G.R. Nos. 127750-52




EN BANC G.R. Nos. 127750-52 November 20, 2000 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISANTO DIGMA Y UBAY, accused-appellant. D E C I S I O N BELLOSILLO, J.: CRISANTO DIGMA Y UBAY was charged in separate Informations1 with three (3) counts of rape allegedly committed on 1 March, 24 October and 27 November 1994 against his fourteen (14)-year old sister-in-law Adora Balce filed before the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte. On 23 October 1996 the accused was convicted as charged and sentenced to three (3) death penalties. In addition, he was ordered to indemnify Adora Balce ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count, or a total award of ₱210,000.00 for the three (3) counts of rape.2 The factual backdrop: At about eight o’clock in the evening of 1 March 1994 fourteen (14)-year old Adora Balce was sleeping on the edge of a mat inside a house she had been sharing for three (3) years with her eldest sister Maria Julieta Digma and the latter’s family in Poblacion 2, Basud, Camarines Norte. Beside Adora were her five (5)-year old niece Maricris, four (4)-year old nephew Christian and Maria Julieta who was then pregnant. On the opposite edge was Maria Julieta’s husband Crisanto Digma. At about nine o’clock that evening Adora was awakened when she felt somebody holding her hands. As their house was dark at that time, she thought it was either of the children until she realized that the hand holding hers was quite big. Then her mouth was covered by someone who ordered her to keep quiet otherwise someone would be in trouble. It was the voice of her brother-in-law Crisanto. She was so terrified that she did not attempt to shout or awaken the children and Maria Julieta. She tried to struggle but she was no match to his huge frame that was now on top of her. He removed her shorts and panty. He lowered his short pants and brief then penetrated her. As he sexually assaulted her he kept warning her not to tell anybody about the incident or he would kill all the members of her family. Then he went out of the house. She was not able to go back to sleep because of the extreme pain. She merely covered herself with a blanket. She was not able to stand up the following morning. She remained lying on the mat and did not go to school. When asked by Maria Julieta why she did not attend her classes she simply replied that she had a headache. She did not report the incident to anyone because she was afraid of Crisanto who forewarned her earlier. Crisanto and his family later transferred residence about a kilometer away at the instance of Adora’s mother Nilda. On 24 October 1994, at around three o’clock in the afternoon, while Adora was alone watching the parade at the Basud Elementary School on the occasion of the town fiesta, Crisanto approached her saying that Maria Julieta was sending for her. But upon reaching the Digma residence, Adora discovered that Maria Julieta was not there. He dragged her immediately into the kitchen and repeated his warning that she should not tell anyone or he would kill all the members of her family. He removed her skirt and panty. He also took off his pants. She could not free herself since he was holding her arms. He forced her to bend forward and then succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her from behind in a standing position. He held her waist with one hand and his penis with the other. Her vagina bled. She felt much pain. She was allowed to go home afterwards but not without warning her again not to tell anyone. When she arrived at their house, she saw her sister but she could not tell her what happened to her because, again, she was afraid of Crisanto. So she stayed inside the bathroom and cried helplessly. On 26 November 1994 Adora went to Sta. Milagrosa, Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, in time for the town fiesta the next day. She was accompanied by her brother Anton and sister Nora. They stayed in the house of their brother whom they called Kuya Ilo. At around nine o’clock in the evening the following day, 27 November 1994, she and her cousin Rona Trampe watched the coronation night at the Barangay Plaza. Crisanto was also there. He approached them, threatened Rona and ordered her to go home. Crisanto and Adora walked towards the bridge. Upon reaching the bridge he asked her why her parents were mad at him. She answered him that it was because he was a drunkard and jobless. As if to scare Adora he told her that he was used to killing people and threatened anew to kill her parents, brothers or sisters should she reveal what happened to her. Then he dragged her down the bridge. While there he lifted her skirt and pulled down her panty. He pulled down his pants and brief then forced her to bend forward. With one hand holding his penis and the other holding her waist from behind, he inserted his penis again into her vagina in a standing position. She could not do anything but cry because of fear. Afterwards, they went up the bridge. At this juncture, they were seen by her sister Nora who asked her what Crisanto did to her. Adora was reluctant to tell