8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes

SUkLML CCUk1
Manlla
Ln 8AnC

G.k. No. 127122 Iu|y 20, 1999
LCLL CI 1nL nILIINLS, plalnLlff-appellee,
vs.
ICVI1C LCSANC y NACIS, accused-appellanL.

Lk CUkIAM:
uesplLe Lhe growlng number of lndlvlduals ln ueaLh 8ow for lncesLuous rape of mlnors,
Lhe number of Lhese corrupL perverLs hardly seems Lo have dlmlnlshed. 8efore us yeL
agaln ls anoLher loaLhsome example of a man's lechery so depraved, lL exposes hlm Lo
be noLhlng more Lhan a ravenous beasL masqueradlng as a man.
Cn March 13, 1996, accused-appellanL !ovlLo Losano y nacls was charged wlLh Lhe
desplcable crlme of raplng hls own daughLer under Lhe followlng lnformaLlon:
1haL someLlme ln May, 1993, ln 8arangay Allpangpang, MunlclpallLy of
ozorrublo, rovlnce of angaslnan and wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhls
Ponorable CourL, Lhe above-named accused, by means of force and
lnLlmldaLlon, dld Lhen and Lhere, wlllfully, unlawfully and feloneously (!"#)
have carnal knowledge of prlvaLe complalnanL, 8CWLnA LCSAnC,
daughLer of accused, Lhen belng only 6 years of age, all agalnsL her wlll
and wlLhouL her consenL.
CCn18A8? Lo Law.
1

upon hls arralgnmenL on AugusL 26, 1996, accused-appellanL enLered a plea of noL
gullLy. 1rlal LhereafLer ensued, wlLh Lhe prosecuLlon presenLlng as lLs wlLnesses Lhe
vlcLlm, 8owena Losano, and her grandmoLher, veronlca Losano. 1helr LesLlmonles show
Lhe followlng:
8owena ls Lhe daughLer of accused-appellanL and 8oslLa Losano, Lhelr Lhlrd chlld ln a
brood of four. AL Lhe Llme of Lhe alleged rape, 8owena was only slx years old, havlng
been born on Aprll 17, 1990. veronlca Losano, on Lhe oLher hand, ls Lhe grandmoLher of
8owena, accused-appellanL belng her son. veronlca LesLlfled LhaL on SepLember 23,
1993, whlle Lhey were ln 8agulo ClLy, 8owena Lold her LhaL her faLher had mashed her
breasLs and removed her panLles. upon furLher quesLlonlng, 8owena added LhaL her
faLher had lnserLed hls penls lnslde her. 1o verlfy wheLher or noL 8owena was Lelllng Lhe
LruLh, veronlca and her daughLer rlscllla leLallno, broughL 8owena Lo Lhe 8agulo ClLy
offlce of Lhe n8l Lo have her examlned. ur. 8onald 8andonlll, an n8l medlco-legal
offlcer, conducLed Lhe medlcal examlnaLlon on CcLober 3, 1993. 1he medlcal cerLlflcaLe
lssued by ur. 8andonlll sLaLes LhaL 1) aL Lhe Llme of Lhe examlnaLlon, Lhere were no
exLra-genlLal physlcal ln[urles on 8owena's body, and 2) LhaL her physlcal vlrglnlLy was
preserved. lL dld, however, remark LhaL:
1he presence of congesLlon and lnflammaLlon aL Lhe vesLlbular mucosa
and Lhe hymenal area coupled wlLh lnLense paln and Lenderness lndlcaLes
Lhe probablllLy of aLLempLed peneLraLlon of Lhe area by Lhe hard erecL
male organ whlch was noL successful, slnce lL would produce masslve
genlLal ln[ury.
2

