EN BANC
G.R. Nos. 140642-46 August 7, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROMEO REYES y DEL ROSARIO, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
This is an automatic review of the Decision, dated May 18, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 of Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Cases Nos. 1768-M-98 to 1772-M-98 finding accused-appellant Romeo Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) counts of incestuous rape and imposing upon him the supreme penalty of death for each count.
Upon the complaint of his biological daughter, Theresa C. Reyes, five (5) informations were filed against accused-appellant. Except for the date of the commission of the crime and the age of the victim, the informations set forth similar allegations:
That sometime in the month of April 1994, in the municipality of Pulilan, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the father of the offended party, Theresa C. Reyes, then a minor 10 years of age, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, with abuse of confidence and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of said Theresa C. Reyes, against her will and without her consent.
Contrary to law.1
In Criminal Case No. 1769-M-98, the information alleged that the rape was committed in May 1994 and the age of the victim was then ten (10) years old.2 In Criminal Case Nos. 1770-M-98 and 1771-M-98, the rapes were allegedly committed in June 1995 and September 1995, respectively, when Theresa was then eleven (11) years old.3 In Criminal Case No. 1772-M-98, the rape was allegedly committed in March 1996 when the victim was then twelve (12) years old.4
At his arraignment, accused-appellant, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to each charge of rape. Trial ensued. The prosecution presented as its witnesses the victim, Theresa, her mother and wife of accused-appellant, Erlinda, the victim’s sister, Rodelia, and Dr. Manuel Aves.
Theresa was born on June 17, 19835 to accused-appellant and Erlinda. She was the youngest of the couple’s three (3) children. The family lived in Dampol 1st, Pulilan, Bulacan. Some time in April 1994, Theresa, then only ten (10) years old, was left alone in the house with accused-appellant. It was about 10:00 in the morning. Theresa was in the bedroom. Accused-appellant entered the room and made Theresa lie down. He removed her shorts and panty. He then inserted his right forefinger into her vagina. Theresa cried and told her father to stop but he just ignored her. Thereafter, he removed his forefinger from her vagina and lay on top of her. Accused-appellant then inserted his penis into Theresa’s sexual organ and "made an up and down movement." Theresa felt pain. She cried and told her father that she would tell her mother about what he did. Accused-appellant threatened to kill her and her mother if Theresa told on him.6
The second time that accused-appellant molested Theresa was some time in May 1994. Theresa was again left alone with accused-appellant in the house one morning. She was sleeping when accused-appellant came near her. He kissed Theresa on the lips. He pulled down her shorts and panty and lay on top of her. He unzipped his short pants and put out his then already hardened penis. Forthwith, accused-appellant inserted it into Theresa’s vagina and "made an up and down movement." Theresa cried. After her father was finished, Theresa went to the bathroom and washed her sexual organ. Theresa hated her father for what he did to her but she did not tell her mother about it because he again threatened to kill her and her mother.7
Theresa was sexually abused the third time by accused-appellant some time in June 1995. As in the previous instances, only accused-appellant and Theresa were in the house at the time. Accused-appellant ordered her to lie down. Theresa at first refused to obey him but he threatened to kill her and her mother. When she lay down, accused-appellant placed himself on top of her. After removing her panty and unzipping his short pants, accused-appellant inserted his penis into Theresa’s vagina and made "an up and down motion." When he was done with her, accused-appellant warned Theresa against telling anyone about the incident. Theresa could not do anything but cry.8
The fourth instance of sexual abuse occurred some time in September 1995. Accused-appellant placed himself atop Theresa, who was then lying down. He immediately inserted his sexual organ into her vagina. He "made an up and down movement." Theresa again felt pain. She was very angry with her father but she could not tell anyone about it because he continued to threaten her.9
Some time in March 1996, accused-appellant molested Theresa for the fifth time. As in the other instances, accused-appellant and Theresa were then the only ones in the house. Accused-appellant made Theresa lie down and he placed himself on top of her. He removed her shorts. Theresa cried and pleaded to him to stop but her plea fell on deaf ears. Instead, accused-appellant proceeded to insert his penis into her vagina and "made an up and down movement." When accused-appellant was through, Theresa told him that she would inform her mother about the incident. Accused-appellant merely told Theresa, "sige bahala ka. Ikaw naman ang mapapahiya."10
Unable to endure it any longer, Theresa finally confided to her older sister, Rodelia, what their father had done to her. Rodelia was so mad at their father and chided Theresa for not telling her sooner. Rodelia decided to let their mother, Erlinda, know about it too. Thereafter, all three of them went to the police station to file a complaint against accused-appellant.11
Theresa categorically pointed to her father, accused-appellant, as her assailant during the course of her testimony in open court.