her the truth because Crisanto was there. Adora went back to the Barangay Plaza. At around ten o’clock that same evening, she went home to the house of her Kuya Ilo. She found Crisanto there sleeping beside her brother. When Crisanto left at about midnight, she told the truth to Nora. She told her straight that she had been raped by Crisanto ten (10) times from 1 March to 27 November 1994. She remembered only those that occurred on 1 March, 24 October and 27 November 1994 while the exact dates of the rest were beyond her recollection. The following day, Adora and Nora returned to Basud and reported the matter to the police. Thereafter, Adora proceeded to the Camarines Norte Provincial Hospital. The physician noted that the genital of Adora admitted one (1) finger easily; and that there were old hymenal lacerations at 3:00, 4:00, 6:00 and 9:00 o’clock positions.3 The physician opined that the cause of the lacerations could be an object or an erect penis. Nilda Balce corroborated the assertion of Adora that Crisanto was "sanay pumatay." Nilda knew that before he and Maria Julieta left his hometown in Cavite he had been charged in court with homicide or murder. When he became a member of their family, they covered up for him. Crisanto Digma, twenty-eight (28) years old, claimed that he initially played jokes on Adora, such as telling her that had he met her earlier than Maria Julieta she would have been his wife. They in fact became sweethearts. He admitted that on 1 March 1994 he had sexual intercourse with Adora despite Maria Julieta’s presence in the same room. He asserted that it was Adora who invited him to where she was lying down, caressed and kissed him, touched his breasts and uttered that she liked him. At first, he was reluctant but when she told him she was responsible enough, he immediately removed her skirt and panty, pulled down his short pants and brief, then performed the sexual act. Their sexual encounter was repeated several times in the same house and it was always she who initiated the moves. On 24 October 1994, according to the accused, Adora arrived at his house informing him that Maria Julieta was being summoned by their mother, so the sisters proceeded to their parents’ house. After a while, however, Adora returned. She kissed him which caused him to be sexually aroused. Wearing a skirt, she pulled down her panty as he also pulled down his short pants. She bent forward while he went behind her in a dog-style fashion. They both reached their orgasm in ten (10) minutes. Afterwards, she left the house while he laid down to rest. With respect to the 27 November 1994 incident, the version of the accused was that Adora asked him to accompany her to watch the coronation at Sta. Milagrosa. At eleven o’clock in the evening, they went to the site but after a short period she suggested that they go under the bridge where they kissed and made love again in a dog-style standing position. Thereafter, they decided to go home. Along the way, they met Nora who became suspicious that there was something that happened between them. Nora pulled Adora and they hurriedly left. On that same night, in the house in Sta. Milagrosa, he was awakened by Nora who forced him and Adora to confess. Apprehensive that Adora's relatives might harm him, he proceeded to the bus terminal. The accused submitted in court a "love letter" supposedly sent by "Bing" during his confinement at the provincial jail.4 He claimed that he called Adora "Bing" and sometimes "Bi," although Adora vigorously denied being the author of the letter or that she was the sender. She submitted her high school spelling booklet and test papers showing her penmanship.5 Moreover, she asserted that her nickname was "Babes" and not "Bing" nor "Bi." While the trial court believed Adora Balce, it was totally unconvinced of the version of the defense; hence, the conviction of accused Crisanto Digma. Accused-appellant maintains that his series of sexual congresses with Adora was consensual. As regards the first alleged rape incident, he argues that it is hard to believe that she was not able to create some noise nor move her body to awaken her sister and thus prevent the rape. With regard to the alleged second and third rape incidents, he submits that the voluntariness in the sexual acts is evident from the fact that they were executed in an unusual manner, i.e., dog-style fashion and in a standing position. He proffers that lovers resort to such position to discover and attain extraordinary delight and satisfaction. He explains that a rapist would normally refrain from this position because of difficulty and the amount of time involved in the execution, especially if the victim repels the act. Moreover, he invites attention to the established circumstance that in the three (3) alleged rape incidents, he was not armed with a deadly weapon. Lastly, he banks on the circumstance that Adora finally disclosed the incident to her family only after they were caught by Nora. Accused-appellant fails to persuade. By the very nature of the crime of rape, conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony because of the