veronlca sLaLed LhaL Lhe alleged rape lncldenL Look place aL her house ln 8arangay
Allpangpang, ozorrublo, angaslnan. Cn cross-examlnaLlon, veronlca admlLLed noL
havlng personal knowledge of Lhe alleged rape, havlng only been lnformed Lhereof by
her granddaughLer. She also sald LhaL 8owena's moLher was ln kuwalL, havlng gone
Lhere ln 1993, and LhaL up Lo Lhe Llme of Lhe Lrlal, Lhe laLLer had noL yeL reLurned.
When puL on Lhe wlLness sLand, 8owena LesLlfled LhaL whlle she was sLaylng aL Lhelr
house ln 8arangay Allpangpang, she remembered her faLher removlng her dress and
panLles, fondllng her breasLs and geLLlng on Lop of her. She remembered seelng hls sex
organ and havlng lL lnserLed lnslde her. She sald she felL paln when he dld so. 8owena
LesLlfled LhaL her faLher Lold her noL Lo Lell anybody, oLherwlse he would klll her. Cn
furLher quesLlonlng, she sald her faLher lnserLed hls penls lnslde her
everyday.$%&'("$)*+,
Cn cross-examlnaLlon, 8owena LesLlfled LhaL her faLher had raped her aL nlghLLlme. She
sald LhaL whlle she was sleeplng wlLh her slsLer Marlcel, and Lhelr grandmoLher
veronlca, ln a room on Lhe second floor of Lhelr house, her faLher carrled her ouLslde
and raped her. She sald her grandmoLher woke up when she was carrled ouLslde Lhe
room by her faLher.
1esLlfylng ln hls own behalf, accused-appellanL sald LhaL he loved hls chlldren and LhaL
he could noL have raped 8owena, Lhe laLLer belng hls daughLer. Pe clalmed LhaL Lhe
charge of rape was flled Lo dlscredlL hlm and LhaL he was Lhe vlcLlm of a frameup.
Accused-appellanL sLaLed LhaL hls moLher veronlca and hls slsLer rlscllla held a grudge
agalnsL hlm, Lhus, Lhelr flllng of Lhe rape case. ln elaboraLlon, accused-appellanL clalmed
LhaL rlscllla wanLed Lo buy from hlm a karaoke, a Walkman, and several waLches, lLems
LhaL he had broughL back from Saudl Arabla, aL a very low prlce. Pe, however, decllned.
lnsLead, he sold Lhese lLems Lo a Lhlrd person for a hlgher prlce. lrom Lhen on, accordlng
Lo accused-appellanL, bad blood ran beLween hlm and rlscllla. Accused-appellanL
furLher LesLlfled LhaL veronlca and rlscllla had asked hlm Lo slgn a documenL selllng
Lhelr land, whlch requesL he had noL acceded Lo. Pe also explalned LhaL hls moLher and
slsLer clalmed Lhe money LhaL hls wlfe senL hlm every monLh.
Cn cross-examlnaLlon, accused-appellanL admlLLed LhaL hls daughLer 8owena was slx
years of age. Llkewlse, he LesLlfled LhaL hls wlfe had gone Lo kuwalL ln 1993. LasLly,
accused-appellanL admlLLed LhaL hls oLher daughLer Marlcel, age 11, had flled a crlmlnal
case for acLs of lasclvlousness agalnsL hlm. SomeLlme durlng Lhe proceedlngs, accused-
appellanL's counsel adopLed Lhe medlcal cerLlflcaLe lssued by ur. 8andonlll as Lhelr
LxhlblL "l" Lo prove Lhe absence of spermaLozoa ln Lhe sex organ of 8owena.
Cn SepLember 27, 1996, Lhe Lrlal courL rendered a declslon, Lhe dlsposlLlve porLlon of
whlch reads as follows:
WPL8LlC8L, Lhe CourL flnds Lhe accused, !Cvl1C LCSAnC y nAClS,
CulL1? beyond reasonable doubL of Lhe crlme of 8AL deflned and
penallzed under 8epubllc AcL no. 7639, Lhe offense havlng been
commlLLed wlLh Lhe aLLendanL aggravaLlng clrcumsLances of "when Lhe
woman ls under Lwelve years old" and "when Lhe vlcLlm ls under
elghLeen (18) years of age and Lhe offender ls a parenL", (!"#) hereby
senLences hlm Lo suffer Lhe supreme penalLy of uLA1P Lo be execuLed
pursuanL Lo 8ep. AcL no. 8177 known as Lhe LeLhal ln[ecLlon Law, Lo pay
Lhe complalnanL, 8CWLnA LCSAnC ln Lhe amounL of 30,000,00 as
damages, and Lo pay Lhe cosLs.
And Lhe word of Lhe law, lL ls sald:
"uura lex, sed lex", lnLerpreLed as: "1he law ls harsh (!"#), buL LhaL (!"#) ls
Lhe law."
SC C8uL8Lu.
3