Rodelia testified that she is the older sister of Theresa and that accused-appellant is their father. Rodelia is already married and lives separately with her own family. On May 30, 1998, shortly after Rodelia arrived from Taiwan where she worked as an overseas contract worker, Theresa came to Rodelia’ s house and tearfully told the latter that she had been raped by accused-appellant several times. Rodelia’s heart went out to her younger sister as she embraced her. Rodelia mildly reproached Theresa saying, "kasi tinanong na kita hindi ka nagsalita sa akin."12
Rodelia already suspected that their father was abusing Theresa. Rodelia noticed that Theresa showed no respect to accused-appellant when she talked to him. Rodelia herself experienced being molested by accused-appellant when she was only eight (8) years old. Unlike with Theresa, however, accused-appellant was not successful in having sexual intercourse with Rodelia. Accused-appellant also threatened Rodelia that he would kill her if she told her mother that he tried to molest her (Rodelia). She averred that she felt no love for their father for what he did to her and Theresa.13
Erlinda is legally married to accused-appellant and the mother of the victim. On May 30, 1998, Theresa, with the help of her older sister, finally found the courage to tell her mother that accused-appellant raped her five (5) times. Erlinda cried when she heard Theresa’s account of what happened. Together with Rodelia, Erlinda accompanied Theresa to the police station to file a complaint against accused-appellant.14
Upon the request of the local police, Dr. Aves examined Theresa on June 2, 1998. He conducted a genital examination on the victim and found that her hymen had multiple healed deep lacerations at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o’clock positions. Dr. Aves concluded that Theresa was already in a "non-virgin state" resulting from more than one sexual intercourse. When he asked Theresa why she was no longer a virgin, she answered, "ginahasa ako." She said it was her father who raped her.15
For his part, accused-appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He testified that he is a tricycle driver and bread vendor. He is married to Erlinda and they have three (3) children: Rodelia, Martin and Theresa. He claimed that he was plying his route as tricycle driver during those instances mentioned by Theresa that he raped her. According to accused-appellant, Theresa accused him of raping her just to get back at him. She was allegedly angry with him as he always scolded her for being lazy. He denied having any knowledge about the five times that his youngest daughter was raped.16
After the prosecution and defense presented their respective evidence, the trial court rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping her daughter, Theresa, on five (5) different occasions and imposing on him five (5) death penalties. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding herein accused Romeo Reyes y del Rosario guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of rape as charged in each of the five (5) informations in these five (5) cases, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the death penalty as the law so provides for each of said five (5) crimes of rape he committed against his own daughter, a minor under eighteen (18) years of age, to indemnify her in the total amount of P250,000.00 as actual damages, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pursuant to Art. 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 22 of Republic Act No. 7659, let the records of these cases be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review, "within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen (15) days after promulgation of the judgment or notice of denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration."
SO ORDERED.17
In his appeal brief, accused-appellant makes a lone assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT ROMEO REYES HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.18
Accused-appellant assails the credibility of Theresa. Her testimony is allegedly not credible, unconvincing and contrary to human nature and the natural course of things. In her testimony, Theresa stated that the rapes occurred between 9:00 in the morning up to just before 12:00 noon, when no one else was left in the house except her and accused-appellant. It is allegedly incredible that she still allowed herself to be left alone with accused-appellant in the house knowing that he would sexually molest her. Accused-appellant likewise questions Theresa’s reasons for implicating him. Theresa explained during her testimony that she finally told Rodelia about what their father did to her "when my older brother or kuya and I quarreled and I felt I had no ally in the family." However, as stated in the decision of the trial court, Theresa disclosed that she sensed that accused-appellant "planned on abusing her again when she finally revealed to her older sister (Ate) her ordeal in the hands of their father."19
The appeal must fail.