fact that usually only the participants can testify as to its occurrence.6 We recall Adora Balce’s narrations that she was awakened at about nine o’clock in the evening of 1 March 1994 when she felt somebody holding her hands and then covering her mouth with his hand. She was ordered to remain silent otherwise somebody would be in trouble. At that time, their house was dark but she recognized the voice to be that of accused-appellant. Pertinent portions of her testimony read - Q: How were you awakened? A: I noticed that somebody was trying to hold my hands, sir. Q: So what did you do when you noticed that somebody was trying to hold your hands? A: I thought the two children were the ones holding my hands, but later I found out that it was Kuya Cris, sir. Q: How did you find out that it was your Kuya Cris, the accused? A: I noticed it was him because when he held my hand it was quite a big hand; at the same time he put one of his hands on my mouth x x x x Q: Did he ever talk on that night when he awakened you? A: Yes, sir. Q: What did he say x x x x A: He told me to just keep quiet, otherwise, somebody would be involved, sir. Q: After saying those things to you, how did you feel? A: I was afraid, sir. Q: So what did the accused do to you? A: He closed my mouth by using his hand and at the same time he undressed me. Q: What were you wearing on that night? A: T-shirt, short pants and skirt, sir. Q: You said the accused undressed you, was he able to remove your short pants and your panty? A: Yes, sir. Q: How about your shirt? A: He just lifted the T-shirt, sir. Q: While the accused was removing your panty, your shorts, what were you doing? A: I kept on moving but I could not do anything because he was too big, sir. Q: You said the hand of the accused was in your mouth, which hand or do you mean both hands? A: His left hand, sir. Q: After the accused removed your shorts and your panty and lifted your T-shirt, what did he do? A: I felt that something was inserted in my vagina, a hard object, sir. Q: When you felt that something, a hard object according to you, was inserted into your vagina, what was the position of the accused relative to you? A: He was on top of me, sir x x x x Q: While that hard object was inserted to you by the accused as he was on top of you, what did you feel? A: I felt pain, sir. Q: Was the accused moving while that hard object was inserted in you by the accused? A: Yes, sir. Q: What was that hard object that was inserted in your vagina by the accused? A: His penis, sir. Q: While the accused Crisanto Digma was doing this, was he telling you anything x x x x A: He warned that if I would divulge that to anybody, he would kill all of us. PROSECUTOR: May I put on record that the victim is crying while answering these questions. Q: When these things were being done to you by the accused, did you notice the two children beside you, and your sister who is the wife of the accused? A: They were sleeping, sir x x x x Q: After the accused inserted his penis in your vagina while he was on top of you, what did he do? A: The accused went out of the house x x x x7 As to the second rape incident, she testified, thus - Q: How did the accused rape you on October 24, 1994 at 3:00 p.m.? PROSECUTOR: May we again put on record that the witness is crying. A: The accused removed my skirt together with my panty and then inserted his penis into my vagina. Q: Did you not run away before he could remove your panty and skirt? A: I could not run because he was holding my arms and the doors of the house were all closed, sir. Q: Before he raped you, before he removed your panty and skirt, what did he tell you? A: He told me not to reveal that to anybody, otherwise, he would kill the members of my family - my mother and father or any of my brothers and sisters. Q: So what did you feel upon hearing this statement of the accused? A: Again I was afraid, sir x x x x Q: So after removing you panty, what did he do to you? A: The accused undressed himself, removed his pants and inserted his penis into my vagina, sir. Q: While he was undressing himself before he inserted his penis into your vagina, you had the opportunity to run away, isn’t it? A: I had no chance to run away because while he was undressing himself, he was holding my arm. Q: So did you see the penis of the accused being inserted into your vagina? A: I did not see because he was behind me. Q: How did you feel? A: It was too painful. Q: So while the penis of the accused was inside you, where were the hands of the accused? A: He was holding my waist, sir. Q: How about the other hand? A: He was holding his penis with his other hand, sir. Q: How did you know that the penis of the accused was inserted into your vagina? A: I could feel it because it was too hard and it was painful, sir. Q: After he inserted his organ into your organ, what did he do? A: He again warned me not to reveal it to anybody because something will happen to our family, sir. Q: After warning you, what did he do? A: I was told to leave the house, sir x x x x8 During the cross examination, the defense counsel tried to mislead Adora to make her admit that the sexual