1he penalLy of deaLh havlng been lmposed, Lhe declslon ls now before us for auLomaLlc
revlew, pursuanL Lo ArLlcle 47 of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code and SecLlon 1(e), 8ule 122 of
Lhe 8ules of CourL. 1he lree Legal AsslsLance Croup (lLAC) AnLl-ueaLh enalLy 1ask
lorce submlLLed a brlef on behalf of Lhe accused-appellanL. ln seeklng a reversal of Lhe
SepLember 27, 1996 declslon, lL ralses Lhe followlng as errors of Lhe Lrlal courL:
1. 1PL 18lAL CCu81 C8AvLL? L88Lu ln CCnvlC1lnC 1PL ACCuSLu-
ALLLAn1 Cl An CllLnSL nC1 CPA8CLu ln 1PL lnlC8MA1lCn,
2. 1PL 18lAL CCu81 C8AvLL? L88Lu ln ClvlnC luLL WLlCP1 Anu
C8LuLnCL 1C 1PL 1LS1lMCn? Cl 1PL 8lvA1L CCMLAlnAn1 Anu ln
ulS8LCA8ulnC l1S lnCCnSlS1LnClLS,
3. 1PL 18lAL CCu81 MAnllLS1Lu 8lAS, 1PL8L8? uL8lvlnC 1PL
ACCuSLu-ALLLAn1 Cl PlS 8lCP1 1C A lAl8 Anu lMA81lAL 18lAL
Anu vlCLA1lnC PlS 8lCP1 1C 8L 8LSuMLu lnnCCLn1, WPLn l1 LLu
1PL ACCuSLu-ALLLAn1 1C AuMl1 A MLulCC-LLCAL LxAMlnA1lCn
8LC81 1PA1 l1 LA1L8 uSLu 1C CCnvlC1 PlM,
4. 1PL 18lAL CCu81 C8AvLL? L88Lu ln llnulnC 1PA1 1PL ACCuSLu-
ALLLAn1 PAu 1PL 8CLnSl1? 1C SLxuALL? A8uSL PlS CPlLu8Ln Cn
1PL 8ASlS Cl A LnulnC CASL Cl AC1S Cl LASClvlCuSnLSS llLLu
ACAlnS1 PlM 8? AnC1PL8 CPlLu, Anu ln uSlnC SAlu llnulnC 1C
CCnvlC1 1PL ACCuSLu-ALLLAn1.
AfLer a Lhorough and palnsLaklng revlew of Lhe evldence on record, as well as of Lhe
argumenLs advanced by Lhe lLAC AnLl-ueaLh enalLy 1ask lorce and by SollclLor
Ceneral, we resolve Lo afflrm Lhe [udgmenL of convlcLlon.
ln supporL of hls allegaLlon LhaL he was convlcLed of an offense noL charged ln Lhe
lnformaLlon, accused-appellanL noLes LhaL he was charged wlLh havlng commlLLed rape
"someLlme ln May 1993, ln 8arangay, Allpangpang, MunlclpallLy of ozorrublo,
angaslnan." Pe, however, asserLs LhaL Lhe prosecuLlon falled Lo prove LhaL he had
commlLLed rape someLlme ln May 1993. lf ever accused-appellanL raped hls daughLer,
he clalms LhaL Lhls dld noL occur ln May buL much laLer. ln supporL of hls argumenL,
accused-appellanL polnLs Lo Lhe medlco-legal reporL, whlch puLs Lhe Llme of commlsslon
of Lhe alleged rape aL someLlme ln AugusL 1993. lurLhermore, accused-appellanL alleges
LhaL "Lhe congesLlon and lnflammaLlon aL Lhe vesLlbular mucosa and Lhe hymenal area
coupled wlLh lnLense paln and Lenderness" menLloned ln Lhe medlco-legal reporL would
have long dlsappeared lf Lhe rape had occurred someLlme ln May, four monLhs before
Lhe medlcal examlnaLlon. LasLly, accused-appellanL polnLs Lo Lhe LesLlmonles of Lhe
prosecuLlon wlLnesses Lhemselves as lndlcaLlve LhaL Lhe alleged rape Look place much
laLer Lhan May 1993.
veronlca Losano:
C: now, Madam WlLness, beLween Lhe perlod of SepLember 23,1993 can
you recall lf Lhere was anyLhlng unusual LhaL happened?
A: ?es, slr.
C: WhaL was LhaL unusual lncldenL abouL, Madam WlLness?
A: My granddaughLer Lold me LhaL her breasLs were mashed and her
panLles were removed, slr.
xxx xxx xxx
C: now, whaL else dld your granddaughLer, 8owena, Lell you aslde from
Lelllng LhaL Lhe accused !ovlLo Losano, her own faLher, mashed her
breasLs and removed her panLles?
A: My granddaughLer Lold me LhaL afLer Lhe accused mashed her breasLs
he lnserLed hls penls ln Lhe organ of my granddaughLer, slr.
4

8owena Losano:
C: Pow many Llmes dld your faLher lnserL hls penls Lo your vaglna?
A: Lveryday, slr.
C: -*. 01,23 ,(2 42*5,( 63 30,(23 01,23 ,(2 40!, ,"72 ,(0, (2 .". ,(0, ,6
869: 869 "*16372. 8693 530*.76,(23 0;69, ",?
A: ?es, slr.
S
(lLallcs accused-appellanL's)
lrom Lhe foregolng, accused-appellanL draws Lhe concluslon LhaL whaL Lhe prosecuLlon
may have proved was a rape LhaL occurred someLlme ln AugusL or SepLember, much
laLer Lhan May 1993, an offense he conslders dlfferenL from LhaL whlch was alleged ln
Lhe lnformaLlon. urawlng on Lhe prlnclple LhaL an accused cannoL be convlcLed for an
offense noL charged ln Lhe lnformaLlon, no maLLer how concluslve and convlnclng Lhe
evldence of gullL,
6
accused-appellanL argues LhaL hls convlcLlon should be reversed.
Accused-appellanL's argumenL holds no waLer. Lhe SecLlon 11 of Lhe 8ule 110 of Lhe
8ules of CourL provldes:
Sec. 11. 1lme of Lhe commlsslon of Lhe offense. - lL ls noL necessary Lo
sLaLe ln Lhe complalnL or lnformaLlon Lhe preclse Llme aL whlch Lhe
offense was commlLLed excepL when Llme ls a maLerlal lngredlenL of Lhe
offense, buL Lhe acL may be alleged Lo have been commlLLed aL any Llme
as Lo Lhe acLual daLe aL whlch Lhe offense was commlLLed as Lhe
lnformaLlon or complalnL wlll permlL.
1hus, as early as 1903, Lhls CourL has ruled LhaL whlle Lhe complalnL musL allege a
speclflc Llme and place when and where Lhe offense was commlLLed, Lhe proof need noL
correspond Lo Lhls allegaLlon, unless Lhe Llme and place ls maLerlal and of Lhe essence of
Lhe offense as necessary lngredlenL ln lLs descrlpLlon. Lvldence so presenLed ls
admlsslble and sufflclenL lf lL shows 1) LhaL Lhe crlme was commlLLed aL any Llme wlLhln
Lhe perlod of Lhe sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlons, and 2) before or afLer Lhe Llme sLaLed ln Lhe
complalnL or lndlcLmenL and before Lhe acLlon ls commenced.
7

unforLunaLely for accused-appellanL, Lhe daLe of commlsslon ls noL an essenLlal elemenL
of Lhe crlme of rape,
8
whaL ls maLerlal belng Lhe occurrence of Lhe rape, noL Lhe Llme of
commlsslon Lhereof.
9
Pence, proof as Lo Lhe Llme of rape need noL correspond Lo Lhe
allegaLlon ln Lhe lnformaLlon. Llkewlse, Lhe rape as commlLLed wlLhln Lhe perlod
provlded by Lhe sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlons. lL may also be observed LhaL whlle Lhe rape
proven occurred afLer Lhe Llme sLaLed ln Lhe complalnL, Lhe acLlon was commenced
afLer Lhe rape lncldenL had Lransplred.$%&'("$)*+,
AddlLlonally, lL ls Loo laLe ln Lhe day for accused-appellanL Lo ob[ecL Lo hls convlcLlon on
Lhe basls of Lhe erroneous daLe charged ln Lhe lnformaLlon. SecLlons 1 and 3(d) of 8ule
117 of Lhe 8ules of CourL provldes:
Sec. 1. <"72 ,6 76=2 ,6 >90!(. - AL any Llme before enLerlng hls plea,
Lhe accused may move Lo quash Lhe complalnL or lnformaLlon.
Sec. 3. ?369*.!. - 1he accused may move Lo quash Lhe complalnL or
lnformaLlon on any of Lhe followlng grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
d) 1haL lL does noL conform subsLanLlally Lo Lhe prescrlbed form,
xxx xxx xxx (lLallcs ours)
Llkewlse, SecLlon 8 of 8ule 117 provldes:
Sec. 8. @0"4932 ,6 76=2 ,6 >90!( 63 ,6 044252 0*8 5369*. ,(232163. - 1he
fallure of Lhe accused Lo asserL any ground of a moLlon Lo quash before
he pleads Lo Lhe complalnL or lnformaLlon, elLher because he dld noL flle
a moLlon Lo quash or falled Lo allege Lhe same ln sald moLlon !(044 ;2
.2272. 0 &0"=23 61 ,(2 5369*.! 61 0 76,"6* ,6 >90!(, excepL Lhe
grounds of no offense charged, lack of [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe offense
charged, exLlncLlon of Lhe offense or penalLy and [eopardy, as provlded
for ln paragraphs (a), (b), (f) and (h) of SecLlon 3 of Lhls 8ule. (Lmphasls
ours)
Sec. 3(d) of 8ule 117 refers Lo Lhe formal parLs of a complalnL or lnformaLlon provlded
for ln SecLlons 6 Lo 12 of 8ule 110. 1hese lnclude, among oLhers, Lhe Llme of Lhe
commlsslon of Lhe offense. ln accordance wlLh Lhe above-menLloned secLlons, accused-
appellanL should have flled a moLlon Lo quash Lhe lnformaLlon on Lhe ground LhaL lL
alleged an erroneous daLe, before he enLered hls plea. Accused-appellanL, however, dld
noL flle a moLlon Lo quash. lnsLead, he had hlmself arralgned, enLerlng a plea of noL
gullLy Lo Lhe crlme of rape. Such belng Lhe case, accused-appellanL has walved hls rlghL
Lo ob[ecL Lo Lhe lnformaLlon on Lhe ground of an errors as Lo Lhe Llme of Lhe alleged
rape.
When Lhere ls a varlance beLween Lhe allegaLlon of Lhe lnformaLlon and Lhe evldence of
Lhe prosecuLlon wlLh respecL Lo Lhe Llme when Lhe crlme was commlLLed, and Lhe
accused lnLerposed a Llmely ob[ecLlon Lo such varlance and showed LhaL lL was
pre[udlclal Lo hls lnLeresL ln LhaL lL decelved hlm and prevenLed hlm from havlng a falr
opporLunlLy Lo defend hlmself, Lhe Lrlal courL may, ln Lhe exerclse of sound dlscreLlon,
order Lhe lnformaLlon amended so as Lo seL forLh Lhe correcL daLe and may granL an
ad[ournmenL for such a lengLh of Llme as wlll enable Lhe defendanL Lo prepare hlmself
Lo meeL Lhe varlance ln daLe whlch was Lhe cause of hls surprlse. 8uL lf Lhe accused
hlmself offers no ob[ecLlon Lo such a varlance and no rellef ls asked, and LhaL ln place of
ob[ecLlon Lhe accused accepLs Lhe lssue and enLers upon hls defense and produces hls
wlLnesses, glvlng evldence wlLh regard Lo Lhe very LransacLlon concernlng whlch Lhe
prosecuLlon's wlLnesses had offered Lhelr LesLlmony, an ob[ecLlon ralsed for Lhe flrsL
Llme ln appellaLe courL based on such varlance ln unLenable.
10

lL ls, llkewlse erroneous for Lhe accused-appellanL Lo clalm LhaL whaL Lhe prosecuLlon
was able Lo prove was an offense dlfferenL from LhaL charged ln Lhe lnformaLlon. lf Lhe
daLe of Lhe commlsslon of a crlme ls erroneously seL forLh ln Lhe lnformaLlon, Lhe facL
LhaL Lhe prosecuLlon proves Lhe correcL daLe does noL mean necessarlly LhaL an
lnference could leglLlmaLely be drawn LhaL Lwo crlmes had been commlLLed. lf Lhe
accused hlmself offers no ob[ecLlon Lo such varlance lL musL be assumed LhaL he ls noL
pre[udlced Lhereby and LhaL Lhe change ln daLe has ln no wlse affecLed hls ablllLy or
opporLunlLy Lo defend hlmself. 1hls ls speclally Lrue where, ln place of ob[ecLlon, Lhe
accused accepLs Lhe lssue Lendered by Lhe evldence of Lhe prosecuLlon and proceeds Lo
meeL lL wlLh evldence of hls own.
11
Accused-appellanL may noL, Lhus, allege LhaL he was
convlcLed of an offense dlfferenL from LhaL charged ln Lhe lnformaLlon.
ln hls second asslgnmenL of error, accused-appellanL characLerlzes 8owena's LesLlmony
as coached, Lhe same havlng been educed Lhrough leadlng quesLlons propounded by
Lhe prosecuLlon.
llscal MaLro
C: Are you Lhe same 8owena Losano who ls Lhe complalnanL ln Lhls case?
A: ?es, slr.
C: 1he one you (!"#) accuslng ln Lhls (!"#) ls !ovlLo Losano who ls your own
faLher?
A: ?es, slr.
C: Can you recall whaL your faLher dld Lo you whlch ls now Lhe sub[ecL of
your complalnL?
A: ?es, slr.
C: WhaL dld your faLher !ovlLo Losano dld (!"#) Lo you?
ALLy. adllla
l would llke Lo manlfesL, your Ponor, LhaL Lhe wlLness cannoL answer Lhe
quesLlon, desplLe reasonable Llme, your Ponor.
xxx xxx xxx
llscal MaLro
C: uo you remember LhaL your faLher dld someLhlng Lo you whlle you
were ln your house ln Allpangpang, ozorrublo, angaslnan?
A: ?es, slr.
C: uo you remember your faLher havlng removed your dress and
panLles?
A: ?es, slr.
C: AfLer your faLher removed your panLles whaL dld he do Lo you?
A: (no answer from Lhe wlLness)
C: uo you also remember your faLher fondllng your breasL?
A: ?es, slr.
C: AfLer your faLher fondled your breasL, he made you lle down, ls lL noL?
A: ?es, slr.
C: 1hen he also removed hls panLs and hls brlef, do you remember LhaL
also?
A: ?es, slr.
C: And afLer LhaL he wenL on Lop of you, ls LhaL correcL?
A: ?es, slr.
C: uo you remember havlng seen hls sex organ?
A: ?es, slr.
C: AfLer he wenL on Lop of you do you sLlll remember whaL he dld Lo you?
A: ?es, slr.
C: WhaL dld he do Lo you? uo you remember your faLher lnserLlng hls
penls Lo (!"#) your vaglna?
A: ?es, slr.
C: WhaL dld you feel afLer LhaL?
A: lL was palnful, slr.
C: Was he able Lo lnserL hls penls ln whole Lo (!"#) your vaglna?
A: ?es, slr.
C: Pow long dld he lnserL hls penls Lo (!"#) your vaglna?
A: 8rlef (!"#), slr.
C: AfLer LhaL whaL dld your faLher Lell you?
A: Pe Lold me noL Lo Lell anybody oLherwlse he wlll klll me, slr.
C: And afLer LhaL your faLher lefL Lhe house, do you remember?
A: ?es, slr.
C: Pow many Llmes dld your faLher lnserL hls penls Lo your vaglna?
A: Lveryday, slr.
12

As a general rule, leadlng quesLlons are noL allowed. When Lhe wlLness ls a chlld of
Lender years, however, lL ls proper for Lhe courL Lo allow leadlng quesLlons,
13
as lL ls
usually dlfflculL for a chlld of Lender years Lo sLaLe facLs wlLhouL prompLlng or
suggesLlon. ln Lhe case aL hand, 8owena ls a chlld of Lender years, belng only seven
years old aL Lhe Llme of her LesLlmony. As we have held ln A26'42 =)
B0350!,
14
"[c]hlldren are naLurally meek and shy. 1hey need paLlenL and careful problng
Lo encourage Lhem Lo Lalk ln publlc abouL a LraumaLlc experlence. lndeed, recounLlng an
ordeal of rape ln a courLroom ls Lremendously dlfflculL and devasLaLlng even for an adulL
woman. . . Pence, we flnd noLhlng wrong when Lhe Lrlal [udge propounded problng
quesLlons Lo (Lhe vlcLlm) Lo coax LruLh ouL of her relucLanL llps."
Accused-appellanL also polnLs Lo lnconslsLencles ln Lhe LesLlmony of 8owena as proof
LhaL Lhe alleged rape never Look place. Accused-appellanL [uxLaposes 8owena's
LesLlmony saylng LhaL her grandmoLher was awakened when her faLher came Lo her
room Lo geL her wlLh veronlca's LesLlmony saylng LhaL she was ln 8agulo aL Lhe Llme her
granddaughLer was raped. Accused-appellanL also clalms LhaL he could noL have raped
hls daughLer for lf 8owena's grandmoLher was awake aL Lhe Llme of Lhe alleged rape,
she cerLalnly would have heard Lhe crles of paln of her granddaughLer.
1hls CourL has Llme and agaln ruled LhaL Lhe sole LesLlmony of Lhe vlcLlm ln a rape case ls
sufflclenL Lo susLaln a convlcLlon lf such LesLlmony ls
credlble.
1S
8y Lhe very naLure of rape cases, convlcLlon or acqulLLal depends almosL
enLlrely on Lhe credlblllLy of Lhe complalnanL's LesLlmony, Lhe facL belng LhaL usually
only Lhe parLlclpanLs LhereLo can LesLlfy as Lo lLs occurrence.
16
ln Lhe lnsLanL case, Lhe
Lrlal courL found Lhe LesLlmony of 8owena Lo be credlble, possesslng as Lhey dld "all Lhe
semblance of LruLh." We flnd no compelllng reason Lo dlsLurb Lhe Lrlal courL's rellance
on 8owena's LesLlmony, lL belng hornbook docLrlne LhaL Lhe flndlngs of facL of Lhe Lrlal
courL ls enLlLled Lo Lhe hlghesL respecL, lL belng ln Lhe besL poslLlon or Lo deLermlne
quesLlons of credlblllLy of wlLnesses, havlng heard Lhem and observed Lhelr deporLmenL
and manner of LesLlfylng.
17

lurLhermore, Lhe alleged lnconslsLencles polnLed ouL by accused-appellanL perLaln only
Lo mlnor maLLers whlch sLrengLhen raLher Lhan weaken Lhe credlblllLy of 8owena. ln any
case, Lhe presence or absence of veronlca aL Lhe house where Lhe alleged rape Look
place does noL deLracL from Lhe facL LhaL 8owena's LesLlmony polnLs Lo accused-
appellanL as her assallanL. When a woman, especlally lf she ls a mlnor, says LhaL she has
been raped she says ln effecL all LhaL ls necessary Lo show LhaL rape was commlLLed.
18

Llkewlse, wheLher or noL veronlca awoke when accused-appellanL Look hls daughLer ouL
of Lhe room wlll noL and cannoL affecL 8owena's credlblllLy, as Lhe same does noL
dlsprove LhaL Lhe rape was noL commlLLed. And even lf lLs were Lrue LhaL veronlca
awoke aL Lhe Llme accused-appellanL carrled hls daughLer ouL of Lhe room, no proLesL
could have been forLhcomlng, as Lhe former probably dld noL know LhaL accused-
appellanL was ouL Lo rape hls own flesh and blood. Agaln, Lhe allegaLlon LhaL Lhe rape
could noL have Laken place due Lo Lhe proxlmlLy of veronlca's presence holds no waLer.
1he nearby presence of people ln a cerLaln place ls no guaranLee LhaL rape wlll noL and
cannoL be commlLLed,
19
lusL belng no respecLer of Llme and place.
lL may also be observed LhaL for hls defense, accused-appellanL could only deny havlng
raped hls daugLher. Well-enLrenched ls Lhe rule LhaL denlal ls lnherenLly weak and easlly
fabrlcaLed.
20
lL becomes even weaker ln Lhe face of Lhe poslLlve ldenLlflcaLlon by Lhe
vlcLlm, 8owena, of accused-appellanL as her assallanL.
We also re[ecL accused-appellanL's conLenLlon LhaL Lhe rape charge was due Lo Lhe bad
blood beLween hlm and hls moLher and slsLer. no slsLer would be so depraved as Lo
condemn a broLher Lo posslble deaLh for fallure Lo sell a karaoke, Walkman and waLches
aL bargaln basemenL prlces. nelLher would a moLher be so callous as Lo seal her son's
doom for hls refusal Lo sell a plece of land. LasLly, lL would be unllkely for 8owena, a
seven-year old, Lo fabrlcaLe a sLory of rape whlch would puL her own faLher on ueaLh
8ow. As apLly sLaLed by Lhe Lrlal courL, "'[=]23",0! !"7'42C 630,"6* 2!,, Lhe language of
LruLh ls slmple, lL can come from Lhe mouLh of a chlld and Lhe llps of Lhe poor, slmple
and unleLLered."
ln hls Lhlrd asslgnmenL of error, accused-appellanL clalms LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL [udge was
blased agalnsL hlm, allegedly because lL perempLorlly ordered hls defense counsel Lo
sLlpulaLe Lo Lhe medlco-legal reporL slnce Lhe flndlngs Lhereln were "negaLlve," Lhereby
deprlvlng hlm of a chance Lo cross-examlne Lhe docLor on Lhe correcLness of Lhe laLLer's
flndlngs. Accused-appellanL clalms Lhese flndlngs were used by Lhe Lrlal courL ln
convlcLlng hlm, as follows:
lL could now be deduced wlLhouL conLradlcLlon LhaL Lhe accused had
really lnserLed hls sexual organ upon Lhe '9.2*.0 of hls daughLer buL he
was heslLanL Lo fully lnserL lL conslderlng Lhe slze of hls erecLed penls Lo
LhaL vaglna of hls 3 years and 1 monLh old chlld as Lhls would, accordlng
Lo Lhe medlcal wlLness, "produce masslve genlLal ln[ury." Lvldence would
show LhaL Lhe accused's sex organ had peneLraLed sllghLly lnLo hls
daughLer's vaglna because of Lhe presence of congesLlon and
lnflammaLlon aL Lhe vesLlbular mucosa and Lhe hymenal area coupled
wlLh Lhe lnLense paln and Lenderness lndlcaLes Lhe probablllLy of
aLLempLed peneLraLlon of Lhe area by Lhe hard erecL male organ whlch
was noL successful.
21

1he relevanL LesLlmony clLed by accused-appellanL Lo prove Lhe Lrlal courL's alleged blas
ls as follows:
CourL
Who ls your nexL wlLness, llscal?
llscal MaLro
1he docLor, ?our Ponor.
CourL
Can you sLlpulaLe on Lhls wheLher you agree or noL? -*8&08: ,(2 1"*."*5
,(232 "! *250,"=2. ?ou sLlpulaLe now as Lo Lhe exlsLence of LxhlblL "A."
(Lmphasls ours).
ALLy. adllla.
?es, ?our Ponor. We admlL.
CourL
lace on record LhaL Lhe Counsel for Lhe accused ls admlLLlng Lhe
exlsLence of LxhlblL "A."
22

