out of
alias Rommel Bariuan, Francis Cainglet y Gargolla and Willy Suyu, armed the house. Willy Suyu, Cainglet and Macarubbo pushed Clarissa towards
with guns and sharp-pointed bladed instrument with intent to gain by the Rodolfo Suyu. The latter pushed Clarissa and said: "You stay there
use of threat, violence and intimidation of persons, conspiring together and because I will be the first one." Rodolfo Suyu then started embracing and
helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and kissing Clarissa and fondling her breast. When Rodolfo Suyu removed her
feloniously, take, steal and carry away against the will of the owner, the pants, the ring she kept hidden inside her pants fell to the ground. She felt
following items: a knife, flashlight and pliers at the perpetrator's back. Pretending that she
I - TAKEN FROM CLARISSA B. ANGELES was submitting to him, she suddenly reached for the knife. They briefly
struggled and Clarissa kicked his groin. Cursing, Rodolfo Suyu loosened
a) A pair of gold earrings valued at - P1,500.00 his grip on her. And she tried to run, but she stumbled and she was
b) A gold ring valued at - 1,000.00 grabbed by the hair. He then punched her stomach twice. She pleaded to
the three others for help, but the three did nothing.
c) Cash money in the amount of - ____10.00
Rodolfo Suyu passed Clarissa to Cainglet. Clarissa again pleaded, "Please
TOTAL - P2,510.00 do not hurt me, do not kill me and do not rape me. I am willing to join your
II - TAKEN FROM WILLIAM C. FERRER group." She further begged, "Just give me the knife and I will be the one to
kill myself." Cainglet kissed her but she pushed him away. He continued to
a) A wallet containing cash money in- P 150.00 kiss her and then pushed his tongue inside her mouth. She bit hard at his
the amount of tongue, causing it to bleed down her shirt. She was cursed anew.
all belonging to Clarissa B. Angeles and William C. Ferrer with a total value Then the three others came shouting, "They are coming." A beam of light
of P2,510.00 and P1 50.00, respectively, to the damage and prejudice of illumined them. Cainglet and Rodolfo Suyu then brought her to the top of
the aforesaid owner, Clarissa B. Angeles and William C. Ferrer in the the hill near the Capitol. She attempted to shout but she feared for her life
aforesaid amount of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TEN (P2,510.00) as a knife was thrust against her. She was forced to lie down on her back.
PESOS and ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (P150.00) PESOS, Philippine Willy Suyu and Macarubbo served as lookouts, as Cainglet punched her on
Currency, respectively; that on the same occasion of the robbery, the the thighs. Cainglet pinned her hands on the ground as Rodolfo Suyu
above-named accused, likewise, armed with their aforesaid arms, with removed her pants and undergarments. Rodolfo Suyu then spread her legs
lewd design and by the use of force, violence, threat and intimidation, did apart, removed his pants and undergarments, and went on top of her.
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously conspiring together and Rodolfo Suyu then tried to insert his fully erected penis inside her vagina
helping one another, have sexual intercourse with the aforesaid party, but the girl kicked him. He rolled down but was able to recover
Clarissa B. Angeles, against her will. immediately. He resumed molesting her. Clarissa uttered, "It is better that
Contrary to law.[2] you will just kill me and not rape me." Rodolfo Suyu insisted "Ipitem (sic)
met lang e. Anyway, this is just for a few minutes." When he pushed his
Appellants, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged tongue inside her mouth, Clarissa bit it so hard that her teeth went through
when arraigned. it. As the blood dripped on her shirt, he uttered, "I will let the blood drip on
The Case for the Prosecution your shirt, mahirap na." Rodolfo Suyu inserted two fingers inside her. He
then commented to Cainglet, who was still pinning her down, "Pare, this is
At around 7:15 in the evening on January 13, 1996, Clarissa Angeles, a still a virgin." Thereafter, with the aid of his two fingers, he inserted his
third-year student of St. Paul University, was with her boyfriend, William penis inside her vagina.
Ferrer. They were eating snacks inside a pick-up truck parked in a vacant
lot near the Office of the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Department Afterwards, Rodolfo Suyu told Cainglet, "You will be next." Cainglet then
of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) [now DepEd] in Tuguegarao, climbed on top of Clarissa while Rodolfo Suyu held her by the hands. She
Cagayan, about fifteen meters from the highway. Momentarily, a tricycle again pleaded for help from Willy Suyu and Macarubbo. But all her pleas
passed by the truck on its way to the COA Building.[3] Clarissa was seated fell on deaf ears. She kicked Cainglet, who then let go one of her hands.
When one of her hands was briefly freed, she placed the crucifix pendant
 26
of her necklace on her mouth and uttered, "Lord, I offer you my soul." worked as a part-time newspaper vendor to help his parents.[9] Moreover,
Rodolfo Suyu remarked, "We do not have God (sic), we do not believe in Macarubbo did not rape her.
God." Cainglet continued to move on top of her. The two lookouts, Willy
On April 2, 1996, Macarubbo, assisted by his counsel Atty. Gabriel O. Valle
Suyu and Macarubbo, on the other hand, shouted, "They are coming."
and his mother, Angelina, signed a sworn statement, in the form of
Rodolfo Suyu then helped her to sit down. Cainglet then spoke to her
questions and answers before Municipal Judge Elpidio Atal. He confessed
saying, "Put your pants. We will not give you your panty because we will
to his participation and implicated Rodolfo and Willy Suyu, and Cainglet, in
have your panty be 'makulam' and tomorrow, we will display your panty on
the robbery and the rape of Clarissa.[10]
the gate of St. Paul with a dedication 'to Marie Sanchez'," the name she
gave them. Cainglet was able to insert half an inch of his penis into her The Case for the Accused
vagina.[4]
Rodolfo Suyu denied the charge against him. He also interposed the
Cainglet suggested that she be released for ransom. The two lookouts defense of alibi. He declared that, on January 13, 1996, he was in their
again yelled, "They are coming." Then a beam of light illumined them and house at Alimannao, Tuguegarao City, taking care of his three young
engines from vehicles became audible. Thereafter, two vehicles arrived children, the youngest of whom was five months old.[11] His wife was in
from about 10 to 15 meters away from the pick-up truck. After pleading for Manila with her sister-in-law who had just given birth. He never left their
mercy and promising not to report them to the police authorities, she was house in the evening.[12]
allowed by the culprits to leave.
At 3:00 p.m. on January 16, 1996, he left his house and gathered cogon at
Clarissa fled to a house illumined with a fluorescent light and climbed over the Bassig Resort, which was about a kilometer away. He was shot on the
its gate. She went around the house and knocked on the door. An old man left thigh, but he did not know who shot him; neither did he bother to
answered the door. Blood-stained and covered in mud, she then pleaded ascertain the identity of the perpetrator.[13] He managed to escape and
to be let in. At first, the old man got a piece of wood to club her, but arrived home at 7:00 p.m.[14]His wound was treated by his neighbor and
because one of his children recognized her, she was allowed inside. eldest child.[15] While away, his 9-year-old eldest child took care of his five-
Thereafter, the barangay tanod was summoned. After 15 minutes, two month-old baby. He did not report the shooting incident to the police.
police jeeps arrived and took her to the Cagayan Valley Regional Hospital
(CVRH). The nurses there, however, merely examined her bruises. On January 18, 1996, policemen led by SPO4 Teodulfo Cudal arrested him
and brought him to the hospital where his wound was treated. He was later
At the Don Domingo Police Station, Clarissa saw William. The authorities brought to the Sto. Domingo Police Substation where he was detained. He
asked her if she had been sexually abused, she declared that there was was told to join a police line-up. SPO4 Cudal told Clarissa to point to him
merely an attempt to rape her. At that time, she was ashamed to admit in as one of the culprits.[16]
front of her boyfriend that she had been abused.[5]
Cainglet declared that he was employed as a security guard inspector by
On January 17, 1996, Clarissa submitted herself to a physical and the Night Hawk Security Investigation Agency with principal office in
gynecological examination at the CVRH. The examining physician, Dr. Quezon City. At about 7:15 p.m. on January 13, 1996, he was in the
Elsie A. Pintucan, found hematoma and contusions, which she diagnosed company of Nestor, an employee of the security agency, conducting a
to have been sustained five days before. Furthermore, she made the roving inspection at the Corinthian*Gardens. At 8:00 p.m. on January 21,
following findings: 1996, he boarded a Victory Liner passenger bus and arrived in
Tuguegarao City at 7:30 a.m. the next day, January 22, 1996. He intended
xxxx
to seek financial help from his mother since his wife needed money for her
Genitalia: external examination = abundant pubic hair, nulliparous outlet, placement fee. A neighbor told him that his mother had left for Mindanao.
no bleeding note. He opened the door of the house with a duplicate key. After lunch, 12
armed men, led by SPO4 Cudal, barged inside and searched the house
= hymen (+) complete, old healed laceration at 4 and 7 o'clock.
without any warrant. The armed men took his wedding ring and that of his
speculum = vaginal wall no erosions/laceration.
wife, his wallet with cash of P2,150.10, and his Seiko watch. The personal
cervix = pinkish, (+) whitish discharge.
properties taken from him were worth P10,000.00.[17]
Internal examination = admits 1 finger with ease, He was tortured, hogtied with a nylon cord, and boarded in an owner-type
cervix = closed, small midline, firm, non-tender on wriggling, jeep with only his underwear on. He was brought to the police
uterus = small, adnexae = negative for tenderness.[6] headquarters for investigation for robbery with rape.[18] When the
policemen failed to secure a confession from him, SPO4 Cudal took out a
On January 19, 1996, Clarissa signed and filed a criminal complaint for
knife from his table. He was ordered to bring out his tongue and when he
robbery and rape against Rodolfo Suyu, Willy Suyu, Francis Cainglet and
did, another policeman held out his tongue while SPO4 Cudal pointed the
Rommel Bariuan (also known as Rommel Macarubbo) with the Municipal
knife to his tongue. When he turned his face to the left, his tongue was
Trial Court (MTC) of Tuguegarao City. Appended to her complaint was her
injured.[19] He was brought to the CVRH where he saw Rodolfo Suyu.
sworn statement executed on the same date. She later gave supplemental
When SPO4 Cudal told Rodolfo Suyu that Cainglet was one of his
statements on January 25, 1996.[7]
companions, Rodolfo Suyu told SPO4 Cudal that he did not know him.[20]
Accused Macarubbo, who was born on August 24, 1978, then, still a minor,
At 7:30 a.m. the next day, he was ordered to join a line-up, including two
moved to be released on recognizance. Upon the recommendation of the
persons he knew only while in detention, namely, Rodolfo Suyu and
Department of Social Welfare and Services, he was released on
Rommel Macarubbo.[21] Clarissa arrived and was ordered by SPO4 Cudal
recognizance. [8]
to point to him as one of those who raped her. She failed to point at him at
Meanwhile, Macarubbo, accompanied by an old woman, arrived at first, but when ordered anew by SPO4 Cudal, she finally pointed to
Clarissa's boarding house. The woman offered that her son, Macarubbo, him.[22] She also pointed to Rodolfo Suyu and Rommel Macarubbo. From
would testify for her case. Clarissa was amenable to the idea because the the time Cainglet was arrested and while detained, he had no counsel.
authorities had earlier advised her to agree to Macarubbo being a state
Macarubbo testified that he was born on August 24, 1978. [23] He denied
witness. The old woman pleaded that Clarissa pity Macarubbo, who then
knowing any of his co-accused before his arrest on January 17, 1996. He
 27
declared that he was a native of Cagayan, Tuguegarao City, and went to he did not write the word rape because what he understood from Clarissa's
San Pablo, Isabela on January 12, 1996 to visit his aunt Emma Pagulayan. statement was the biting of the tongue and the kicking of the sex organ.[42]
He arrived in San Pablo at 7:00 a.m.[24] On January 17, 1996, he visited his
The prosecution presented SPO4 Cudal as rebuttal witness and testified
friend Joel Iringan in San Pablo for a drinking spree. One of the guests
that accused Macarubbo gave an extrajudicial confession on April 2, 1998
created trouble and shot him on his right leg.[25] He was brought to
while detained at the jail, and that he signed his extrajudicial confession
Tumauini District Hospital but was transferred to the CVRH in Tuguegarao
before Judge Atal.[43] The prosecution wanted to present Atty. Gabriel Valle
City. The next day, the policemen, led by Capt. Salvador,[26] maltreated
as rebuttal witness because the judge was already dead; but, after an off-
him. He was forced to confess to the crime in Carig.[27] After his wounds
the-record conference between the court, the counsel of the accused and
were treated at the hospital, he was brought to the police station where he
the prosecution, the plan of the prosecution did not materialize.[44] The
was detained. He never left San Pablo from January 12, 1996 until his
court admitted the extrajudicial confession of Macarubbo[45] only as part of
arrest on January 17, 1996.[28]
the testimony of SPO4 Cudal because, according to the court, the
Willy Suyu testified that on the day of the alleged robbery and rape, he was prosecution failed to present Judge Atal.[46]
in their house at Dodan, Penablanca, Cagayan, about 45 minutes by
On February 10, 2003, the RTC rendered judgment finding all the accused
tricycle from Centro, Tuguegarao, Cagayan.[29] At 6:00 a.m., he and his
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape. The RTC gave
wife went on foot to a place called Hot Spring to gather firewood. They
credence and probative weight to Clarissa's testimony and rejected the
arrived at the place at around 11:00 a.m., had their lunch at the house of
defenses of denial and alibi of the accused. The court ruled that the latter's
his wife's niece, Lanie Tuliao, gathered firewood, then proceeded back
testimonies were full of inconsistencies and were not in accord with human
home to Dodan. By 6:00 p.m., they were already at their house. They had
experience. The RTC further ruled that the four accused conspired in the
their dinner at 8:00 p.m. Before going to bed, their neighbor, James
robbery with rape. The dispositive portion of the said decision reads:
Taccad, invited him for a bottle of beer. He went back home at around 8:20
p.m., and went to bed with his wife at 9:00 p.m. He worked as a tricycle WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
driver, but he did not go out the following day, as the piston ring of the
tricycle he was driving was broken.[30] (1) Finding RODOLFO SUYU, WILLY SUYU, FRANCIS CAINGLET and
ROMMEL MACARRUBO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
James Taccad, Willy's neighbor, and Eduardo Dalin, Willy's brother-in-law, of Robbery with Rape and hereby sentence each of them to suffer the
were presented to corroborate Willy's testimony. [31] penalty of reclusion perpetua;
Willy Suyu further testified that on February 12, 1996, he was arrested and (2) Ordering the accused to pay, jointly and severally, the amount of
detained.[32] At the police station in Tuguegarao City where he was PI,510.00 representing the value of the jewelry (earring) and cash
brought, he was maltreated by policemen. After 3 or 4 days in detention, belonging to Clarissa Angeles; and
Clarissa, whom he met for the first time, went to the station and asked for
(3) Ordering the accused to indemnify, jointly and severally, Clarissa
the person named Willy Suyu. The other detainees pointed to him and
Clarissa said, "So you are the person named Willy Suyu." She asked him Angeles the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
to show his tongue. He did so and Clarissa said, within the hearing SO ORDERED.[47]
distance of the other detainees, that he was not the one.[33]
The accused appealed the decision to the Court. After the parties
Willy, moreover, admitted that Rodolfo Suyu was his half-brother. He, submitted their respective briefs, the Court ordered the transfer of the case
however, denied having known Macarubbo and Cainglet prior to his to the CA pursuant to its ruling in People v. Mateo. [48]
detention as he met them only in jail. He also saw Clarissa, for the first
time, at the police station when she asked for him.[34] Rodolfo Suyu used to The CA rendered judgment affirming, with modification, the decision of the
stay at their father's house in Capitol Hills (near the place where the trial court. The fallo of the decision of the CA reads:
robbery and rape happened), but stayed at Barangay Gosi, Tuguegarao, WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the decision dated 10
most of the time where he helped in the farming.[35] February 2003 of the court a quo is perforce AFFIRMED but with
Accused Rodolfo Suyu and Macarubbo presented SPO4 Cudal as their the modification that insofar as the accused-appellant ROMMEL
witness. The police officer testified that, as gleaned from the police blotter,MACARUBBO is concerned, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an
at 9:30 p.m. on January 13, 1996, Clarissa failed to identify the culprits and indeterminate penalty of from Eight (8) years and One (1) day of prision
to declare that she was raped. However, she insisted that in the event that mayor, in its medium period, as minimum, to Fifteen (15) years of reclusion
she saw the culprits again, she can identify them.[36] Cainglet was a mere temporal, in its medium period, as maximum.
caretaker of the house where he was arrested.[37] It was the owner of the SO ORDERED.[49]
house who informed the police officers that he was hiding in the
house.[38] He noticed a bite mark on the tongue of Cainglet when he viewed Hence, the present petition, where the appellants raise the following
it.[39] arguments:

On cross-examination, SPO4 Cudal declared that Macarubbo, assisted by I

his counsel, executed an extrajudicial statement on April 2, 1996, in the THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE
presence of his mother.[40] TO THE TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT CLARISSA
SPO1 Alexander Tamang, the investigator assigned at the Domingo Police ANGELES.
Substation on the evening of January 13, 1996, was presented by Willy's II
counsel and testified, among others, that the blotter, as written, did not
state the name of the malefactors, their features or characteristics, or the THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
unlawful taking of personal property; and that the blotter did not state a GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
sexual abuse but only that Clarissa bit the tongue of one of the suspects III
and kicked the sex organ of the other accused.[41] He, however, added that

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING AS INADMISSIBLE
THE ALLEGED EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF ACCUSED-
APPELLANT ROMMEL MACARUBBO.[50]
Q:
Appellants assert that Clarissa was not able to identify any of them at the
city jail and succeeded in identifying them only after she was coached by
SPO4 Cudal. They contend that Clarissa was declared by Dr. Pintucan to
A:
be ambulatory and coherent with no signs of cardio-respiratory distress,
proof that she was not forcibly and sexually assaulted. It was also
Q:
discovered that there was no evidence of forcible assault despite the
insertion of one finger on her cervix. Appellants argue that the trial court
A:
erred in admitting in evidence the extrajudicial confession of appellant
Q:
Macarubbo.
Appellants, moreover, aver that the testimony of Clarissa is postmarked A:
with inconsistencies. She executed no less than five sworn statements Q:
before the MTC. These statements were substantially inconsistent. In her
January 13, 1996 statement made immediately after the alleged A:
commission of the crime, she declared to the police investigator that Q:
appellants attempted to rape her, but she actually succeeded in thwarting
all attempts.[51] In her second sworn statement dated January 18, 1996,
she maintained the said story. The police blotter did not even carry an
allegation of rape. However, in her January 19, 1996 statement:, Clarissa A:
declared that she had been raped.[52] Appellants, thus, argue that the
alleged victim has the propensity to lie and withhold valuable information in
her affidavits.[53] Atty. Salud:
Q:
We are not persuaded. To begin with, the rule is that, in the absence of any
clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied A:
facts or circumstances of weight and substance, which would have affected
the result of the case, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on Q:
appeal.[54] The stringency with which appellate tribunals have observed this
rule is predicated on the undisputed vantage of the trial court in the A:
evaluation and appreciation of testimonial evidence.[55] Q:
The trial court found Clarissa's testimony to be A:
consistent,[56] believable,[57] and credible,[58] hence, is worthy of full faith Q:
and credit.[59] The CA reviewed Clarissa's testimony and found the same to A:
be clear, sincere and could have only come from the mouth of a victim.
During the grueling cross-examination conducted by three separate
counsels of appellants, she remained steadfast in her testimony that she Q:
was raped. The credibility of complainant's testimony is a primordial
consideration in rape cases for the accused may be convicted solely on the A:
testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing and Q:
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[60] When the A:
testimony of a rape victim is simple and straightforward, unshaken by Q:
rigorous cross-examination and unflawed by any serious inconsistency or
contradiction, the same must be given full faith and credit.[61] A:
Q:
While it is true that the victim initially did not reveal to the authorities the
fact that she was raped after the robbery, this does not cast doubt on her
testimony for it is not uncommon for a rape victim right after her ordeal to
remain mum about what really transpired. Jurisprudence has established A:
that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a Q:
fabricated charge, and the same is rendered doubtful only if the delay was
unreasonable and unexplained.[62]Besides, Clarissa sufficiently explained
her initial reluctance on cross-examination, thus: A:
Atty. Morales: Q:
Q: And what did you tell these policemen at the Don Domingo
police station?
A: Naturally (sic) I told them what transpired to me, Sir. A:
Q: Will you please tell now before this court what exactly were
those things that you reported to the police station?
A: At that time, Sir, I was then trembling because of fear so that I
28
told them that there was only an attempted rape to me (sic)
because I was then ashamed to the policemen and infront (sic)
of my boyfriend.
As a matter of fact when you arrived at the CVRH you also
informed the nurses that what was committed was only an
attempted rape, is that correct?
I did not talk to the nurse but it was only the policemen who told
the nurse.
You heard these policemen informed the nurses that what was
committed is an attempted rape, is that correct?
Yes, Sir.
Your boyfriend was present when you went to the Don Domingo
police station?
Yes, Sir.
And your boyfriend also accompanied you when you went to the
CVRH?
No, Sir.
When you heard these policemen mentioned to the nurses that
what was committed was attempted rape (sic) you did not try to
call the attention of the policemen (sic) and correct them that
what actually happened (sic) you were allegedly raped?
Because I was ashamed, Sir.[63]
xxx
You stated that at first you did not divulge that you were
sexually molested, did you?
At first, Sir, what I have stated is that they held my breast, the
different parts of my body and they also fingered me, Sir. But I
did not state that their penis were inserted to my vagina.
So all that you have divulged at first was that your breast was
held and so with the different parts of your body?
Yes, Sir.
To whom did you divulge that?
To Sir Cabildo, Sir.
That was the first time you divulged it to any person?
At first, Sir, I divulges (sic) that to the PNP Substation at Don
Domingo, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, then to my parents, to my
classmates and lastly to Sir Cabildo, Sir.
Whom (sic) for the first time did you disclose that you were
raped?
To Sir Cabildo, Sir.
When?
January 19 in the afternoon, Sir.
Are you very certain that you first divulges (sic) it (sic) that you
were raped to Cabildo on January 19, 1996 in the afternoon?
Yes, Sir.
You are certain in the sense that there can be no probability
that you have committed mistake (sic) in remembering that you
divulged for the first time to Mr. Cabildo that you were rape (sic)
in the afternoon of January 19, 1996?
No, Sir.
Is it not a fact that you executed a second sworn statement
before a police officer named SP02 Marcelo R. Cabildo on
January 18, 1996?
Yes, Sir.
And still you are sure that on January 18, 1996 on the occasion
of the taking of your sworn statement by SP02 Marcelo R.
Cabildo inside the investigation room of the Tuguegarao Police
Station, you did not disclose to him that you were raped?
I was investigated on the 18th day of January and I have not yet
divulge (sic) to SP02 Cabildo that I was fingered and I was
raped because I was then ashamed at that time. Because this
policeman Cabildo is from Baggao, he might have (sic) divulged
 29
what had happened to me in our town of Baggao, Sir.[64] Bongalon,[79] in such case, the defect of the arrest and detention are cured
Understandably, Clarissa was reluctant to reveal, while at the police thereby:
station, the fact that she was raped, considering that her boyfriend was
Moreover, the rule is that an accused is estopped from assailing the
present when she. made her first statement before the police investigator.
legality of his arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against
Further, one of the investigating officers was her townmate. Indeed, the
him before his arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the
fear of social humiliation prevented Clarissa from revealing, at the time, the
procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of
details of her defilement. She was in a state of trauma, impelled by her
an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the
natural instinct to put out of her mind such a painful and disturbing
objection is deemed waived. Even in the instances not allowed by law, a
experience. Oftentimes, victims would rather bear the ignominy and the
warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect, and objection thereto is
pain in private than reveal their shame to the world.[65] In her desire for
waived where the person arrested submits to arraignment without
justice, she, nonetheless, later revealed the true events that happened on
objection. The subsequent filing of the charges and the issuance of the
that fateful night of January 13, 1996, thus:
corresponding warrant of arrest against a person illegally detained will cure
Pros. Sagucio: the defect of that detention.[80]
Q: Now, you said that when you were first investigated by the police or Appellants also assert that the medical report issued by Dr. Pintucan does
at the CVRH that you are (sic) not raped which is half true (sic) and not conclusively suggest that Clarissa was raped, for during the
now when you were again investigated you said you were raped, examination, her deportment was not of that of a rape victim and the
what made you changed (sic) your mind? examination of her cervix did not even suggest forcible assault. [81]
A: I finally thought of filing a case of rape because of the fact that I am
The said argument is, however, without merit. Hymenal lacerations which
helping other people whom (sic) might be the next victim and (sic)
are usually inflicted when there is complete penetration are not essential in
aside from the fact that I did not owe anything to them, I did not owe
establishing the crime of rape as it is enough that a slight penetration or
any obligation to anybody else and finally I want justice that (sic) will
entry of the penis into the lips of the vagina takes place.[82] Partial penile
prevail of (sic) what they have done to me.[66]
penetration is as serious as full penetration; the rape is deemed
consummated in either case.[83] Dr. Pintucan further found contusion and
Certainly, no young and decent Filipina would publicly admit that she was hematoma on the victim, which bolsters Clarissa's recount that she was
ravished and her honor tainted unless such were true, for it would be dragged, forced to lie down, and raped.
instinctive for her to protect her honor and obtain justice for the wicked acts
The common defense of alibi used by the appellants cannot, moreover,
committed upon her.[67]
prevail over Clarissa's clear and convincing narration of the events that
Appellants, likewise, contend that Clarissa was coached by SPO4 Cudal transpired and her positive identification of her assailants. It is a time-
during the police line-up, while Rommel had to be pointed by the other honored rule that alibi is a weak defense when unsubstantiated by credible
detainees. She even asked them to show their tongues so that she could and plausible testimonies.[84]To merit approbation, clear and convincing
ascertain whether they were the ones who molested her.[68] evidence must be adduced that the accused was in a place other than
the situs of the crime at the time the crime was committed, such that it was
The arguments of appellants do not persuade. The victim recounted that physically impossible for him to have committed the crime.
there were lights emanating from the nearby DECS (now DepEd) and COA
buildings, and several residences.[69] The place was bright enough for her Willy Suyu, a tricycle driver, relied solely on his testimony to prove his alibi
to see the faces of her assailants, only that she did not know their that he and his wife were in Hot Spring, had lunch with the spouses Tuliao,
names.[70] Familiarity with the physical features of a person is an and arrived home at 6:00 p.m. He and his wife had dinner at 8:00 p.m., he
acceptable way for proper identification.[71] Indeed, We agree with the drank beer in the house of his neighbor James Taccad, and finally went to
following ruling of the trial court, thus: bed at 9:00 p.m. However, appellant failed to present his wife, and the
spouses Tuliao to corroborate his testimony, and he gave no justification
Defense' contention that they were not sufficiently identified cannot be for his failure to present any of them as witnesses. The records show that
taken seriously. Accused did not resort to any disguise. There could be no the distance from Willy Suyu's house to Capitol Hills can be negotiated in
doubt as to their identities. Besides, it appears that the accused stayed
15 minutes by tricycle; hence, it was not impossible for him to have been at
with Clarissa for a couple of hours so that there was ample time and the scene of the crime.
opportunity for her to see and observe their features.[72]
Macarubbo testified that he left Tuguegarao City on January 13, 1996; and
Appellants, in their brief, further fault the trial court in not declaring as arrived in the house of his aunt, Emma Pagulayan and worked in her farm;
inadmissible the alleged extrajudicial confession of Macarubbo, as it was he was shot at the thigh on January 17, 1996. However, appellant
not affirmed in open court and the latter even denied having executed the
Macarubbo failed to present his aunt and his friend, Joel Iringan, to
statement.[73] corroborate his alibi. Moreover, it is incredible that Macarubbo did not even
The contention of appellants has no merit. The trial court never admitted know who shot him despite his claim that the perpetrator was known to his
Macarubbo's sworn statement for the purpose offered by the friend, Iringan. Rodolfo Suyu's claim that he was in his house in
prosecution,[74] but only as part of the testimony of SPO4 Cudal. Appellants Alimannao, Tuguegarao City on the night in question is equally weak, for
were not convicted based on the said sworn statement, but rather on the he failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be near the
credible testimony of the victim,[75]and her positive identification of the DECS (now DepEd) and COA buildings in the city.
culprits.[76] For his part, appellant Cainglet failed to present any record from the Night
The claim of appellants that their arrest was irregular, which consequently Hawk Security Agency to prove that on January 13, 1996, at 7:15 p.m., he
rendered their detention illegal, cannot be considered in this appeal as the was conducting a roving inspection at the Corinthian Gardens in Quezon
matter was not raised at the opportune time. Records reveal that warrants City, as he claimed; neither did he present the driver of his employer who
for the appellants' arrest were indeed issued on January 19, 1996 and was purportedly with him at the time.
February 1, 1996.[77]Appellants, likewise, entered their pleas[78] without
moving for the quashal of the information. As we held in People v.
 30
After going over the voluminous records, We find no error in the aforesaid P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the rape by Rodolfo Suyu; P50,000.00 s
observations of the trial court as affirmed by the CA. Courts generally view moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the rape by Francis
the defenses of denial and alibi with disfavor on account of the facility with kinglet; and P30,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as civil
which an accused can concoct them to suit his defense.[85] Again, these indemnity for the sexual assault by Rodolfo Suyu. No costs.
weak defenses cannot stand against the positive identification and
SO ORDERED.
categorical testimony of a rape victim.[86] Clarissa, in this case, as
aforesaid, passed the test of credibility in her account of her ordeal;
positively identified her assailants; and had no ill-motive to falsely implicate
them to the commission of a crime, other than her desire to seek justice for
a wrong. Where an alleged rape victim says she was sexually abused, she
says almost all that is necessary to show that rape had been inflicted on
her person, provided her testimony meets the test of credibility. [87]
Conspiracy to commit the crime was also correctly appreciated by the trial
court. Indeed, "at the time of the commission of the crime, accused acted
in concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common design to rob the
victim and although only two of them, through force and intimidation, raped
Clarissa, the failure of Macarubbo and Willy Suyu to prevent its
commission although they were capable would make their act to be the act
of all."[88] We have previously ruled that once conspiracy is established
between several accused in the commission of the crime of robbery, they
would all be equally culpable for the rape committed by any of them on the
occasion of the robbery, unless any of them proves that he endeavored to
prevent the other from committing rape.[89]
The conviction thus of appellants for robbery with rape defined and
penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code is
correct. The law provides:
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons -
Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against
or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed,
or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional
mutilation or arson.
To be convicted of robbery with rape, the following elements must concur:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or
intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3)
the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; (4) the
robbery is accompanied by rape.[90]
The intent to rob must precede the rape. In robbery with rape, the intention
of the felony is to rob and the felony is accompanied by rape. The rape
must be contemporaneous with the commission of the robbery. We note
that aside from raping the victim, appellant Rodolfo Suyu inserted his finger
in her sexual organ. Appellant Suyu, thus, committed sexual assault as
defined and penalized in Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of Republic Act No.
8353.[91] Also, aside from Rodolfo Suyu, Cainglet raped the victim.
Nevertheless, there is only one single and indivisible felony of robbery with
rape and any crimes committed on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery are merged and integrated into a single and indivisible felony of
robbery with rape.[92]
As to the damages, the RTC only awarded actual damages of P| 1,510.00
and civil indemnity of P50,000.00 to Clarissa. In line with settled
jurisprudence, however, this Court rectifies the same and orders all
ppellants to, jointly and severally, pay Clarissa Angeles P50,000.00 as
moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the rape by Rodolfo
Suyu; P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for
the rape by Francis Cainglet; and P30,000.00 as moral damages and
P30,000.00 as civil indemnity for the sexual assault by Rodolfo Suyu.[93]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED for
lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED WITH
THE MODIFICATION that all the appellants are also ordered to, jointly and
severally, pay Clarissa Angeles P50,000.00 as moral damages and
 31
G.R. No. 167756 April 8, 2008 his penis into the young girl's vagina. At the time of the rape, BBB was only
seven years old and was a Grade II pupil.10
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs. Appellant continued raping BBB, using the girl for his sexual gratification
JERRY NAZARENO, appellant. every other day. From BBB's account, appellant would rape her fifteen
times in a month. Every time, appellant would threaten her that he would
DECISION
kill all of them should she tell anyone what was happening between them.11
REYES, R.T., J.:
On October 27, 1998, AAA and BBB found the courage to tell their mother
IN this rape case, the Court is confronted with remedial questions on (a) CCC what appellant had been doing to them. AAA accidentally found that
specificity of dates in the Information; (b) quantum of proof; and (c) BBB was likewise being subjected to sexual abuses by their father.
concurrence of allegation and proof. Gathering strength from one another, AAA and BBB tearfully recounted to
their mother their individual ordeals. CCC was devastated.12
For Our final review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming
with modification appellant's conviction for rape of his two minor daughters. On December 6, 1998, appellant again attempted to force himself on BBB.
He inserted his finger into BBB's vagina. BBB felt extreme pain from the
The Facts
nails protruding from her father's fingers. That was the last time appellant
In line with Our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto,2 the real names of the rape abused BBB.13
victims will not be disclosed. We will instead use fictitious initials to On February 16, 1999, CCC, with AAA and BBB, secretly went to the
represent them throughout the decision. The personal circumstances of the Municipal Building of San Andres, Catanduanes to file a complaint against
victims or any other information tending to establish or compromise their appellant for the rape of AAA and BBB. AAA and BBB were immediately
identities will likewise be withheld. attended to by personnel from the Department of Social Welfare and
Private complainants AAA and BBB are the legitimate daughters of Development. The two were later examined at the JMA District Hospital by
appellant Jerry Nazareno with CCC. AAA was born on April 30, 1983.2- Dr. Erlinda H. Arcilla.
a BBB, the second child of the union, was born on June 24, 1984. 2-b At that
CCC testified as to the age of the victims AAA and BBB at the time of the
time, appellant and CCC were yet to wed. It was only in 1987 that the commission of the crimes. She affirmed that AAA was born on April 30,
couple formally tied the knot in simple church ceremonies. Three more 1983 while BBB was born on June 24, 1984.14 CCC narrated that she was
children sprang from the marriage since then.3 shocked when she heard her two daughters complain that they were raped
Sometime in 1990, AAA was inside a room in their house located at by their own father. She knew appellant to be temperamental. He would hit
Barangay Codon, Municipality of San Andres, Province of Catanduanes. AAA and BBB at the slightest provocation. She failed to act immediately on
All of her siblings were playing in their yard. Unexpectedly, appellant her daughters' plight for fear of her husband. CCC was convinced that
entered the room, and without saying a word, held AAA tightly. He then appellant might make good his threats to kill all of them.15
directed AAA to crouch on the floor and raise her buttocks (baka-bakahan).
Dr. Arcilla narrated that she examined both AAA and BBB on February 16,
While in that position, appellant removed the girl's short pants and 1999. During her examination, she uncovered old healed hymenal
underwear. He then proceeded to remove his own undergarments. lacerations on both AAA and BBB at the 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock
Subsequently, appellant forcibly entered AAA from behind, inserting his positions. The lacerations suggested that the two girls were no longer in a
penis into the girl's vagina. She was seven.4 virgin state.16
Appellant threatened AAA not to reveal what happened to her to anyone; On March 17, 1999, appellant Jerry Nazareno was indicted for violation of
or else, she and the rest of her family would be killed. Expectedly, AAA Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 2638 for the
suffered in silence. She feared for her life as well as that of her mother and rape of BBB. The information reads:
siblings.5
That sometime and between January 1992 up to December 06, 1998, in
AAA's ordeal with her father became a regular fare. Appellant would rape Barangay Codon, Municipality of San Andres, Province of Catanduanes,
her whenever they were left alone in the house. CCC was rarely home Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
6