intercourse was consensual but was obviously unsuccessful - Q: In fact, you bent your body forward so that his penis could penetrate your vagina, isn’t it? A: Yes, sir. PROSECUTOR: We object! Because the translation was - in fact pinayuko ka para maipasok ‘yong pag-aari niya, so, that is not the question as translated. The question should be: You were forced to bend so that he can enter your vagina? ATTY. DIALOGO: My question is: In fact you bent your body forward? Witness: He forced me to bend forward, sir.9 On 26 November 1994 Adora was again raped by the accused. Hereunder is her account - Q: You said you were raped at 9:00 p.m., will you please tell the Court how it happened? A: On that date, Nov. 27, 1994, while I was witnessing a coronation program accompanied by one of my cousins, I was called again by Kuya Cris and my cousin could not accompany me because she was threatened by the accused; then the accused brought me down the bridge and there he again raped me x x x x Q: When you were called by the accused, what were his exact words to you? A: Kuya Cris asked me why our parents got mad at them and I told him because he was jobless and at the same time a drunkard, sir x x x x Q: At that time were you still afraid of the accused? A: Yes, sir. Q: What did you do after telling the accused that your parents are always angry with him because he is jobless and he is a drunkard? Or what did he do to you? A: The accused kept on telling me that he is used to killing people, and that if I reveal what happened to me he would kill either of my parents or my brothers and sisters x x x x Q: How did he rape you on that evening of Nov. 27, 1994 at 9:00 p.m.? A: We were just both standing when he raped me, sir. Q: Were there people around you? A: None, sir x x x x Q: What happened to your skirt when you were raped by the accused? A: He just lifted my skirt, sir x x x x Q: What happened to your panty? A: He just pulled my panty down and then he started raping me x x x x Q: After he undressed you, pulled down your panty, what did he do to you? A: He removed his pants and inserted his penis into my vagina, sir x x x x10 Q: And when you said you were raped, was he facing you when he raped you? A: He was at my back when he raped me, sir. Q: And your position was that your body was again bending forward, is that correct? A: x x x x (he) forced me to bend my body while he was at my back x x x x11 Q: How did you feel when he inserted his penis into your vagina? A: It was painful, sir. Q: By the way, when he was inserting his organ into your vagina, where were his hands? A: One of his hands was holding his penis while the other hand was holding my waist. Q: Was there any opportunity for you to shout? A: I could not shout because I was afraid of his threats, sir. Q: So after the accused inserted his penis into your vagina, what did you do? A: I was crying, and after that we moved out from the place x x x x12 As aforementioned, the trial court accorded full credence to Adora’s version over that of accused-appellant. It explained - The Court finds credible the testimony of Adora, a naivete whose simple answers to questions that reveal spontaneity and an unrehearsed testimony can very well exude candor and sincerity. Noteworthy are the direct, positive and categorical assertions made by the offended party on the witness stand. The delay in reporting the rape incidents due to threat cannot be taken against her (People v. Lagrosa, Jr., 230 SCRA 298). Such delay is understandable and does not affect her credibility (People v. Lucas, 232 SCRA 537). It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for sometime the assaults on their virtue because of the rapist’s threats on their lives (People v. Errojo, 229 SCRA 49). The Court, totally appalled by accused’s contention that Adora was his sweeheart and that the carnal acts were mutually desired by both of them, outrightly dismisses the defense’s posture. Accused’s testimony is bereft of credit being improbable and circumstantially dubious. The declarations of Crisanto were unbelievable and contrary to common experience. Considering the modesty and timidity of a typical Filipina, especially one in her tender years but obviously mindful of the virtues transcending our culture, it is hardly conceivable for Adora to seduce the accused and initiate the sexual acts between them. Accused, being the brother-in-law of the victim, exerted a strong moral influence over her that she helplessly submitted herself to his bestial desires. A simple-minded barrio lass only fourteen years of age cannot be expected to offer resistance to the horrendous experience she went through in the fiendish hands of her brother-in-law. As honestly and candidly revealed in her testimony, she was threatened by the accused not only once but on several occasions while the violations on her chastity were being committed (TSN March 11, 1996, pp. 8, 10-11, 13, 16, 18-19, 21, 23, 26, 46-59). Past sexual relationship between the parties does not constitute a defense in a rape case if it is established that the particular instance of coitus took place against the woman’s will (People