Whlle Lhe Lrlal courL's denomlnaLlon of Lhe medlco-legal reporL as negaLlve may noL
have been [udlclal nor [udlclous, lL can hardly be deduced from Lhe above LesLlmony LhaL
Lhe courL 0 >96 perempLorlly ordered defense counsel Lo sLlpulaLe on Lhe medlco-legal
reporL. ln facL, Lhe CourL was noL addresslng defense counsel buL Lhe flscal. lL was
defense counsel, however, who admlLLed Lo Lhe exlsLence of Lhe medlco-legal reporL. ln
facL, noL only dld defense counsel admlL Lhe exlsLence of such reporL, lL would laLer on
adopL Lhe same as lLs own exhlblL ln order Lo prove Lhe absence of
spermaLozoa.
23
Accused-appellanL cannoL, Lhus, denounce Lhe [udge for blas for Lhe
lmprovldence of hls counsel ln adopLlng sald medlco-legal reporL.
nelLher may accused-appellanL repudlaLe Lhe acLlons of hls counsel, lL belng wlLhln Lhe
compeLence of Lhe laLLer Lo sLlpulaLe on Lhe exlsLence of sald medlco-legal reporL, Lhe
same belng a mere procedural quesLlon. Well-seLLled ls Lhe rule LhaL such quesLlons as
whaL acLlon or pleadlng Lo flle, where and when Lo flle lL, whaL are lLs formal
requlremenLs, &(0, !(694. ;2 ,(2 ,(2638 61 ,(2 #0!2: &(0, .212*!2! ,6 30"!2: (6& ,(2
#40"7 63 .212*!2 708 ;2 '36=2., when Lo resL Lhe case, as well as Lhose affecLlng Lhe
compeLency of a wlLness, Lhe sufflclency, relevancy, maLerlallLy or lmmaLerlallLy of
cerLaln evldence and Lhe burden of proof are wlLhln Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe aLLorney Lo
declde.
24
WhaLever declslon an aLLorney makes on any of Lhese procedural quesLlons,
even lf lL adversely affecLs a cllenL's case, wlll generally blnd a cllenL. More lmporLanLly,
accused-appellanL's convlcLlon does noL resL on Lhls plece of evldence alone buL on Lhe
LesLlmony of Lhe vlcLlm herself.
LasLly, accused-appellanL scores Lhe Lrlal courL for holdlng LhaL he had Lhe propenslLy Lo
sexually abuse hls chlldren on Lhe basls of a pendlng case for acLs of lasclvlousness flled
agalnsL hlm by anoLher chlld. upon Lhls parLlcular, accused-appellanL ralses a valld polnL.
1he Lrlal courL, ln lLs assessmenL of Lhe evldence, found LhaL accused-appellanL had
admlLLed LhaL a case for acLs of lasclvlousness had been flled agalnsL hlm. 8ased on
SecLlon 34 of 8ule 130
2S
provldlng LhaL slmllar acLs may be decelved Lo prove a speclflc
lnLenL, plan, sysLem, scheme, and Lhe llke, Lhe Lrlal courL drew Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe
accused-appellanL had Lhe propenslLy Lo prey on hls daughLers.
1he admlsslon of Lhe accused-appellanL LhaL he was faclng a charge of acLs of
lasclvlousness flled by hls eleven-year old daughLer only proves LhaL such a case was
flled and pendlng wlLh Lhe munlclpal courL. lL does noL prove Lhe propenslLy of Lhe
accused-appellanL Lo crave for hls chlldren. 1he pendency of sald case Lo hls gullL
Lhereof, Lhe Lrlal courL lgnored Lhe consLlLuLlonal presumpLlon of lnnocence afforded Lo
Lhe accused-appellanL.
1he Lrlal courL's error on Lhls polnL does noL, however, obllLeraLe Lhe facL LhaL Lhe
prosecuLlon was able Lo prove LhaL lndeed, accused-appellanL raped hls daughLer. ln
sum, we flnd no reason Lo dlsLurb Lhe flndlng of Lhe Lrlal courL LhaL Lhe gullL of Lhe
accused-appellanL has been proved beyond reasonable doubL.
As Lo Lhe penalLy lmposed, ArLlcle 333, as amended by 8epubllc AcL no. 7639, provlde
LhaL Lhe deaLh penalLy shall be lmposed lf Lhe rape vlcLlm ls under elghLeen years of age
and Lhe offender ls a parenL, ascendanL, sLep-parenL, guardlan, relaLlve by consangulnlLy
or afflnlLy wlLhln Lhe Lhlrd clvll degree, or a common-law spouse of Lhe parenL of Lhe
vlcLlm. 1he case aL hand ls clearly wlLhln Lhe amblL of ArLlcle 333, accused-appellanL
belng Lhe faLher of Lhe vlcLlm, 8owena, who was only slx years of age aL Lhe Llme of Lhe
rape lncldenL. 1he supreme penalLy of deaLh was, Lhus, properly lmposed upon accused-
appellanL.
WlLh regard Lo Lhe clvll lndemnlLy, recenL [urlsprudence has held LhaL where Lhe crlme
of rape ls commlLLed or effecLlvely quallfled by any of Lhe clrcumsLances under whlch
Lhe deaLh penalLy ls auLhorlzed Lhe clvll lndemnlLy Lo be awarded Lo Lhe vlcLlm ls
lncreased Lo 73,000.00.
26
We also flnd lL proper Lo award 30,000.000 as moral
damages alLhough proof of such enLlLlemenL was noL presenLed.
27

lour members of Lhe CourL malnLaln Lhelr poslLlon LhaL 8epubllc AcL no. 7639, lnsofar
as lL prescrlbes Lhe deaLh penalLy, ls unconsLlLuLlonal, neverLheless Lhey submlL Lo Lhe
rullng of Lhe CourL, by a ma[orlLy voLe, LhaL Lhe law ls consLlLuLlonal and LhaL Lhe deaLh
penalLy should be accordlngly lmposed.
WnLkLICkL, prem|ses cons|dered, the [udgment of the tr|a| court dated September
27, 1996 |mpos|ng the death pena|ty of accused-appe||ant Iov|to Losano y Nac|s |s
hereby AIIIkMLD, w|th the MCDIIICA1ICN that accused-appe||ant shou|d |ndemn|fy
the v|ct|m, kCWLNA LCSANC, |n the amount of 7S,000.00 as c|v|| |ndemn|ty and
S0,000.00 as mora| damages, respect|ve|y. Cost aga|nst the accused-appe||ant.
In accordance w|th Art|c|e 83 of the kev|sed ena| Code, as amended by Sect|on 2S of
kepub||c Act No. 76S9, upon f|na||ty of th|s Dec|s|on, |et a cert|f|ed true copy thereof,
as we|| as the records of th|s case be forthw|th forwarded to the Cff|ce of the
res|dent for poss|b|e exerc|se of execut|ve c|emency.
SC CkDLkLD.