SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 125125-27. February 4, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MELANDRO NICOLAS y FAVELLA, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
MELANDRO NICOLAS y FAVELLA was convicted by
the court a quo of two (2) counts of statutory rape and one (1) simple
rape committed against his own daughter, Shellome Nicolas y Dalisay. The
statutory rapes were committed when Shellome was only eleven (11) years old
while the simple rape was perpetrated when she was already twelve (12).
Accordingly, he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua in each of the three
(3) offenses and was ordered to indemnify his victim in the amounts of P150,000.00
as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs.[1]
Shellome was born in 1980 to the accused
Melandro Nicolas and his wife Marilyn Dalisay.[2] She was the second child in a brood of three (3).
Since her mother left for Macao in 1986 to work as a domestic helper, Shellome
and her siblings stayed with their father in Pandacan, Manila.
One evening in June 1991 Shellome, then
eleven (11) years old, was roused from her sleep when she felt her father
undressing her. She asked what he was doing but he did not answer. Melandro
placed himself on top of her, mashed her breasts and kissed her all over her
body. Thereafter, he inserted his penis into her vagina and had carnal
knowledge of her. After satisfying his lust, he warned her not to report the
incident to anyone as it would ruin the reputation of their family. Then he
stood up and went to the comfort room.[3]
Shellome's experience with her father was
not the last. On two (2) more occasions she again fell prey to her father’s
lechery. Two (2) months after she was initially raped, or in August 1991, her
father ravished her again. According to her, as she was coming out of the
bathroom after a bath, Melandro suddenly pulled her to the kitchen and pressed
her against the staircase. He then forcibly removed the towel wrapped around
her body. He spread her legs and gradually inserted his penis into her vagina.
Rape was consummated. When he was through with her Melandro watched television
in the sala as if nothing happened, while Shellome went back to the bathroom to
wash herself.[4] Courtou
In the evening of 16 October 1992 she was
again molested by her father. That was meant to be the last. As she was
preparing to sleep on the floor with her younger sister, her father told her to
transfer and sleep beside him. Like an obedient daughter she followed. But as
soon as she lay beside him, her father immediately covered themselves with a
blanket so they could have some privacy. He removed her pajamas thus exposing
the lower portion of her body. Again, he mashed her breasts and kissed her
body. He mounted her and had sexual intercourse with her. She tried to resist
but her father persisted and prevailed. Thereafter he threatened to leave her
mother if she would report the incident to anyone.[5]
Unable to contain herself any longer,
Shellome confided her ordeal to a classmate, Erwina Batac, who, shocked with
Shellome's revelation, told her parents about Shellome's problem. Erwina's
parents immediately accompanied Shellome to the police station to lodge a
complaint against her father. Shellome, upon request of the police, submitted
herself to medical examination by Dr. Manuel Lagonera, medico-legal officer,
who reported a "6 o’clock healed laceration" on the victim’s
genitalia which tended to show that she was no longer a virgin.[6]
The accused professed innocence and claimed
that he was greatly surprised his daughter completely misconstrued his show of
affection and fondness for her. As a father, he said, it was very normal for
him to cuddle his children by hugging, embracing and kissing them. He contends
in this appeal that the trial court seriously erred in finding him guilty of
two (2) counts of statutory rape and one (1) simple rape. He theorizes inter
alia that assuming he really had carnal knowledge of his daughter it was
consensual as she never offered any resistance nor did he employ force, threat
or intimidation against her.
We strongly sustain his conviction. The rule
is settled that this Court does not generally disturb the findings of fact of
the trial court. Having observed the manner, conduct and demeanor of the
witnesses while on the stand, the trial court is clearly in a better position
to determine the weight to be given to their respective testimonies. Unless
there is a clear showing that it overlooked certain facts and circumstances
which might alter the result of the case, this Court accords respect, even
finality, to these findings of fact made by the trial court.[7]
After a careful study of the records, we are
convinced beyond any cavil of doubt, as was the court a quo, that
accused-appellant Melandro Nicolas indeed sexually abused his daughter Shellome
Nicolas in June and August 1991, and again in October 1992. Shellome’s
testimony was straightforward, unwavering and clear hence we see no reason to
discredit her testimony.[8]
Strengthening the victim’s allegation of
sexual intrusion by her own father, her examining physician Dr. Lagonera
categorically testified that she was no longer a virgin, which could have been
caused by her having sex with a man.[9] This medical conclusion, coupled with the victim’s
testimony of rape, is more than sufficient to establish the essential requisite
of carnal knowledge under the old provisions of Art. 335 of The Revised
Penal Code, which is the law applicable in this case.[10]
Shellome was then barely in her teens,
innocent and naive in the ways of the world. Thus it was very unlikely that she
would fabricate a story of defloration against her father, and put to shame and
public gossip not only herself but her whole family as well, unless it was the
plain truth and her motive was purely to bring the perpetrator of her violation
to justice. At the risk of being banal, "no complainant would admit that
she has been raped, make public the offense, allow the examination of her
private parts, undergo the troubles and humiliation of public trial and endure
the ordeal of testifying to all its gory details if she had not in fact been
raped."
The defense is merely a bare denial by
accused-appellant, which is weak and will certainly fail when placed astride
the complainant’s positive assertions. Being evidence that is negative and
self-serving in nature, it cannot secure more worthiness than that placed upon
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive
evidence.
Interestingly, accused-appellant would want
to impress upon this Court that what he did to his daughter was only a
manifestation of his "fondness" and "affection" as a
father. But, it taxes credulity that his "fondness" and
"affection" for her went far beyond mere hugging, kissing and
embracing to include mashing of her breasts and penile penetration of her
genitalia.
More incredible is his insistence that the
sexual congresses between him and his daughter were consensual. It is utterly
unbelievable that a young girl of eleven (11) like Shellome who at that time
was still in her elementary grades and possessed of the traditional and
proverbial modesty of a Filipina would voluntarily consent to mate with her own
father. The facts plainly reveal that Shellome tried to resist her father’s
sexual advances but eventually succumbed to his lust out of fear. Lexjuris
Moreover, accused-appellant’s threats and
warnings - that she should not tell anybody about what he did to her as it
would cast dishonor to the family, and that he would leave her mother - were
all etched in her gullible mind and sufficient to intimidate her into
submission. Besides, accused-appellant was her own father who had overpowering
moral ascendancy over her. She was living with him and dependent on him during
the entire period of her tribulation. With her mother abroad working for a living,
one can clearly visualize her helplessness. To us, she is but a terrified young
child who was completely at the mercy of her shameless father.
The pattern of instilling fear, utilized by
the perpetrator in incestuous rape to intimidate his victim into submission, is
evident in virtually all cases that have reached this Court. It is through this
fear that the perpetrator hopes to create a climate of extreme psychological
terror which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and force her to
submit to repeated acts of rape over a period of time. The relationship of the
victim to the perpetrator magnifies this terror, because the perpetrator is a
person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim.[11]
We are aghast that accused-appellant’s
demonic lust destroyed the purity of his own daughter and exposed her to a
lifetime of disgrace. But what makes his crime even more outrageous is his
total lack of remorse or penitential gesture for what he did. Now, he has the
temerity to describe his daughter as a knowing and willing participant in an
incestuous liaison. It is like rubbing salt to a bleeding wound. Such claim
indeed only heightens his despicable moral depravity thus making him deserve a
shot from the lethal syringe but for the proscription of death under the 1987
Constitution when the rapes were committed.
Incestuous rape of a daughter by a father
has heretofore been bitterly and vehemently denounced by this Court as more
than just a shameful and shameless crime. Rape in itself is a nauseating crime
that deserves the condemnation of all decent persons who recognize that a
woman’s cherished chastity is hers alone to surrender at her own free will, and
whoever violates this norm descends to the level of the odious beast. But the
act becomes doubly repulsive where the outrage is perpetrated on one’s own
flesh and blood for the culprit is further reduced to a level lower than the
lowly animal and forfeits all respect otherwise due him as a human being.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court finding
accused-appellant MELANDRO NICOLAS y FAVELLA guilty of two (2) counts of
statutory rape and of simple rape, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua in each of the three (3) crimes is AFFIRMED. He is further ordered
to pay his victim Shellome Nicolas y Dalisay P50,000.00 or a total of P150,000.00
as civil indemnity in addition to the P150,000.00 for moral damages and P75,000.00
for exemplary damages in the three (3) cases, and the costs as earlier decreed
by the trial court.
SO ORDERED.2/29/00 2:20 PM
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Decision penned by Judge Guillermo L. Loja, Sr., RTC-Br. 26, Manila.
[2] TSN, 19 July 1994, p. 4; Exhs. "E" and "E-1."
[3] Rollo, p. 77; TSN, 30 August 1994, pp. 4-6.
[4] Id., 30 August 1994, pp. 7-8.
[5] Id., 19 July 1994, pp. 3-9.
[6] See Exh. "J;" TSN, 2 May 1994, p. 3.
[7] People v. San Juan, G.R. No. 105556, 4 April 1997, 270 SCRA 693.
[8] See TSN, 19 July 1994, pp. 2-16; TSN, 30 August 1994, pp. 4-8.
[9] Id., 2 May 1994, pp. 3-7.
[10] Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. – Rape is
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances.
1. By using force and intimidation; Jlexj
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of
age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next
preceding paragraphs shall be present.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with
the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the
rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.
When the rape is attempted or frustrated and
a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall
be likewise death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
[11] People v. Melivo, G.R. No. 113029, 8 February 1996, 253 SCRA 347.