v. Sarellana, 233 SCRA 31). The sexual acts with force and intimidation have been sufficiently shown in the cases at bench. It is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be resisted, as it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind (People v. Antonio, 233 SCRA 283). Failure to shout or offer resistance did not make voluntary private complainant’s submission to the criminal acts of the accused (People v. Dupali, 230 SCRA 62). Under the circumstances, the threat made to Adora could have engendered in her mind a well-grounded fear that if she reported the matter to her family or the authorities, something worse could happen to them x x x x13 In rape cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect14 because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not.15 Trial courts assess the credibility of witnesses on two (2) aspects: demeanor of witnesses as they deliver their testimonies and contents of their testimonies. As to the first, appellate courts generally yield to the trial court’s conclusion because, as aforementioned, it had the advantage of observing first hand the witnesses’ deportment on the stand then assess their performance accordingly. As to the second, appellate courts make their own independent evaluation, based on the transcript of stenographic notes, to be tested against human nature and ordinary habits of life and to be scrutinized for consistency, among other criteria. The result of the evaluation may render illusory the trial court’s conclusion on the first aspect or it may not. Having discharged such duty, no reason compels us to substitute a finding different from that of the trial court. The qualities of being categorical, candid and spontaneous are discernible from each and every page of the transcript of stenographic notes containing Adora’s testimonies both on direct and cross examinations. We note that she was subjected to rigid and lengthy cross examination on the same day her direct examination was concluded. She remained unshaken.16 Accused-appellant insists that Adora consented to their sexual intercourse on subject dates as shown by the circumstance that during the claimed first rape incident, she did not create a stir nor move her body to awaken her sister while during the claimed second and third rape incidents, they performed the sexual act in a position resorted to only by lovers, to wit, dog-style and in a standing position. Adora explained that during the first rape, she was not able to shout because the left hand of accused-appellant covered her mouth17 and he told her to be quiet otherwise somebody would be involved.18 While he was removing her panty, she kept on moving but her efforts proved useless because he was too big.19 She was not able to get to her sister because he was already on top of her20 and we must not lose sight of the presence of the two (2) children between them. We thus find Adora’s explanation satisfactory. The evil in man has no conscience - he bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere, even in places where people converge such as in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants21 or in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping22 including the rapist’s own spouse.23 In People v. Castro24 a six (6)-year old girl was made to stand on the toilet bowl and lean on the wall by her uncle, a college student, then raped in that position. This Court said that sexual intercourse in a standing position while perhaps uncomfortable is not improbable. In People v. Travero,25 a college student rapist held his thirteen (13)-year old victim against the steel portion of a cargo truck, then engaged in sexual intercourse also while in a standing position. The accused therein contended that it was improbable to have sexual intercourse in a standing position unless both parties acted in concert. This Court resolved his contention by citing Castro. It has been established thus that sexual intercourse against the woman’s will is not limited to a position where the victim is lying on the ground. For some, consented sexual intercourse is normally performed with both partners assuming a horizontal position. Others defy the earth’s gravitational pull by having sexual intercourse in a vertical position. Still, others resort to variations by trying combinations of positions to depict different angles, as in the present case, canine style and in a standing position. In short, sexual intercourse in positions other than horizontal are abnormal for some. For the rest, any position of consented sexual intercourse is normal. Accused-appellant belongs to the first group. He claims that his sexual intercourses with Adora during the alleged second and third rape incidents were done in a peculiar manner, resorted to only by lovers to discover and attain extraordinary delight and satisfaction and, similar to the claim of the accused in Travero, contends that a rapist would normally refrain from this position because of difficulty and the amount of time involved in its execution, especially if the victim repels the act. Going along with accused-appellant’s view that sexual