In reviewing rape cases, this Court has always been guided by three well-entrenched principles: (a) that 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) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime which usually involves two persons, the testimony of the complainant 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 draw strength from the weakness of evidence of the defense.20 Accordingly, the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of the complainant’s testimony.21
It is well settled that the findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons are presented necessitating a re-examination if not the disturbance of the same; the reason being the former is in a better and unique position of hearing first hand the witnesses and observing their deportment, conduct and attitude.22 Absent any showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, the trial judge’s assessment of credibility deserves the appellate court’s highest respect.23
In this case, there is nothing on record that would impel this Court to deviate from the findings and conclusion of the trial court. Theresa testified in a categorical, straightforward and consistent manner, interrupted only by her tears as she recounted her harrowing experience at the hands of her father. She described how accused-appellant sexually assaulted her, not only once but five (5) times in this manner:
Q Theresa, will you tell this Honorable Court if you know a person by the name of Romeo Reyes y del Rosario?
A. Yes, sir.
Q How did you come to know him?
A He is my father, sir.
Q Your legitimate father?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is your mother married to your father?
A Yes, sir.
Q Tell this Honorable Court the place where you were residing sometime in April 1994?
A Dampol 1st, Pulilan, Bulacan, sir.
Q How old were you then?
A Ten (10) years old, sir.
Q When were you born?
A June 17, 1983, sir.
Q With whom are you living in the year 1994 particularly in the month of April?
A My father and mother; my sisters and brothers, sir.
Q When you said your father, what is the name of your father again?
A Romeo Reyes, sir.
Q Is he present before this courtroom?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you kindly point to him?
A (Witness pointed to the accused in these cases.)
Q In the said month of April 1994 according to you you were then only 10 years of age, do you recall of anything unusual that has taken place between you and your father?
A Yes, sir, there was.
Q Tell the Honorable Court what was that?
A He abused me, sir.
Q When you said abused, how did he abuse you?
A He touched my private part and he inserted his penis in my private part, sir.
FISCAL:
I would just like to make of record that the witness is crying.
COURT:
Madam Witness, can you proceed testifying on that condition? You are uncontrollably crying. Do you want to rest for a while?
WITNESS:
No, your Honor, I will continue.
COURT:
Try to control your tears.
FISCAL:
Q How again did he abuse you?
A He inserted his penis in my private part, sir.
Q What was your position when he inserted his private part into your private part?
A I was lying down, sir.
Q What about your father Romeo Reyes?
A He was on top of me, sir.
Q How did he insert his private part into your private part?
A He removed my shorts and my panty then he inserted his penis, sir.
Q When he removed your shorts and panty what did he immediately do after that?
A He first inserted his finger before inserting his penis, sir.
Q Which finger, if you know?
A His right forefinger, sir.
Q Kindly demonstrate to us how he inserted his finger into your private part?
A He inserted his forefinger in my vagina, sir.
Q At that time what was your position, as well as his position?
A I was still lying down, sir.
Q What did you do when he inserted his forefinger into your private part?
A I cried, sir.
Q How did you feel about it?
A I cried and I hated him when he did that to me, sir.
Q Did you not ask him to stop doing the same to you?
A I told him, sir.
Q What was his reply?
A None, sir.
Q Did you not try to resist what was he doing to you?
A I was then crying and told him that I will tell my mother what he did to me but he threatened me that he would kill me and my mother, sir.
Q After he placed his forefinger into your private part what did he do if he did anything?
A After he removed his forefinger he inserted his penis in my private part, sir.
Q You said that after your father Romeo Reyes inserted his forefinger he immediately placed himself on top of you and inserted his penis into your private part, how did he do it?
A He inserted his penis and made an up and down movement, sir.
COURT:
For clarification –
Q Are you saying he was on top of you when he was doing that?
A Yes, your Honor.