because she attended to farm work and accepted laundry jobs from named accused by means of force, violence and intimidation did then and
neighbors to support the family. Appellant was jobless and stayed at there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and repeatedly made sexual
home.7
intercourse with his daughter BBB at the age of 7 through 14 years old
On March 25, 1996, appellant again imposed his bestial urges on AAA. against her will.
AAA distinctly remembered the incident because she graduated from CONTRARY TO LAW.17
primary school on that day. At around 2:00 p.m., appellant and AAA were
left alone in the house. He told AAA to remove her shorts and panty. On May 3, 1999, another Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 2650,
Appellant then asked her to crouch on the floor and raise her buttocks. Just for the rape of AAA, was levelled against appellant. The indictment is
as he did before, appellant positioned himself behind the girl and then worded thus:
inserted his penis into her vagina. All that time, appellant's hands were
That from sometime in January 1990 up to December 1998 in barangay
clutching the girl's back.8 Coincidentally, AAA's graduation from elementary
Codon, municipality of San Andres, Catanduanes, and within the
school also marked the end of appellant's sexual abuses.
jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused, being the father of
BBB suffered the same fate as her older sister AAA. Sometime in January the complainant, did then and there willfully, feloniously and criminally
1992, appellant and BBB were left alone in their house. Suddenly, repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her daughter AAA, then five years
appellant told BBB to kneel on all fours (pig baka-baka).9 old up to the time when she was 15-years-old against her will.
Appellant then removed BBB's shorts and panties. He then removed his CONTRARY TO LAW.18
maong pants. Appellant positioned himself at BBB's rear and then inserted
 32
The case for the People, which portrayed the foregoing facts, revolved days from notice. In a manifestation dated December 6, 2005, the Public
around the combined testimonies of AAA, BBB, CCC, and Dr. Erlinda Attorney's Office, representing appellant Jerry Nazareno, informed the
Arcilla of the JMA District Hospital in San Andres, Catanduanes. Court that it is adopting its main brief on record.24 The Office of the Solicitor
General, for the People, similarly opted to dispense with the filing of a
The defense, anchored on denial, was summed up by the trial court in this
supplemental brief in its manifestation dated March 9, 2006.25
wise:
Appellant stands by the same lone error he raised before the appellate
The defense presented JERRY NAZARENO, the accused himself who
court:
testified that he is 34 years old, married, fisherman, a resident of Codon,
San Andres, Catanduanes. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED (IN) NOT FINDING THAT THE
INFORMATION(S) IN CRIMINAL CASE NO[S]. 2638 AND 2650
He denied having raped his daughters. He said that he sometimes beat his
ARE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
children because he is strict with them in their studies especially during
FOR ITS (SIC) FAILURE TO STATE THE PRECISE DATES OF THE
weekdays. He did not want them to watch television during schooldays.
COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED.26(Corrections and
Though he is strict, he could not molest the complainants because they are
underscoring supplied)
his daughters. He said that the reason why his daughters filed these cases
against him was because his father-in-law wants him to be incarcerated for Our Ruling
the reason that from the very start, he was opposed to his marriage to
In the main, appellant argues that the Informations charging him with the
CCC, his daughter.
rape of AAA and BBB are defective for failure to state with specificity the
He also said that in December 1998, the last molestation of BBB, he was in approximate date of the commission of the offenses. According to him, the
the motor launch that plies the San Andres and Caramoran route.19 twin convictions have no basis in law because the People violated his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
RTC and CA Dispositions
accusations against him.
On October 25, 2002, the trial court handed down a joint judgment of
The argument is specious. An information is intended to inform an accused
conviction, imposing upon appellant the capital punishment of death in both
of the accusations against him in order that he could adequately prepare
cases. The fallo of the RTC decision reads:
his defense. Verily, an accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the prosecution having proved is clearly charged in the complaint or information. Thus, to ensure that the
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he is sentenced to suffer constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause
the extreme penalty of DEATH for raping BBB in Criminal Case No. 2638 of the accusation against him is not violated, the information should state
and the same penalty for raping AAA in Criminal Case No. 2650 in the name of the accused; the designation given to the offense by the
accordance with Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by statute; a statement of the acts or omissions so complained of as
R.A. 7659. constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate
time and date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the
The accused is further ordered to indemnify both complainants the amount offense has been committed.27 Further, it must embody the essential
of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) each, to pay each of them the elements of the crime charged by setting forth the facts and circumstances
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and the that have a bearing on the culpability and liability of the accused, so that he
cost of suit. can properly prepare for and undertake his defense.28
SO ORDERED. 20
However, it is not necessary for the information to allege the date and time
Conformably with the pronouncement in People v. Mateo21 providing for an of the commission of the crime with exactitude unless time is an essential
intermediate review by the CA of cases in which the penalty imposed is ingredient of the offense.29 In People v. Bugayong,30 the Court held that
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the Court issued a when the time given in the information is not the essence of the offense,
Resolution dated September 21, 2004,22 transferring the case to the the time need not be proven as alleged; and that the complaint will be
appellate court for appropriate action and disposition. sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any time
within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement
On February 22, 2005, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC of the action.
judgment, disposing as follows:
In People v. Gianan,31 the Court ruled that the time of the commission of
WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the rape is not an element of the said crime as it is defined in Article 335 of the
crime of rape as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Revised Penal Code. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal
Penal Code as amended by Anti Rape Law of 1997, with the aggravating knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated therein, i.e.: (1) by
circumstance of relationship and minority, the decision of the court a quo using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or
sentencing him to death in both Criminal Cases Nos. 2638 and 2650 is otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of
hereby AFFIRMED. The award of civil indemnity is MODIFIED and age or is demented. In accordance with Rule 110, Section 11 of the 2000
INCREASED to P75,000.00 each, in both cases. The award of moral Rules of Criminal Procedure, as long as it alleges that the offense was
damages of P50,000.00 for each case is AFFIRMED. We also committed "at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was
award P25,000.00 as exemplary damages in each case. committed," an information is sufficient.
Let the records of this case be transmitted to the Supreme Court for The doctrine was reiterated with greater firmness in People v.
appropriate action. Salalima32 and in People v. Lizada.33
SO ORDERED.23 In the case under review, the information in Criminal Case No. 2638
Issues alleged that the rape of BBB transpired "sometime and between January
1992 up to December 6, 1998 in Barangay Codon, Municipality of San
On September 27, 2005, the Court resolved to require the parties to submit Andres, Province of Catanduanes." In Criminal Case No. 2650, the
their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within thirty (30) information averred that "from sometime in January 1990 up to December

1998 in Barangay Codon, Municipality of San Andres, Province of
Catanduanes," AAA was raped by appellant. To the mind of the Court, the
recitals in the informations sufficiently comply with the constitutional
requirement that the accused be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
In People v. Garcia,34 the Court upheld a conviction for ten counts of rape
based on an Information which alleged that the accused committed
multiple rapes "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994." In People v.
Espejon,35the Court found the appellant liable for rape under an information
charging that he perpetrated the offense "sometime in the year 1982 and
dates subsequent thereto" and "sometime in the year 1995 and
subsequent thereto."
Indeed, this Court has ruled that allegations that rapes were committed
"before and until October 15, 1994,"36"sometime in the year 1991 and the
days thereafter,"37 and "on or about and sometime in the year
1988"38constitute sufficient compliance with Rule 110, Section 11 of the
2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
More than that, the Court notes that the matter of particularity of the dates
in the information is being raised for the first time on appeal. The rule is
well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that objections as to matter of form or
substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on
appeal.39 Appellant failed to raise the issue of defective informations before
the trial court. He could have moved to quash the informations or at least
for a bill of particulars. He did not. Clearly, he slumbered on his rights and
awakened too late.
Too, appellant did not object to the presentation of the evidence for the
People contending that the offenses were committed "sometime and
between January 1992 up to December 6, 1998" for Criminal Case No.
2632 and "sometime in January 1990, up to December 1998" in Criminal
Case No. 2650. On the contrary, appellant actively participated in the trial,
offering denial and alibi as his defenses. Simply put, he cannot now be
heard to complain that he was unable to defend himself in view of the
vagueness of the recitals in the informations.
We now tackle appellant's convictions for the multiple rape of AAA and
BBB.
In an effort to exculpate himself, appellant contends that the charges for
rape are mere fabrications and lies. He insists his daughters were
instigated by his father-in-law to file the complaints. According to appellant,
his father-in-law has an axe to grind against him. His in-law disdained him
from the very beginning and wanted him out of CCC's life.
In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following jurisprudential
guidelines: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult
to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to
disprove; (b) due to the nature of the crime of rape in which only two
persons are usually involved, the testimony of 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.40
Tersely put, the credibility of the offended party is crucial in determining the
guilt of a person accused of rape. By the very nature of this crime, it is
usually only the victim who can testify as to its occurrence. Thus, in rape
cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony
of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing
and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.
Elsewise stated, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible,
suffices to warrant a conviction for rape.41
In her testimony before the trial court, AAA narrated:
Q Why, when were you particularly raped by your father?
A Since 1990, when I was in Grade I until I was in Grade VI, Sir.
33
Q When you were in Grade I, how old were you then?
A Seven (7) years old, Sir.
Q Can you remember the first time, you said your father raped you in
1990?
A I could no longer remember the date, Sir.
Q But how did your father rape you, do you remember how he raped you in
1990, the first time?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Could you please tell us how he raped you for the first time?
A I was croaching with raised buttocks, Sir.
Q Do you remember where did he tell you to make that position?
A No, Sir.
Q Where particularly in your house?
A In our room, Sir.
Q Do you still remember the date, the first time he raped you?
A No, Sir.
Q Who were with you in your house during that time?
A No one, Sir, because all my other siblings are playing outside the house,
and my mother was at work.
Q When you were in that position with your buttocks raised and hands and
knees on the floor, what did your father do next?
A He positioned behind me and s[tar]ted raping me, Sir.
Q When you used the term "rape," what do you mean?
A He inserted his penis into my vagina, Sir.
Q You mean your father inserted his penis to your vagina?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Now after that first time, do you remember the second time that he did it
to you?
A I could not remember anymore, Sir.
Q Do you remember how long the period was between the first and the
second time he raped you?
A I could not longer remember, Sir.
COURT
Fiscal, we are only trying here the rape that occurred on March 25, so if
you can prove to us really, maybe several times before that, the court
cannot do something about that, because it is not included in the
information.
AYO
Q So when was the last time that your father raped you?
A When I graduated from the elementary school, Sir.
Q When was that?
A March 24, 1996, Sir.
Q Between the first time that your father raped you and the last time that
your father raped you, did you not report this to anybody, the thing that
your father had been doing to you?
A I did not report this to anybody, Sir.
Q Why?
A Because I was threatened by my father that if we tell this matter to
anybody, he would not only kill me but the rest of us, Sir.
Q What other things did your father do when you said that he raped you,
whenever your father raped you, you said you have been raped by your
father in the time that you are in Grade I up to the time that you were in
Grade VI, what did your father do to you?
CABRERA
The question is vague, because there is no definite date.
COURT
Recess for ten (10) minutes.
COURT
(After ten minutes) Court session resumed.
AYO
Q Do you remember the last time that your father raped you?
A March 25, 1996, Sir.
Q Where?
A In our house, Sir.

Q How old were you then?
A Thirteen (13) years old, Sir.
Q How did he rape you?
A I was croaching with raised buttocks, Sir.
Q And what did he do again when you are in that position?
A He told me to remove my shorts and my panty, Sir.
Q And did you do it?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Then what did he do next?
A He positioned behind me and he raped me, Sir.
Q In that position while he was raping you, where was (sic) his hands?
A His hands were on my back, Sir.42
Upon the other hand, BBB testified thus:
AYO
Q Now, Miss witness, you said your first rape by your father in 1992, do
you remember the specific time when he first raped you?
A I could no longer recall the date, because that has been sometime
already, Sir.
Q In 1992, were you already in school then?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What grade were you in when your father first raped you?
A Grade II, Sir.
Q Do you recall the circumstances when you were first raped by your
father in 1992?
A I was made to lie on top of my father, Sir.
Q When you used the term "Pig baka-baka," will you please demonstrate
to us how it is done?
A (Witness demonstrating by kneeling and had her two hands on the floor,
a position similar to four-legged animal, and she stated that her father is at
her rear portion).
Q And that was the first time your father raped with that position?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And what clothes were you wearing at that time when you were at that
position, if you can still remember?
A Yes, Sir, I can remember, I was wearing shorts.
Q How about your father, do you remember what clothes he was wearing
in that position?
A He was wearing maong pants, Sir.
Q And what was your father doing aside from having that position?
A He removed my shorts and panty, Sir.
Q And after removing your shorts and panty, what did he do?
A My father inserted his penis in my vagina, Sir.
Q That was the first time you said he raped you?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Do you remember the date again, the first time that he raped you?
A I could no longer remember the exact date, Sir.
Q You could only remember the month and the year?
A Yes, Sir, I could not remember the date, but I remember only the month
and the year.
Q How about the second time, do you remember when he raped you, the
second time?
A I could not, Sir.43
On cross-examination, BBB stated that:
CABRERA
Q You said you were allegedly raped by your own father, sometime in
1992, will you tell us what time is that alleged incident committed to you?
A About 2:00 p.m., Sir.
Q And who were the persons in the house, at around 2:00 o'clock in the
afternoon?
A The two of us only, Sir.
Q Where were your companions in the home?
A By that time, my mother is working in the farm, my ate is in school, and
the rest of my siblings are playing outside, Sir.
Q What was your age then at the time you were allegedly raped?
34
A I was eight years old, Sir.
Q You were never forced to have that position of "baka-bakahan"?
A I was forced to do that, Sir.
Q You were only told in mild manner, correct?
A He kepts (sic) on telling me that I should do that position, although I don't
like it, he kepts (sic) on prodding me, Sir.
Q At that time your father was telling you on a very low voice, because you
were near to the children who are playing?
A They were playing, Sir.
Q Will you describe to us your house, what is the elevation of your house
from the ground floor?
A The flooring of our house is quite elevated. (Witness is demonstrating a
height of about one [1] foot).
Q Who were those children playing outside the house?
A My three (3) siblings are playing outside the house, Sir.
Q Your house has a window fronting the yard, correct?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And that yard was the playing ground of the children while your father
was telling you that position of "baka-bakahan"?
A They were playing in our yard, but they are playing near the house of our
neighbor, Sir.
Q How far is the house of your neighbor to your house?
A (Witness demonstrating a distance of one two-arms length).
Q And those children could hear what your father is saying?
A They could not have heard what my father said, because they were
playing, Sir.
Q Why, what kind of game they are playing?
A They were playing hide and seek, Sir.
Q What time did you eat your lunch?
A I took my lunch at 11:00 o'clock a.m., Sir.
Q Will you tell us what was the nature of your father's work at that time you
were allegedly raped?
A He is jobless, Sir.
Q Who is the one providing for your subsistence?
A My mother, Sir.
Q From where does your mother get your subsistence?
A She is doing some laundry works and works in the farm, Sir.
Q If your story is correct that you were allegedly raped, will you tell us what
happened to your vagina after the alleged rape?
A My vagina became painful, Sir.
Q Was there blood that oozed in your vagina?
A I do not know if there was blood, what I could feel was the pain, Sir.
Q After the alleged intercourse, did you wear your panty?
A Yes, Sir.
Q After the rape, what time did your mother arrive in your home?
A My mother arrived at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Sir.
Q Since you were still a child, if your story is correct, why did you not tell
your mother that you were allegedly raped at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon?
A I did not tell my mother because he threatened me, Sir.
Q Were you threatened before, during, or after the rape?
A Before I was raped, Sir.
Q And you were silent after the rape, he did not threaten you anymore?
A Yes, Sir, he threatened me again after he committed the rape.
Q Would you tell us the exact words, what did your father tell you?
A He told me that if you will tell anybody, I am going to kill all of you, Sir.
Q Was there any occasion on the part of your mother and you that you
were alone without the presence of your father, after the rape?
A There was none, Sir.
Q You mean your father was always in your house?
A There are times that he stays outside the house, he is jobless, he hangs
around, Sir.
Q After you were allegedly raped, did you have any occasion in the
evening to talk to your mother immediately after this alleged rape?