intercourse in a dog-style fashion and in a standing position is unnatural, this Court is convinced that although the sexual intercourses between accused-appellant and Adora on 24 October and 27 November 1994 were performed in such manner, nevertheless, rape was committed each time. To begin with, a rapist's mind functions in a deviant manner so it is not farfetched that he would resort to an equally aberrant mode of sexual gratification to discover and attain, in accused-appellant’s own words, extraordinary pleasure and satisfaction, although only on his part. Stated differently, the animal in man may come out when he commits rape such that it is not unlikely that in the process of his immersion and transformation into another character, he would prefer to mate in the way lower creatures do. We culled from Adora’s testimonies that accused-appellant did not encounter any difficulty in that upright position nor was a considerable amount of time involved in its performance. The records do not even hint that there was a significant disparity between their heights as to have made sexual intercourse in that stance laborious and time-consuming. And accused-appellant himself volunteered the information that they used such position everytime they copulated.26 Although Castro and Travero are slightly different in the sense that the victims and rapists therein were facing each other during the sexual act whereas accused-appellant was behind Adora, the principle therein that sexual intercourse in a standing position is probable is applicable to the present case. All that accused-appellant had to do was to compel her to facilitate his intrusion. In the process, she became his passive aide utterly incapable of repelling the act as she had been cowed into submission because of his menacing death threats against her family. Accused-appellant claims that another indication of voluntary sexual intercourse with Adora was the established circumstance that in the three (3) alleged rape incidents, he was not armed with a deadly weapon. Such circumstance is irrelevant. Adora’s complete obedience to his commands, her lack of struggle against him, and the studied silence she kept about her terrible ordeal were all compelled by her genuine fear of him who needed no weapon to instill it in her. In her mind, she was convinced of the real danger he posed to her and her family.27 Adora’s dread that sprang from the initial rape was magnified during the subsequent rape incidents.28 The continuous threats on her overpowered and stifled any attempt to resist his sexual assault.29 Moreover, she knew that accused-appellant was used to killing people and in Cavite where he hailed from, he was facing several criminal cases. She received this information from accused-appellant himself and her sister Maria Julieta.30 This aspect of Adora’s testimony was corroborated by her mother. Even accused-appellant admitted that Maria Julieta had told Adora he was a suspect in crimes against persons in Cavite.31 Finally, accused-appellant faults Adora for waiting to break her silence until they were seen by Nora. No, we rule that Adora is blameless. Delay in reporting rape does not by itself undermine the charge when it is grounded on death threats from the accused.32 Adora was raised in the province, inexperienced in worldly ways, and whose actuations under such immensely arduous and trying situations were dominated more by fear rather than by reason. She could not have been expected to have the courage to disregard the threats to her family.1âwphi1 The defense that Adora was the sweetheart of accused-appellant and that she always initiated the foreplay in their lovemaking could have only been concocted by a person utterly devoid of moral fiber and whose mind is saturated with lechery. As this Court had said that a father’s claim that he and his daughter were living together as husband and wife is an affront to Filipino values, assault on the intelligence and offends sensibilities,33 the same can be said of sexual relationships between in-laws. It is inconceivable that Adora with her innocence, against whom no proof of sexual perversity or loose morality had been shown, could seduce accused-appellant who was already twenty-eight (28) years old at the time of the incident34 and who happened to be her brother-in-law. In fact, such claims of accused-appellant on the witness stand so infuriated her that she threw her bag at him and branded him a liar.35 His self-serving declarations cannot prevail over her positive assertions.36 Regarding the alleged "love letter" sent by "Bing," Adora refuted it by showing samples of her handwriting found on her high school spelling booklet and test papers which were hardly similar to that on the "love letter." Thus, she convincingly denied authorship of the letter. At any rate, the burden of proof was on accused-appellant to demonstrate that the handwriting was Adora's. He did not bother to do so. Having failed in this regard, the supposed "love letter" is worthless. More importantly, his name as addressee was not even distinctly stated therein; rather, the letter was addressed, "To