SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 124704.  February 22, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORETO CUADRO y OBEDOZA alias “PIJOK”, accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

QUISUMBING, J.:

On appeal is the decision dated November 15, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 37, in Criminal Cases Nos. L-4711 to L-4716, acquitting appellant of one (1) count of rape but convicting him of five (5) counts of rape and sentencing him in each count to reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the victim the amount of P30,000.00, and to pay the costs.

Appellant is accused of raping Venus D. Addato, who was a 12 year-old, Grade III pupil at the time of the incident.  Her mother is the live-in partner (“common-law wife”) of appellant.

The version of the prosecution, as summarized by the trial court, is as follows:

“Venus Addato claimed on the witness stand that during her stay at Brgy. Puelay, Villasis, Pangasinan, in the house of her step-father, Loreto Cuadro, mother, brother, half-sisters and half-brothers, sometime in the month of May, 1992, her step-father, Loreto Cuadro, on five (5) occasions, at intervals of one day after each incident, had sexual intercourse with her by inserting his penis in her vagina.  Venus narrated further that each time she was raped by her said stepfather, it was in their house, after lunch when her brothers and sisters were playing in the houses of their neighbors, her mother was selling corn at Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan, and it was only the two of them inside the house.  (TSN, 15 December, 1992, pp. 6-7).

Going into detail, Venus testified that the first time she was raped by her stepfather, he armed himself with a kitchen knife.  It was in their house after lunch, her mother was not home as she was selling corn in Carmen, and her brother and sisters were in the neighboring houses, playing.  Her stepfather first inserted his penis into her mouth.  Then, he inserted his penis into her vagina.  He told her that if she would report the incident to her mother, he would kill her.  She did not resist because she was afraid he might kill her as he was drunk.  (TSN, supra, pp. 6-7).

The second incident took place after an interval of one day, again in their house, when she had no companion, her step father raped her.  He did not have the knife, he did not say anything or warn her.  The third time her step-father raped her was also one day later, after lunch, she did not resist because she was afraid he might kill her as he again had the kitchen knife, 6 to 8 inches long, which he got from the kitchen.  The fourth time she was raped by her step-father, a day later, after lunch, in the house, he was not armed, he did not say anything thereafter, he did not warn her that he would be killed if she reported the matter to her mother.  On the fifth occasion that her stepfather raped her, he was not armed, he did not warn her.  (TSN, supra, pp. 8-10).

Cherry Diaz, wife of a brother of Venus Addato’s mother, with whom Venus lived with her grandmother in Tubor, Malasiqui, during school days, testified that sometime in June 1992 she observed Venus to be restless, so she asked her what was wrong with her, and, trembling, Venus said that she was afraid because the accused might kill her.  She confided that she was sexually abused by her stepfather Loreto Cuadro, five (5) times, once every other day.  Cherry Diaz forthwith reported the matter to her mother-in-law, Alberta Diaz, Venus’ grand-mother who investigated Venus about the report.”[1]

The defense, on the other hand, presents the following version:

“The accused, Loreto Cuadro, 46 years old, put up the defense of denial, admitting that he is a live-in-partner of Lolita Diaz (Addato-Cuadro), that they live in their house in Puelay, Villasis, Pangasinan, with their five (5) children, the oldest being 10 years old and the youngest 2 years old, and a stepson 14-year old Rex Addato, son of Lolita with her husband, that Venus Addato is his step-daughter, being another child of Lolita, and that Venus was then living with her grandmother, Alberta Diaz in Brgy. Tubor, Malasiqui, Pangasinan where she goes to school.  Further, he claimed that in the month of May 1992 he and Lolita were engaged in gold panning in the Agno River near the Carmen, Rosales bridge, going to the river at 6:00 A.M. and going back home at 2:00 P.M., taking their lunch in the river.

Accused Loreto Cuadro denied, on direct examination and cross-examination, that Venus Addato ever visited or stayed in his house at Puelay, Villasis in the month of May, 1992 (TSN, 28 April 1993, p. 5; ibid, p. 10).  And, he vehemently denied that he raped Venus or did anything to her (ibid., pp. 6-7).

The accused’s defense of alibi was corroborated by his live-in partner Lolita, step-son Rex and his ‘Cabo’ in his job as jueteng collector, to the effect that said accused and his live-in-partner were gold panning during the month of May 1992, they left their house at 6:00 o’clock in the morning, stay at the river gold-panning continuously up to 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon when they went home, with the accused never having gone home before 2:00 P.M., and thereafter the accused went around collecting jueteng bets in the neighborhood.  Rex Addato added that he was also a jueteng collector but he collected bets right at the yard infront of their house where the bettors went to place their bets and did not notice his sister, Venus, being abused by their step-father.

Adding her two-cents worth, Lolita Diaz (Addato-Cuadro), claimed that she cooked the family’s breakfast and lunch in the morning before leaving for the river to pan gold, when she and her husband (accused) returned home from the river at 2:00 PM, she washed the clothes of the family in their house because Venus was very lazy, that she never sold corn at the Carmen bus terminal, and there was no way for the accused to have raped her daughter.