FISCAL:
Q For how long was he on top of you in that up and down movement or position?
A Not so long, sir.
Q What did you feel while he was doing that to you?
A It was painful and I hated him, sir.
Q While he was on top of you trying to move up and down did you not try to resist?
A I pleaded to him not to do that anymore to me, sir.
Q How did he react to that plea of yours?
A None, sir.
Q After your father was successful in inserting his private part into your private part and acted into up and down position what happened next, if anything did happen?
A No more, sir.
Q What did you do then?
A I cried, sir.
Q At that time were there other persons inside your house?
A None, sir.
Q Where was (sic) your brothers and sisters at that time?
A They were not in the house, sir.
Q What about your mother?
A She was selling bread, sir.
Q And your father after he succeeded in abusing you, what did he do?
A He told me not to tell to anybody, or else, he would kill my mother and I, and all of us, sir.
Q What time (sic) your mother arrived on that day?
A At noontime, sir.
Q What time did your father abuse you?
A Between 10:00 and 10:30 in the morning, sir.
Q And you claimed that your mother arrived about noontime. Did you not try to tell your mother about your sad fate from the hands of your father?
A No, sir.
Q Why not?
A I was afraid of my father, sir.
Q And that sad fate and experience of yours that you sustained from your father was it ever repeated?
A Yes, sir.
Q When? If you still recall?
A Sometime in May 1994, sir.
Q Where did it happen?
A Also in our house, sir.
Q In what specific place of the house?
A Inside the bedroom, sir.
Q Whose bedroom?
A The bedroom of all of us, sir.
Q It was only barely a month after your rape of your father on April of the same year?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were there other persons inside the house when your father again abused and raped you on May 1994?
A None, sir.
Q About what time was that again?
A Also the same time when my mother was not in the house, sir.
Q Tell the circumstances on how you were again rape (sic) by your father?
A First, he kissed me on my lips then he inserted his penis again in my private part, sir.
Q When he kissed you on your lips, how, if any, did you feel?
A I also hated him, sir.
Q How did you react with that actuation of your father?
A I cried, sir.
Q Incidentally, what were you wearing then?
A T-shirt and shorts, sir.
Q And you claimed that immediately after you were kissed on your lips by your father Romeo Reyes he immediately again inserted his penis into your private part, were you still wearing your shorts then?
A None. I have no shorts, sir.
Q You said that you were then wearing a shorts. Who removed that shorts? Was it you or he?
A My father, sir.
Q What was your position when your father was trying to remove your shorts?
A I was lying down, sir.
Q Why did you lie down?
A Because that time I was still sleeping when my mother was not in the house, sir.
Q How did your father remove your shorts?
A He pulled down my shorts, sir.
Q Were you wearing a panty at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did he do with your panty?
A He also pulled down my panty, sir.
Q Were you still lying down when he removed your shorts and panty?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you not try to resist when your father was trying to remove your shorts and panty?
A I was only crying, sir.
Q You said that immediately after your father was able to remove your shorts and panty he immediately raped you?
A Yes, sir.
Q What again (sic) your position and the position of your father when he raped you?
A I was lying down and my father was on top of me, sir.
Q Was your father wearing anything at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q What?
A Short pants, sir.
Q Was he still wearing his shorts when he placed himself on top of you?
A He was then wearing shorts with zipper and put out his penis through that open zipper, sir.
Q Did you notice his penis?
A Yes, sir.
Q What, if any, did you notice to (sic) his penis?
A It was hard, sir.
Q And immediately after you saw his penis in that situation, what did he do?
A He inserted his hard penis in my private part, sir.
Q When he was (sic) successful in inserting his penis into your private part (interrupted.)
ATTY. JOSON:
Leading, your Honor.
FISCAL:
Q And when he according to you was able to insert his private part into your private part how, if any, did you feel?
A I felt pain and I hated him, sir.
Q What was he doing while on top of you?
A He again made an up and down movement, sir.
Q Do you still remember for how long did he do that?
A No, sir.
Q What about the up and down movement or position, how many times, if you still recall?
A I cannot remember, sir.
Q After your father Romeo Reyes was successful in abusing you for the second time, what did you do after that?
A I cried and I went to our bathroom and washed my private part, sir.
Q What about your father?
A He stayed in the bedroom, sir.
Q What time did your mother arrive?
A Also noontime, sir.
Q Did you not try to tell your mother on what did your (sic) father do again to you?
A No, sir.
Q Why not?
A Because I was afraid, sir.
Q Why were you afraid?
A Because my father was threatening me, sir.
Q The same kind of threat that he made when he first abused you?
A Yes, sir.24
xxx
CONTINUATION OF DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY FISCAL GERONIMO:
Q You said last time that you were twice sexually abused by your father against your will. Was it ever repeated?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you still remember the date?
A Sometime in June 1995, sir.
Q And where did it happen?
A In our house, sir.
Q Were there other present at the time that you were sexually abused by your father for the third time?
A None, sir.
Q Kindly tell this Honorable Court how were you again ravished by your father for the third time?
A We were then both lying down and he went on top of me and he inserted his penis on my private part, sir.
Q Why did you lie down?
A He told me to lie down, sir.
Q Did you follow the direction of your father immediately after he told you to lie down?
A No, sir.
Q What did he do?
A He threatened me, sir.
Q How did he threaten you?
A He told me that he would kill me and my mother, sir.
Q When you lie down as directed or ordered by your father, what happened next?
A He placed (sic) on top of me and inserted his penis in my private part, sir.
Q When he went on top of you, were you wearing then anything?
A I was wearing t-shirt because he removed my panty, sir.
Q What about your father?
A Yes, sir.
Q What?
A His short pant, sir.
Q He did not remove his short?
A No, sir.
Q And you said that he was able to insert his penis into your private part, how did he do that?
A He opened the zipper of his short, sir.
Q Did you see his private part?
A No, sir.
Q How did you come to know that he was able to insert his private part into yours?
A Because I felt it, sir.
Q What did you feel?
A I felt pain, sir.
Q When he was able to insert his private part into your private part on top position, what did you do?
A He made up and down motion, sir.
Q For how long?
A Little bit longer, sir.
Q About 10 minutes?
A No, sir.
Q 5 minutes?
A Yes, sir.
Q And after that, what did your father do?
A He told me not to tell anybody or else he would kill me, sir.
Q What did you do then?
A I cried, sir.
Q What time did your mother arrive if she ever arrived on that day?
A Yes, sir. At noon time.
Q Incidentally, what time were you raped again for the third time by your father?
A Around 9:00 in the morning, sir.
Q And in what part of the house?
A In the bedroom, sir.
Q In the same bedroom where you (sic) raped twice by your father on April and May, 1994?
A Yes, sir.
Q When your mother arrived, did you not bother to tell her about the matter?
A No, sir.
Q Why not?
A Because I was afraid, sir.
Q And that 3 times that you were abused by your father, was there any other time that you were raped again by him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you still remember the date?
A September 10, 1995, sir.
Q Was it in the evening or in the morning or in the afternoon?
A In the morning, sir.
Q And in what place did it happen?
A Also in the bedroom, sir.
Q The same bedroom?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were there other person when he for the fourth time abused you?
A None, sir.
Q Tell this Honorable Court how for the fourth time you were raped by your own father?
A He again placed (sic) on top of me and inserted his penis in my private part and then again made up and down motion, sir.
Q For how long?
A For about 5 minutes, sir.
Q And how did you feel about it?
A I felt pain, sir.
Q Is that the only thing that you felt at that time?
A And my anger at him, sir.
Q What anger was that?
A I was so mad at him because how he did (sic) that to me as he is my father, sir.
Q Did you not tell your mother that you were for the fourth time abused by your father?
A No, sir.
Q Why not?
A Because he again threatened me, sir.
Court:
Make it of record that the witness is crying.
Fiscal:
Q Was it ever repeated after this fourth time that you were raped by your father against your will?
A Yes, sir.
Q When if you still recall?
A March 20, 1996, sir.
Q And where did it happen?
A Also in our house, sir.