Love." Rape is punished by reclusion perpetua but attendance of the following circumstance, among other circumstances, justifies the imposition of the death penalty: "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."37 Of late, we have emphasized the need for independent proof of the age of the victim, aside from testimonial evidence from the victim or her relatives, even though her age is not contested by the defense.38 Adora and her mother merely testified that she was born on 25 July 198039 without presenting independent proof thereof such as a birth certificate. Neither was there a showing that the birth certificate was lost or destroyed to justify non-presentation thereof. The trial court’s conviction of accused-appellant for rape in its qualified form punished by death is therefore erroneous. He should be held liable only for simple rape punished by reclusion perpetua. As to the civil indemnity, the trial court correctly awarded ₱50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. In rape cases, an award for moral damages is made without need for pleading or proof as to the basis thereof.40 The award of ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages is also proper. Exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one (1) or more aggravating circumstances.41 We appreciate accused-appellant’s relationship to Adora as her brother-in-law as a generic aggravating circumstance. However, the trial court failed to award civil indemnity to her. Civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00 is also automatically given to the offended party for the fact of the commission of rape.42 WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from finding accused-appellant Crisanto Digma y Ubay guilty of three (3) counts of rape and sentencing him to three (3) death penalties and ordering him to indemnify Adora Balce y Trampe ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count or a total of ₱210,000.00 for the three (3) counts of rape is MODIFIED as to the penalty and awards. He is instead sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count or three (3) reclusion perpetua for all counts of rape and ordered to pay the victim ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, another ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count or a total of ₱360,000.00 for all the three (3) counts of rape. Costs against accused-appellant. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. Mendoza, J., on leave. Footnotes 1 Informations dated 5 January 1995, docketed as Crim. Cases Nos. 8398, 8399 and 8400. 2 Decision penned by Judge Emmanuel S. Flores, RTC-Br. 41, Daet, Camarines Norte; Rollo, p. 25. 3 Exh. "A;" Records of Crim. Case No. 8398, p. 64. 4 Exh. "1;" Records of Crim. Case No. 8398, p. 95. 5 Exhs. "E" and "F;" id., pp. 108-126. 6 People v. Abuan, G. R. No. 111710, 7 January 1998, 284 SCRA 46. 7 TSN, 11 March 1996, pp. 7-11. 8 Id., pp. 15-18. 9 Id., p. 46. 10 Id., pp. 20-22. 11 Id., p. 56. 12 Id., pp. 22-23. 13 Rollo, pp. 23-24. 14 People v. Venerable, G. R. No. 110110, 13 May 1998, 290 SCRA 15. 15 People v. Baccay, G. R. No. 120366, 16 January 1998, 284 SCRA 296. 16 People v. Perez, G. R. No. 122764, 24 September 1998, 296 SCRA 17. 17 TSN, 11 March 1996, p. 7. 18 Id., p. 8. 19 Id., pp. 8-9. 20 Id., p. 31. 21 People v. Agbayani, G.R. No. 122770, 16 January 1998, 284 SCRA 315. 22 People v. Lusa, G. R. No. 122246, 27 March 1998, 288 SCRA 296. 23 People v. Escala, G. R. No. 120281, 8 July 1998, 292 SCRA 48. 24 G. R. No. 91490, 6 May 1991, 196 SCRA 679. 25 G. R. No. 110823, 28 July 1997, 276 SCRA 301. 26 TSN, 17 July 1996, pp. 13 and 17. 27 People v. Soan, G. R. No. 112087, 21 April 1995, 243 SCRA 627. 28 TSN, 11 March 1996, pp. 8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21 and 23. 29 People v. Ramos, G. R. No. 115656, 27 June 1995, 245 SCRA 405; People v. Angeles, G. R. Nos. 104285-86, 21 May 1993, 222 SCRA 451; People v. Conte, G. R. Nos. 113513-14, 23 August 1995, 247 SCRA 583. 30 TSN, 11 March 1996, p. 59. 31 TSN, 17 July 1996, pp. 29-30. 32 People v. Sta. Ana, G. R. Nos. 115657-59, 26 June 1998, 291 SCRA 188; People v. Antipona, G. R. No. 119071, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 328; People v. Valdez, G. R. No. 51034, 29 May 1987, 150 SCRA 405; People v. Ibal, G. R. Nos. 66010-12, 31 July 1986, 143 SCRA 317. 33 People v. Bartolome, G. R. No. 129054, 29 September 1998, 296 SCRA 615. 34 People v. Padilla, G. R. Nos. 111956 and 111958-61, 23 March 1995, 242 SCRA 629. 35 TSN, 17 July 1996, p. 4. 36 People v. Fuertes, G. R. No. 126285, 29 September 1998, 296 SCRA 602. 37 Art. 335, The Revised Penal Code as amended by Sec. 11, R. A. 7659 (Death Penalty Law). 38 People v. Javier, G. R. No. 126096, 26 July 1999, 311 SCRA 122; People v. Cula, G. R. No. 133146, 28 March 2000; People v. Veloso, G. R. No. 130333, 12 April 2000. 39 TSN, 11 March 1996, p. 27; TSN, 12 February 1996, p. 4. 40 People v. Flores, G. R. No. 130546, 26 July 1999, 311 SCRA 170. 41 Art. 2230, Civil Code. 42 People v. Pili, G. R. No. 124739, 15 April 1998, 289 SCRA 118. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation