EN BANC
G.R. No. 140723 March 6, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NICOMEDES D. PLATILLA, accused-appellant.
PER CURIAM:
This is an automatic review of the decision1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Iriga City, finding accused-appellant Nicomedes D. Platilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape of his minor daughter, Jennifer L. Platilla, and sentencing him to suffer the death penalty and to pay indemnity to the latter in the amount of P50,000.00 and the costs of the suit.
The information in this case alleged –
"That on or about the 28th day of January, 1997, in Sto. Domingo, Nabua, Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat, and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have had carnal knowledge with one Jennifer L. Platilla, his own child, who is a 13-year old minor, against her will, to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be proven in court.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW."2
The prosecution evidence is as follows:
At about midnight of January 28, 1997, complainant Jennifer Platilla, then 13 years of age, while asleep with her family on the floor of their nipa house in Sitio Pagboboñgon, Sto. Domingo, Nabua, Camarines Sur, was awakened to find a man on top of her. After a while, she recognized that the man was accused-appellant, her own father. Startled to find her father’s penis inside her vagina, Jennifer shouted, "Inay, si Tatay pigkakadoan ako." ("Mother, Father is raping me.") Her mother, Crisanta Platilla, who was asleep on the floor with her two younger brothers, was awakened and immediately got up and lighted a kerosene lamp. She saw her husband still on top of Jennifer. Crisanta then kicked, boxed, and shouted at her husband, but he had a bolo and threatened to kill her and Jennifer if their neighbors heard their shouts. After silencing both Crisanta and Jennifer, accused-appellant left and went back to sleep with the bolo still in his hands. Jennifer told her mother that she felt severe pain and that there was blood coming from her vagina.
The next day, Crisanta sought the assistance of Barangay Tanod Uniedo. In the afternoon of the same day, she and Jennifer were taken to the Sto. Domingo Police Sub-Station in Nabua where Jennifer gave a sworn statement regarding the incident. Jennifer was later examined by Dr. Stephen Beltran, Municipal Health Officer of Nabua, Camarines Sur.3
Dr. Beltran testified that he found a laceration at the 6 o’clock position, or at the lower portion, of Jennifer’s hymen. He also found a blood clot at her perineum. Dr. Beltran opined that the intercourse had been very recent on account of the blood clot he found, and that there had been complete penetration of the vagina by a hard object, most probably an erect penis.4
On the same day, January 29, 1997, accused-appellant was arrested by SPO2 Rodolfo Tombado and barangay tanods and taken to the police sub-station on the basis of the complaint made by Jennifer Platilla.5
Accused-appellant claimed he was framed up. He testified that on April 12, 1996, when he returned to his family, after serving sentence for robbery, he observed his daughter Jennifer to be somewhat dazed and absent-minded. He asked his wife Crisanta about the matter and was told that it must be because Jennifer had been watching television too much. Still bothered, accused-appellant said he asked his daughter and Jennifer admitted to him that she had been sexually molested by her maternal grandfather, Platon Luzon. When accused-appellant was in jail, his family stayed in the house of his wife’s parents. Accused-appellant said he talked to his wife about it, but the latter asked him to keep quiet because her father would get angry.
Accused-appellant said that in the afternoon of January 28, 1997, he went to see Jennifer in school to verify if she had indeed been sexually abused by her grandfather and Jennifer confirmed that she had been. She also said her mother had been molested by her grandfather. Accused-appellant claims that he confronted his wife and asked her to file a case against her father, but she refused, saying this would only scandalize accused-appellant and place him in a bad light considering that he was an ex-convict. Accused-appellant said his wife and daughter then left him and went to live in her father’s house. Hence, accused-appellant says, he could not have raped Jennifer at the midnight of January 28, 1997 because he was then in their house. He was surprised when the following day, at around 9:00 a.m., he was arrested by a policeman and two barangay tanods and was put in jail. Accused-appellant testified that Crisanta later admitted to him that she merely instigated Jennifer into filing a rape case against him as she was pressured by her father to do so.6
After due deliberation of the evidence proffered by both parties, the trial court rendered its decision on October 1, 1999, the dispositive portion of which is as follows:
"WHEREFORE, as the evidence has conclusively established that Jennifer Platilla was below 18 years old, being only 13, at the time she was raped by her own father Nicomedes Platilla, the court finds accused NICOMEDES PLATILLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, as principal thereof, and hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme mandatory penalty of death, to indemnify Jennifer Platilla P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED."7
It is from this decision that the present appeal has been taken. Accused-appellant contends that the trial court erred on two counts, to wit:
"I. IN DETERMINING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR TESTIMONIES FOR THE PROSECUTION.
"II. IN RELYING ON THE TESTIMONIES OF CRISANTA PLATILLA AND JENNIFER PLATILLA WITHOUT SCRUTINIZING SAID TESTIMONIES WITH EXTREME CAUTION."8
In adjudging rape cases, this Court is guided by three well-known principles, namely: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but it is more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the nature of rape which usually involves only two persons, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence of 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.9
Guided by these principles, this Court holds:
First. Accused-appellant questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant herself. He adverts to Jennifer’s testimony that when she awoke in the middle of the night of January 28, 1997 she found accused-appellant on top of her with his penis already inside her vagina. He expresses incredulity that Jennifer had not been awakened earlier, when she was just being penetrated.
Jennifer did not really say that when she first became aware of her father being on top of her, he had already succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. This is what she said:
"Q Now, Ms. Platilla, you declared that you were awakened your father was on top of you, my question is: When you were awakened have you already recognized that it was your father who was on top of you?
A Yes, sir.
Q What made you recognize your father when you woke up?
A I recognized him as my father who was on top of me because he was illuminated by the light coming from the moon.
Q Will you tell the Honorable Court from where did this light of the moon passing through which made you recognize your father?
A The light was passing through the bamboo slits which served as the wall of our house.
Q Now, you noticed that your father was on top of you, tell the Honorable Court what was your father doing?
A His penis was inside my vagina.
Q And when you noticed that kind of situation you shouted to your mother?
A Yes, sir."10 (Italics supplied)
Thus, Jennifer did not really say that when she was awakened her father had already penetrated her. She was merely asked what accused-appellant was doing while he was on top of her and Jennifer said that he was performing the sexual act, his organ having been inserted in her vagina. Indeed, as the Solicitor General points out, Jennifer must have been so shocked to find her own father on top of her that she was not able to think and act coherently and the only scene that registered in her mind was the act of the sexual intercourse itself. In any event, the defense should have asked Jennifer directly if she realized that her father was on top of her only after he had been able to penetrate her and he was already doing the sexual act.
Accused-appellant also says that it was improbable for Jennifer to look at her wristwatch to be able to tell the time she was being raped.11 Again this contention is misleading. As the records of this case indicate, Jennifer said she looked at her watch to find what time it was shortly after accused-appellant had left her.12 Thus, she testified:
"ATTY. SERNAL:
Q That was about 11:30 o’clock in the evening?
A It was 12:00 o’clock midnight.
COURT:
Q How did you know the time?
A I had my time piece on.
Q A wrist watch?
A Yes, sir.
Q While you were asleep you were wearing your wrist watch?
A Yes, sir.
Q At what precise moment you took [a look at] your watch, after the rape or what?
A After the rape."13 (Italics supplied)
Nor is it unbelievable that Crisanta, Jennifer’s mother, first lighted the lamp after Jennifer made an outcry.14 It is not impossible for Crisanta to have been, even for a very brief moment, in a state of unbelief that her own husband was sexually assaulting his own daughter.
Indeed, both complainant and her mother gave candid, straightforward, and consistent testimonies under grueling cross-examination. Their testimonies are corroborated by the results of the medico-legal examination which show a hymenal laceration and a blood clot in the perineum.15 Jennifer bared the depth of her anguish when she cried in court and called her father a beast ("a hayop-hayopon na iyan").16
Time and again, we have ruled that when a woman, especially one of the tender age of 13 years, says she was raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to constitute the commission of the crime.17 It would be rather strange for an innocent rural girl of tender age, like Jennifer, to fabricate a tale of rape against her own father, allow the examination of her private parts, and suffer the humiliation and embarrassment of a public trial, had she not been motivated by the desire to vindicate her sad plight.18
Accused-appellant claims he was merely framed up. Such a defense deserves scant consideration considering his positive identification by the victim.19 Accused-appellant says that not only Jennifer but Crisanta as well had been sexually molested by Crisanta’s father, Platon Luzon, who pressured Crisanta and Jennifer to file a rape case against accused-appellant. This is utterly unbelievable. We cannot see why Crisanta and her daughter would falsely implicate accused-appellant if the real culprit was Crisanta’s father. Nor can we see why Crisanta and Jennifer would leave accused-appellant and live with the very person who allegedly abused them. On the other hand, no parent in her right mind would expose her own daughter and her whole family to public disgrace if the charge of rape was false.20
Second. Accused-appellant points out that the judge who decided that case was not the judge who heard the witnesses and, for this reason, contends that the rule that the findings of trial judges on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight and respect should not be applied in this case.21 While this may be true, it does not necessarily follow that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses should not have been given any probative value at all. Even if the judge who decided a case was the same one who heard the witnesses this Court is not bound by the assessment of the trial judge of the credibility of witnesses alone. We have held that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses should be based mainly on the reading of the transcript of stenographic notes,22 the available documentary evidence proffered by both parties,23 and the consideration of other circumstances surrounding the incident testified to and the witnesses themselves, e.g., when no ill motive can be imputed against the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely against accused-appellant.24 On the bases of these considerations, we find no cogent reason for reversing the assailed decision.
Third. The elements of incestuous rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) by force and without her consent, and in order to warrant the imposition of the death penalty, the additional elements are that (4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; and (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate, or adoptive), 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.25
In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Jennifer narrated the harrowing incident as to how accused-appellant, her own father, had sexual intercourse with her at around midnight of January 28, 1997 in their own home. The fact that this happened while the other members of the family were asleep beside them does not detract from her credibility. It is common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred by the presence of people nearby, such as the members of their own family inside the same room, with the likelihood of being discovered, since lust respects no time, locale, or circumstance.26 What is more, the intimacy that characterizes family life, the lack of privacy especially in the rural areas, and the great moral ascendancy of the father over his daughter all combine to facilitate the commission of rape with the high probability that it would not be detected.
As there is no dispute that Jennifer was 13 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, her birth certificate having established that she was born on October 23, 1983,27 and that accused-appellant is her father, the trial court correctly found accused-appellant guilty of incestuous rape and imposed on him the penalty of death.28
Fourth. Anent the award of civil indemnity in favor of complainant, the trial court ought to have awarded Jennifer the amount of P75,000.00, instead of P50,000.00, in line with the prevailing rule that in qualified rape where the death penalty is authorized, the amount of the civil indemnity should be P75,000.00.29 In addition, an award of P50,000.00 as moral damages should be granted to complainant without need of proof of the basis thereof.30 It has likewise been ruled that the rape of a child by her father is attended by the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence, there being the relation of trust and confidence between them, thus entitling the victim to an award of exemplary damages.31 In view of this ruling, an additional amount of P30,000.00 is awarded to the complainant as exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the Decision, dated October 1, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Iriga City, finding accused-appellant Nicomedes D. Platilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape of his 13-year old daughter Jennifer and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the offended party the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Upon finality of this decision, let the Records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for the possible exercise of her pardoning power.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Ernesto B. Amisola.
2 Rollo, p. 6.
3 TSN (Jennifer Platilla), Feb. 5, 1998, pp. 2-13; TSN (Jennifer Platilla), Apr. 24, 1998, pp. 3-18; TSN (Crisanta Platilla), July 3, 1998, pp. 3-19.
4 TSN (Dr. Stephen A. Beltran), April 24, 1998, pp. 19-25; Exh. C.
5 TSN (SPO4 Salvador Recepcion), May 21, 1998, pp. 2-9; Exh. D.
6 TSN (Nicomedes Platilla), Nov. 19, 1998, pp. 3-14.
7 Rollo, p.17.
8 Ibid., p. 30.
9 People vs. Restoles, 339 SCRA 40 (2000).
10 TSN (Jennifer Platilla), Feb. 5, 1998, pp. 9-10.
11 Appellant’s Brief, p. 3; Rollo, p. 32.
12 TSN (Jennifer Platilla), April 24, 1998, p. 6.
13 Ibid., pp. 5-6.
14 Appellant’s Brief, p. 3; Rollo, p. 32.
15 People vs. Baring, G.R. Nos. 130515 & 147090, Mar. 13, 2001; People vs. Bayona, 327 SCRA 190 (2000).
16 TSN (Jennifer Platilla), Feb. 5, 1998, p. 8.
17 People vs. De los Reyes, 327 SCRA 56 (2000).
18 People vs. Puzon, 339 SCRA 164 (2000).
19 People vs. Baniguid, 340 SCRA 92 (2000).
20 People vs. Bayona, supra.
21 Appellant’s Brief, p. 3; Rollo, p. 32.
22 People vs. Acaya, 327 SCRA 269 (2000).
23 People vs. Juanga, 189 SCRA 226 (1990).
24 People vs. Martinez, 325 SCRA 601 (2000).
25 Revised Penal Code, Article 335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659; People vs. Bayya, 327 SCRA 771 (2000).
26 People vs. Lapiz, 339 SCRA 655 (2000); People vs. Watimar, 338 SCRA 173 (2000).
27 Exh. A.
28 Three (3) members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People vs. Echegaray (267 SCRA 682 (1997)) that R.A. No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death, is unconstitutional, nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.
29 People vs. Mendiola, 337 SCRA 418 (2000) citing People vs. Mangila, 325 SCRA 586 (2000).
30 People vs. Toquero, 339 SCRA 69 (2000).
31 People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, Aug. 23, 2001.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
