PEOPLE v.

BENJAMIN SALAVER
JURISPRUDENCE ON QUALIFIED RAPE

I. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, vs. TOMAS MARCELLANA (3 counts of rape) [G.R. Nos. 137401-03. February 6, 2002.] QUICK FACTS: Private complainant Francia Marcellana testified that her father, accused-appellant Tomas Marcellana, had been raping the former since 1992, the last of which happened on November 10 and 12, and December 5, 1996. The incidents usually happen at about 7 o'clock in the morning when Francia is left alone in their house, as her classes start at 11:00 a.m. At this time, her brothers and sisters are already in school while her mother is in the farm. Accused-appellant also goes to the farm early but returns before 7:00 a.m., at which time Francia's ordeal at the hands of her father begin. He would drag Francia inside the bedroom, undress her, lay her down on the bed and tie her hands and feet to the farm posts of the bed. Accused-appellant would then take off his shorts and brief, lay on top of Francia and make a push and pull movement for about three minutes. Thereafter, accused-appellant would put on his brief and shorts, untie one of the hands of Francia and leave her. The latter would then untie her other hand and feet. 2 She could not tell her mother as well as her siblings about the incidents because she was always threatened by accused-appellant. It was only in December of 1996 when Francia, suspecting that she might be pregnant, gathered enough courage to reveal her ordeal to her mother. 3 Since her mother did not initially believe her, Francia went to her high school teacher 4 who helped her secure assistance from the Department of Social Welfare and Development. 1. On delay.. The delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is neither unknown or uncommon. Particularly in incestuous rape, this Court has consistently held that delay in reporting the offense is not indicative of a fabricated charge. . . . Moreover, the young victim might just opt to bear the ignominy and pain in private rather than reveal her shame to the whole world. She may also be too overwhelmed with fear and confusion as to why her very own father would commit such a nefarious act. In the case before us, Francia's ordeal in the hands of her father began in 1992. Based on her Certificate of Live Birth, Francia was then only twelve years old. At that young age and with the naivete and innocence that comes with provincial upbringing, the callow Francia was undoubtedly under her father's moral authority and influence. This ascendancy over her together with the constant threats from her father, Francia could not possibly be expected to come out in the open. It took her four more years of prolonged abuse as well as the threat of a more humiliating circumstance that of being pregnant to gather enough courage in finally revealing her ordeal. Withal, we do not consider the delay to be fatal.

2. On fabrication Generally, no young woman would accuse her father of so grave a crime as rape unless she was truly wronged and is now seeking retribution for the abominable violation against her. Neither would she publicly disclose a humiliating and painful experience if it were not the truth. We also find it inconceivable that the young victim would devise or fabricate a story that she was raped by her own father considering that family honor is at stake, and that she might just send him to jail. In the present case, not only was Francia's testimony unwavering, it was also clear, convincing and straightforward. More importantly, her credibility was bolstered beyond reproach by her spontaneous emotional breakdown during trial. 3. On force and intimidation fathers moral ascendancy substitute for force and intimidation In contrast, the relationship between accused-appellant and Francia is that of a father and daughter. As such, the rape contemplated here is quite different from that in Castillan. There, the crime of rape is that alleged to have been committed by force. Where, the rape is committed by a father against his own daughter, the father's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. Moreover, failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance will not make a rape victim's submission voluntary. Citations: People vs. Alicante 332 SCRA 440, 453-454 [2000] "The other inconsistencies refer to minor details such as how many times she was raped during a certain month. These do not create a reasonable doubt as to whether or not accused-appellant raped his daughter. It must be remembered that the victim is a girl of tender age who was sexually attacked by her father several times during a period of less than a year. "It is not expected that Richelle would remember every single detail of every single rape. It is understandable, even anticipated, that there would be minor lapses and inaccuracies when a young girl is made to recount, detail by detail her frightful ordeal under the hands of her father. Considering the age of the victim, she is more prone to error than an adult person. The grueling experience of testifying in public, face to face with her perpetrator and being questioned by hostile lawyers would undoubtedly intimidate and confuse a young girl." People vs. Baculi, 246 SCRA 756, 758 [1995] Of all so called heinous crimes, none perhaps more deeply provokes feelings of outrage, detestation and disgust than incestuous rape. People vs. Traya, 332 SCRA 499, 505 [2000] No daughter in her right mind would consent to having carnal knowledge with her own father.

II. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. VIRGILIO RODAVIA y TOXON (17 counts of rape) [G.R. Nos. 133008-24. February 6, 2002.] On motive.. A YOUNG GIRL WOULD NOT FILE A RAPE CHARGE AGAINST HER OWN FATHER IF IT WERE NOT TRUE. Certainly, the victim who was only a teenager would not have filed a rape charge against her own father, if it were not true. It is highly improbable for a young girl with no record of sexual perversity to fabricate against her own parent a story that may imperil his life or liberty. More important, this Court finds no motive why the victim should testify falsely against her father or implicate him falsely in the commission of such a dastardly act. An incestuous sexual assault is a psycho-social deviance that inflicts a stigma, not only on the victim but on the whole family as well. 19 Thus, when an alleged victim of rape, more so if she is a minor, testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her. And as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. Citations: People vs. Maglente, 306 SCRA 546 [1999]. It bears emphasizing that in a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence sufficiently takes the place of violence or intimidation." People vs. Tabion, 317 SCRA 126 [1999]. Under the same circumstances, proof of force and violence is not even essential, because the moral and physical ascendancy of the father over his daughter is sufficient to cow her into submission to his bestial desires. III. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLENDO GAUDIA @ "LENDOY" or "DODO" [G.R. No. 146111. February 23, 2004.] Citation: People vs. Manalo, G.R. Nos. 144989-90, 31 January 2003; People vs. Glabo, 371 SCRA 567 (2001); People vs. Navida, 346 SCRA 821 (2000); People vs. Valla, 323 SCRA 74 (2000); People vs. Lopez, 302 SCRA 669 (1999). It is a cornerstone of our jurisprudence that the trial judge's evaluation of the testimony of a witness and its factual findings are accorded not only the highest respect, but also finality, unless some weighty circumstance has been ignored or misunderstood which could alter the result of the judgment rendered. In the case ac bar, there is no irregularity in the assessment of evidence by the lower court. It granted utmost credibility to Mik's testimony. Given the direct opportunity to

observe the witness on the stand, the trial judge was in a vantage position to assess his demeanor and determine if he was telling the truth or not.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SONNY RENTORIA y VELASCO [G.R. No. 175333. September 21, 2007.]
On inconsistencies The supposed inconsistencies are more apparent than real and refer, at most, only to insignificant or trivial details. The foregoing bear no materiality to the commission of the crime of qualified rape with which accused-appellant has been charged and of which he has been convicted. As pointed out by the OSG, the seeming inconsistencies were but minor lapses brought about by the late mental development of the witness.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARIO S. MARTIN [G.R. No. 172069. January 30, 2008.]
On victims testimony Well-settled is the rule that the lone testimony of the victim in the crime of rape, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction. This is because, by the very nature of the offense, the only evidence that can often be relied upon is the victim's own declaration. People v. Bulaybulay, G.R. No. 104275, 28 September 1995, 248 SCRA 601, 607, citing People v. Antonio, infra. Time and again, we have held that the trial court's assessment as to the credibility of witnesses is to be accorded great weight. This is so because it had the better opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. People v. Omar, G.R. No. 120656, 3 March 2000, 327 SCRA 221, 228, citing People v. Suba, G.R. Nos. 11935051, 29 November 1999, 319 SCRA 374. Furthermore, the testimony of an innocent child like AAA should be given full weight and credit. Being young and guileless, she had no ill-motive to falsely testify and impute such a serious crime against her own father. Appellant's assertion that ABC induced their daughter to file this rape charge against him without, however, substantiating his claim, is self-serving and deserves scant consideration.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSEPH ORILLA [G.R. Nos. 148939-40. February 13, 2004.]
Remilyn's narration of how appellant ravished her meets the test of credibility. When a woman says that the accused raped her, in effect, she says all that is necessary to show that the accused raped her, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the court may convict the accused on that basis. Remilyn had no reason to fabricate the serious charges against her own brother whose life, could hang in the balance in case he is found guilty of qualified rape. With the filing of the criminal cases, Remilyn had to face the ire of her other siblings, two of whom have even testified against her. Remilyn is now under the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development in Lingayen, Pangasinan. An incestuous sexual assault is a psycho-social deviance that inflicts a stigma, not only on the victim but also on their whole family. Even in ordinary rape cases, the sole testimony of a credible victim may seal the fate of the rapist. TcHDIA In addition, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case. The credible disclosure of a minor that the accused raped her is the most important proof of the sexual abuse.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FEDERICO ORTIZUELA Y EUGENIO [G.R. No. 135675. June 23, 2004.]
On family feud REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; WHEN CONFLICTING FAMILY INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR ANY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS TO VACILLATE. [A]ssuming that AAA gave Randy Guimoroy, appellant's cellmate at the Pasig City Jail, a letter stating that the charge is not true, the same does not vitiate her testimony. The rationale for this rule is obvious. The offender is her father who has moral ascendancy over her. We have held that when conflicting family interests are involved, it is "not uncommon" for any of the family members, like the victim here, to "vacillate". ID.; ID.; ID.; MOTIVE; FAMILY RESENTMENT, REVENGE, OR FEUD HAS NEVER SWAYED THE COURT FROM GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF A RAPE VICTIM. Family resentment, revenge, or feud has never swayed us from giving full credence to the testimony of a rape victim, especially a minor like AAA, who remained steadfast in her testimony that she was sexually abused repeatedly by appellant. It bears stressing that the determination of AAA, BBB and CCC in testifying against appellant in a public trial, unmindful of the resulting humiliation and shame, obviously demonstrates their genuine desire to condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JUAN MANGGASIN Y LUCANAS, [G.R. Nos. 130599-600. April 21, 1999.]
We begin with the settled rule that the evaluation of the testimonies of the witnesses by the trial court is binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the trial court had plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. TOMAS TUNDAG [G.R. Nos. 135695-96. October 12, 2000.]
THE TRIAL COURT HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN NOT ABSOLVING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED IN THE INFORMATIONS DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF REASONABLE DOUBT TO EXCULPATE HIM OF THE SAME. Appellant flatly denies that the incidents complained of ever took place. He contends that on September 5, 1997, he was working as a watch repairman near Gal's Bakery in Mandaue City Market and went home tired and sleepy at around 11:00 o'clock that evening. On November 7, 1997, he claims he was at work. In his brief, he argues that it was impossible for him to have raped his daughter because when the incidents allegedly transpired, "he went to work and naturally, being exhausted and tired, it is impossible for him to do such wrongdoings." 7 The Office of the Solicitor General disagrees with appellant and urges the Court to affirm the trial court's decision, with the recommendation that the award of damages and indemnity ex delicto be modified to conform to prevailing jurisprudence. Considering the gravity of the offense charged as a heinous crime and the irreversibility of the penalty of death imposed in each of these cases before us, the Court leaves no stone unturned in its review of the records, including the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. Conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty of guilt. People v. Acala, 307 SCRA 330, 347 (1999). But here we find no room to disturb the trial court's judgment concerning appellant's guilt, because his defense is utterly untenable. Appellant's defense of alibi and denial is negative and self-serving. It hardly counts as a worthy and weighty ground for exculpation in a trial involving his freedom and his life. Against the testimony of private complainant who testified on affirmative matters, such defense is not only trite but pathetic. Denial is an inherently weak defense, which becomes even weaker in the face of the positive identification by the victim of the appellant as the violator of her honor. People v. Losano, 310 SCRA 707, 723 (1999). Indeed, we find that private complainant was unequivocal in charging appellant with ravishing her. The victim's account of the rapes complained of was straightforward,

detailed, and consistent. 11 Her testimony never wavered even after it had been explained to her that her father could be meted out the death penalty if found guilty by the court. In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility is the single most important issue. People v. Akhtar, 308 SCRA 725, 735 (1999). The determination of the credibility of witnesses is primarily the function of the trial court. The rationale for this is that the trial court has the advantage of having observed at first hand the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand and, therefore, is in a better position to form an accurate impression and conclusion. People v. Mijano, 311 SCRA 81, 87 (1999). Absent any showing that certain facts of value have clearly been overlooked, which if considered could affect the result of the case, or that the trial court's finding are clearly arbitrary, the conclusions reached by the court of origin must be respected and the judgment rendered affirmed. People v. Ernesto Sevilla, G.R. No. 126199, December 8, 1999, pp. 12-13. Moreover, we note here that private complainant's testimony is corroborated by medical findings that lacerations were present in her hymen. The examination conducted by Dr. Bessie Acebes upon the private complainant yielded the following results: Genitalia: grossly female Pubic Hairs: scanty Labia Majora: coaptated Labia Minora: -doFourchette: U-shaped Vestibule: pinkish Hymen: + old healed laceration at 3 and 9 o'clock position(s). Orifice: admits 2 fingers with ease Vagina: Walls: pinkish Ruganities: prominent Uterus: small Cervix: closed Discharges: Mucoid, minimal Smears: Conclusions: sperm identification (-)

Gram staining of vaginal disc. 16

Dr. Acebes testified that her findings of healed hymenal lacerations in the complainant's private parts meant a history of sexual congress on her part. 17 According to her, the lacerations may have been caused by the entry of an erect male organ into complainant's genitals. The examining physician likewise pointed out that previous coitus may be inferred from complainant's U-shaped fourchette since the fourchette of a female who has not yet experienced sexual intercourse is Vshaped. 18 While Dr. Acebes conceded under cross-examination, that the existence of the datum "Ushape(d) fourchette does not conclusively and absolutely mean that there was sexual intercourse or contact because it can be caused by masturbation of fingers or other things," 19 nonetheless, the presence of the hymenal lacerations tends to support private complainant's claim that she was raped by appellant. Appellant next contends that his daughter pressed the rape charges against him because she had quarreled with him after he had castigated her for misbehavior. He stresses that the prosecution did not rebut his testimony regarding his quarrel or misunderstanding with private complainant. He urges us to consider the charges filed against him as the result of his frequent castigation of her delinquent behavior. Such allegation of a family feud, however, does not explain the charges away. Filing a case for incestuous rape is of such a nature that a daughter's accusation must be taken seriously. It goes against human experience that a girl would fabricate a story which would drag herself as well as her family to a lifetime of dishonor, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. 21 More so, where her charges could mean the death of her own father, as in this case. Appellant likewise points out that it was very unlikely for him to have committed the crimes imputed to him considering that he and his wife had ten children to attend to and care for. This argument, however, is impertinent and immaterial. Appellant was estranged from his wife, and private complainant was the only child who lived with him. 22 As pointed out by the Solicitor General, appellant was thus "free to do as he wished to satisfy his bestial lust on his daughter." 23 Nor does appellant's assertion that private complainant has some psychological problems and a low IQ of 76 in any way favor his defense. These matters did not affect the credibility of her testimony that appellant raped her twice. We note that the victim understood the consequences of prosecuting the rape charges against her own father, as shown by the following testimony of the victim on cross-examination: Q: Were you informed that if, and when your father will be found guilty, your father will be sentenced to death? A: Q: A xxx Yes. Until now you wanted that your father will be sentenced by death? (Witness nodding.) xxx xxx

Q: I will inform you, Miss Witness, that you have filed two cases against your father and in case your father would be found guilty, two death sentences will be imposed against him? A: Q: A: Yes. With that information, do you still want this case would proceed? I want this to proceed. 24

Indeed, appellant is guilty. But is the penalty of death imposed on him correct? Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, 25 penalizes rape of a minor daughter by her father as qualified rape 26 and a heinous crime. In proving such felony, the prosecution must allege and prove the elements of rape: (1) sexual congress; (2) with woman; (3) by force or without her consent 27 and, in order to warrant the imposition of capital punishment, the additional elements that: (4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape and (5) the offender is a parent of the victim. 28 In this case, it was sufficiently alleged and proven that the offender was the victim's father. 29 But the victim's age was not properly and sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt. She testified that she was thirteen years old at the time of the rapes. However, she admitted that she did not know exactly when she was born because her mother did not tell her. She further said that her birth certificate was likewise with her mother. In her own words, the victim testified 30 COURT TO WITNESS Q: A: Q: A: When were you born? I do not know. You do not know your birthday? My mama did not tell me exactly when I asked her.

COURT: Proceed. FISCAL PEREZ: For our failure to secure the Birth Certificate Your Honor, may we just request for judicial notice that the victim here is below 18 years old. ATTY. SURALTA: Admitted . . . Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them. 31 Under the Rules of Court, judicial notice may either be mandatory or discretionary. Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides when court shall take mandatory judicial notice of facts

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. cSCTEH Section 2 of Rule 129 enumerates the instances when courts may take discretionary judicial notice of facts SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Thus, it can be considered of public knowledge and judicially noticed that the scene of the rape is not always nor necessarily isolated or secluded for lust is no respecter of time or place. The offense of rape can and has been committed in places where people congregate, e.g. inside a house where there are occupants, a five (5) meter room with five (5) people inside, or even in the same room which the victim is sharing with the accused's sister. 32 The Court has likewise taken judicial notice of the Filipina's inbred modesty and shyness and her antipathy in publicly airing acts which blemish her honor and virtue. 33 On the other hand, matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration pertain to fields of professional and scientific knowledge. For example, in People v. Alicante, 34 the trial court took judicial notice of the clinical records of the attending physicians concerning the birth of twin baby boys as "premature" since one of the alleged rapes had occurred 6 to 7 months earlier.