Q In the same bedroom?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you were also alone at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q In the morning or in the afternoon or in the evening?
A In the morning, sir.
Q And again tell this Honorable Court how did he abuse you for the fifth time?
A He again inserted his penis in my private part and made an up and down motion, sir.
Q What was your position then?
A I was lying down, sir.
Q Were you wearing anything?
A None, sir.
Q Why were you undressed at that time?
A Because my father removed my short, sir.
Q How did you react when he removed your short?
A I was crying and told him not to do that to me, sir.
Q What did he do then?
A He continued, sir.
Q Did you not try to resist?
A I just cried, sir.
Q When he went on top of you and inserted his private part into your private part, did you not resist?
A I just cried, sir.
Q And how did you feel about that when you were raped by your father for the fifth time?
A I felt pain and I hated him so much, sir. (Nandidiri po ako)
Q And then for how long was he on top of you doing that pumping motion?
A It does not take too long, sir.
Q About 2 or 3 minutes?
A Yes, sir.
Q And after 3 minutes, what did your father do?
A He stood up, sir, so, I told him that I would tell my mother what he did to me and he told me "sige bahala ka. Ikaw naman ang mapapahiya."25
The foregoing testimony of Theresa is sufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant for the crimes charged.26 Indeed, it is highly inconceivable, if not completely preposterous, that Theresa, a guileless barrio lass, would concoct stories of rape against her very own father, taking into mind the societal humiliation and personal devastation which such charges entail.27 As this Court has consistently observed in countless incestuous rape cases:
A daughter would not concoct a story of defloration against her father, accuse him of so grave a crime as rape, allow an examination of her private parts, submit herself to public humiliation and scrutiny via an open public trial, if she were not truly aggrieved or her sordid tale was not true and her sole motivation was not to have the culprit apprehended and punished. In short, a teenage unmarried lass would not file a rape case against anybody, much less her own father, if it were not true.28
Significantly, the defense utterly failed to establish any motive on the part of Theresa to impute such grave crimes upon accused-appellant. In the face of this omission by the defense, her testimony should be accorded full credence.29 Her revelation could have been borne only by her desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed by accused-appellant against her.30 Where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against an accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.31
Contrary to accused-appellant’s contention, the Court does not find it incredible that Theresa allowed herself to be left alone in the house with accused-appellant. After all, he was her father. That she had to bear more sexual assaults before she mustered enough courage to confide in her sister could be explained by the fact that she was then only a child. She could not be expected to follow the ordinary course that other, more mature, women in the same situation would have taken. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident. Verily, under emotional stress, the human mind is not expected to follow a predictable path.32
Further, Theresa’s testimony had been substantially corroborated by Dr. Aves’ findings that she was already in a "non-virgin state." Dr. Aves’ genital examination on Theresa showed that her hymen had multiple healed deep lacerations at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o’clock positions.33 Laceration of the hymen, whether fresh or healed, is the best physical evidence of defloration.34 Thus, Dr. Aves’ finding that Theresa had multiple lacerations on her hymen buttressed her testimony that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her, his own flesh and blood.1âwphi1
Accused-appellant’s inherently weak defense of denial and alibi cannot thus prevail over the positive, candid and categorical testimony of Theresa, whose credibility was upheld by the trial court.35
By threatening to kill her and her mother, accused-appellant undoubtedly employed "force and intimidation" on Theresa in order for her to submit to his bestial desires. Theresa’s total obedience to accused-appellant and the stoic silence that she kept about her sufferings were all brought about by her genuine fear for the man who, on account of his moral ascendancy, needed no weapon to instill such terror in her.36
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, when rape is committed on a woman who is under eighteen (18) years of age by a parent, the offender faces the imposition of the death penalty.
The prosecution adequately established that the victim, Theresa, was not over twelve (12) years old during the five (5) instances that she was raped by accused-appellant in the span of almost two (2) years from 1994 to 1996. Theresa, as well as Erlinda, her mother, testified as to her (Theresa’s) minority. Erlinda further averred that accused-appellant is her husband and the father of Theresa. The certificate of live birth37 presented likewise showed that Theresa was born on June 17, 1983 and that accused-appellant is her father. These qualifying circumstances, i.e., age and relationship, were properly alleged in the five (5) informations filed against accused-appellant in Criminal Cases Nos. 1768-M-98 to 1772-M-98.