A There are, but then I could not tell my mother, because I was afraid of
my father, Sir.
Q But there was an occasion that you were together with your mother and
you could have told her what happened to you, is that correct?
A Yes, there were occasions and opportunities that I could tell my mother,
but I could not because of the threat of my father, Sir.
Q Was there any occasion that actually happened after that threat when
you were harmed by your father?
A Yes, Sir.
Q When was that?
A Right after that evening, I did not do anything wrong, he just punished us,
because he is not tempered, Sir.
Q Your father is not insane, he will not do anything to you without any
reason?
A Yes, because every time he has no money, he becomes ill tempered,
because he wanted to gamble, Sir.
Q You are a young child then, is it not a fact that as a loving father he tried
to discipline you, because of your mischievous acts?
A We do not considered that a discipline, although we feel we did not do
anything wrong, he keeps on punishing us, because he is ill tempered, Sir.
Q Where was your mother when your father is trying to harm you?
A She is at work, Sir.
Q You mean he tried to harm you when your mother is out?
A When my mother is around, he punishes us every time we did something
wrong, but then he does that too when my mother is not around, Sir.
Q Do you tell that to your mother that your father punished you without any
reason?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Will you tell us the date, the first you were abused by your father in the
year 1992?
A I could no longer remember the date, Sir.
Q But you can recall the fifteen (15) times?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What is important to you is the fifteen (15) times, but the first rape is not
important to you?
A Yes, Sir.
Q You said you were last raped on February 16, 1998, is that correct?
A No, Sir, December 16, 1998. February 16 was when we reported to the
police.
Q This last incident, did you tell your mother about this?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And what did your mother say?
A My mother told us that we report the matter, but we told her that we
could not manage to do it, Sir.
Q How were you raped on December 6, 1998?
A He used his finger, Sir.
Q Was there any nail in the finger?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And how did you feel when your father used his finger?
A It is painful, Sir.
Q What he used is finger only?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Could it be possible that there was inside your vagina and your father is
trying to remove it?
A There is none, Sir.44 (Underscoring supplied)
The trial court observed that AAA's and BBB's testimonies bear the
hallmarks of truth. Their testimonies are "spontaneous, convincing and
highly-credible."45 We find no cogent reason not to apply here the oft-
repeated rule that the matter of assigning values to the declaration of
witnesses on the stand is a matter best left to the discretion of the trial
court. The trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses through
the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush
of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the
tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready
35
reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation,
the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the
yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the
solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.46 This doctrine assumes
greater significance when the determination of the trial court on the
credibility of a witness has been affirmed by the appellate court.47
The Court has consistently ruled that no young girl would concoct a sordid
tale of defloration at the hands of her own father, undergo medical
examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a
public trial, if her motive were other than a fervent desire to seek
justice.48 A rape victim's testimony against her parent is entitled to great
weight since Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their
elders. These values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families, and it is
unthinkable for a daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape if such were
not true.49 Certainly, a rape victim or any other member of her family would
not dare to publicly expose the dishonor of the family, more specifically, if
such accusation is against a fellow member of the family, unless the crime
was, in fact, committed.50
We sustain the trial court and the CA's rejection of appellant's defense
founded on denial and alibi. Denial and alibi, being weak defenses, cannot
overcome the positive testimonies of the offended parties and their
witnesses. As this Court has reiterated often enough, denial and alibi
cannot prevail over positive identification of the accused by the prosecution
witnesses.51 The positive, consistent and straightforward testimonies of the
victims and the other witnesses for the People sufficiently established
appellant's culpability.
In order to merit credibility, alibi must be buttressed by strong evidence of
non-culpability. Verily, for the said defense to prosper, accused must prove
not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of
the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at
the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity.52Appellant dismally failed to
discharge this onus.
The trial court and the CA, however, both blundered in convicting appellant
of multiple rape of AAA and BBB, from January 1990 to December 1998
and from January 1992 up to December 6, 1998, respectively.
The RTC and the CA convicted appellant of multiple rapes under two
separate informations, Criminal Cases Nos. 2638 and 2650. However, both
the trial and appellate courts erroneously sentenced him to a single death
penalty for each information.
We find that appellant is guilty of two qualified rapes, instead of multiple
rapes under Criminal Case No. 2650, and only one qualified rape, not
multiple, under Criminal Case No. 2638. The legal basis for conviction for
as many offenses as are charged and proved is Section 3, Rule 120 of the
2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.53
It is axiomatic that each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct
crime. Verily, each of the alleged incidents of rape charged should be
proven beyond reasonable doubt.54 In People v. Matugas,55 the Court aptly
ruled:
This Court cannot thus sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for 29
counts of rape because only two incidents were sufficiently proven by the
prosecution. While we do not doubt that she was raped on other dates, we
cannot ascertain the exact number of times she was actually raped. It must
be remembered that each and every charge of rape is a separate and
distinct crime so that each of the 27 other alleged incidents of rape charged
should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If, as complainant claimed, the
number could be more, the possibility that it could be much less than 27
cannot be discounted.56
In People v. De la Torre,57 the Court held that:
 36
Each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime; hence, d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
each of the eight other rape charges should be proven beyond reasonable demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be
doubt. The prosecution is required to establish, by the necessary quantum present.
of proof, the elements of rape for each charge. Baby Jane's testimony on
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in
the first rape charge was explicit, detailing the participation of each
paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his
appellant in the offense and clearly illustrating all the elements of the
penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
offense of rape. However her simple assertion that the subsequent rapes
object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.62 (Underscoring
occurred in exactly the same manner as in previous incidents is clearly
supplied)
inadequate and grossly insufficient to establish to a degree of moral
certainty the guilt of the appellants insofar as the eight rape charges are Rape by sexual assault was introduced into our penal system via the
concerned. Her testimony was too general as it failed to focus on material amendatory Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (R.A. No. 8353), which took effect on
details as to how each of the subsequent acts was committed. Even her October 22, 1997. With these amendments, rape was reclassified as a
testimony on cross-examination did not add anything to support her crime against person and not merely a crime against chastity.63
accusations of subsequent rape. Thus, only the rape alleged to have been
committed on September 1992 was proven beyond reasonable doubt and Considering that the law was already in force at the time of the insertion of
the appellants may be penalized only for this offense.58 appellant's finger into BBB's vagina on December 6, 1998, he should have
been prosecuted and tried for rape by sexual assault and not under the
In the case under review, the evidence bear out that what were proved by traditional definition of rape. The People, however, failed in this regard.
the People beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2650 were the That is fatal.
rapes committed by appellant on AAA sometime in 1990 and then again on
March 25, 1996. AAA was categorical that she was first raped by appellant Sections 8 and 9 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure state:
sometime in 1990. Her account of the first rape was vivid, candid and Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall
straightforward. She further disclosed that appellant repeatedly abused state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
her. However, when asked by the court to clarify her claim that the sexual omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and
abuses were repeated, AAA failed to supply the details. But she was able aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
to recount the last incident of rape on March 25, 1996. According to her, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute
that day was of significance to her since she graduated from primary punishing it.
school on that day.59
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as
Applying De la Torre, We hold that AAA's assertion that the subsequent constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances
rapes occurred in exactly the same manner as in previous incidents is must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the
clearly inadequate and grossly insufficient to establish to a degree of moral language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of
certainty the guilt of appellant insofar as the other rape incidents are common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as
concerned. Her testimony was too general as it failed to focus on material its qualifying and aggravating circumstances for the court to pronounce
details as to how each of the subsequent acts was committed. In fine, judgment.
appellant should have been convicted, in Criminal Case No. 2650, only of
the qualified rape of AAA sometime in 1990 and then again on March 25, Under the new rules, the information or complaint must state the
1996. designation of the offense given by the statute and specify its qualifying
and generic aggravating circumstances. Otherwise stated, the accused will
With respect to private complainant BBB in Criminal Case No. 2638, what not be convicted for the offense proved during the trial if it was not properly
is extant from the records is that appellant succeeded in raping her in alleged in the information. Although the rule took effect on December 1,
January 1992. BBB, like AAA, failed to give an account of the alleged rape 2000, the same may be applied retroactively because it is a cardinal rule
subsequent to January 1992 when she testified in the court below.60 As that rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive application insofar as
with AAA, We hold that BBB's account of the rapes subsequent to January they benefit the accused.64
1992 but before December 6, 1998 is too general and unconvincing.
In sum, in Criminal Case No. 2638, appellant should have been convicted
Likewise borne by the records is the insertion of appellant's finger into only of the qualified rape of BBB in January 1992. The rape by sexual
BBB's vagina on December 6, 1998. BBB testified that appellant raped her assault committed on December 6, 1998, although proven, should not have
for the last time on December 6, 1998. When asked by the court to clarify been considered by the trial and appellate courts for lack of a proper
what she meant, BBB disclosed that appellant inserted his finger into her allegation in the information.
vagina.61
We go now to the penalty and the award of damages.
What appellant did was rape by sexual assault, punishable under Article
266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Appellant is liable for the rape of AAA sometime in 1990 and on March 25,
Act (R.A.) No. 8353. The said law provides: 1996. He is also guilty of raping BBB in January 1992. At that time, the law
penalizing rape was still Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
Art. 266-A. Rape; when and how committed. Rape is committed amended by R.A. No. 7659. The said law provides:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the Art. 335. When and how rape is committed.
following circumstances:
xxxx
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise with any of the following attendant circumstances:
unconscious;
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
 37
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim.
In view of the passage of R.A. No. 9346 entitled, "An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," the death penalty should be
downgraded. Pursuant to Section 2 of the said law, the penalty to be meted
out to appellant shall be reclusion perpetua. Said section reads:
Section 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of
the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make
use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
Notwithstanding the reduction of the penalty imposed on appellant, he is
not eligible for parole following Section 3 of the said law, which provides:
Section 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua,
or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of
this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise
known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
With regard to the award of damages, the same must be modified. The CA
correctly increased the amount of indemnity from P50,000.00
to P75,000.00 each for AAA and BBB. Civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is
warranted if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the
imposition of the death penalty.65 The award of additional P25,000.00 each
by way of exemplary damages deserves affirmance due to the presence of
the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.66
However, the CA erred in affirming the RTC award of moral damages
of P50,000.00 which should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of
pleading or proof of basis.67
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION, as follows:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 2650, appellant Jerry Nazareno is hereby
found GUILTY of two counts of qualified rape and is sentenced to reclusion
perpetua for each felony, without eligibility for parole. He is further ordered
to indemnify the victim in the amount of P75,000.00, another P75,000.00 in
moral damages and P25,000.00 in exemplary damages, for each count.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 2638, appellant is found GUILTY of one count of
qualified rape and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole. He is likewise ordered to pay the complainant P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
SO ORDERED.
38
 39
G.R. No. 170360 March 12, 2009 the desk officer, SPO4 Billones, took AAAs statement. They went to the
PNP Crime Laboratory for AAAs medical examination upon police
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
instructions.6
vs.
HENRY GUERRERO y AGRIPA, Accused-Appellant. SPO4 San Diego narrated that on July 13, 1998, AAA and her mother went
to the police station to report the rape incident. At the police desk officers
DECISION
instructions, he and SPO4 Antonio Osorio (SPO4 Osorio) went to the
BRION, J.: appellants residence (in Pigeon Street, Batasan Hills) and invited the
appellant to the police station for investigation. He and SPO4 Osorio
We review in this appeal the April 27, 2005 decision of the Court of executed an affidavit upon their arrival at the police station.7
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00120,1affirming with modification the
January 28, 2003 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, SPO4 Billones testified that AAA and her mother went to the police station
Quezon City.2 The RTC decision found the accused-appellant Henry sometime in July 1998 to report that the appellant had "sexually abused"
Guerrero y Agripa (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime AAA. She took AAAs statement and prepared a referral letter for the
of rape, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. victims medico-legal examination. She recalled that AAA, at that time,
looked tired and uneasy.8
ANTECEDENT FACTS
Dr. Freyra, the medico-legal officer of the PNP Central Crime Laboratory,
The prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC with the crime of testified that she conducted a medical examination of AAA on July 14,
rape under an Information that states: 1998, and made the following findings:
That on or about the 30th day of May, 1998, in Quezon City, Philippines, F I N D I N G S:
the said accused by means of force and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously touch [AAAs]3 private part, a minor 13 GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:
years of age, removed her panty and inserted his index finger on her
Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female subject. Breasts are
vagina and thereafter have carnal knowledge with the undersigned
undeveloped. Abdomen is flat and soft.
complainant against her will and without her consent.
GENITAL:
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
There is absence of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution presented
coaptated with pinkish brown labia minora presenting in between. On
the following witnesses in the trial on the merits that followed: AAA; BBB;
separating the same disclosed an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with deep,
SPO4 Susano San Diego (SPO4 San Diego); SPO4 Milla Billones (SPO4
healed lacerations at 4 and 9 oclock positions. External vaginal orifice
Billones); and Dr. Ma. Cristina Freyra (Dr. Freyra). The appellant took the
offers strong resistance to the introduction of the examining index finger.
witness stand for the defense.
Vaginal canal is narrow with prominent rugosities.
AAA testified that the appellant was the "kumpadre" of her mother, and
C O N C L U S I O N:
was a frequent visitor at her parents house. She recalled that on May 30,
1998, the appellant who was standing beside the window of his house Subject is in non-virgin state physically.
called her. She approached the appellant who then grabbed her arms and
There are no external signs of recent application of any form of trauma at
dragged her inside his house. The appellant removed her dress and panty,
the time of examination.
then took off his own clothes. Thereafter, the appellant touched her private
parts. She felt pain when the appellant tried to insert his penis into her REMARKS:
vagina. She cried when she saw blood on her private part.
Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for gram-negative
She went to school after two (2) days, but slept in the classroom because diplococcic and for spermatozoa. x x x.9
she had a headache and felt pain all over her body. She only informed her
On cross examination, she stated that the hymenal lacerations on AAAs
mother of the sexual abuse after her (AAAs) brother informed their mother
that she had been sleeping during school hours. Their mother filed a private part10could have been caused by the insertion of a blunt object into
complaint before the police when she learned of the rape. her vagina.
The appellant was the sole defense witness, and gave a different version
On cross examination, AAA admitted that the appellant had "touched" her
prior to May 30, 1998. She again narrated that she was playing with her of the events. He declared on the witness stand that he had known AAA
and her parents for about six (6) years; they both live on the same street.
cousin at around 5:00 p.m. of May 30, 1998, when the appellant, who was
then holding a fighting cock, called her and asked her to place a bet for him He recalled that before 7:00 a.m. on May 30, 1998, he went to the house of
in an "ending" game. She approached the appellant who then dragged her the spouses Felipe where he worked as a carpenter. He did not leave the
Felipes house until he finished his work at 9:00 p.m.
inside his house. She did not shout because the appellant was armed with
a knife and was threatening her. The appellant took off his shorts and On cross examination, he admitted that the parents of AAA were his
briefs after he undressed her. She did not run because she was scared "kumpare" and "kumadre," respectively, and stated that his place of work
that the appellant might kill her. She added that she never again went near was a 30-minute walk, more or less, from his residence.11
the appellants house after the rape.5
The RTC convicted the appellant of the crime of rape in its decision of
BBB, the mother of AAA, declared on the witness stand that she January 28, 2003 under the following terms:
discovered the rape incident only in June 1998. According to her, she
noticed that her daughter was always "tulala" and would not respond when WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding
talked to. When she forced AAA to disclose what her problem was, she the herein accused Henry Guerrero Agripa GUILTY BEYOND
(AAA) replied that "Kuya Henry raped me." AAAs brothers and sisters REASONABLE DOUBT of Rape and hereby sentences him to suffer the
were present when she made this revelation. She responded to the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the offended party the sum
disclosure by accompanying AAA to the Batasan Police Station 6 where of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.
 40
SO ORDERED.12 [Emphasis in the original] A: He called me. He was just standing by the window, and then he dragged
me inside the house.
The records of this case were originally transmitted to this Court on appeal.
Q: What happened after you were dragged inside the house?
Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,13 we endorsed the case and the
A: He removed my dress.
records to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.14
Q: What followed after he undressed you?
The CA, in its decision15 dated April 27, 2005, affirmed the RTC decision, A: He also undressed himself.
with the modification that the appellant be ordered to pay the ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR DELA CRUZ
victim P50,000.00 as moral damages. At this juncture the witness is crying, Your Honor, may we ask that the
continuation of the testimony of witness be reset tomorrow x x x.
The CA gave credence to AAAs testimony which it found to be CONTINUATION OF DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ASSISTANT
corroborated on material points by the testimony and findings of Dr. Freyra.
PROSECUTOR DELA CRUZ
The appellant, on the other hand, merely presented the weak defenses of Q: Ms. Witness, for clarity, will you please step down from the witness
denial and alibi. stand and tap the shoulder of the accused in this case, Henry Guerrero
In his brief,16 the appellant argued that the RTC erred in convicting him of Agripa?
the crime charged despite the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt [AAA]
beyond reasonable doubt. A: Yes, sir. This man, sir.
COURT INTERPRETER
THE COURTS RULING Witness tapping the right shoulder of the man who is wearing a yellow T-
We resolve to deny the appeal for lack of merit. shirt and who when asked identified himself as Henry Guerrero Agripa.
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR DELA CRUZ
Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence Q: Yesterday, during the direct examination, you were telling us about your
An established rule in appellate review is that the trial courts factual ordeal, what you experienced on May 30, 1998 in the hands of this
findings, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the accused, Henry Guerrero Agripa? Do you remember that, Mr. [sic]
probative weight of their testimonies, as well as the conclusions drawn Witness?
from the factual findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect. A: Yes, sir.
These actual findings and conclusions assume greater weight if they are Q: Now, Ms. Witness, again, I will ask you, what happened on May 30,
affirmed by the CA. Despite the enhanced persuasive effect of the initial 1998? What happened to you?
RTC factual ruling and the results of the CAs appellate factual review, we xxx
nevertheless fully scrutinized the records of this case as the penalty of A: I was then near their window and he grabbed me inside their house.
reclusion perpetua imposed on the accused demands no less than this Q: When you said "nila," to whom are you referring to?
kind of scrutiny.17 A: The house of the suspect.
Q: You mean Henry Guerrero Agripa, the accused in this case?
The Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, 18 defines A: Yes, sir.
and penalizes Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, as follows: Q: What happened after you were dragged inside the house of the
ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed - accused?
A: He undressed me.
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the Q: What was removed by the accused when you said he undressed you?
following circumstances: A: My shorts and panty.
a) Through force, threat or intimidation; Q: And then what did he do next, if he did anything, after he undressed
you?
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise A: He also undressed himself.
unconscious; Q: Thereafter, what happened next, if any.
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR DELA CRUZ
At this juncture, your honor, may we put on record that the witness is
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is crying.
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be xxx
present. A: "Ginalaw na niya po ako."
xxxx xxx
COURT:
Thus, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) I will ask her a question. When you said "ginalaw," you mean he only held
the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished your hands?
the act through force, threat or intimidation, or when she was deprived of [AAA]
reason or was otherwise unconscious, was under 12 years of age, or was A: No, your honor, he touched my whole body.
demented.19 Q: Including what?
In her testimony, AAA positively identified the appellant as her rapist; she A: My private parts.
never wavered in this identification. To directly quote from the records: xxx
Q: About how many times did he do to you this touching of your body as
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR BEN DELA CRUZ well as your private parts?
Q: On May 30, 1998, do you recall of any unusual incident that happened A: Many times.
to you? xxx
[AAA] Q: When you said he touched your private parts, you mean he touched you
A: Yes, sir. with his hands?
Q: What was that unusual incident? A: He used his private parts.
Q: You mean his penis?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did you feel?
A: I felt pain.
Q: And what did he do exactly when you said you felt pain, what was he
doing at this time when you felt pain?
A: Because he was trying to force his private part into mine, into my
vagina.
Q: Aside from the pain that you felt, was there anything else that happened
to you on account of that act of the accused trying to penetrate you?
A: No more, sir.
Q: Okay. What did you observe in you[r] private parts after the accused
tried to penetrate you?
A: There was blood.
Q: And how did you react when you said there was blood in your private
part?
A: I just cried.
Q: You said he tried to penetrate you with his penis, how many times did
he do this?
A: Once only. x x x20 [Emphasis supplied]
AAAs testimony strikes us to be clear, convincing and credible,
corroborated as it was in a major way by the medico-legal report and the
testimony of Dr. Freyra. It bears emphasis that during the initial phases of
AAAs testimony, she broke down on the witness stand when the
prosecution asked her questions relating to the rape she suffered. This, to
our mind, is an eloquent and moving indication of the truth of her
allegations. In addition, our examination of the records gives us no reason
to doubt AAAs testimony or suspect her of any ulterior motive in charging
and testifying against the appellant. We have held time and again that
testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature, as in this case,
deserve full credence considering that no young woman, especially one of
tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of
her private parts, and thereafter subject herself to a public trial if she had
not been motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong
committed against her.21
Clearly, the prosecution positively established the elements of rape
required under Article 266-A. First, the appellant succeeded in having
carnal knowledge with the victim; AAA was steadfast in her assertion that
the appellant tried to force his penis into her vagina. We have said often
enough that in concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full
penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the
rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia
by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act (as part of the entry of
the penis into the labias of the female organ) is sufficient to constitute
carnal knowledge.22
Our ruling in People v. Bali-Balita23 is particularly instructive:
We have said often enough that in concluding that carnal knowledge took
place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient,
nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the
external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is
sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching should be
understood here as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labias
of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the
pudendum.
Thus, touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere
epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape
of the penis on the external layer of the victims vagina, or the mons pubis,
as in this case. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the
penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not
merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted
of consummated rape. As the labias, which are required to be "touched" by
the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or
the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree
41
of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the
labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes
consummated rape.24 [Emphasis and italics supplied]
Undoubtedly, there was touching of the labia as AAA testified that the
appellant "was trying to force" his private part into her vagina, as a result of
which, she felt pain. She also testified that her vagina bled after the
incident. More importantly, Dr. Freyra testified that there were deep
hymenal lacerations on AAAs private part, thus:
ATTY. RONALD ANCHETA
Q: Doctor, in your findings, you said that you found out that the hymen was
lacerated at 4 and 9 oclock positions.
DR. FREYRA
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Doctor, what could have been the cause of the laceration?
A: The cause of such laceration is the insertion of any blunt object inside
the vagina.
Q: Now doctor, would you be able to distinguish if only the tip of the penis
or full or the whole penis was inserted. Would you determine that
considering that the laceration is [at] 4 and 9 oclock positions?
A: The laceration is inflicted in the hymen if there was insertion of any hard
blunt object and the size of the laceration would depend on the object that
penetrated and it does not matter whether the tip of the penis is short or
inverted.
Q: Are you saying that even the tip of the penis could have caused the
laceration at 4 and 9 oclock?
A: As I have said, it would depend on the diameter of the thing that enters
the hymen and it would break that would need to accommodate the
diameter of the thing that enters [sic].
Q: So how about in this case, Doctor, if the male factor is an adult at the
time of the sexual abuse and there was full penetration. Is it not a fact that
there could have been more laceration than what has been stated there in
your report?
A: No, sir because the hymen is elastic and it would break and produce
lacerations that are made in order to accommodate the diameter of the
thing that enters and since the thing that penetrated only required two
lacerations located at 4 and 9 oclock, those were the only lacerations
inflicted in order to accommodate the thing that entered.1avvphi1
Q: How about if the finger was inserted in the hymen of the victim, would it
produce that type of lacerations?
A: If it was a finger that penetrated the hymen, perhaps I would see a
smaller laceration in the hymen. Then also it would depend on the size of
the smaller finger that entered the hymen and did not do any other
movements like sideward movement it would be a shallow laceration. But
in this case, it is a deep healed laceration of the hymen.
x x x25 [Emphasis ours]
Second, the appellant employed force and intimidation in satisfying his
lustful desires. AAA categorically stated that she was dragged by the
appellant who was wielding a knife inside his (appellants) house. AAA
likewise testified that the appellant continued to threaten her while they
were inside his house; and that she (AAA) did not attempt to run for fear for
her life. As an element of rape, force or intimidation need not be irresistible;
it may be just enough to bring about the desired result. What is necessary
is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose
that the accused had in mind.26 In People v. Mateo,27 we held:
 42
It is a settled rule that the force contemplated by law in the commission of We sustain the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages in
rape is relative, depending on the age, size strength of the parties. It is not accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. Civil indemnity, actually given as
necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be actual or compensatory damages, is awarded upon the finding that rape
so great and of such character as could not be resisted; it is only was committed.32 Similarly, moral damages are awarded to rape victims
necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the without need of pleading or evidentiary basis; the law assumes that a rape
purpose which the accused had in mind. victim suffered moral injuries entitling her to the award.33
Intimidation, more subjective than not, is peculiarly addressed to the mind WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, we hereby AFFIRM the April 27,
of the person against whom it may be employed, and its presence is 2005 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00120 in toto. Costs
basically incapable of being tested by any hard and fast rule. Intimidation is against appellant Henry Guerrero y Agripa.
normally best viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the
SO ORDERED.
victim at the time and occasion of the crime.28
By itself, the act of holding a knife is strongly suggestive of force or at least
of intimidation, more so if the knife was directed at a minor, as in this case.
Clearly, AAA could not be expected to act with equanimity and with nerves
of steel, or to act like an adult or a mature and experienced woman who
would know what to do under the circumstances, or to have the courage
and intelligence to disregard the threat.29 Under the circumstances
obtaining in this case, the overt acts of the appellant were sufficient to bring
AAA into submission.
The Appellants Defenses
In stark contrast with the prosecutions case is the appellants alibi of
having been in the Felipes house at the time the rape was committed. He
maintained that he never left the Felipes house from 7:00 a.m. up to 9:00
a.m. of that day. By the appellants own admission, however, the residence
of the Felipe spouses is also located at Batasan Hills, and was a mere 30-
minute walk, more or less, from his (appellants) house where the rape was
committed. Considering the proximity of these places, we cannot accord
any value to the appellants alibi. For the defense of alibi to prosper, proof
of being at another place when the crime was committed is not enough; the
accused must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to be
present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity when the crime was
committed.30
Moreover, we cannot help but note that the alibi of the accused is totally
uncorroborated; only the appellant testified about his presence elsewhere.
Already a weak defense, alibi becomes even weaker when the defense
fails to present corroboration. The alibi totally falls if, aside from the lack of
corroboration, the accused fails to show the physical impossibility of his
presence at the place and time of the commission of the crime.31
The Proper Penalty
The applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 8353 (effective October 22, 1997), covering the crime of
Rape are Articles 266-A and 266-B, which provide:
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;
xxxx
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxxx
Although the prosecution proved during trial that the rape was committed
with the use of a deadly weapon, we cannot appreciate this qualifying
circumstance as it was not alleged in the Information. The lower courts
therefore are correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the
appellant.
The Proper Indemnity
 43
G.R. No. 137993 April 11, 2002 vagina had in fact been penetrated.10 Then, Josephine and Julie Ann
returned to the police headquarters where the latter was investigated.11
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. On January 5, 1998, at around 9:30 in the evening, the accused was
ROMEO SANTOS Y LABAY, accused-appellant. apprehended while driving his tricycle.12
PER CURIAM: The accused denied the charge and alleged that his daughter, Josephine,
was angry with him so she concocted false charges against him.
Romeo Santos y Labay appeals from the decision1 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 265, Pasig City, in Criminal Case No. 113642-H, He also claimed that he reprimanded Roland Macasinag twice because of
convicting him of rape and sentencing him to the supreme penalty of death, his drinking. Roland is married to the daughter of the second husband of
and to pay to the victim, Julie Ann Gutierrez, the amounts of P50,000.00 as the accuseds wife.13
civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages and costs.
Josephine presented before the trial court Julie Anns birth certificate
On January 6, 1998, an information was filed with the said RTC charging showing that she was born on September 13, 1991.14
Romeo Santos y Labay with rape, committed as follows:
On January 11, 1999, the trial court rendered its decision, 15 the dispositive
"On or about the third week of December, 1997 in Pasig City, and within portion of which states:
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused being a grandfather, a
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered
relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree, did then and there
finding the Accused, ROMEO SANTOS Y LABAY, GUILTY beyond
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Julie Ann
reasonable of the crime of RAPE, aggravated by the fact that the victim
Gutierrez, a minor, six years old, against her will and consent.
was the accuseds minor granddaughter who was only six (6) years old,
"Contrary to law."2 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH, as provided for
under R.A. No. 7659 and R.A. No. 8353; to pay the Private Complainant,
When arraigned, accused pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.
Julie Ann Gutierrez, the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00)
The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows: by way of indemnity; THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as moral
damages, plus all the accessory penalties provided by law, without
Julie Ann Gutierrez, born on September 13, 1991, is the third child of Julio subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
and Josephine Gutierrez. Accused Romeo Labay Santos, tricycle driver, is
Julie Anns maternal grandfather. SO ORDERED."16
One early evening in December 1997, Julie Ann, then six years old, was The above decision was elevated to this Court for automatic review.
brought by the accused to his house located behind the house of the girls
In his brief, accused-appellant contends that the court a quo erred:
family in Villa Raymundo, Barangay Palatiw, Pasig City.3
"I.. IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM AND THE
The accused laid down Julie Ann on the bed and undressed her. He also
COMPLAINANTS MOTHER WERE ONLY TOLD TO POINT TO THE
undressed himself. He then inserted his penis into her vagina. She shouted
ACCUSED AS THE PERPETRATOR BY ROLAND MACASINAG.
because of the pain, but he refused to stop. At that time, Julie Anns
mother went to fetch water outside, while her father was driving his "II.... IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
jeep.4 Accuseds wife was not also in the house.1wphi1.nt PROSECUTION WITNESSES ALTHOUGH REPLETE WITH
INCONSISTENCIES.
Julie Ann described a rapist as someone who would take off her dress and
her shorts, including her panty, kiss her vagina and insert his penis.5 "III.... IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME-
CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."17
Julie Anns mother, Josephine Gutierrez, 28 years old, recalled that the
accused would usually take the girl to his house overnight. One time, The nature of the crime of rape is such that oftentimes it is only the
Josephine fetched her from his house as she complained of pain in her accused and the complainant who can testify as to the commission of the
vagina. Then, while giving a bath to Julie Ann, Josephine saw blood and crime. Thus, it is imperative to scrutinize the testimonies and the evidence
white secretion near her daughters genital area. For one week after that, altogether to see if the conviction of appellant can be sustained.18
she experienced nightmares, screaming, "Ayoko na!"6 Worried, Josephine
In this case, appellant denies committing rape and essentially raises the
brought her to a psychiatrist in the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). The
issue of credibility of witnesses. Well-entrenched is the rule that the
psychiatrist told Josephine that the nightmares were caused by a traumatic
findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses are entitled to great
experience of her daughter. The psychiatrist then conducted a medical
weight on appeal unless cogent reasons are presented necessitating a
examination of Julie Ann and certified that she has three lacerations in her
reexamination if not the disturbance of the same; the reason being the
genital area.7
former is in a better and unique position of hearing first hand the witnesses
On January 4, 1998, Rolando Macasinag told Josephine that the accused and observing their deportment, conduct and attitude.19 Absent any
previously molested Julie Ann. At first, Josephine found it hard to believe. showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied
Later on, upon her inquiry, Julie Ann revealed that the accused had raped some facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the
her four times.8 Thereupon, Josephine confronted the accused, but he case, the trial judges assessment of credibility deserves the appellate
denied.9 courts highest respect.20
The next day, or on January 5, 1998, Josephine took Julie Ann to the After a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason
Eastern Police District, Philippine National Police Office in Caruncho to depart from the findings and conclusions of the trial court. We agree with
Avenue, Pasig City. The officer of the Task Group Zebra-Women and its grant of full weight and credence to the testimony of Julie Ann that her
Childrens Desk referred and accompanied them to the PGH for physical grandfather sexually assaulted her without her consent. She testified in a
examination. Dr. Bernadette Madrid, Director of the PGH Child Protection very clear, spontaneous and straightforward manner. She unflinchingly
Unit, examined Julie Ann and indicated in her Medical Certificate that her identified her grandfather, the appellant, as the person who raped her. She
 44
declared that she felt pain and screamed when he inserted his penis into Hence, the concurrence of both the minority of the victim and her
her vagina. She even experienced nightmares because of her trauma. relationship to the offender constrains this Court to affirm the death penalty
imposed by the trial court.28
Furthermore, no woman, especially one of tender age like Julie Ann, would
concoct a rape complaint, allow a gynecologic examination and permit Three (3) members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to
herself to be subjected to a public trial if she is not motivated solely by the the separate opinions expressed in People vs. Echegaray that R.A. No.
desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.21 Considering that 7659, insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death, is unconstitutional,
she was not shown to have been ill-motivated in charging her grandfather, nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is
we find no reason to disbelieve her. This Court has held that where there is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.
no evidence to indicate that the prosecution witness was actuated by
Regarding damages, recent jurisprudence has prescribed that the
improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his
indemnification of the victim shall be in the amount of P75,000.00 if rape is
testimony is given full faith and credit.22
committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which
Appellant contends that Julie Ann was merely coached by her mother and the death penalty is authorized by the applicable amendatory
Roland Macasinag to accuse him with rape; and that his arguments and laws.29 Applying the foregoing policy, the civil indemnity to be awarded to
quarrels with Josephine and his having reprimanded Roland Macasinag the offended party in the case at bar is increased to P75,000.00.
because of his drinking are the reasons why they falsely testified against
Additionally, it is obvious from the facts of this case that the victim suffered
him. Appellants contention is highly implausible. This Court has ruled that
mental, physical and psychological trauma which justifies the award of
such motives have never swayed this Court in lending credence to the
moral damages. She is thus entitled to moral damages in the increased
testimony of the victim, like Julie Ann, who remain firm and steadfast in her
amount of P50,000.00.1wphi1.nt
account of how she was ravished by a sex offender. Also, no member of
23

a rape victims family would dare encourage the victim to publicly expose WHEREFORE, the decision of the RTC, Branch 265, Pasig City, in
the dishonor of the family unless the crime was in fact committed, 24 more Criminal Case No. 113642-H, convicting appellant Romeo Labay Santos of
so in this case where the victim and the offender are both from the same rape and sentencing him to death is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in
family. the sense that he is ordered to pay the offended party, Julie Ann
Gutierrez, P75, 000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
Appellant further cites inconsistencies in Julie Anns statements before the
damages.
trial court. Specifically, appellant avers that Julie Ann contradicted herself
when she gave conflicting answers, as to the whereabouts of the other In accordance with Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
members of her family at the time she was raped. First, she stated that her Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, upon the finality of this decision, let
family was in her house. Later, she declared that her mother went to fetch the records of this case be forwarded to the Office of the President for
water and her father drove his jeep. Likewise, she was confused when possible exercise of the pardoning power.
asked where she lived during the incident. We find such contradictions
more apparent than real. It must be remembered that Julie Ann was only 6 SO ORDERED.
years old when she was raped and only 7 years old when she testified in
court. As a child, her answers depended on her perception of the questions
propounded to her. Nonetheless, the alleged inconsistencies in her
testimony refer to minor matters. What is significant is that she declared
categorically that appellant raped her. When the inconsistencies pertain to
trivial details, they are inconsequential as they have nothing to do with the
essential fact in the crime of rape which is carnal knowledge.25
Corroborating the testimony of Julie Ann is the medical certificate of the
doctor who examined her. According to the medical findings, Julie Anns
hymen was reduced or almost absent, concluding that there was a
penetration. This Court has held that when the victims testimony of her
violation is corroborated by the physicians findings of penetration, then
there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential
requisite of carnal knowledge.26
Appellants defense of denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over
the positive and candid testimony of the victim, whose credibility was
upheld by the trial court.27
Thus, we find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. Under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, rape is committed by
having carnal knowledge of a woman and the death penalty shall be
imposed if the crime of rape is committed when the victim is under
eighteen 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 prosecution adequately established the fact that the victim, Julie Ann
Gutierrez, was only six years old at the time of the rape. That she was only
six then and that appellant is her grandfather are properly alleged in the
information.
 45
G.R. No. 129339 December 2, 1999 and SPO2 Virgilio de Guzman, who retrieved accused-appellant from the
custody of the barangay captain and brought him to the police station.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. In his testimony, Dr. Boado stated that his examination of Michelle bore a
MARIO SANTIAGO, alias "Payo", accused-appellant. negative finding of spermatozoa. There were also no injuries noted on
Michelle's body. Dr. Boado attested that his findings are not conclusive as
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
to whether the victim had in fact engaged in sexual intercourse.
Accused-appellant appeals from the Decision of Branch 33 of the Regional
The testimonies of Wilfredo Mana, Lydia Mana and Virgilio de Guzman
Trial Court of Nueva Ecija dated March 5, 1997 1 in Criminal Case No.
support complainant's account as to the events which transpired after the
1217-G, the decretal portion of which reads:
rape. Wilfredo Mana and Lydia Mana knew of the incident only after the
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds the accused victim herself told them. Virgilio de Guzman came to know about it when
Mario Santiago alias "Payo" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of the barangay captain of Triala sent for him to arrest accused-appellant.
Rape penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, While in his testimony, de Guzman stated that he heard accused-appellant
and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and state to a certain Inspector Paras at the police station that complainant was
to indemnify the complaining witness Michelle Mana the amount of Fifty his girlfriend and that they had sexual intercourse with her consent, 4 this
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of statement was not set into writing. 5
insolvency.
For his part, accused-appellant denied the rape and stated that at the time
SO ORDERED. 2 he was alleged to have raped Michelle, he was asleep in their house, also
in Barangay Triala. The defense also presented accused-appellant's
The accusatory portion of the Information to which accused-appellant mother, Paula Santiago, to corroborate his alibi.
entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment, and under which he was
tried and convicted, states: Accused-appellant stated that he went to bed at about 9:00 in the evening
of July 6, 1994 and woke up at 6:00 the next morning. He came to know of
That on or about the 7th day of July, 1994, in the Municipality of Guimba, the accusation against him only when his mother, who heard about it at a
Province of Nueva Ecija, Republic of the Philippines and within the nearby store, told him. He then decided to go to the house of the barangay
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means captain to clarify the charges. On his way there, he saw the barangay
of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and captain and Virgilio de Guzman, who arrested him and brought him to the
feloniously have carnal knowledge of Michelle C. Mana, against her will. police station.
CONTRARY TO LAW. Paula Santiago corroborated all aspects of her son's story, especially
During the trial, the prosecution established that between 12:00 to 12:30 in concerning the part of his being in bed on the night of July 6, 1994. She
the early morning of July 7, 1994, complainant Michelle Mana was in bed stated that she even woke up at around 12:30 a.m. and saw accused-
with her daughter, then aged one year and seven months, on the second appellant sleeping on the mat next to hers.
floor of their house at Barangay Triala, Guimba, Nueva Ecija when she The trial court rejected the defenses of denial and alibi interposed by
heard a noise downstairs. She went downstairs and noticed that the back accused-appellant in the face of complainant's positive identification of him
door of their house was left open. Thinking it was her husband, she called as the assailant. The trial court also found no reason to doubt the forthright
to him but when no one answered, she returned upstairs and saw the statements of complainant considering that her re-telling of the incident in
accused follow her. Michelle screamed, and tried to grab something by question necessarily brought shame and embarrassment on her and her
which she can defend herself. Accused-appellant, however, poked a family.
"lingkaw", or scythe, on her neck and pinned her against the wall with his
left hand. Michelle's daughter woke up and cried. Accused-appellant Accused-appellant comes before us with this lone assignment of error: that
ordered Michelle to pet the child from the bed and place her on the floor, the court a quo has erred in finding that his guilt has been proved beyond
which she heeded. With the scythe still pointed at her neck, accused- reasonable doubt. He would have us reconsider his evidence on alibi, and
appellant ordered the victim to remove her walking shorts and underwear how it would have been physically impossible for him to have committed
and when she resisted, threatened to kill her and her daughter. On cross- the rape when he was clearly at a different place at the time.
examination, Michelle stated that it was accused-appellant who pulled
It is well-settled that alibi is a weak defense. For it to prosper, the accused
down her walking shorts and underwear with his left hand while leveling the
must establish that he was so far away that he could not have been
scythe on her daughter with his right hand. 3 Accused-appellant started
physically present at the place of the crime, or its immediate vicinity, at the
kissing her, then went on top of her and performed the sexual act for about
time of its commission. 6 Where there is even the least chance for the
five minutes. Before accused-appellant left, he threatened Michelle that if
accused to be present at the crime scene, the alibi seldom will hold water. 7
she told anyone about what happened, her whole family will be killed.
It is accused-appellant's testimony that at about 12:00 to 12:30 in the
Bringing her daughter along, Michelle went to the house of her parents-in-
morning of July 7, 1994, he was asleep in his house. His claim is
law, also in Barangay Triala, and told them of what happened. Her father-
buttressed by the testimony of his own mother, who affirmed that he was
in-law fetched Michelle's husband, who was then working in their ricefield.
indeed sleeping next to her at the time in question. Also according to
After being told of what happened, her husband and her mother-in-law
accused-appellant's mother, the house of Michelle Mana was about 400
accompanied her to the barangay captain to report the incident. In the
meters away from the house of the victim. 8 We are hard put to treat the
morning of July 7, 1994, the barangay captain, together with a councilman
foregoing as credible and convincing proof that he could not have been at
and a barangay tanod, arrested accused-appellant, after which he was
the scene of the crime. Considering that alibis are so easy to fabricate with
escorted by a police officer to the municipal police station for investigation.
the aid of immediate family members or relatives, they assume no
The other prosecution witnesses consisted of the following: Wilfredo Mana, importance in the face of positive identification, as in the instant case by
the husband of Michelle; Lydia Bautista Mana, the mother-in-law of the the rape victim herself.
victim; Dr. Antonio Boado, Jr., who examined Michelle after the incident;
In People vs. Ramirez, 266 SCRA 335, 9 the Court enumerated three
settled principles in the review of rape cases: (1) an accusation of rape can
 46
be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even add an award of P50,000.00 as and for moral damages. For, as this Court
more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove the stated in People vs. Ignacio, 294 SCRA 542, "any victim of rape,
charge; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are regardless of age, status, social or professional position, religious
usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant orientation, or sexual preference, would suffer physical pain, emotional
should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the outrage, mental anxiety and fright." The rape victim's testimony, once
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to found credible, speaks for itself.
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Nueva Ecija
It will be remembered that the findings of the medical examination of finding Mario Santiago guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape,
Michelle Mana, as admitted by Dr. Boado himself, are not per se indicative sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering
of whether she had been through sexual intercourse, much less whether him to pay Michelle Mana the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
such had been committed against her will. These findings, however, do no (P50,000.00) by way of civil indemnity, is AFFIRMED, with the
damage to the prosecution's case for it is now settled that a negative MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is further ordered to pay Michelle
sperm-detection test is immaterial to the crime of rape, it being firmly Mana moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
settled that the important consideration in rape is penetration and not (P50,000.00).
emission. 10 The absence of spermatozoa in the complainant's vagina does
SO ORDERED.
not disprove the commission of rape, because there may be a valid
explanation for such absence, as when the semen may have been washed
away or when the rapist failed to ejaculate. 11 Nor does the absence of
physical injuries on the victim's body negate rape, because this crime can
also be committed through intimidation, such as by threatening the victim
with a scythe, 12 as in this case.
Thus, the instant rape case is one of multifarious cases where there are no
identified witnesses, and where the evidence effectively boils down to the
complainant's word against the accused's. However, a pronouncement of
guilt arising from the sole testimony of the victim is not unheard of, so long
as her testimony meets the test of credibility. 13 This is especially true in the
crime of rape the evidentiary character of which demands so much on the
part of the victim it entails her to submit to an examination of her private
parts, and to subject the sordid details of her story to a public trial and
against a given presumption of the accused's innocence. Hence, it is not
unusual for lower courts in cases of rape to convict on the basis of the sole
testimony of the victim, upon an ascertainment that she is motivated solely
by the desire to have her honor avenged and for the culprit to meet his just
punishment. As this Court succinctly stated in People vs. Borja, 267 SCRA
370, "a victim who says she has been raped almost always says all there is
to be said."
We affirm the trial court's finding upholding the credibility of the testimony
of complainant Michelle Mana and agree that her accusations bore no
apparent ulterior motive other than to tell the truth and seek justice for
herself. Her positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator
of the rape is well-taken, her vision during the incident having been aided
by the light of a "lampara" 14 and also because she knew accused-
appellant for quite some
time. 15 We also find entirely plausible the fear which forced her to
succumb to accused-appellant's heinous wishes, as her life and even her
daughter's were being threatened.
Having scrutinized the records and weighed the evidence anew, we are left
convinced, contrary to the assailment in accused-appellant's lone
assignment of error, that the guilt of accused-appellant has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. "Proof beyond reasonable doubt", as we have
invariably held, does not mean such degree of proof, as excluding the
possibility of error, as to produce absolute certitude, but only requires
moral certainty. 16
The evidence having established that the rape was committed by the use
of intimidation, we find the imposition of the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to be in accord with Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. 17
We also affirm the award of civil indemnity, in the amount of P50,000.00,
consistent with present case law which treats the same as mandatory upon
the finding of fact of rape. 18 Further in accordance with recent
jurisprudence 19to grant moral damages to victims of rape without need for
pleading or proof of the basis thereof, we modify the trial court's ruling to
 47
G.R. No. 151858 November 27, 2003 SO ORDERED.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, Hence, this appeal. In his Brief, appellant raises the following assignment
vs. of errors:
JOSELITO PASCUA y TEOPE, appellant.
I
DECISION
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: INCREDULOUS TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
Appellant Joselito Pascua y Teope was charged before the Regional Trial II
Court of San Pablo City, Branch 32 in Criminal Case No. 12575-SP(00)
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
with the crime of rape in an information1 which reads:
ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE FAILURE
That sometime in the month of August, 2000, in the City of San Pablo, OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable REASONABLE DOUBT.3
Court, the accused above-named, with lewd design and by means of force
In reviewing rape cases, the Court has always been guided by three well-
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
entrenched principles: (a) that an accusation of rape can be made with
have carnal knowledge of one ALMA AGAPAY, against her will and
facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused,
consent.
though innocent, to disprove; (b) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the
The mental disability of the victim shall be appreciated as aggravating crime which usually involves two persons, the complainants testimony
circumstance. must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) that the evidence for the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to
Contrary to law.
draw strength from the weakness of evidence of the defense. Accordingly,
Appellant pleaded "not guilty." Trial on the merits then ensued. the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of
rape is the credibility of the complainants testimony.4 In rape cases, the
Sometime in August, 2000, complainant Alma Agapay, a 22-year old
accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it
mental retardate, was on the railroad tracks near their house at Daang is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the
Bakal, Public Market, San Pablo City when appellant approached her and normal course of things.5
said, "I dont know you but I know your mother." He then pulled Alma and
brought her inside an old abandoned train car. He tied her hands above Significantly, the trial court found Alma to be credible when it observed,
her head and made her lie down on the floor covered with a flattened thus:
carton box. He removed her dress and panties, after which he also
It is undisputed that the victim is a retardate or suffering from a sort of
undressed. While holding a knife with his right hand, he kissed her then
mental deficiency. Her manner of testifying as well as deportment in Court
inserted his penis into her vagina, causing it to bleed. Alma felt pain. She
bespeak of her mental defect. However, the Court has observed that she
shouted and tried to fight back but her efforts were in vain since she could
could perceive and make known or express her perceptions to others. In
not move her right arm due to a stroke she suffered before. After raping her
the instant case, she clearly explained her perceptions of what happened
three or four times, appellant threatened to kill her and her mother if she
when she was ravished sexually by the accused. Her behaviour at the
would tell anybody what happened.
witness stand pointing to the accused as the one who raped her and
A month later, Almas mother, Trinidad Agapay, noticed that her daughter requested that accused be brought to the police and be sentenced to death
was behaving strangely. When she asked her what was wrong, the latter were clearly expressed in a straightforward manner, thus the Court was
confessed that she had been raped by appellant. Trinidad brought Alma to impressed of her positive identification of the accused. x x x In the instant
the police authorities where they filed a complaint for rape against case, the Court similarly considers the conduct of the victim where after the
appellant. incident she was described to have remained silent in one place of their
house, unable to eat and has become thinner which invited the attention of
Alma was thereafter brought to Dr. Ma. Arlene Bicomong Cuervas, a her mother and prompted to ask the victim why she was behaving that way
physician at the San Pablo City District Hospital. However, Dr. Cuervas and why she was getting thinner and thinner. She was constrained to
only conducted a partial medical examination on Alma because she reveal to her mother what the accused had done to her and without much
refused to undergo internal examination since it was painful. Dr. Cuervas
ado, the mother sought the help of a neighbor to report the matter to a
found that Alma sustained hematoma on the hypogastric area measuring nearby PSAF Office. This complaint to the PSAF Office led to the
about 6 x 3 cm. investigation of the case.6
In his defense, appellant denied the charge against him. He testified that Appellant cites the alleged discrepancy or inconsistency between Almas
he does not know Alma or her mother, Trinidad. However, he admitted testimony that she was raped three (3) times causing her to bleed
seeing her sometimes in the public market but did not pay much attention "dalawang buong dugo," on the one hand, and the medico-legal findings
to her as he was always busy working at the Philippine National Railways and the testimony of the examining physician that there was no abrasion or
(PNR) train station. spermatozoa, that the hymen remains intact with no laceration and that
On August 29, 2001, the trial court rendered a decision,2 the dispositive there is a possibility that a penis has not touched the labia of Almas
portion of which reads: vagina, on the other hand.
WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused having been established beyond A cursory examination of the transcripts, however, shows Dr. Cuervas in
reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape, the Court hereby sentences the fact testified that appellants penis could have touched Almas vagina but
accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the costs. was not inserted because there was no laceration.7 Case law has it that a
freshly lacerated hymen is not an essential element of rape. Mere touching,
The accused is further ordered to indemnify the victim the sum of no matter how slight of the labia or lips of the female organ by the male
P50,000.00 as moral damages. genitalia even without rapture or laceration of the hymen is sufficient to
consummate rape.8

For the same reason, the medical finding that the hymen of the victim is
still intact does not negate rape. Full penetration is not required, as proof of
entrance showing the slightest penetration of the male organ within the
labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. In proving sexual
intercourse, it is enough that there is the slightest penetration of the male
organ into the female sex organ.9
In any case, Almas testimony that she bled cannot be completely
disproved by the finding that her hymen was intact with no laceration
considering that there was no internal examination conducted "to
determine the vaginal canal (sic), the presence of fluid in the vaginal canal,
for the uterus and ovaries to be assessed."10 What was conducted was
only a partial and external examination.
We have consistently held that a medical examination of the victim is not
indispensable to a prosecution for rape. It is merely corroborative in
character and not indispensable. The accused may be convicted even
solely on the basis of her testimony if credible, natural, convincing and
consistent with human nature and the course of things.11
Besides, we have held time and again that a few discrepancies and
inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details
and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair Costs de oficio.
the credibility of the witnesses. Instead of weakening their testimonies,
such inconsistencies tend to strengthen the witnesses credibility because
they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed. 12
48
The trial court ordered appellant to indemnify the victim P50,000.00 as
moral damages only. The award of moral damages is in line with current
case law. Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are awarded in
rape cases without need of proof other than the fact of the rape itself,
because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling
her to such award.18
In addition, the trial court should have also ordered appellant to pay the
victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto. In People v.
Padrigone,19 citing People v. Belga,20 we held that civil indemnity is
mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape; it is distinct from and should
not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural
foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of San Pablo City, Branch 32, finding appellant Joselito Pascua y
Teope guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay the
victim, Alma Agapay, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is further ordered to
pay the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto.
SO ORDERED.

It has been held in a long line of cases that the findings of the trial court on
the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great
respect. It is the trial judge who sees the behavior and demeanor of the
witness in court. The evaluation or assessment made by the trial court
acquires greater significance in rape cases because from the nature of the
offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be offered to establish the
guilt of the accused is the victims testimony.13
In contrast, appellant could only offer denial in his defense.1wphi1 It is
well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law.
Between the categorical and positive assertions of the prosecution
witnesses and the negative averments of the accused which are
uncorroborated by reliable and independent evidence, the former
indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary
weight.14
Besides, appellants bare denial of the crime charged is inherently
weak.1awp++i1 It cannot prevail over the positive, candid and categorical
testimony of the private complainant, whose credibility was upheld by the
trial court. Between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses
and the negative statements of the appellant, the former deserves more
credence. Denials must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-
culpability.15 Appellant failed in this regard.
Moreover, appellant cannot point to any motive as to why Alma would file a
complaint for rape against him. In the absence of any evidence to show
that the witness was actuated by any improper motive, his identification of
the appellant as the author of the crime shall be given full faith and credit.16
Rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the
Revised Penal Code. The mental condition of the victim cannot be
appreciated to aggravate the crime and to warrant the death penalty.
Under Article 266 (10) of the Revised Penal Code, the rape shall be
qualified "when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional
disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the
commission of the crime." Being in the nature of a qualifying circumstance,
this should be specifically alleged in the Information. The allegation therein
of the mental disability of the victim is insufficient. What should be alleged
is the knowledge by the offender of such mental disability.17 Thus,
appellant can only be convicted of simple rape.
 49
G.R. No. 139236 February 3, 2004 LABIA MAJORA : Coaptated
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, LABIA MINORA : Light pinkish
vs
HYMEN : Multiple fresh lacerations
RODEL ANTIVOLA, appellant.
(superficial) at 3, 9, 11 oclock.
DECISION
With swelling and congestion.
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
EXTERNAL VAGINAL ORIFICE :
This is an automatic review of the Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of
Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78, convicting the appellant Rodel Antivola of VAGINAL CANAL : not examined
qualified rape and sentencing him to suffer the death penalty.2
CERVIX : not examined
On March 25, 1998 an Information was filed charging the appellant of
PERI- URETHRAL AND VAGINAL SMEARS:
qualified rape, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 4th day of December 1997, in the Municipality of REMARKS : Multiple fresh lacerations (superficial) at 3, 9, 11 oclock with
Angat, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this swelling and congestion. 14

Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there wil[l]fully, Dr. Aves explained that the fresh lacerations on Rachels hymen could
unlawfully and feloniously by means of violence and intimidation, have have been caused by "manipulation of the organ or penetration of
carnal knowledge of the offended party Rachel M. de Guzman, a minor, whatsoever."15
five (5) years of age, against her will and consent.
The Case for the Accused16
Contrary to law. 3
The appellant testified that he was 26 years old, single, and lived with his
When arraigned on April 13, 1998, the appellant, duly assisted by counsel brother, Ruben Antivola, in Donacion, Angat, Bulacan.17 He made a living
de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the charge.4 Trial ensued thereafter. as a part-time helper in the nearby fishpond owned by Ruben Nicolas.18 He
The Case for the Prosecution5 knew Rachel and her family since they were neighbors, their houses being
seven houses apart from each other.19
By December 1997, Rachel de Guzman was already five years of
age.6 She lived with her parents at No. 174 Donacion, Angat, Bulacan,7 a The appellant denied raping Rachel and disclaimed having a moniker
piscatorial village in the vicinity of a river.8 In the afternoon of December 4, "Bungi." 20 He averred that the charge against him was contrived by

Rachels family out of envy, for having been chosen by Nicolas as the
1997, Rachel, together with three other children, were playing outside.
Rachel saw the appellant Rodel (Bungi) Antivola feeding the fishes in the caretaker of his fishpond.
21

nearby fishpond.9 The appellant approached Rachel and asked her to go He declared that on December 4, 1997, he was at the fishpond busily
with him inside his house, telling her that they would play another game. engaged in harvesting the fish. After eating lunch at about 11:30 a.m.,
Unsuspecting, she acceded and went with the appellant.10 Ruben Nicolas dropped by their house to tell them to start working. At
exactly 12:00 noon, he left for the fishpond, roughly four houses away from
Once inside the house, the appellant removed Rachels shorts and touched
her private parts. She cried, but the appellant was unmoved. He brought his house. Ruben Nicolas, his brother Ruben, Jun Nicolas, and Danny de
22

out his penis and inserted it into Rachels vagina, causing the child Guzman were working with him at the fishpond. They worked continuously
without let up, until they finished the harvest at around 4:00 p.m.
excruciating pain. After satiating his lust, the appellant let her go and
instructed her to step out.11 Thereafter, they proceeded to the store of Rachels grandmother and had
some snacks. At 4:30 p.m., the appellant headed straight home.23 Half an
Rachel did as she was told. She went home and did not tell anyone about hour later, Sally and her mother confronted him, and accused him of
what happened. Her mother, Sally de Guzman, noticed the crease marks molesting Rachel.24
on her clothes. That afternoon, while Sally was bathing Rachel, she noticed
Ruben Nicolas corroborated in part the appellants story. He testified that
a reddish discoloration on Rachels private part. Baffled, she asked her
daughter about it, who pointed to the appellant "Bungi," as the one who he owned the hut where the Antivola brothers were staying. He
defiled her.12 Sally then promptly reported the incident to the police acknowledged Ruben as 25the fishponds caretaker, but disowned the
authorities who apprehended the appellant. The following day, Sally appellant as an employee. He said that the appellant was jobless, but
executed a sworn statement before Judge Eric T. Calderon.13 used to do odd jobs for him in his fishpond. He confirmed that the appellant
was in the fishpond the whole afternoon of December 4, 1997.26
On December 8, 1997, Dr. Manuel C. Aves, Medico-Legal Officer of the
Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, examined Rachel. His Medico- Marites Capalad, the appellants co-worker and sister-in-law, testified that
Legal Report revealed the following findings: at about 12:00 noon on December 4, 1993, she and her fellow workers
were already at the fishpond harvesting the fish. She was recording the
GENERAL AND EXTRA-GENITAL harvest, while the rest, particularly the appellant, helped lift the fishnets.
They worked continuously all afternoon, without any break. Not one of
PHYSICAL BUILT : Lean built
them even left the place. They finished the harvest at about 5:00
MENTAL STATUS : Coherent female p.m.27 She revealed that she was initially reluctant to testify out of fear of
Rachels father and grandfather. They threatened to blow up the fishpond if
BREAST : Flat
she testified for the appellant.28
ADMOMEN : Flat
After trial, the appellant was convicted by the trial court of the crime of rape
PHYSICAL INJURIES : No signs of physical injury. in its qualified form and sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death.
It disposed of the case as follows:
GENITAL :
PUBIC HAIR : Absent
 50
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court finds accused Rodel Q When you said that you were raped by Rodel Antivola, what do you
Antivola GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape defined mean by that?
and penalized under the provisions of Articles 266-A and 266-B of Republic A He touched my private part, Sir.
Act No. 8353 otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, amending Q When was it, Rachel?
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act No. A December 4.35
7610, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay ...
private complainant Rachel de Guzman the amount P75,000.00 as moral Q At the house of Rodel, will you tell us what transpired between you and
damages. Rodel?
A He removed my short and touched my private part.
SO ORDERED.29
Q Did you not shout or cry when Rodel touched your private part?
The trial court gave full credence to the testimony of Rachel, describing her A I cried, Sir.
as a "picture of an innocent child responding squarely to every question Q What else did he do aside from touching your private part?
propounded to her with truthfulness and spontaneity seemingly unmindful A He brought out his penis, Sir.
of the gravity of her every testimony."30 It rejected the appellants defenses Q What did he do with his penis?
of mistake of identity, denial and alibi, declaring that he was positively A He touched my private parts first then he inserted his penis.36
identified by Rachel. It further discounted the appellants alibi, concluding ...
that he failed to prove two-fold elements respecting time and place.31 Q What did you feel when Rodel inserted his penis to your vagina?
A I was crying, Sir.
Hence, this automatic review.
Q Aside from crying, did you feel pain?
In his brief, the appellant assailed the trial courts decision contending that: A Yes, Sir.
Q What else did you feel?
I A My vagina was very painful, Sir.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED- ...
APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DEFINED AND PENALIZED Q When your mother noticed your vagina to be reddish, what did she do?
UNDER ATRS. 266-A AND 266-B OF REPUBLIC ACT 8353, AMENDING A I said that it was "Bungi."
ART. 335 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE IN RELATION TO REPUBLIC Q Who is "Bungi?"
ACT NO. 7610 DESPITE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A Rodel Antivola, Sir.
PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOUND REASOBLE DOUBT. Q Will you look around tell us if "Bungi" or Rodel Antivola is around?
A That one, Sir.
II Q Please point to him.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DEATH A (Witness pointing to the person who answered to the name of Rodel
UPON ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE FAILURE ON THE PART OF Antivola).37
THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE AGE OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM.32 Rachels testimony says it all. It is marked by spontaneity, honesty and
sincerity. When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has
The Sufficiency of the been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was
Prosecutions Evidence committed.38 Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and
Against the Appellant sincerity.39 In rape cases, the testimony of the victim alone, if credible, is
The appellant asserts that he is not guilty of consummated rape because sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. The medical certificate is
as declared by Rachel on cross-examination, he merely touched her presented merely to corroborate the victims declaration that she was
private parts. He contends that at so young an age, Rachel could easily be sexually molested. In fact, what is more telling in the medical findings
coached by her mother into saying that the appellant penetrated her, when proffered in evidence by the prosecution is the presence of hymenal
in truth, he merely touched her vagina. He theorizes that children like lacerations in different positions in the victims genitalia which is the best
Rachel are hyperactive, thus, the lacerations on her genitalia could have physical evidence of her forcible defloration.40
been caused by incidents such as "horseback riding and bicycle The appellant indulged in sheer conjectures by claiming that the
riding."33 The charge against him was contrived by Rachels parents for lacerations on the hymen of Rachel were caused by horseback riding or
their failure to have themselves employed as caretakers of the fishpond. bicycling. There is no evidence that Rachel had ridden a bicycle or rode on
We disagree. a horseback. Mere speculations and surmises are not evidence.

We reiterate the following standard in reviewing an appeal from a Equally incredible is the appellants claim that the family of Rachel
conviction for rape: concocted the charge against him because of their failure to be appointed
as caretakers of the fishpond. The appellant himself testified that he did not
In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three principles: (1) an know of any reason why Sally charged him of rape.
accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is
difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, although Q And you cannot tell the Honorable Court the reason why the mother of
innocent, to disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only Rachel filed a case against you, for this offense of Rape, you do not know
two persons being usually involved, the testimony of the complainant of any reason?
should be scrutinized with great caution; (3) the evidence for the A None, sir.
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.34 Q You have no previous understanding (sic) with the mother of Rachel
prior to December 4, 1997?
Rachels testimony was direct, candid, and replete with details of the rape.
She testified that after touching her private parts, the appellant inserted his A None, sir.41
penis inside her vagina, thus: However, we agree with the contention of the Office of the Solicitor
PROS. SANTIAGO General (OSG), that the appellants claim is unbelievable and at the same
 51
time absurd.42 Without credible evidence proferred by the appellant, bad Marites corroborating testimony is not only biased for it is a natural desire
faith or ulterior motive could not be imputed on the part of Rachels family for relatives to exculpate their kin from criminal liability, it is also
in pointing to the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. When there is inconclusive. Alibi is at best a weak defense and easy of fabrication
no showing that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were actuated especially between parents and children, relatives, and even those not so
by improper motive, the presumption is that the witnesses were not so related.50 For alibi to be credible, it must count with a strong corroboration.
actuated and their testimonies are thus entitled to full faith and credit.43 For Well-entrenched is the rule that evidence should first be believable and
the appellant to say that Rachel was used by her family as a "sacrificial logical before it can be accorded weight. To be given any credence, it must
lamb" to get back at him for their misfortune is not only too lame but also not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness; it must be credible
preposterous. It is inconceivable that Rachels mother would falsely point in itself as a common experience and observation that mankind can deem
an accusing finger at the appellant for a crime as serious as rape when the probable under the circumstances.51
latter was not even the one appointed as the fishponds caretaker. No
It is an established rule that when it comes to the issue of credibility of
mother in her right mind would use her offspring as an engine of malice.
witnesses, the appellate courts generally will not overturn the findings of
She would not subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace, and even the
the trial courts. They are in the best position to ascertain and measure the
stigma attendant to a prosecution for rape unless she is motivated by the
sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of
desire to bring to justice the person responsible for her childs defilement.44
the witnesses manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in
The appellants barefaced denial of the charge cannot prevail over the court.52 In this case, we find no basis to depart from the rule.
positive, spontaneous and straightforward identification by Rachel of the
Further strengthening the case of the prosecution were the conduct of
appellant as the malefactor. A rape victim can easily identify her assailant
Rachel, her mother Sally, and her grandmother after the rape. We have
especially if he is known to her because during the rape, she is physically
held that the conduct of the victim immediately following the assault is of
close to her assailant, enabling her to have a good look at the latters
utmost importance in establishing the truth or falsity of the charge of
physical features.45 The doctrine consistently upheld by this Court is that
rape.53 Here, Rachel, upon her mothers inquiry, readily told the latter what
alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the
happened to her and assuredly pointed to the appellant as the culprit.
perpetrator of the crime. It is inherently a weak defense; and unless
Subsequently, Sally, together with the grandmother of the child, lost no
supported by clear and convincing evidence, it cannot prevail over the
time and went to the house of the appellant to confront him. Thereafter,
positive declaration of the victim. 46
they reported the matter to the authorities. The following day, Sally
We have consistently held that for alibi to prosper, the appellant must executed her sworn statement regarding the incident and three days later,
prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed had her child medically examined. All the foregoing acts were done days
but he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him after the commission of the crime. The promptness and spontaneity of
to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.47 This, the these deeds manifested the natural reactions of a parent whose child had
appellant miserably failed to do. By his own admission, the fishpond was just undergone sexual molestation, and evinced nothing more than an
just five houses away from his own. Clearly, it was not physically instant resolve to denounce the ravisher, and to protect whatever honor
impossible for him to be present at the scene of the crime at the time of its they had left.
commission.
All told, we hold that the prosecution has fully discharged its duty of proving
His insistence that he has strong corroboration for his testimony is the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
unpersuasive. For alibi to be considered, it must be supported by credible
The Sufficiency of Evidence
corroboration, preferably from disinterested witnesses who will swear that
of Rachels Minority and the
they saw or were with the accused somewhere else when the crime was
Propriety of Imposing the
being committed. Although the appellants alibi was corroborated by
48
Death Penalty
Ruben Nicolas and Marites Capalad, such corroborations were not
credible, for the said witnesses cannot be considered as disinterested The only issue left to be determined is the question of the penalty to be
witnesses, they being related or were one way or another linked to each meted upon appellant.
other. Alibi is commonly regarded as weak if it is sought to be established
The appellant claims that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty
wholly or mainly by the accused himself or his relatives.49 But even if we
consider the said corroborations, the same do not establish an iron-clad because Rachels birth certificate was never submitted in evidence; hence,
alibi for the appellant. her age at the time she was allegedly raped was never conclusively
established. He argues that the failure to sufficiently establish the victims
Ruben Nicolas, the appellants part-time employer, and Marites Capalad, age is fatal and consequently bars conviction for rape in its qualified form.54
the appellants sister-in-law and co-worker, in unison, vouched for the
We agree.
appellants physical presence in the fishpond at the time Rachel was
raped. It is, however, an established fact that the appellants house where At the time of the rape, Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of
the rape occurred, was a stones throw away from the fishpond. Their claim 1997, which repealed Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and classified
that the appellant never left their sight the entire afternoon of December 4, rape as a crime against persons, was already effective. The new provisions
1997 is unacceptable. It was impossible for Marites to have kept an eye on on rape, provided under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal
the appellant for almost four hours, since she testified that she, too, was Code, state as follows:
very much occupied with her task of counting and recording the fishes
being harvested. Likewise, Mr. Nicolas, who, admittedly was 50 meters Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. Rape is committed
away from the fishpond, could not have focused his entire attention solely 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
on the appellant. It is, therefore, not farfetched that the appellant easily circumstances:
sneaked out unnoticed, and along the way inveigled the victim, brought her
inside his house and ravished her, then returned to the fishpond as if he a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
never left.lawphi1.nt b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
 52
c) By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority; and It must be stressed that the severity of death penalty, especially its
irreversible and final nature once carried out, makes the decision-making
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
process in capital offenses aptly subject to the most exacting rules of
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be
procedure and evidence.60 Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient proof of
present.
Rachels minority, the appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape and
...
sentenced to suffer the death penalty.
Article 266-B. Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. However, Sallys testimony that her daughter was five years old at the time
... of the commission of the crime is sufficient for purposes of holding the
The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with appellant liable for statutory rape, or the rape of a girl below twelve years of
any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: age. Under the second paragraph of Article 266-B, in relation to Article
... 266-A(1)(d), carnal knowledge of a woman under twelve years of age is
5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old; punishable by reclusion perpetua. Thus, the appellant should be sentenced
... to suffer reclusion perpetua, and not the death penalty.
In People v. Pruna,55 the Court, after noting the divergent rulings on the
As to damages, the trial court erred in not awarding civil indemnity to the
proof of the victims age in rape cases, has set out certain guidelines in
victim, the same being mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.61 We
appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as qualifying
award to the victim the sum of P50,000 as civil indemnity. In view of the
circumstance:
finding that the appellant is liable only for simple rape, the amount
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or of P75,000 as moral damages should be lowered to P50,000 in conformity
certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. with prevailing jurisprudence.62
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents This is not the first time that a child has been snatched from the cradle of
such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of innocence by some beast to sate its deviant sexual appetite. To curb this
birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. disturbing trend, the appellant should, likewise, be made to pay exemplary
damages which, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, is pegged
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have
at P25,000.63
been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and
credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,
or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree Bulacan, Branch 78, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Rodel
such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Antivola is held GUILTY of simple rape, and is sentenced to suffer the
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the victim Rachel de
following circumstances: Guzman P50,000 as civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages;
and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; SO ORDERED.
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the
testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age,
the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and
clearly admitted by the accused.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the
offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial
evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.
6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of
the victim.56
In the present case, no birth certificate or any similar authentic document
was presented and offered in evidence to prove Rachels age. The only
evidence of the victims age is her testimony57 and that of her mothers
(Sally de Guzmans) Simumpaang Salaysay,58 which was adopted as part
of the latters direct testimony,59 attesting to the fact that her five-year-old
daughter was raped.
Sallys testimony regarding Rachels age was insufficient, since Rachel
was alleged to be already five years old at the time of the rape, and what is
sought to be proved is that she was then less than seven years old. Her
testimony will suffice only if it is expressly and clearly admitted by the
accused. There is no such express and clear declaration and admission of
the appellant that Rachel was less than seven years old when he raped
her. Moreover, the trial court made no finding as to the victims age.
 53
G.R. No. 168737 February 16, 2006 oclock in the evening. He insisted that he was in good terms with Nenitas
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, six children, including Estrella, who would not have accused him of rape
vs. had she not been prodded by her relatives who were resentful of him
EDGARDO BARCENA y POCA, Appellant. because he squandered the money Nenita was sending from abroad.
DECISION While admitting that he misspent the money, he claimed that he never
PER CURIAM: neglected to provide for the education and the subsistence of her children.
For automatic review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. He also stated that on April 10, 1997, Nenita was working abroad and
CR-H.C. No. 00770 dated May 31, 2005 which affirmed the Judgment2 of arrived in the country only in November 1997.
the Regional Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, Branch 22 in Crim. Case
Interestingly, despite appellants allegation that Nenita was abroad when
No. 1952-N finding appellant Edgardo Barcena guilty beyond reasonable
the alleged rape was committed, the latter testified that on April 10, 1997,
doubt of the crime of qualified rape and sentencing him to suffer the death
she and the appellant left the house at 6 oclock in the morning and went to
penalty and to indemnify the victim in the amount of P75,000.00 and
Cacholas Rice Mill where she worked as a cook. On cross-examination,
P50,000.00 as moral damages.
she insisted that her daughter would not have filed the instant case against
Appellant Barcena was charged with rape as defined and penalized under the appellant had she not been influenced by other persons.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act (R.A.)
The presence of the appellant at the rice mill on April 10, 1997 was
No. 7659 in an Information that reads:
corroborated by the rice mill operator, Manuel Cachola, who testified that
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor upon sworn complaint filed by the appellant reported for work as a machine operator on that day.
offended party with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, accuses Edgardo
In a decision dated October 13, 2000, the trial court found the appellant
Barcena Y Poca of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Article
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced him to
335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659,
suffer the extreme penalty of death, the decretal portion of which reads:
committed as follows:
All things having been considered, this Court finds the accused EDGARDO
That on or about the 10th day of April, 1997, in the municipality of
BARCENA y POCA "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
Narvacan, province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
rape as charged in the aforequoted Information through the use of force or
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is the common-law
intimidation as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, making the same a
spouse of Nenita Barcena, mother of the victim Estrella Cabida Y Delos
"qualified rape" having been committed and duly proven at the trial as
Santos, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
alleged in the Information with the attendant circumstance of, "that the
knowledge of said Estrella Cabida Y Delos Santos, a minor, 15 years of
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age, and the offender x x x is the
age, by means of force and intimidation and against the latters will and
common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim.
consent.
Perforce with heartfelt regrets, this Court has to dutifully impose the
Contrary to law.3
supreme penalty of DEATH upon the accused Edgardo Barcena and to
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, trial on the merits indemnify the victim in the amount of P75,000.00, pay moral damages in
ensued. the amount of P50,000.00 and the costs of the suit.
The facts of the case are as follows: SO ORDERED.6
The victim, Estrella Cabida, was born on March 2, 1982 and was 15 years The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, the dispositive
of age when the rape incident happened on April 10, 1997. She was living portion of which reads:
with her mother, Nenita Cabida4 and her common-law spouse, the
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the appeal is hereby
appellant Barcena at Dinalaoan, Narvacan Ilocos Sur.
DISMISSED for lack of merit. The accused-appellant EDGARDO
Estrella testified that at 10:00 oclock in the morning of April 10, 1997, she BARCENA y POCA is hereby sentenced to the capital penalty of DEATH
was alone in their house when appellant suddenly embraced her from and condemned to indemnify the victim in the amounts of Php 75,000.00
behind and dragged her towards the bedroom despite her vigorous as civil indemnity and Php 50,000.00 as moral damages as well as the
attempts to free herself from his clutches. Appellant repeatedly slapped costs of this suit.
Estrella, forcibly stripped her of her clothing, mounted her and then
ACCORDINGLY, let the entire record of this case be forwarded for review
inserted his penis into her vagina. Estrella could not tell how long the
to the Supreme Court pursuant to A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, which took effect
appellant stayed on top of her but after a while, he put on his clothes and
on October 15, 2004.
ordered her to do the same. He warned her not to tell anybody about the
assault or he would kill her. Four days later, she revealed the harrowing SO ORDERED.7
experience to her cousin who accompanied her to the barangay captain.
Hence, this appeal based on the following assignment of errors:
Dr. Estela Cabigas-Cabatu, resident physician of the Central Ilocos Sur
District Hospital, testified that she found healed lacerations at 2 oclock, 4 I
oclock, and 8 oclock positions of the hymen of the victim. She opined that THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-
for a 15-year old girl with no history of delivery, the presence of healed APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME
lacerations is abnormal and could have been caused by the introduction of CHARGED.
a foreign object into her genitalia, such as a penis during sexual
intercourse.5 II

Appellant raised the defenses of denial and alibi. He testified that since THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL AND (sic)
1992 he was living in the house of his live-in partner Nenita Cabida, the WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO 8THE TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE
mother of Estrella, at Dinalaoan, Narvacan Ilocos Sur. On April 10, 1997, COMPLAINANT ESTRELLA CABIDA.
he left the house at 6 oclock in the morning and reported for work at the
Cacholas Rice Mill where he was a mill operator and went home at 6
 54
Appellant contends that the conduct of complainant prior to, during, and Q. In your direct testimony you narrated what the accused did to you on
after the alleged sexual assault was inconsistent with the charge of rape. that date, April 10, 1997. When the accused held you he used both his
Complainants reaction was too perfunctory and unconcerned about her hands in embracing you, is that correct?
alleged ordeal which put into serious doubt the charge of rape. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was all the accused did?
Appellant further asserts that if Estrella was indeed raped on April 10,
A. He even kissed me when we were still in the sala, sir.
1997, she should have shouted for help since her brothers and cousins
Q. My question is about your being embraced by the accused if he used
were just nearby playing cards at a neighbors house. He insists that the
his both hands in tightly embracing you?
charge of rape could not have occurred because there was no resistance
A. Yes, sir.
from the victim; that Estrellas credibility is put to doubt by her failure to
Q. According to you he used his both hands in embracing you after that he
report the incident to her mother Nenita, and to her siblings; that it was only
pulled you to the room using his both hands?
after four days that she reported the incident to the barangay captain
A. Yes, sir.
whose house was only a few meters away from her house; and that more
Q. When you were in the room he kissed you, is that correct?
than four months had elapsed before she filed the complaint with the
A. Yes, sir.
Narvacan Police.
Q. Where were his hands at the time he kissed you?
Appellant also assails the veracity of Estrellas birth certificate considering A. He was still embracing me sir.
that it is merely an unauthenticated photocopy of the original, and it cannot Q. With both his hands?
be fully ascertained if the complainant was really 15 years of age at the A. Yes, sir.
time of the alleged rape incident. Court:
Q. From your behind or in front of you?
The trial court dismissed the arguments advanced by the defense and A. In front of me, Your Honor.
gave full credence to the categorical and forthright testimony of Estrella
Atty. Corrales:
who was steadfast in her testimony even when cross-examined by the Q. When he undressed you he used both his hands, is that correct?
defense counsel. It further observed that the victim broke down three times A. He used only one hand because his other hand was holding me, sir.
during her testimony. Her narration of how the appellant, through force and Q. Holding your body is that correct?
intimidation, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her against her will A. Yes, sir.
and consent exhibits all the badges of truth as there is no scintilla of
Q. How long did it take him to undress you?
falsehood in her testimony that would suggest a concocted tale of A. I do not know, sir.
defloration. The bestiality committed by appellant is detailed in the Q. You were dressed with pant[s] then, is that correct?
following narration of the victim at the witness stand:9
A. I was wearing short pant[s], sir.
Q. What did you do or what was your reaction when the accused suddenly Q. With tight garter, is that correct?
embraced you from behind? A. Yes, sir.
A. I was struggling. Q. And with your both thighs closed then, is that correct?
xxxx A. Yes, sir.
Fiscal Rojas: Atty. Corrales:
Q. And why were you trying to struggle free from the hold of the accused Q. And because both your thighs were closed to each other he used both
who embraced you from behind? hands in removing your panty.
A. To go away from him, sir. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were you successful in extricating yourself from the embrace Q. And it took him several minutes to remove your pant[s], is that correct?
behind of the accused? A. I do not know, sir.
A. No, sir. Q. You were withy panty then, is that correct?
Q. Why, what did the accused do so that you were not able to struggle free A. Yes, sir.
from his embrace? Q. And the accused also removed your panty, is that correct?
A. Because he embraced me tightly. A. Yes, sir.
Fiscal Rojas: Q. You said that you were wearing a panty then, your thighs were closed
Q. So, what happened next Madam witness when you were not able to with each other and the accused removed also your panty, is that correct?
break free from his tight embrace? A. When he removed my short pant[s] he removed my panty next, sir.
A. He undressed me completely. Q. Because your thighs were closed with each other it took him a long time
Q. Where, right there at the sala? to remove your panty, is that correct?
A. No, sir. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where? Q. And according to you he slapped you, is that correct?
A. In the room, sir. A. Yes, sir.
xxxx Q. Very strong slap, is that correct?
Q. And how did you end up in the bedroom with the accused when you A. Yes, sir.
said earlier that the accused was then tightly embracing you in the sala of Q. On what part of the body did the slap land?
the house? A. On my cheek, sir.
A. He pulled me to his room. Q. Because of this strong slap there was discoloration on your face, is that
Q. And while the accused was pulling you towards his room, what did you correct?
do if any? A. Yes, sir.
A. I struggled and struggled, sir. Q. And then he went on top of you, is that correct?
On cross-examination, Estrella elaborated more on how she was defiled by A. Yes, sir.
the appellant:10 Q. You said that he inserted his penis into your vagina when he did that he
Atty. Corrales: used both his hands in doing so, is that correct?

A. He only used one hand because he was then restraining me from
struggling against him with his other hand, sir.
Q. When you were struggling he used his one hand and the other hand
was holding your body tight, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You said that after inserting his penis into your vagina he removed it, is
that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was all what he did after he inserted his penis into your vagina
then removed it, is that correct?
A. He kissed me after raping me, sir.
Q. After inserting his penis inside your vagina he removed it and that was
all what he did during that stage of the alleged rape, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. According to you, you felt pain in your vagina, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
The fact that Estrella did not shout or make an outcry when her relatives
were just nearby does not mean that she was not raped by the appellant. It
would be demanding too much from an ordinary mortal placed under such
a stressful psychological and emotional situation to require that she shout
or ward off the impending evil. We have said before that workings of a
human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and
people react differently. In such a given situation, some may shout; some
may faint; and some may be shocked into insensibility; while others may
openly welcome the intrusion.11
Estrella demonstrated her repulsion to appellants lewd advances. Even so,
physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is
exercised upon the victim who submits against her will to the rapist's lust
because of fear for her life or personal safety. The force, violence, or
intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only on the age, size,
and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with each other. A
woman of such young age like Estrella can only cower in fear and yield into
submission. Rape is nothing more than a conscious process of intimidation
by which a man keeps a woman in a state of fear and humiliation. Thus, it
is not even impossible for a victim of rape not to make an outcry against an
unarmed assailant.
Neither is there merit in the contention that the rape could not have
occurred considering that the relatives of the victim were just nearby.
In People v. Watimar,12 the Court, citing the case of People v.
Antonio13 said 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." Judicial experience
has taught us that rape may be committed even in the unlikeliest of places.
Likewise, the delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication
of a fabricated charge. The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the
delay was unreasonable and unexplained. Although Estrella may have
tarried in reporting the rape incident, it cannot be doubted however, that
despite her harrowing experience and the threats from the appellant, she
reported the incident to her cousin and to the barangay captain four days
later. It is not unusual for a victim immediately following the sexual assault
to conceal at least momentarily the incident.
Appellants explanation that the charge against him was an act of revenge
by the complainant and her kin because of his inordinate propensity to
squander the money intended for family subsistence is too puerile to
inspire belief. It takes an extreme sense of moral depravity for the
complainant to impute a serious crime such as rape on a man, knowing
him to be innocent, and who is not only the live-in partner of her mother but
has also taken her and her siblings as his own. This truism becomes more
apparent in the light of the appellants testimony that he and Nenitas
children were generally in good terms. Indeed, appellants denial, not being
sustained by sufficient evidence, fails to diminish the credibility of
complainant or the weight of her testimony.
55
R.A. No. 7659, which took effect on December 31, 1993, imposes the
death penalty for rape committed under any of the circumstances provided
under Section 11 thereof. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by R.A. No. 7659, provides that the death penalty shall be
imposed if the victim of rape is under 18 years of age and the offender is
the 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. Minority and relationship constitute special qualifying
circumstances, which, in accordance with the settled rule, must be alleged
in the information and proven during trial.
In the instant case, the filial relationship between appellant and the
complainant has been sufficiently alleged in the information and
established during trial. Several witnesses from both the prosecution and
the defense testified that the appellant is the common law husband of
Nenita, the mother of the victim. In fact, the appellant himself admitted that
he exercised parental authority over the children, including the
complainant, of his common-law wife Nenita:14
Q. Does the Court understands (sic) also that sometimes you would spend
your earnings as a rice mill operator for the livelihood of the children of
your common-law-wife Nenette Cabida?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. In short you are also a part provider or supporter in the needs of the
children of your common-law wife, is that correct?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Proceed Fiscal.
Pros. Rojas
Q. Do you see yourself then Mr. Witness in the absence of Nenita as
having assumed the role of a father of a family with respect to Nenitas
children because what you do to them like buying food, providing them
their basic needs and daily needs?
Atty. Lim
May we register our similar objection to the question of the Prosecutor,
Your Honor.
Court
Objection overruled. The witness may answer.
Witness
A. Yes, sir.
Pros. Rojas
Q. So how did you relate to the children, Estrella, Romy, Richard, Anabelle,
will you describe your relationship with them to you?
A. We had a good relationship but when I give them small amount of
money thats the time they protest, sir.
Q. Going to Estrella Mr. Witness, during Nenitas absence from 1995 to
1997, will you please describe your relationship to each other?
A. I took care of her as I would treat other persons, sir.
Q. Did you treat her as if your own child?
A. All of them, sir.
Q. Did you give love, care and affection to the children or say Estrella
during Nenitas absence?
A. Yes, sir.
Significantly, the defense counsel admitted during pre-trial that appellant
was the common-law spouse of the victims mother, thus:
Court:
You have some proposals for admission of the defense[?]
Pros. Rojas:
Yes, Your Honor, that the accused indeed is a live-in partner or common
law spouse of Nenita Barcena, the mother of the victim, Estrella Cabida.
Atty. Corrales:
We admit, Your Honor.15
We are not likewise persuaded by appellants claim that the minority of the
victim was not duly established since her certificate of live birth was a mere
photocopy of the original. While only an unauthenticated original of the
Certificate of Live Birth,16 not a photocopy as alleged by the defense, was
 56
presented by the prosecution, complainant testified during trial that she (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
was born on March 2, 1982 and that at the time of the rape on April 10, court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
1997, she was 15 years old, which testimony was never objected to by the
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
defense during the trial.
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
In People v. Pruna,17 the Court laid down the guidelines in appreciating the reasonable notice;
age of the victim, thus:
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact
certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole;
and
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents
such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. officer or is recorded in a public office. [Emphasis supplied]
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have Without doubt, a certificate of live birth is a public record in the custody of
been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and the local civil registrar who is a public officer. Clearly, therefore, the
credible, of the victims mother or a member of the family either by affinity presentation of the photocopy of the birth certificate of Alpha Jane is
or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree admissible as secondary evidence to prove its contents. Production of the
such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to original may be dispensed with, in the trial courts discretion, whenever in
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the the case at hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of
following circumstances: the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring
production.21
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; In the case at bar, the defense did not dispute the contents of the
photocopied birth certificate; in fact it admitted the same. Having failed to
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to
raise a valid and timely objection against the presentation of this secondary
be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
evidence the same became a primary evidence, and deemed admitted and
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to the other party is bound thereby.22
be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
In fine, we find that the prosecution sufficiently proved that Estrella was 15
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the years old when she was raped on April 10, 1997 by the appellant who was
testimony of the victims mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the common-law spouse of her mother.
the complainants testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and
Anent the award of damages, the trial court correctly awarded P75,000.00
clearly admitted by the accused. (Emphasis added)
as civil indemnity which is awarded if the crime is qualified by
As already discussed, complainant testified that she was born on March 2, circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty. However,
1982 and was 15 years of age when the rape was committed on April 10, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages must be increased to
1997. It is of record that the defense did not offer any objection to her P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. In addition, the presence
testimony, thus: of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship entitles the
offended party to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.23
Fiscal Rojas
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Narvacan,
Q. When is your birthday, Madam? Ilocos Sur, Branch 22, in Crim. Case No. 1952-N, as affirmed by the Court
A. March 2, sir. of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00770 finding appellant Edgardo
Q. What year were you born?
Barcena y Poca guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified
A. 1982, sir. rape and imposing the penalty of DEATH24 is AFFIRMED with the
Q. So, you are how old now? MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is increased to
A. 16 sir. P75,000.00 and the appellant is further ordered to pay the victim
Q. On April 10, 1997, how old were you then? P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
A. 15 sir.18
Even granting that the certificate of live birth is only a photocopy of the SO ORDERED.
original, the same sufficiently proved Estrellas age and minority. In People
v. Cayabyab,19 we held that:
We are not unaware of our ruling in People v. Mantis20 that a mere
photocopy of the birth certificate, in the absence of any showing that the
original copy was lost or destroyed, or was unavailable, without the fault of
the prosecution, does not prove the victims minority, for said photocopy
does not qualify as competent evidence for that purpose.
However, there are other exceptions to the "best evidence rule" as
expressly provided under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which
reads:
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself, except in the
following cases:
 57
G.R. No. 187049 May 4, 2010 At the hospital, Dr. Elizabeth Co-Loyola examined AAA and found an
incised wound on her back.9 On the third day of AAAs confinement, they
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
suspected that something more had happened to AAA, but she merely
vs.
cried and did not answer their questions. On her sixth day of confinement,
LITO MACAPANAS y ECIJA, Accused-Appellant.
AAA, accompanied by her mother, admitted she was also raped. Dr. Co-
DECISION Loyola thus conducted additional examination on AAA and found that she
had a partially healed "Hymenal Laceration at [the] 5:00 oclock
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: position."10 Dr. Co-Loyola said she believed a hard object like a penis could
For review is the Decision dated November 24, 2006 of the Court of have caused the laceration.
1

Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00222 which affirmed with modification Police officers, among them SPO4 Bajar, also interviewed AAA on the
the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guiuan, Eastern Samar, afternoon of December 7, 1999. AAA told SPO4 Bajar that the person who
Branch 3, finding appellant Lito E. Macapanas guilty of rape and assaulted her had tattoos on his right shoulder and in between his thumb
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. and index finger. She said she was merely touched in her private parts and
On February 1, 2000, an Information was filed charging appellant of the was stabbed by the suspect, but did not tell SPO4 Bajar that she was
crime of rape. The Information reads, raped.
That on or about the 7th day of December, 1999, at about 7:30 oclock in On the evening of December 11, 1999, SPO4 Bajar brought appellant to
the morning, in between Brgy. XXX and Brgy. YYY, Salcedo, Eastern the hospital where AAA identified appellant as the one (1) who stabbed
Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the her. SPO4 Bajar revealed that when he brought appellant to the hospital,
above-named accused while the victim was on her way to school, she was his purpose was to present him as a suspect for stabbing AAA and not for
waylaid by the accused wearing a bonnet armed with a sharp-pointed bolo raping AAA.
locally known as "sundang" and brought her to an isolated hut where she AAA also testified that before the incident, she once saw the appellant
was alone and ordered her to undress and forced her to lie down and by
pass by the waiting shed where she used to wait for a ride to school. She
means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully andexplained that one (1) time, she was with her classmates in the waiting
feloniously succeed in having carnal knowledge with AAA,3 a 19-year-old shed when appellant passed by looking at them. A classmate informed her
girl without her consent and against her will. that the person looking at them was appellant Lito Macapanas. She added
Contrary to law.4 that she was familiar with appellants father and sister because she often
saw them pass by the waiting shed. She also said appellants two (2)
When arraigned on March 27, 2000, appellant, with the assistance of brothers, Sitoy and Pepe, were her classmates in grade school and that
counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.5 Trial thereafter she even knows their address. These matters, however, were not revealed
ensued. by her to the police.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Dr. Elizabeth Co- The defense, for its part, presented the following witnesses: (1) Vangie
Loyola, Medical Officer IV of Southern Samar General Hospital;6 (2) Senior Macapanas, appellants sister-in-law;11 (2) Rose B. Macapanas, appellants
Police Officer 4 Isidro E. Bajar, Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Philippine wife;12 and (3) appellant Lito E. Macapanas.13
National Police at Guiuan, Eastern Samar;7 and (3) AAA, the private
complainant.8 Appellant vehemently denied raping AAA. He alleged that he was at his
house in Barangay XXX, Salcedo, Eastern Samar the entire day of
From their testimonies, we gather the version of the prosecution: December 7, 1999, gathering coconuts. Around 5:00 a.m. on the said date,
At around 7:30 a.m. on December 7, 1999, AAA, a student of Eastern he cooked breakfast then rested. At around 6:00 a.m., he started gathering
Samar State Agricultural College, was walking on the feeder road of coconut in his yard and finished in the afternoon. The next day, he husked
Barangay XXX, Salcedo, Eastern Samar going to the waiting shed where the coconuts he had gathered, cut them in halves and placed them in the
she was to take a ride to school. She was 50 to 60 meters away from the kiln. On December 9, 1999, he smoked the coconuts, separated the
waiting shed when the appellant, wearing a makeshift ski mask and armed cooked coconut meat from their shells and placed them in a sack. Then, on
with a bladed weapon locally known as sundang, grabbed her hair. the morning of December 10, 1999, appellant, his father and Domingo
Appellant poked the sundang on her side and pulled her towards a grassy Basijan, the owner of the coconuts, sold the copra in Salcedo, Eastern
area. She tried to free herself and pleaded for mercy, but to no avail. Samar.
Appellant simply continued to drag her. On the afternoon of December 10, 1999, while playing basketball at the
When they reached a nearby stream, appellant shoved AAA towards an public plaza, his cousin Obet Macapanas invited him to the formers house
uninhabited house with the knife. Inside, appellant told her to undress, but in Barangay Talandawan, Salcedo, Eastern Samar to help Obets family
AAA did not obey. She asked appellant to remove his mask so she could prepare food for a celebration of a death anniversary. It was while he was
identify him. Appellant acceded and removed his mask. Then, he ordered in Obets house that he was arrested by a certain police officer Cabrera,
her anew to remove her dress. When she refused, appellant grabbed her who arrived together with another policeman and a barangay tanod.
skirt and forcibly removed the buttons to open her skirt. Appellant then Cabrera allegedly tied his hands. When he asked them what his fault was,
pushed her to the floor where he removed her panty. He mounted her and Cabrera replied that there was a complaint against him and that he was
succeeded in having intercourse with her. After satisfying his lust, appellant bringing him to AAA. Aboard a garbage truck, appellant, together with Obet
allowed AAA to put on her dress with a warning that he would kill her if she and his nephew, Anthony Amor, was brought to the Southern Samar
tells anyone about what happened. With appellant behind her, AAA walked General Hospital and presented before AAA.
back towards the waiting shed. AAA allegedly failed to pinpoint him as the culprit, but he and his two (2)
When AAA saw plenty of people on the road, she shouted for help. relatives were nonetheless incarcerated at the Salcedo Municipal Jail.
Appellant then stabbed her at the back and fled. AAA was brought to the Appellant added that his two (2) relatives were released from jail the
Southern Samar General Hospital where she was confined for nine (9) following morning. While he was in jail, Cabrera brought in two (2) women
days. victims to identify him (appellant) if he was the one (1) who waylaid them.
 58
The women, however, declared he was not the one (1) who assaulted committed the crime and then return to the coconut land and resume
them. Cabrera has ill feelings towards him because he defied Cabreras harvesting coconuts.15
order to stop cutting trees. He explained that cutting trees is his only
The trial court further ruled that despite the prosecution evidence showing
source of livelihood.
that appellant stabbed AAA after raping her, appellant cannot be convicted
Vangie Macapanas, on the other hand, testified that on the morning of for such stabbing no matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence is
December 7, 1999, she was at her house which was about only 10 meters because such offense was not charged or included in the Information.
away from appellants house. From 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. of the said day,
Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration,16 but the trial court denied it in
she saw appellant and the latters wife, Rose, fixing the roof of their house.
a Resolution17 dated June 11, 2003.
After eating breakfast, appellant went out of his house and started
gathering coconuts near her yard because the coconuts which appellant On November 24, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellants
was gathering were located behind her house. She said appellant finished conviction but modified the penalty, ordering appellant to pay the additional
gathering coconuts from Domingo Basijans land at around 11:00 a.m. She amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. The decretal portion of the
alleged that appellant never left his house or the land where he gathered appellate courts decision reads:
coconuts from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. She, however, said that she cannot
see the entire coconut plantation from her house and did not see appellant WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Guiuan,
at all times while he was gathering coconuts at the plantation. Eastern Samar, in Criminal Case No. 1837 finding accused-appellant Lito
Macapanas y Ecija guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
Vangie added that she knows Barangay YYY, where the crime happened, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is
and declared that said barangay is about three and a half (3) kilometers AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant must pay to the
away from her house in Barangay XXX. Motor vehicles also regularly ply private offended party, [AAA], P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another
the route from Barangay XXX to Barangay YYY. P50,000.00 as moral damages, together with the costs.18
Appellants wife, Rose B. Macapanas, for her part, testified that appellant Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on December 18, 2006.19 On June 1,
left their house in Brgy. XXX at 6:00 a.m. on December 7, 1999 to gather 2009,20 the Court required the parties to file their respective supplemental
coconuts at the plantation of Domingo Basijan where he was a tenant. At briefs, if they so desire. The parties, however, opted not to file any on the
8:00 a.m., her husband returned to their house and they fixed the roof of ground that they have already fully argued their positions in their respective
their house. At around 9:00 a.m., they finished fixing the roof and his briefs.
husband returned to the coconut plantation to gather coconuts anew until
Appellant cites a lone error:
11:00 a.m. Thereafter, she said appellant went home and rested.
According to her, from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., her husband did not go to THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
any other place except the coconut plantation. During all that time, she ACCUSED-APPELLANT [OF] THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE
knew that appellant was in the plantation because she heard the sound of FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
coconuts dropping to the ground. REASONABLE DOUBT.21
On May 14, 2003, the trial court promulgated its decision dated April 15, Essentially, for our resolution is the issue of whether appellants guilt for
2003, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: the crime of rape has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused LITO E. MACAPANAS guilty Appellant maintains that the trial court erred in giving greater weight to the
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of consummated rape under Article testimony of the private complainant than the testimonies of the defense
266-A (a) of Republic Act No. 8353 (An Act Expanding the Definition of the witnesses despite finding that some portions in her testimony appeared to
Crime of Rape) and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of be peculiar and tended to render its credibility suspect. He contends that
RECLUSION PERPETUA. The accused is further ordered to indemnify the the accusation of rape was concocted on hindsight because AAA only
offended party in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) without disclosed that she was raped after several days of confinement and after
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. identifying appellant to SPO4 Bajar as the person who stabbed her.
SO ORDERED.14 We are not convinced.
In convicting appellant, the trial court was convinced that it was appellant The fact that AAA did not immediately reveal that she was raped by
who sexually assaulted AAA because of the identification she made of appellant does not necessarily impair AAAs credibility. How the victim
appellant. It found that AAA had no reason or motive to fabricate the comported herself after the incident was not significant as it had nothing to
serious charge against appellant. It did not accord credence to appellants do with the elements of the crime of rape.22 Not all rape victims can be
denial and alibi. It found the testimonies of the defense witnesses doubtful expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone.
and unconvincing. Explained the trial court: Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the
proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is settled that
They tried to establish that the accused was in Brgy. XXX during the
time of the commission of the crime in Brgy. YYY. But their testimonies are different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and
not convincing. Vangie Macapanas, who is a sister-in-law of the accused, there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is
confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.23 In People v.
testified that she saw the accused the whole morning of December 7,
1999. But clearly[,] that is not true because she herself declared that when Luzorata,24 we held:
the accused went around the coconut land which is [quite] large he was out This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should
of her sight and could only [hear] the coconuts dropping to the ground. behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative
While the declaration of Rose Macapanas, the wife of the accused, that her and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the
husband left their house at about 6:00 oclock in the morning to harvest circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum
coconuts and return two hours later does not preclude the possibility that of doubt. x x x.
her husband could have sneaked to Brgy. YYY that morning. Ditto with the
testimony of the accused. Considering the proximity of Brgy. YYY from Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a
Brgy. XXX, he could have easily reach[ed] Brgy. YYY in no time and fabricated charge.25 It has been repeatedly held that the delay in reporting

a rape incident due to death threats cannot be taken against the
victim.26 The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was
unreasonable and unexplained. In this case, the delay in reporting the
sexual assault was reasonable and explained. AAA adequately explained
that she did not immediately inform anyone of her ordeal because she was
ashamed and afraid because appellant had threatened to kill her.27 Thus,
her reluctance that caused the delay should not be taken against her.
Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility nor undermine the charge
of rape.
We find no reason to reverse the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by
the Court of Appeals. We find AAAs narration of her ghastly ordeal to be
clear, straightforward and worthy of belief. AAA recounted her nightmare
as follows:
Q On December 7, 1999, at about 7:30 oclock in the morning, do you
remember where you were?
A Yes, sir, I was at the cemented feeder road of Brgy. [XXX], Salcedo,
Eastern Samar.
Q And what were you doing on that feeder road?
A I was walking sir.
Q Where were you walking to?
A I was on my way walking to the waiting shed.
Q Now, where were you from when you were walking to that waiting shed
along Barangay [XXX]?
A I came from our house at Brgy. [YYY], Salcedo, E. Samar.
Q And what was your purpose in going to that waiting shed?
A I was about to wait for a transportation going to ESSAC.
Q Now, when you were walking on that feeder road towards that shed, was
there anything unusual that happened?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what was that?
A I was waylaid by a man who was wearing a bonnet and with a sharp
pointed bolo locally known as "sundang".
Q When you said bonnet, what do you mean?
A A piece of cloth wear around the head and there is a whole for the eyes
covering the face.
Q Now, when you were waylaid by this person, what happened?
A He immediately grabbed my hair and dragged to the grass.
Q What happened thereafter when you said you were dragged to the
grasses by this person?
xxxx
A He brought me to the stream and let me go.
Q What do you mean when you said the person let you go when you
reached that stream?
A That is now the time when he let me go.
Q Now, you said you were forced to walk, what happened thereafter?
A While I was walking he was poking behind me his bolo.
Q What happened thereafter?
A He brought me to the place to uninhabited house.
Q What happened when you reached that uninhabited house?
A He let me go inside that house.
Q Were you able to get inside that house?
A Yes.
Q And then what happened when you are inside the house?
A He told me to undress.
Q And what did you do when you told to take-off your clothes?
A I did not follow to his instruction instead I told him to take-off his bonnet.
Q And then what happened[?]
A And he took off his bonnet and I saw him watching my bag.
Q What happened thereafter?
A He again told me to take-off my clothes.
Q And then what did you do?
A I did not take-off my uniform then he immediately grabbed my uniform.
Q What happened to your uniform?
59
A He immediately pushed me to the floor.
Q You said while ago that this person take-off his bonnet, could you
identify the person?
xxxx
A Yes.
Q Will you please look around the court room and identify if you see him
around to be the same person who take-off his bonnet.
Court interpreter
(Witness pointing to the accused who when asked answers the name of
Lito Macapanas).
Court
Are you sure of that that he is really the one who was wearing a bonnet,
be sure because the consequence that you are charging him with a serious
offense, but if it is not true, then that guy who abused you is just laughing.
Be sure he is the guy.
A Yes sir he is the one, I am sure.
Q You said while ago that this person whom you point out and grabbed
your uniform, what part of your uniform was grabbed by this person?
A In front of my blouse.
Q How did he grab your blouse?
Court interpreter
(Witness demonstrating by using his two (2) hands to open her blouse).
Q And then what did he do?
Court interpreter
(Witness demonstrating by using her both hands by opening at her blouse).
Q What else happened after he grabbed your blouse?
A He immediately pushed me to the floor.
Q What happened to your skirt?
A He destroyed the buttons of my skirt.
Q What happened after he destroyed your buttons in your skirt?
A He removed my panty.
Q When he grabbed your blouse, what did you do if any?
A I was in the floor then he immediately placed himself on top of me.
Q And what happened thereafter?
A He made a push and pulls motion and inserted his penis.
Q Now, was he able to insert his penis inside your vagina?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then what happened after that?
A After he made a sexual intercourse with me he let me put on my dress.
Q What happened after that?
A And he told me not to tell anybody, if you tell somebody I will kill you?
Q And then what happened thereafter?
A Then he let me walked towards the waiting shed.
Q And were you able to walk towards the waiting shed?
A Yes.
Q And where was he when you were walking towards that waiting shed?
A He was following behind me.
Q What happened then if any?
A I immediately shouted because I saw many people at the road and he
immediately stabbed me at my back.
Q What was your purpose in shouting?
A Because I am asking for help to that people.
Q When you shouted you were stabbed by the accused, what happened to
you when you were stabbed by the accused?
A I fell down to the ground.
Q What about the accused what did he do?
A He immediately ran away.28
When it comes to credibility, the trial courts assessment deserves great
weight, and is even conclusive and binding upon this Court, if not tainted
with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe
directly the witnesses deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court
is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate properly
testimonial evidence.29 In the instant case, we have no reason not to apply
 60
the rule considering the overwhelming evidence showing that appellant had However, we agree with the Court of Appeals that it is not inconceivable for
carnal knowledge of AAA without her consent and against her will by appellant to have acceded to her request to reveal his identity by removing
means of force and intimidation. the mask that hid his face. We have ruled that it is not uncommon for
criminals to be careless or to even intentionally reveal their identities to
Positive identification made with moral certainty suffices to convict the
their victims. The failure by a criminal to conceal his identity would not
accused.30 AAAs claim that she was raped was amply supported by the
make the commission of the crime any less credible. Braggadocio among
testimony and finding of Dr. Elizabeth Co-Loyola that she suffered a
criminals is not unexpected. Very often too, they feel secure in the thought
hymenal laceration at the five (5) oclock position which is consistent with
that they have instilled sufficient fear in their victims that the latter will not
penile intrusion.
give them away to the authorities.35 Here, unfortunately for appellant, AAA
Appellant contends that his identification by AAA in the hospital should not tried to seek the assistance of the people near the waiting shed at the first
have been given consideration because the identification was not made in opportunity. After mustering enough courage, AAA also revealed her
a police line-up and that the procedure adopted constituted suggestive ordeal and identified appellant as the one (1) who raped her.
identification for he alone was brought infront of AAA.
Appellant ascribes to the private complainant an alleged material
Again, we find such contention untenable. inconsistency as to whether she had seen appellant even before the rape
or saw him for the first time on December 7, 1999, which perceived
While appellant was not placed in a police line-up for identification by AAA, inconsistency allegedly affects the veracity of her testimony. Such
the absence of such police line-up does not make AAAs identification of inconsistency, which we consider to be minor or trivial, will however not
appellant as the one (1) who raped her, unreliable. There is no law or impair AAAs credibility.
police regulation requiring a police line-up for proper identification in every
case. Even if there was no police line-up, there could still be proper and Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness with regard to minor or
reliable identification as long as such identification was not suggested or collateral matters do not diminish the value of the testimony in terms of
instigated to the witness by the police.31 What is crucial is for the witness to truthfulness or weight. The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge
positively declare during trial that the person charged was the malefactor.32 by the appellant of the private complainant under any of the circumstances
provided in Article 33536 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Where
In People v. Teehankee, Jr.,33 we explained the procedure for out-of-court the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such
identification and the test to determine the admissibility of such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential
identification. We said: fact testified to.37 In fact, these inconsistencies bolster the credibility of the
Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is witnesss testimony as it erases the suspicion of the witness having been
done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with coached or rehearsed.38 It is when the testimony appears totally flawless
the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs that a court might have some misgiving as to its veracity. This is especially
are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru line- true in rape cases where victims are not expected to have a total recall of
ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined the incident.39
up for the purpose. Since corruption of out-of-court identification Appellant interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. However, mere
contaminates the integrity of in-court identification during the trial of the denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight
case, courts have fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive
compliance with the requirements of constitutional due process. In
testimony of a rape victim.40 Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative
resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of and self-serving assertion.41
suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they
consider the following factors, viz: (1) the witness opportunity to view the To be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-
criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness degree of attention at that culpability. Otherwise, it is purely self-serving and without merit.42 Here,
time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the there was no strong and credible evidence adduced to overcome the
level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the testimony of private complainant pointing to appellant as the culprit. Hence,
length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the no weight can be given appellants denial. The Court finds the testimonies
suggestiveness of the identification procedure. of appellants wife and sister-in-law unconvincing. The testimonies of close
relatives and friends are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the
We have applied the totality of circumstances test in the instant case and unequivocal declaration of the complaining witness.43
find AAAs identification of appellant via a show-up as the one (1) who
raped her to be credible. Appellants out-of-court identification is valid. AAA Appellants defense of alibi likewise fails. As against the positive
positively identified appellant as her abuser because the latter removed the identification by the private complainant, appellants alibi is
mask he was wearing and revealed his face to her. AAA even recalled the worthless.44 Having been identified by the victim herself, appellant cannot
tattoos on appellants body and hand. The out-of-court identification made escape liability. Moreover, for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during
by AAA was done a few days after the incident and confirmed during the the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it
trial. There is likewise no evidence that SPO4 Bajar had supplied or even was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis.45 From the
suggested to AAA the identity of appellant as her attacker. Even assuming evidence on record, it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at
arguendo that the out-of-court identification was defective, the defect was the crime scene when the crime was committed since the crime scene was
cured by the subsequent positive identification in court for the only three and a half (3-) kilometers away from where appellant was
inadmissibility of a police line-up identification should not necessarily allegedly working. Moreover, as testified to by his sister-in-law, motor
foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification.34 vehicles regularly ply the Barangay XXX Barangay YYY route. We have
held that:
Appellant attacks private complainants credibility arguing that it would
have been inconceivable for an assailant to accede to AAAs request to Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at
remove the mask and to reveal his identity when he had already the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the
conveniently clothed himself with anonymity.1avvphi1 accused. Let there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion,
alibi is in fact a good defense. But to be valid for purposes of exoneration
from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have
 61
been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an
the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.50
person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 24,
airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least
2006 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
possibility of accuseds presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant is further ordered to pay
water.46
private complainant exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.
Appellant tried to discredit the prosecution by imputing ill motives, not on
With costs.
the victim, but on a police officer named Cabrera whom he claimed had a
grudge against him. Said claim, which has not been substantiated, is an SO ORDERED.
act of desperation. For one (1), said police officer is not even known to
private complainant. For another, we find it highly improbable that AAA
would impute to appellant a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is
not true. All told, we find that the trial court did not err in convicting
appellant of the crime of rape.
Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
respectively provide:
Art. 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;
xxxx
Art. 266-B. Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two
or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
xxxx
For one (1) to be convicted of qualified rape, at least one (1) of the
aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 266-B of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, must be alleged in the Information
and duly proved during the trial.47 In the case at bar, appellant used a
sharp-pointed bolo locally known as sundang in consummating the
salacious act. This circumstance was alleged in the Information and duly
proved during trial. Being in the nature of a qualifying circumstance, "use of
a deadly weapon" increases the penalties by degrees, and cannot be
treated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance which affects only
the period of the penalty. This so-called qualified form of rape committed
with the use of a deadly weapon carries a penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death. As such, the presence of generic aggravating and mitigating
circumstances will determine whether the lesser or higher penalty shall be
imposed. When, as in this case, neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the minimum penalty,
i.e., reclusion perpetua, should be the penalty imposable pursuant to
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.48 Thus, both trial and appellate
courts properly imposed on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
As to the award of damages, the trial court awarded P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity. The Court of Appeals, in addition thereto, awarded moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00. Under the present law, an award
of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of
rape. This is exclusive of the award of moral damages of P50,000.00,
without need of further proof. The victims injury is now recognized as
inherently concomitant with and necessarily proceeds from the appalling
crime of rape which per se warrants an award of moral damages.49
Exemplary damages should likewise be awarded pursuant to Article 2230
of the Civil Code since the special aggravating circumstance of the use of a
deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape. When a crime is
committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic,
an award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified. This kind of
damages is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a
62
 63
G.R. No. 123539 June 27, 2000 As accused-appellant commenced to unleash his lust, the young lass felt
pain in her vagina.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. Thereafter, accused-appellant kissed Prescila, mashed her breast and
MARIANO AUSTRIA alias "ANOY", accused-appellant. probed his finger into her vagina. Unsatisfied, accused-appellant touched
himself by masturbating his penis.13 Then, perched on top of the young girl
DECISION
and while in the heat of fondling himself, accused-appellant held Prescilas
BUENA, J.: hand. Prescila protested, struggled and pushed accused-appellant away
causing the latter to fall down. She attempted to escape but accused-
Charged with, tried, and convicted for the crime of rape, accused-appellant appellant stepped on Prescilas foot14 thus rendering futile her efforts to
Mariano Austria82 years old at the time of the commission of the extricate from the lecherous advancement of accused-appellant.
offensenow comes before us to assail the decision, dated 31 October
1995, of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 38, in Insatiated, accused-appellant positioned himself on top of Prescila,
Criminal Case No. L-5239, adjudging him guilty beyond reasonable doubt inserted his penis into her vagina and worked his way with a "push-and-
of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and pull-movement". Again, Prescila felt pain in her vagina.
to indemnify the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages plus cost of the
Having spent his lust, accused-appellant stood up, wore his short pants
proceedings.
and went away. Feeling sick, dizzy and devoid of strength, Prescila rested
The information1, dated 15 January 1995, charged octogenarian accused- for a while after which she put on her underwear and proceeded home.15
appellant Mariano Austria with the rape of minor Prescila de Vera, as
Upon arriving home and fearing that her grandmother Brigida would whip
follows:
her, Prescila chose not to divulge immediately the traumatic event as her
" That on or about the 22nd day of November 1994 at 12:00 o clock noon grandmother was strict.16 After the passage of two weeks, however,
(sic) in Barangay San Jose, Municipality of Aguilar, Province of Prescila, unable to conceal the ordeal to herself, disclosed the rape
Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this honorable court, incident to her Aunt Nieves de Vera, who eventually reported the same to
the above-named accused armed with a scythe, taking advantage of his Brigida.
superior strength, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there
At the witness stand, Prescila testified that she had her menstrual period
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Prescila G.
on the day accused-appellant ravished her. Further, she described
de Vera against her will, to her damage and prejudice.
appellants penis"like a new Peso coin," about an inch in diameter,
Contrary to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code." around four inches in length and black in color.17 Prescila categorically
declared that prior to the rape incident she did not have sexual intercourse
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty after which trial on with anyone18 and that as a result of the rape, she stopped attending
the merits ensued, where the prosecution presented the testimonies of school for fear of her life.
complainant Prescila; Myrna de Vera, mother of Prescila; Nieves de Vera,
aunt of Prescila; and Dr. Cecilio Guico, Jr., the physician who conducted On 26 December 1994, Dr. Cecilio Guico, Jr., resident physician of the
the medical examination on Prescila and prepared the corresponding Mangatarem District Hospital, physically examined Prescila, which test
medical certificate thereon. yielded that19 Prescilas hymen had old lacerations at "1,3,7 and 9 o clock"
which could have been caused by a blunt object forcibly entered into the
At the time of the alleged rape, Prescila was 12 years old having been born victims vagina.20 According to the medical report, Prescilas vagina was
on 01 May 19822; accused-appellant claimed to be 82 years old at the time negative for spermatozoa and easily admitted one examining finger. 21 No
of the commission of the offense, having been born on 12 September other external physical injuries were found at the time of examination which
1912.3 However, no official record or document was presented or available was conducted 34 days after the alleged incident.22
to ascertain the actual age of accused-appellant.4
In contrast, accused-appellant principally adopted a two-pronged defense
As gleaned from the collective narration of the prosecution witnesses, the riveted on denial and impotency. Thus, according to accused-appellants
facts unfold. testimony, as corroborated by defense witness Rudy Garcia,23 around
Twelve-year-old Prescila de Vera, a grade three student and only daughter noon of 22 November 1994, accused-appellant was busy
of Rodolfo de Vera and Myrna Garcia, had been staying with her harvesting palay in the ricefield owned by Austrias nephew Romualdo
grandmother Brigida at San Jose, Aguilar Pangasinan, for a year already Gondayao. As accused-appellant was conversing with Rudy Garcia, who
prior to the alleged rape.5 was then overseeing the mango trees, Prescila, accompanied by another
girl, approached24 and asked Austria for money.25 Upon accused-
As a student, Prescila attended the morning and afternoon school sessions appellants refusal to give money, Prescila grabbed his wallet containing
at Anonang Elementary School6located around ten kilometers away from P1,600.0026 tucked in the right back pocket of his pants. Accused-appellant
Brigidas residence.7 then held Prescilas right hand and recovered the wallet from her.
On 22 November 1994, as Prescila was passing a ricefield8 on her way Thereafter, Prescila retreated and from a distance of five meters, picked-up
home for lunch, accused-appellant Austria, whom she refers to as "Lake and threw hardened soil at accused-appellant hitting his right knee.
Anoy,"9 suddenly accosted her and grabbed her left wrist. Accused- Beyond this, accused-appellant raised the defense of impotency. On the
appellant then drew an eight-inch scythe and despite Prescilas resistance stand, accused-appellant testified that since reaching the age of 60 years,
and protestations, dragged the girl toward a part of the field where banana his penis is not anymore capable of erection27 because of his rheumatic
plants abound.10 condition. Upon reaching the age of 70, he also claimed to be afflicted with
Amid the cover of vegetation, accused appellant poked his scythe on hernia;28 he cannot anymore run fast because his knees are already
Prescilas throat,11 removed Prescilas short pants and underwear and on weak.29
pain of death forbid her to report the incident. Accused-appellant then In its bid for acquittal, the defense presented Dr. Wilma Flores-
removed his short pants, as he was not donning any underwear, laid Peralta30 who testified that she examined accused-appellant on 11 January
Prescila down and, with his finger, fondled Prescilas vagina,12 which bled. 1995 and found him suffering from Epidideguio Orchites or "epidition of
 64
testicles plus the left tube". According to Dr. Peralta, the left testicle31 of Beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecutions collective evidence indubitably
accused-appellant was "swollen, larger than the right and tender". She established not only the commission of the rape but also accused-
added that the illness, which is different from Hernia32 and caused by viral appellants precise degree of culpability and guilt therefor. Of equal
or bacterial infection,33 is painful. importance is the glaring fact that Prescila, in open court, positively
identified36 accused-appellant as the defiler of her virtue.
During trial, the court observed and noted that the forefinger, fourth finger
and thumb of the accused are severed from accused-appellants right In an attempt to evade criminal liability, accused-appellant, in effect, assails
hand. The forefinger is about an inch in length.34 the credibility of Prescila by casting doubts on complainants conduct after
the incident and by interposing the issue of delay in reporting the crime.
Moreover, the testimonies of SP02 Luis Padama of the PNP Aguilar Police
On this score, we reiterate the long-standing rule in this specie of cases,
Station, and Magdalena Fernandez, daughter of accused-appellant were
that the lone testimony of a rape victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a
presented by the defense. Magdalena testified that on 10 September 1994,
judgment of conviction.37 Courts usually lend credence to testimonies of
she heard Prescila crying and reporting to her Aunt Nieves that one
young girls, especially when the facts point to their having been victims of
Sammy Valdez, who was drunk, dragged Prescila to his house and raped
sexual assault.38
the young girl. Magdalenas recollection though was never corroborated.
Though insensate, the records still reveal that at the time accused-
Similarly, through the testimony of Magdalena, the defense interjected an
appellant ravaged complainants budding womanhood, Prescila, despite
angle of personal vendetta theorizing that the rape charge against
her being twelve years old, was still in grade three having failed grade one
accused-appellant could have been filed due to Magdalenas refusal to
thrice and grade two once.39 Given the naivet and limited intelligence of
grant Brigidas request to let the latter transfer and occupy the formers
the complainant, we do not believe that she could have fabricated her
land.35 Brigida is Prescilas grandmother.
charges against accused-appellant, weaving a tale of pure fantasy out of
On 31 October 1995, the trial court rendered a decision convicting mere imagination. She does not appear to have such inventiveness.40
accused-appellant, the decretal portion of which reads:
Neither is it proper for us to judge the actions of children who have
"Wherefore, in the light of the considerations discussed above, the court undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected under
finds and holds the accused, Mariano Austria alias "Anoy", guilty beyond the circumstances from mature people.41 Also, it is a matter of judicial
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, defined and penalized under Article cognizance that in rural areas in the Philippines, young ladies are strictly
335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 and required to act with circumspection and prudence, and that great caution is
conformable thereto, pursuant to law, hereby sentences the said accused observed so that their reputation shall remain untainted.42
to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and its accessory penalties
In the course of trial, the lower court observed that Prescila was sincere
provided by law and to further pay the costs of the proceedings.
and frank in answering questions propounded to her. At times, Prescila
The court further orders the accused to indemnify the victim Prescila de even "shed tears as she recalled and narrated the harrowing experience
Vera the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as moral damages and tragedy that befell upon her." Of judicial cognizance is the fact that the
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the
rape charge.43 Likewise, the trial court recognized no "tone of hesitancy
SO ORDERED." and artificiality in her voice as she testified and narrated how the accused
Hence, the instant appeal where the defense ascribed to the trial court the deflowered her."
following errors:
To our mind, Prescilas testimony is unsoiled by deceptiveness and
I untouched by the vice of falsehood. Her story of defloration, woeful as it is,
bears the earmarks of truth; her narration deserves outmost credence and
The trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant Mariano Austria guilty weight, as opposed to accused-appellants self-serving declarations and
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under tale of denial.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code considering that:
As to the alleged delay, Prescilas disclosure that she has been raped must
A. The conduct of Prescila De Vera after the supposed rape belie her claim not be taken lightly, as it is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal for
and seriously puts her credibility in issue; some time the assault on her virtue because of the rapists threats on her
B. The delay in reporting the crime was not reasonably explained. Thus, it life, fear of public humiliation, and/or lack of courage and composure to
casts a serious doubt on the truth of the charge for rape; immediately explain that she has been sexually assaulted.44
C. The prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of impotence on For while a complainants act in immediately reporting the commission of
the part of accused-appellant Mariano Austria who was already eighty-two rape has been considered by the Court as a factor strengthening her
(82) years old at the time of the alleged rape; credibility, delay or vacillation in criminal accusations does not necessarily
impair the complainants credibility if such delay is satisfactorily
D. The prosecution failed to prove force and intimidation as an element of explained.45
the crime of rape.
In the case before us, the rueful ordeal that Prescila bitterly experienced in
II the vicious hands of accused-appellant, coupled with the fear of
The trial court erred in not giving credence to the testimony of the defense disappointing her grandmother and the serious threats on her life are
when the version of the prosecution is incredible failing thus to prove the without doubtmore than enough to cow a young girl from immediately
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. articulating the bestiality that miserably visited her at such blooming age.
A. The story of the prosecution is replete with material inconsistencies and To put it differently, silence is not an odd behavior of a rape victim.46
fails to discharge its burden of proof sufficient to warrant a conviction. Granting too that the delay could not be attributed to death threats and
As these proffered arguments are specious, the conviction of accused- intimidation made and exercised by the accused on the victim, such failure
appellant Austria necessarily stands. in making a prompt report to the proper authorities does not destroy the
truth per se of the complaint.47
 65
Contrary to accused-appellants arguments, the prosecution clearly repudiates the claim that accused-appellant could not have performed the
showed that force and intimidation attended the commission of the crime. sexual act.
Thus on the stand, Prescila narrated how "Lake Anoy", far more advanced
Although Dr. Peraltas findings prove that accused-appellant was afflicted
in age than her and formidably armed with a scythe, threatened to snuff out
with "Epidideguio Orchites", such piece of evidence however does not
her life if she were not to bow down to accused-appellants salacious
categorically conclude, nor even hint that Austria was sexually impotent.
desires.
The evidence on this point is wanting.
In a decided case,48 this Court ruled that it is not necessary that force and
Assuming further that accused-appellant was 82 years old as he claimed
violence be employed in rape, intimidation is sufficient, and this includes
he was at the time of the commission of the crime, his advanced age does
the moral kind, i.e., threatening the victim with a knife. Moreover, if the use
not ipso facto mean that sexual intercourse is no longer possible, as age is
of a knife and the threat of death against the victims parents was,
not a criterion taken alone in determining sexual interest and capability in
in People vs. Pada49 deemed intimidation sufficient to cow the victim into
middle-aged and older people.57 Moreover, as in People vs. De
obedience, a fortiori, must we, in the instant case, uphold the presence of
Guzman58, the protestations of accused-appellant that he could not have
force and intimidation, considering that accused-appellant directed the
raped the complainant because he was already old at that time are belied
threats against Prescilathe victim of rape herself.
by his physical condition.1avvphi1
Consequently, we consider the aggravating circumstance of deadly
To this end, the trial court had these words to describe accused-appellant
weapon50 in the commission of the rape, contrary to the trial courts
Austria:59
pronouncement that the scythe " is a necessary implement to earn a
livelihood of the accused (sic) who is a farmer." As can be seen, the scythe "During the trial of the case, the court had occasion to observe the
was used by accused-appellant as a tool to intimidate the victim and movements of the accused and found him still strong, agile and capable of
facilitate the consummation of this deplorable offense. committing sexual act. In fact, it has been established during the trial that
Mariano Austria could still work in the farm and was harvesting palay at the
Notably, jurisprudence is replete with cases that threatening the victim with
time the incident happened. The court also entertains serious doubts that
bodily injury while holding a knife or bolo constitutes intimidation sufficient
the accused is 83 years old. His physical built, appearance and
to bring a woman to submission to the lustful desires of the molester. 51
movements strongly negate the assertion of the defense that Mariano
As to the alleged inconsistencies in Prescilas testimony, we consider them Austria is 83 years old."
to be only minor and trivial so as not to diminish, much less shatter the
Notwithstanding, we consider accused-appellants old age to mitigate his
weight accorded to her narration concerning the commission of the rape
liability.60
and the identity of the despicable author thereofaccused-appellant
Austria. Besides, Prescilas charge is fortified by the evidence on record As to the proper penalty, where appellant committed the rape with the use
specifically the medical findings and testimony of Dr. Cecilio Guico, Jr., that of a deadly weapon, the law provides that the range of penalty imposable
the lacerations found in the victims hymen could have been caused by a on him shall be the indivisible penalties of reclusion perpetua to
blunt object forcibly entered into Prescilas vagina.52 death.61However, in view of the mitigating circumstance of his age and
pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty
Obviously, when the victims testimony of her violation is corroborated by
of reclusion perpetua shall be meted to him.
the physicians findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to
conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.53 One last note. The records show that at the time of the rape, Prescila had
her menstrual period. Regardless, the presence or absence of
Arguing on the last ditch, the defense volunteers that "the prosecution
menstruation does not negate the crime of rape nor render its execution
failed to overcome the presumption of impotence on the part accused-
impossible;62lust, after all, manifests no reverence for occasion, location or
appellant who was already eighty-two years old at the time of the alleged
the victims condition.
rape."
For lechery is a beast that knows no master; it is an ogre that cradles no
This contention is dissident to settled jurisprudence.
conscience.
Clearly, the presumption had always been in favor of potency.54 Stated
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the
differently, impotencythe physical inability to have sexual intercourseis
MODIFICATION, that in addition to the P50,000.00 awarded as moral
considered an abnormal condition and should not be presumed, thus: 55
damages,63 he is ordered to pay the victim the sum of P50,000.00 as civil
"Impotence, in Medical JurisprudenceInability on the part of the male indemnity64 plus costs of the proceedings.
organ of copulation to perform its proper function. Impotence applies only
SO ORDERED.
to disorders affecting the function of the organ of copulation XXX (Dennis,
System of Surgery; Bouviers Law Dictionary, Rawles Third Revision, Vol.
II, p. 1514);
"Impotence.
3. Law & Med. Incapacity for sexual intercourse." (Websters New
International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged, p. 1251).
"Impotency or ImpotenceWant of power for copulation, not mere
sterility. The absence of complete power of copulation is an essential
element to constitute impotency. (31 C.J. p. 259)."
In rape cases, impotency as a defense must be proven with certainty to
overcome the presumption in favor of potency.56 Under the present
circumstances, the evidence proffered by the defense failed to discharge
such burden, inasmuch as the very testimony of Dr. Wilma Flores-Peralta
66
 67
G.R. No. 179498 August 3, 2010 In the course of the trial, the prosecution presented four (4) witnesses:
AAA; BBB; CCC, appellants wife and mother of both victims; and Dr.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs.
Emelie S. Viola, the Municipal Health Officer of Hinatuan District Hospital
RUSTICO BARTOLINI y AMPIS, Appellant. who conducted the physical examination of both victims.
DECISION Below are the facts established by their testimonies.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Bartolini is married to CCC.8 They begot six (6) children, the eldest being
BBB who was born on January 14, 1978,9 followed by AAA who was born
We review the May 31, 2007 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which on June 16, 1980.10
affirmed the guilty verdict rendered by Branch 29 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Bislig City2 in Criminal Case Nos. 99-1-2083-H, 99-1-2084- Sometime in March 1994, at around 3:00 in the afternoon, while BBB was
H and 99-1-2085-H, finding appellant Rustico Bartolini y Ampis guilty of weeding the grass on their vegetable garden with her father, the latter
three (3) counts of incestuous rape against his two (2) daughters, AAA and suddenly pulled her to the ground and forced her to lie down. Bartolini then
BBB.3 lifted BBBs skirt, removed her panty and proceeded to have sexual
intercourse with her. As BBB struggled, appellant punched her and hit her
The facts are culled from the findings of both the trial and appellate courts.
at her back. Afterwards, appellant put back his clothes and left. When BBB
Appellant Bartolini was charged with three (3) counts of rape before the went inside their house, appellant, who was waiting for her, warned her not
RTC, Branch 29, of Bislig City, Surigao del Sur. The informations filed to tell CCC about the incident. Despite the warning, BBB reported the
against him read: incident to her mother, but the latter told her to just keep quiet.11
Criminal Case No. 99-1-2083-H: After the said incident, appellant repeatedly had sexual intercourse with
BBB, the last of which happened on March 2, 1998 at about 8:00 in the
That on or about 7:00 oclock in the morning sometime in the month of morning inside their house while her mother was away selling fish and
March 1995, at Sitio [ABC], Barangay [123], Municipality of Hinatuan, while all her siblings were attending school. That morning, appellant
Province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this ordered BBB to get his clothes for him. Appellant then followed BBB to the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd and unchaste room, took off her clothes and raped her.12
designs, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously rape [his]
daughter, [AAA], by means of force and intimidation, and against his It also appears that sometime in March 1995, at about 6:30 in the morning,
daughters will, to the damage and prejudice of the said [AAA], who was while having breakfast, appellant instructed his second eldest daughter,
then 14 years old. AAA, to burn the dried leaves in their garden. Dutifully, AAA went to the
garden at around 7:00 that morning and met her father there. To her
CONTRARY TO LAW: In violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal surprise, appellant immediately pulled her and brought her near a big fallen
Code as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659. tree while threatening to kill her and all the members of their family if she
Bislig, Surigao del Sur, November 23, 1998. 4 would not acquiesce to his demands. Appellant told her to remove her
panties, but since AAA was crying and pushing her father away, appellant
Criminal Case No. 99-1-2084-H: himself took off AAAs panties, laid her on the ground and placed one (1) of
That on or about March 2, 1998, at 8:00 oclock in the morning, more or her feet on top of the fallen tree. Afterwards, appellant removed his pants
less, at Sitio [ABC], Barangay [123], Municipality of Hinatuan, Province of and raped her. After having sexual intercourse with AAA, appellant put
Surigao del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable back his pants and went to the barangay hall to report for duty as appellant
Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste designs and by was a barangay kagawad at that time. Like her sister, AAA also told the
means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and incident to their mother, but the latter told her to keep silent for fear that
feloniously [have] carnal knowledge or rape his own daughter, [BBB], appellant would fulfill his threats. Consequently, AAA was repeatedly raped
against the latters will, to the damage and prejudice of said [BBB]. by appellant until sometime in October 1998, a month before she gave
birth to appellants child.13
CONTRARY TO LAW: In violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659. When CCC discovered that AAA was pregnant, she confided the matter to
her sister-in-law, DDD, who, in turn, reported the incident to the barangay
Bislig, Surigao del Sur, November 27, 1998.5 captain and to a representative of the Department of Social Welfare and
Criminal Case No. 99-1-2085-H: Development (DSWD) in Butuan City. On November 19, 1998, while under
the custody of the DSWD, AAA gave birth to her child.14
That on or about 3:00 oclock in the afternoon sometime in the month of
March 1994, at Sitio [ABC], Barangay [123], Municipality of Hinatuan, During the trial, CCC testified that sometime in March 1994, her daughter
Province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this BBB confided to her that she was raped by appellant. She just kept silent
Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd and unchaste about the incident for fear that her husband will maul her when confronted.
designs and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, AAA also reported to her that she was raped by her father sometime in
unlawfully and feloniously rape [his] daughter [BBB], 16 years old, against 1995. In one (1) instance, CCC even saw appellant touching AAAs vagina
the latters will, to the damage and prejudice of the said [BBB]. while the two (2) were inside their kitchen. She got angry and told her
parents-in-law about the incident, but the latter replied that she has no
CONTRARY TO LAW: In violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal other evidence to prove her accusation. CCC also testified that appellant,
Code as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659. despite being an elected barangay kagawad, was a drunkard, violent and
Bislig, Surigao del Sur, November 27, 1998. 6 an irresponsible individual. She added that she had received a letter from
appellant threatening to kill them.
Upon arraignment on May 4, 1999, Bartolini pleaded not guilty to all the
three (3) charges filed against him.7 The three (3) criminal cases were Dr. Emelie S. Viola, Municipal Health Officer of Hinatuan District Hospital,
thereafter tried jointly. testified that sometime in October 1998, BBB and AAA were brought to her
clinic for physical examination. Although there were no visible signs of
physical trauma, Dr. Viola found that BBB had deep healed hymenal
 68
lacerations at the 6 and 7 oclock positions, as well as superficial healed penalty of death to reclusion perpetua following the abolition of the death
hymenal laceration at the 10 oclock position, which indicate that there was penalty and by modifying the monetary award in favor of the victims. The
a penetration of an object or a male reproductive organ at BBBs female dispositive portion of the appellate courts decision reads,
genitalia.15
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated September 18, 2002 of the Regional
Dr. Viola also examined AAA and found that the latter had deep healed Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 29, Bislig City, in Criminal Case
lacerations at the 12 oclock position and superficial healed hymenal Nos. [99-1-]2083-H, [99-1-]2084-H and [99-1-]2085-H finding appellant
lacerations at the 3, 9 and 10 oclock positions, also indicating penetration Rustico Bartolini y Ampis guilty beyond reasonable doubt for three counts
of an object or a male reproductive organ at AAAs vagina. AAA was also of rape is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
pregnant.16
(a) in Criminal Case Nos. [99-1-]2083-H and [99-1-]2085-H, the penalty of
The defense, on the other hand, presented its lone witness, appellant death is reduced to reclusion perpetua; and to pay the amount of seventy-
Bartolini, who interposed the defense of denial and alibi. According to him, five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, seventy-five thousand
he could not have raped BBB in the morning of March 2, 1998 because he pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages and twenty-five thousand pesos
has been out of their house from 4:00 a.m. that day to deliver shrimps, (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages for each count; and
prawns, and crabs to a certain Benjamin Castaas who resides in
(b) in Criminal Case No. [99-1-]2084-H, the accused is sentenced to suffer
Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur. Appellant claims that he arrived at Castaass
the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and to pay the amount of fifty thousand
house at around 4:20 a.m. and stayed there for breakfast upon the latters
pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, the amount of fifty thousand pesos
invitation. After getting paid, he left for home at around 10:00 a.m. and
(P50,000.00) as moral damages, and twenty-five thousand pesos
reached his house fifteen (15) minutes later.17
(P25,000.00) as exemplary damages;
On September 4, 2000, a subpoena was issued for Benjamin Castaas to
(c) with costs.
appear as witness for the defense.18Castaas, however, failed to appear
before the trial court. A warrant of arrest was thereafter issued against SO ORDERED.24
him,19 but to no avail. Thus, on July 24, 2002, the trial court issued another
subpoena to Castaas.20 When Castaas still failed to appear, the trial On August 30, 2007, 25 the records of the case were forwarded to this Court
court issued an order declaring the case submitted for decision. 21 for automatic review. The Court accepted the appeal and directed the
parties to file their respective supplemental briefs if they so desire.
On September 18, 2002, the RTC promulgated its decision finding However, both the Office of the Solicitor General, for the appellee, and the
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape appellant submitted manifestations26stating that they replead and adopt the
committed against AAA and BBB. The fallo reads: arguments raised in their respective briefs27 before the CA.
WHEREFORE, finding the accused RUSTICO BARTOLINI Y AMPIS, forty- Appellant raises the following issues:
four (44) years of age, a fisherman and a resident of [ABC, 123,] Hinatuan,
I. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant;
Surigao del Sur, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE
pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section II. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant in Criminal Case
11, Republic Act No. 7659, paragraph (1), this Court hereby sentences No. 99-1-2085-H despite the fact that the information therein was allegedly
him: defective; and
1. In Criminal Case No. [99-1-]2083-H, to suffer the penalty of Death by III. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty upon the
Lethal Injection. To pay Seventy-Five Thousand (P75,000.00) pesos as appellant after finding him guilty in Criminal Case No. 99-1-2084-H
civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as moral damages considering the failure of the information to allege minority.28
and to pay the costs;
We shall first discuss the second and third issues raised by the appellant,
2. In Criminal Case No. [99-1-]2084-H, to suffer the penalty of Death by i.e., whether the element of force and intimidation was correctly alleged in
Lethal Injection. To pay Seventy-Five Thousand (P75,000.00) pesos as the information in Criminal Case No. 99-1-2085-H and whether the penalty
civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as moral damages of death was properly imposed upon the appellant in Criminal Case No. 99-
and to pay the costs; [and] 1-2084-H.
3. In Criminal Case No. [99-1-]2085-H, to suffer the penalty of Death by The appellants arguments are partially meritorious.
Lethal Injection. To pay Seventy-Five Thousand (P75,000.00) pesos as
civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as moral damages Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
and to pay the costs. the following circumstances: (1) when force or intimidation is used; (2)
when the woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; and
Let the entire records of this case be forwarded to the Supreme Court for (3) when she is under 12 years of age.29
automatic review pursuant to Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659.
A perusal of the information used as basis for Criminal Case No. 99-1-
SO ORDERED.22 2085-H readily reveals the allegation that appellant employed force and
At the CA, Bartolini argued that he should not have been convicted of the intimidation in raping BBB. We reproduce the contents of the information
crime of qualified rape since the information in Criminal Case No. 99-1- below:
2085-H was defective because it failed to allege that the act was Criminal Case No. 99-1-2085-H:
committed by force or intimidation as required by law, while there was no
allegation of minority of the victim in the information for Criminal Case No.That on or about 3:00 oclock in the afternoon sometime in the month of
99-1-2084-H. Bartolini also argued that the prosecution failed to prove his March 1994, at Sitio [ABC], Barangay [123], Municipality of Hinatuan,
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.23 Province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd and unchaste
After an extensive discussion on the issues raised by Bartolini, the designs and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully,
appellate court found no compelling reason to deviate from the findings of
the trial court. Nevertheless, the CA modified the penalties by reducing the
 69
unlawfully and feloniously rape [his] daughter [BBB], 16 years old, against cogent reason to disturb the ruling of both the RTC and the appellate court
the latters will, to the damage and prejudice of the said [BBB]. on this matter.
CONTRARY TO LAW: In violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal However, we disagree with the trial courts ruling convicting appellant
Code as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659. Bartolini for qualified rape under Criminal Case No. 99-1-2084-H. The
appellate court was correct in sustaining appellants argument that the
Bislig, Surigao del Sur, November 27, 1998. 30
special qualifying circumstance cannot be appreciated in Criminal Case
The same allegation was proven during the trial. We quote BBBs No. 99-1-2084-H since the age of the victim was not specifically alleged in
testimony during her direct examination: the information.32
Q: Do you recall of any unusual incident that happened on March 1994, Our disquisition in People v. Tagud, Sr.33 succinctly explains the matter.
while you were still residing at [Sitio ABC], [123], Lingig, Surigao del Sur, There, we said:
together with your parents?
To justify the imposition of the death penalty in this case, the single special
A: Yes, sir.
qualifying circumstance of the minority of the victim and her relationship to
Q: What was that unusual incident all about?
the offender must be specifically alleged in the Information and proven
A: We were weeding grasses, sir.
during the trial. x x x
Q: Where were you [weeding] grasses?
A: We were weeding grasses near to our house, sir. xxxx
Q: Were you alone while you were weeding grasses at [Sitio ABC], [123],
Even under the old Rules of Criminal Procedure, jurisprudence already
Lingig, Surigao del Sur?
required that qualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged in the
A: We were two, me and my father, sir.
Information to be appreciated as such.
Q: What time was that?
A: Afternoon, sir. xxxx
Q: Now, while you were weeding grasses near your house in the afternoon
Notably, the amended Information merely stated that appellant had carnal
of March 1994, with your father, what happened if any?
A: He pulled me, sir. knowledge of his minor daughter without stating Arwins actual age. In a
Q: Where did he bring you? rape case where the very life of the accused is at stake, such an inexact
A: At the place where we were weeding grasses, sir. allegation of the age of the victim is insufficient to qualify the rape and raise
Q: What happened next after you[r] father brought you near the place the penalty to death. The sufficiency of the Information is held to a higher
standard when the only imposable penalty is death. The constitutional right
where you were weeding grasses?
A: He made me lie down, sir. of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the
Q: What did you do when your father made you lie down? accusation against him assumes the greatest importance when the only
imposable penalty in case of conviction is death.34
A: He lift[ed] my skirt and took up my panty, sir.
Q: What did you do when your father pulled you[r] panty? Similar to Tagud, the qualifying circumstance of relationship of BBB to
A: I pushed aside his hands, sir. appellant was specifically alleged and proven during the trial. Notably
Q: What did your father do next? absent in the information, however, is a specific averment of the victims
A: He made me lie down, sir. age at the time the offense against her was committed. Such an omission
Q: Afterward[s], what happened next? committed by the prosecutor is fatal in the imposition of the supreme
A: He also took [off] his brief and his pant[s], sir. penalty of death against the offender. It must be borne in mind that the
Q: You want to tell this Honorable Court that you were already [lying] down requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is
when your father removed his brief and his pant[s]? based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the
A: Yes, sir. charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense
Q: In relation to you[,] where was your father situated when he removed his pursuant to the constitutional requirement on due process,35 specially so if
brief and pant[s]? the case involves the imposition of the death penalty in case the accused is
A: [Just by] my side[,] just near me, sir. convicted. Thus, even if the victim is below eighteen (18) years of age and
Q: What happened after your father removed his pant[s] and brief? the offender is her parent, but these facts are not alleged in the
A: He inserted his penis in my vagina, sir. information, or if only one (1) is so alleged such as what happened in the
xxxx instant case, their proof as such by evidence offered during trial cannot
Q: While his penis was inside your vagina, what happened? sanction the imposition of the death penalty.36
A: He boxed me, sir.
Q: Were you hit by the blow? Appellant also argues that both the trial court and the CA committed
A: Yes, sir. reversible errors when he was found guilty for the three (3) counts of rape
Q: Where? even if his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. In particular,
A: [O]n my back, sir. appellant attacks AAAs credibility by arguing that it would have been
xxxx physically impossible for him to rape said victim on top of a log as claimed
Q: When you reached to your house, what did [he] do? by AAA in her testimony. Appellant also questions the motive of both
A: He scolded me, sir. victims saying that it is unnatural for both to report the abuses made on
Q: Who scolded you? them only after the lapse of several years.
A: My father, sir. We cannot subscribe to appellants desperate attempt to save himself from
Q: Why did he scold you? the consequences of his dastardly acts.
A: He was afraid I might tell my mother, sir.
Q: Did you tell your mother about the incident? Settled is the rule that when the issue is one (1) of credibility of witnesses,
A: Yes, sir.31 appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial courts
We are adequately convinced that the prosecution proved that appellant considering that the latter are in a better position to decide the question as
employed force and intimidation upon his victim. This being so, we find no they have heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner
 70
of testifying during the trial. It is for this reason that the findings of the trial In Criminal Case Nos. 99-1-2083-H and 99-1-2085-H, appellant Rustico
court are given the highest degree of respect. These findings will not Bartolini y Ampis is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2)
ordinarily be disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that counts of QUALIFIED RAPE and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or of reclusion perpetua, in lieu of death, without the possibility of parole. He
circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the is ORDERED to pay each of his two (2) victims, AAA and BBB, P75,000.00
outcome of the case.371avvphi1 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
Moreover, AAAs testimony was vivid and precise. She said:
In Criminal Case No. 99-1-2084-H, appellant is found GUILTY beyond
Q: What was your position at that time when you said your father spread
reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and is hereby sentenced to suffer
your legs apart?
the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ORDERED to pay the victim,
A: When I spread my legs, I was laying (sic), and he put my one leg on top BBB, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages,
of the fallen tree.38 and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
We note with approval the CAs observation that such revelation is Costs against the appellant.
plausible and consistent with human experience. Indeed, if there is any
SO ORDERED.
incongruity in the manner of intercourse as portrayed by the appellant, the
same would be trivial and will not smother AAAs revelation of sexual
abuse.39
How the victims managed to endure the bestial treatment of their father to
them for four (4) long years, with one (1) even having to live with the
shame of siring an offspring from her very own father, should not be taken
against them. Children of tender age have natural respect and reverence
for their loved ones. More often than not, they would try to keep to
themselves if anything unnatural was committed against them, especially if
the offender is one (1) of their relatives. A father is known to have a strong
natural, cultural and psychological hold upon his child. Hence, it would be
too assuming for us to ask the victims why they have kept these facts of
abuse to themselves, when their very own mother decided to be mum on
the matter as well.
Anent the award of damages, we find modifications to be in order. We
increase the award of civil indemnity and moral damages in Criminal Case
No. 99-1-2084-H from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 each. In People v.
Catubig,40we explained that the commission of an offense has a two (2)-
pronged effect, one (1) on the public as it breaches the social order and the
other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings. Each effect
is respectively addressed by the prescription of heavier punishment for the
accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The
increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the
exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating
circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. But unlike
the criminal liability which is basically the States concern, the award of
damages is in general intended for the offended party who suffers thereby.
Hence, although it is essential to observe the requirements imposed by
Sections 841 and 942 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, as amended, the requirements should affect only the criminal
liability of the accused, which is the States concern, and should not affect
the civil liability of the accused, which is for the benefit of the injured party.
Where the special qualifying circumstances of age and relationship,
although not alleged in the information, are nonetheless established during
the trial, the award of civil indemnity and moral damages in a conviction for
simple rape should equal the award of civil indemnity and moral damages
in convictions for qualified rape. Truly, BBBs moral suffering is just as
great as when her father who raped her is convicted for qualified rape as
when he is convicted only for simple rape due to a technicality.1avvphi1
Likewise, we modify the award for exemplary damages. Pursuant to
prevailing jurisprudence, the award of exemplary damages for the two (2)
counts of qualified rape under Criminal Case Nos. 99-1-2083-H and 99-1-
2085-H and for the crime of simple rape in Criminal Case No. 99-1-2084-H
is increased to P30,000.00 for each count of rape.43
WHEREFORE, the judgment on review is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS.
 71
G.R. Nos. 148716-18, July 07, 2004 On July 27, 1999, Andrelyn slept in the upper room of the house. Earlier
that day, her parents had a quarrel, which caused her mother to leave. At
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. SALVADOR
2:00 in the morning, appellant entered Andrelyns room and carried her to
ORILLOSA Y DELA CRUZ, APPELLANT.
the ground floor. There, he took off her clothing, and laid her on the
floor. He then straddled her, and kissed her repeatedly on the neck. After
DECISION
undressing himself, he forced his penis into her vagina, but only a portion
YNARES-SATIAGO, J.: thereof penetrated Andrelyns organ. His lust satiated, appellant dressed
up and left for work. Andrelyn ran upstairs crying because of physical and
On automatic review is the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, emotional anguish. Her Kuya Leandre saw her and asked why she was
Bulacan, Branch 21,[1] finding appellant Salvador Orillosa y dela Cruz guilty crying. She did not tell him what happened for fear that her father might
of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 2700-M-99, sentencing him
vent his anger on her Kuya.
to suffer the penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to
three (3) years of prision correccional in its medium period, and two counts Sometime in August 1999, Andrelyn told her Lola Iging about her fathers
of rape in Criminal Cases Nos. 2701-M-99 and 2702-M-99, for which he sexual assaults, but the latter did not believe her and even rebuked her for
was meted the supreme penalty of death for each count. causing embarrassment to her father. With no one to turn to, she
personally reported the matter to the barangay captain who accompanied
Appellant was charged with three counts of Rape committed against his her to the police where she gave a written statement.
daughter, Andrelyn Orillosa, in three separate Informations, the accusatory
portions of which read: On direct examination, Andrelyn also revealed that in 1993, appellant first
molested her when he inserted his finger in her vagina.[2]
Criminal Case No. 2700-M-99
On September 23, 1999, Dr. Ivan Richard Viray, medico-legal officer of the
That sometime in the year of 1993, in the municipality of Guiguinto, PNP-Bulacan Crime Laboratory, examined the victim Andrelyn
province of Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Orillosa. He noted the presence of deep-healed lacerations at 3, 5, 7, and
Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully,
9 oclock positions which, according to the victim, were inflicted by
unlawfully and feloniously by means of force and intimidation, with lewd appellant since she was in Grade III.[3]
designs have carnal knowledge of his own daughter, Andrelyn Orillosa, 9
years old, against her will and without her consent. The defense presented Mary Ann Orillosa, the victims younger sister, who
testified that in 1993, when the alleged first rape incident occurred, she
Contrary to law. was 8 years old and was living with her parents in Ilang-ilang, Guiguinto,
Criminal Case No. 2701-M-99 Bulacan. Her sister, Andrelyn, was then 9 years old. She was always in
the house after classes and during lunch breaks, and she could not recall
That on or about the 27th day of July, 1999, in the municipality of Guiguinto, any single moment when appellant and Andrelyn were left alone in the
Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the house. Her father worked from 10:00 in the morning to 8:00 in the evening
above-named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and everyday, including Saturdays and Sundays.
feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, with lewd designs, have
carnal knowledge of his own daughter, Andrelyn Orillosa, 16 years old, Mary Ann further stated that on July 27, 1999, at around 7:00 in the
against her will and consent. evening, when the alleged third rape incident happened, appellant and the
other members of the family were in the house, except for Andrelyn who
Contrary to law. ran away from home. She surmised that Andrelyn might have been
Criminal Case No. 2702-M- 99 prompted to file the instant complaint because of her fathers cruelty to her
sister. She explained that appellant frequently whipped and spanked
That sometime in the month of December 1997, in the municipality of Andrelyn, especially when she did not remit the proceeds of the jueteng
Guiguinto, Bulacan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the collection to appellant, who moonlighted as a collector of the illegal
above-named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and numbers game. According to her, she was forced to sign the complaint by
feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, with lewd designs, have the Barangay Captain on the pretext that if she did Andrelyn would become
carnal knowledge of his own daughter, Andrelyn Orillosa, 16 years old, an actress. Moreover, the said Barangay Captain coerced her into
against her will and without her consent. admitting that she too was the victim of her fathers lechery. She belied the
Contrary to law. charge that her father raped Andrelyn. The truth of the matter, she claimed,
is that she saw Andrelyn having sex with five boys and was apparently
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges, after which the three criminal taking pleasure in the experience.
cases were jointly tried.
Mary Anne further testified that during the whole month of December 1997,
Sometime in December 1997, at around 10:00 in the morning, while when the alleged second rape incident happened, Andrelyn worked as a
Andrelyn Orillosa was on the ground floor of their house, her father, babysitter in Plaridel, Bulacan. She could recall only one instance when
appellant Salvador Orillosa, called her upstairs. Appellant closed the door Andrelyn went back to their house in Guiguinto. Andrelyn stayed in the
of the room and mashed his daughters breasts. He whispered to her not house for a short time in the morning but went back to work shortly
to tell anybody. Appellant then ordered Andrelyn to lie down on the floor, thereafter. During Andrelyns short visit in December, their mother and
then he removed her t-shirt and pulled down her short pants. He mounted younger siblings were in the house while appellant was working in Marilao.
the victim and tried to force his penis into her daughters genitalia. Despite
his efforts, appellant failed to fully penetrate the organ of Andrelyn. When On the witness stand, Leijani Orillosa also testified that together with her
appellant stood up, Andrelyn saw his penis dripping with a whitish sisters, Andrelyn and Mary Anne, they were brought by the Barangay
substance. Andrelyn could do nothing but to whimper in protest. After her Captain to the Barangay Hall. Before the Barangay officials, Andrelyn
ordeal, she ran away from home and sought refuge in the house of a wanted her to admit that they too were molested by their father, but she
relative. Before long, her mother fetched her and brought her back home. adamantly refused to accede to Andrelyns wishes. According to her, the
She told her mother about her harrowing experience, but the latter chided Barangay Captain coaxed her and Mary Anne into signing a document by
her instead for making up stories. promising them that if they did, their sister Andrelyn would become an
 72
actress. The Barangay Captain coerced her into signing the document by A. In 1993, that was the first time that he molested me by fingering me
holding her hand and forcing her to affix her signature. She asserted that then followed by incident in 1997 and then in 1999, maam.
her father could not have raped Andrelyn because she would always leave Q. For clarification, are you saying that in 1993 while you were in
the house and was out for days on end. She opined that Andrelyn filed the Grade III, your father merely fingered you and never inserted penis into
instant complaint because she could no longer take the beatings from her your organ?
father. A. No, maam, he merely fingered me.
Contrary to appellants assertion, Andrelyn reiterated on cross-examination
On January 24, 2001, the trial court rendered a decision finding appellant
that she was sexually molested by appellant by inserting his finger into her
guilty of the crimes of acts of lasciviousness and of two counts of rape, the
genitalia, thus:[7]
decretal portion of which reads:
Fiscal:
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby resolves and finds the accused Salvador If according to you, the penis of your father did not fully penetrate your
Orillosa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, in Criminal Case No. 2700-M- private organ on July 27, 1999, do you know of any reason why the
99 with the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness for which he is hereby findings of the medico legal officer on you was that you suffered healed
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Two (2) years Four (4) months and One laceration and you were not in a virgin state anymore?
(1) day to Three (3) years of prision correccional medium; and in both A. In 1993, he did that to me.
Criminal Cases Nos. 2701-M-99 and 2702-M-99 with the crime of rape Fiscal:
(with qualifying circumstance) for which, he is hereby sentenced to suffer Did you not say in 1993, your father merely inserted his finger on your
the supreme penalty of Death on two counts. private organ?
A. Yes. Sir.
Additionally, the offended party is to be indemnified in the sum of As clearly shown by the foregoing, Andrelyn, on direct as well as on cross-
P3,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 2700-M-99 and P75,000.00 each in examination, categorically and candidly narrated how she was fingered
Criminal Cases Nos. 2701-M-99 and 2702-M-99. She is likewise awarded
by appellant, which testimony suffices to satisfy the immutable quantum of
moral damages in the amount of P5,000.00 in the first case and another proof required in criminal cases.
P100,000.00 each of the two other cases.
As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the defense failed to
With costs against the accused. object when the prosecution elicited further evidence on the acts of
SO ORDERED.[4] lasciviousness. For its neglect, the defense is deemed to have effectively
waived on appeal its right to object thereto.
Hence, this automatic review, pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended. In his Appellants Brief, appellant raises the following Appellant assails his conviction on two counts of rape principally on the
errors: theory that the trial court did not ask him to testify in his defense. Thus, he
is now seeking the remand of the case to the trial court for further
I proceedings.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED This is not a novel question. In People v. Resano, we rejected a similar
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE GROUND OF THE CRIME OF ACTS plea by stating that:[8]
OF LASCIVIOUSNESS.
The revenge theory could be better developed and explained by the
II appellant himself. But he did not take the witness stand to personally refute
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED the charge and accusation against him. He, of course, has a right not to do
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF TWO (2) COUNTS OF so and his failure and/or refusal to testify shall not in any manner prejudice
RAPE AND IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY.[5] or be taken against him (Rule 15, Sec. 1, Par. (d), Rules of Court). But
where the prosecution has already established a prima facie case, more so
In support of the first assigned error, appellant argues that the rape when the offense charged is grave and sufficient enough to send accused
allegedly committed in 1993 was not mentioned during the direct behind bars for life or may even warrant the imposition of the supreme
examination or in the cross-examination of Andrelyn and was only brought penalty of death, then in order to meet and destroy the effects of said prima
out on re-direct examination. In fact, the narration of the alleged crime of facie case and so as to shift the burden of producing further evidence to
rape was insufficient so much so that the trial court reduced the charge to the prosecution, the party making the denial must produce evidence
acts of lasciviousness. Moreover, the prosecutor put words in the mouth of tending to negate the blame asserted to such a point that, if no more
the witness when he premised his question as: Did you not say in 1993, evidence is given, his adversary cannot win the case beyond a reasonable
your father merely inserted his finger on the private organ? doubt. In such situation, it may be necessary for the accused to have a
complete destruction of the prosecutions prima facie case, that he take the
Appellants claim that the prosecution failed to prove its charge of acts of stand since no hardship will in any way be imposed upon him (U.S. vs.
lasciviousness upon the victim is belied by the following exchange on direct Chan Toco, 12 Phil. 262). If he fails to meet the obligation which he owes
examination of Andrelyn:[6] to himself, when to meet it is the easiest of easy things he has to do, then
Fiscal Gammad: he is hardly indeed, if he demands and expects that same full and wide
Q. Andrelyn, please tell us the truth in this statement, more particularly consideration which the state voluntarily gives to those who, by reasonable
on the second effort seek to help themselves. (U.S. vs. Tria, 17 Phil. 303)
page, did you really give this statement? Be that as it may, the conviction rests not on the failure by appellant to put
A. Yes, maam. up a respectable defense, but on the credible and straightforward
Q. Awhile ago, I asked you if in December of 1997 was the first time testimony of the private complainant. Her testimony, given in a
that you were spontaneous and candid manner, withstood the searing cross-examination
molested by anyone including by your father and you said yes. It appears by the defense and carried no earmarks of fabrication. We sense no
then here that in 1993 aside from fingering, your father inserted his titi to cogent reason or circumstance of note to nullify the truth of her assertions.
your private organ, will you please explain that? Oft repeated is the truism that being a woman of tender age, shy and
 73
ignorant of the sophistication of city life, by no stretch of imagination can prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death,
we believe that considering her innate modesty, humility and purity as a nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to
young Filipina, Andrelyn would have allowed herself to be the object of constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established
public ridicule, shame and obloquy as a victim of sexual assault or by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld.
debauchery. Verily, it takes an extreme sense of moral depravity for a
We are thus constrained to hold appellant liable only for simple rape, and
daughter to accuse her very own father of a heinous crime, such as rape,
to reduce the penalty to the lower indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.
and expose him to the perils attendant to a criminal conviction if only to
exact revenge on her father who allegedly maltreated her. As earlier held
The civil indemnity to be awarded to the offended party should likewise be
by the Court, a true Filipina would not go around in public unravelling facts
modified. Accordingly, the victim is entitled to P50,000.00 as indemnity ex
and circumstances of her defloration for no reason, if such were not
delicto, P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape[15] without
true.[9] We find that there exists no convincing reason to disturb the trial
need for proof of the basis thereof, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages
courts assessment of the witnesses credibility.
to deter other fathers with perverse proclivities for aberrant sexual behavior
On the matter of force or intimidation, we have ruled that in incestuous from sexually abusing their own daughters.[16]
rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed
With respect to Criminal Case No. 2700-M-99, we are in full agreement
where the overpowering moral influence of appellant, who is private
with the court a quo in downgrading the crime from rape to acts of
complainants father, would suffice. The moral and physical dominion of
lasciviousness inasmuch as carnal knowledge was not established.
the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly
desires.[10] The instant case is no exception. Appellant took advantage of The alternative circumstance of relationship under Article 15 of the Revised
his overpowering moral and physical ascendancy to unleash his lechery Penal Code should be appreciated against appellant. In crimes of chastity
upon his daughter. such as acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered as
aggravating. Inasmuch as it was expressly alleged in the information and
In the recent case of People v. Servano, we held:
[11]
duly proven during trial that the offended party is the daughter of appellant,
We have to bear in mind that in incestuous rape, the minor victim is at a relationship, therefore, aggravated the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
great disadvantage because the assailant, by his overpowering and Under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of acts of
overbearing moral influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with lasciviousness is punished by prision correccional. Applying the
impunity. As a consequence, proof of force and violence is unnecessary Indeterminate Sentence Law and appreciating relationship as an
unlike where the accused is not an ascendant or blood relative of the aggravating circumstance, appellant could be sentenced to suffer an
victim. Thus, the failure of the victim to explicitly verbalize, as in this case, indeterminate prison term of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum,
the use of force, threat, or intimidation by the accused should not adversely to six (6) years of prision correccional, as maximum,[17] and to pay the
affect the case of the prosecution as long as there is adequate proof that victim P30,000.00 as moral damages.[18]
sexual intercourse did take place. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 21, finding appellant Salvador Orillosa y
This principle was reiterated in People v. Cea,[12] where, although the
de la Cruz guilty of two counts of rape in Criminal Cases Nos. 2701-M-99
information alleged that the appellant was armed with a knife, the private
and 2702-M-99 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in each case
complainant never testified that he was so armed when he sexually abused
the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory
her. In any case, this Court sustained the finding of force or intimidation on
penalties thereto. In addition, appellant is ordered to pay in each case the
the ground that it may be replaced by moral ascendancy in cases of
victim, Andrelyn Orillosa, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto;
incestuous rape.
P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
On the imposable penalty, we agree with appellant that the court a
As to Criminal Case No. 2700-M-99, the judgment of conviction for acts of
quo erroneously imposed the death penalty in Criminal Cases Nos. 2701-
lasciviousness is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. As modified,
M-99 and 2702-M-99. In a plethora of cases, we have invariably ruled that
appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment penalty ranging
in incestuous rape, it is essential that the relationship and minority be
from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years
conjointly alleged in the information and duly proved. In the cases at bar,
of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay the victim P30,000.00 as
although the victims relationship with appellant is unquestioned, the
moral damages.
minority of the victim has not been proved with moral certitude. The
Informations in Crim. Cases Nos. 2701-M-99 and 2702-M-99 allege that Costs de oficio.
the victim was 16 years old at the time of the rape incidents, yet the
SO ORDERED.
prosecution failed to present the birth certificate of the complainant or any
other similar independent evidence to prove the same. The case [13]

of People v. Javier succinctly explains the necessity of such proof in this

wise:[14]
Although the victims age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of
the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victims
age which was then 16 years old is just two years less than the majority
age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between
a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one insofar as physical features and
attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be
mistaken for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail
and young looking 18-year old lady may pass as a 16-year old minor.
Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of a rape
victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the
victim is indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying
circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659. In a criminal