The concurrence of both the minority of the victim and her relationship to accused-appellant, having been alleged in the informations and duly proved with certainty and clearness as the crimes themselves constrains this Court to affirm accused-appellant’s conviction for five (5) counts of incestuous rape, justifying the imposition of the death penalty for each count on him.38
It is necessary, however, to modify the amount of damages awarded by the trial court. Under prevailing jurisprudence, if the commission of the crime of rape is effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty may be imposed, the civil indemnity for the victim shall be P75,000.00.39 Additionally, moral damages are imposed in rape cases involving young girls, taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on their youthful feminine psyche. It is awarded without proof for it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her such an award. The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is accordingly in order.40
Three (3) members of the Court maintain the position that Republic Act No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the death penalty is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the Court, by a majority vote, that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should be accordingly imposed.
WHEREFORE, the Decision, dated May 18, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 of Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Cases Nos. 1768-M-98 to 1772-M-98 finding accused-appellant Romeo Reyes y Del Rosario guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) counts of incestuous rape and imposing upon him the DEATH penalty for each count is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim, Theresa, the amounts of a total of P375,000.00 as civil indemnity and P250,000.00 as moral damages plus costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Criminal Case No. 1768-M-98; Records, p. 1.
2 Records, p. 7.
3 Id., at 9 & 11.
4 Id., at 13.
5 Certificate of Live Birth, exhibit "K-1;" Records, p. 52.
6 TSN, January 5, 1999, pp. 3-6.
7 Id., at 9-11.
8 TSN, January 26, 1999, pp. 3-5.
9 Id., at 6.
10 Id., at 7-8.
11 Id., at 9.
12 TSN, March 16, 1999, pp. 17-20.
13 Id., at 21-24.
14 TSN, March 16, 1999, pp. 2-4.
15 TSN, January 5, 1999, pp. 13-18.
16 TSN, April 13, 1999, pp. 6-12.
17 RTC Decision, Criminal Cases Nos. 1768-M-98 up to 1772-M-98, May 18, 1999, p. 4; Rollo, p. 25.
18 Appeal Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 42.
19 Id., at 6-11.
20 People vs. Quiñanola, 306 SCRA 710 (1999); People vs. Abrecinoz, 281 SCRA 59 (1997).
21 People vs. Turco, Jr., 337 SCRA 714 (2000).
22 People vs. Santos, G.R. No. 137993, April 11, 2002, p. 6; People vs. Sacapaño, 313 SCRA 650 (1999).
23 People vs. Santos, supra.; People vs. Abangin, 297 SCRA 655 (1998).
24 TSN, January 5, 1999, pp. 3-12.
25 TSN, January 26, 1999, pp. 2-8.
26 People vs. Lima, G.R. No. 128289, April 23, 2002, p. 12; People vs. Buendia, 314 SCRA 655 (1999).
27 People vs. Desuyo, G.R. No. 140406, April 17, 2002, p. 7.
28 People vs. Watimar, 338 SCRA 173 (2000); People vs. Pineda, 311 SCRA 368 (1999); People vs. Calayaca, 301 SCRA 192 (1999).
29 People vs. Sagun, 303 SCRA 382 (1999).
30 Ibid.
31 People vs. Abrecinoz, supra.
32 People vs. Gecoma, 254 SCRA 82 (1996).
33 See Note 15.
34 People vs. Bayona, 327 SCRA 190 (2000).
35 People vs. Santos, supra.
36 People vs. Desuyo, supra.; People vs. Sevilla, 320 SCRA 107 (1999).
37 Exhibit "K;" Records, p. 52.
38 People vs. Pajo, 348 SCRA 492 (2000); People vs. Sancha, 324 SCRA 646 (2000).
39 People vs. Velasco, G.R. Nos. 135231-33, February 28, 2001; People vs. Gonzales, 338 SCRA 678 (2000).
40 Ibid.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