Not to be outdone, Rosendo Oliveras, neighbor and ‘Cabo’ of the accused in jueteng who claimed to be roaming around the premises of the house of the accused, as jueteng ‘cabo’, collecting bets from jueteng collectors from 9:00 o’clock in the morning to 12:00 noon when the numbers are drawn, that the house of the accused, which is a little nipa hut, was then under repair in the month of May and that persons inside the house could be seen from the outside, that usually between 12:00 noon and 5:00 PM, the children of Lolita were watching television in his house with Venus Addato watching over her half-brothers and half-sisters, that Venus could not have been raped by her step-father because she was only 12 years old and no blood came out from her private part. (TSN, 8 March 1993, pp. 9, 15-16, 18.)”[2]

On July 6, 1992, the victim, accompanied by her aunt Cherry Diaz, filed against appellant a Criminal Complaint[3] for rape with the Municipal Circuit Court of Villasis, Pangasinan.  On July 20, 1992, after conducting preliminary investigation, the circuit judge issued a Resolution[4] finding a prima facie case for rape and forwarded the records to the Provincial Prosecutor of Lingayen, Pangasinan.

On October 14, 1992, appellant was charged with six (6) counts of rape under six (6) Informations[5] which are similarly worded as follows:

I N F O R M A T I O N

“The undersigned upon verified complaint of Venus D. Addato, a minor of 12 years, hereby accuses LORETO CUADRO y OBEDOZA of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:

That on or sometime on May, 1992 in barangay Puelay, municipality of Villasis, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, [being the step father of the complainant], armed with a bolo, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Venus D. Addato against her will, to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

Lingayen, Pangasinan, October 13, 1992.”

Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.[6]

During trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses (1) Venus D. Addato, the victim, (2) Cherry Diaz, sister-in-law of the victim’s mother, to whom the victim confided about the rapes perpetrated by appellant,[7] (3) Alberta Diaz, grandmother of the victim, who conferred with the victim about the rapes upon the request of Cherry Diaz,[8] (4) Lutgarda Diaz, a social worker, whose testimony was dispensed with when the defense admitted that her testimony was merely corroborative of the testimonies of Cherry Diaz and Alberta Diaz,[9] and (5) Dr. Noel U. Obedoza, resident physician at the Urdaneta District Hospital in Asingan, Pangasinan.  Dr. Obedoza testified that he did not find any recent external physical injuries on the body of the victim, but he found the hymen ruptured with old healed lacerations at 7, 11 and 3 o’clock, and that her vaginal orifice easily admitted a forefinger.  Considering the victim’s age, Dr. Obedoza opined that it was possible that the victim had sexual intercourse more than once.[10]

For the defense, the following witnesses testified:  (1) appellant, (2) Lolita Diaz, the victim’s mother and common-law wife of appellant, (3) Rex Addato, brother of the victim, and (4) Rosendo Oliveras, appellant’s neighbor.

Appellant denied the rape charges.  He and his witnesses claimed that it was highly improbable, if not impossible, for him to have raped the victim considering that in the month of May 1992, appellant and his common-law wife panned gold in the Agno Valley River from 6:00 A.M. until around 2:00 P.M., and thereafter, appellant would continue with his work as a jueteng bet collector.  Further, the house where the alleged rape took place always had many visitors who would place their jueteng bets with appellant or his son, Rex Addato.  The defense insisted that Alberta Diaz, the victim’s grandmother, helped the victim file this rape case in order to force appellant and his common-law wife to separate.[11]

On rebuttal, Alberta Diaz testified that she had no ill-will towards appellant except for the fact that he raped her granddaughter.[12]

On sur-rebuttal, appellant insisted that his mother-in-law, Alberta Diaz, used to borrow money from him, and when she could no longer borrow money, she wanted appellant to separate from her daughter so that the latter could marry a richer man.[13]

On November 15, 1995, the trial court rendered its decision[14] disposing thus -

“WHEREFORE, the accused, Loreto Cuadro y Obedoza, alias ‘Pijok’, is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Rape, in five (5) counts, defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, under Criminal Cases Nos. L-4711, L-4712, L-4713, L-4714 and L-4715, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of five (5) imprisonments of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party, Venus Addato in the amount of P30,000.00, and to pay costs.

The accused is hereby acquitted of the crime charged under the Information filed in Criminal Case No. L-4716.

SO ORDERED.”

Hence, the present appeal.  Appellant contends that the trial court erred in - [15]

I. ... GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINING WITNESS AND IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT.

II. ORDERING ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO INDEMNIFY THE OFFENDED PARTY IN THE AMOUNT OF P30,000.00 AND TO PAY THE COSTS.

In his brief,[16] appellant contends that the trial court erred in not giving weight to his defense of denial and alibi considering that it was corroborated by the testimony of his common-law wife as well as of his step-son and fellow jueteng collector.  Appellant argues that these testimonies raised reasonable doubt at the very least, and should have entitled him to an acquittal.

The Office of the Solicitor General, for the State, argues that the trial court correctly relied on the testimony of the victim, which was delivered in a clear and firm manner, in contrast to the self-serving testimonies of the appellant and his witnesses.  Appellant’s bare denials, furthermore, cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the physical evidence of rape.  Lastly, the OSG recommends that the civil indemnity be increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 for each count of rape.

The main issues, therefore, pertain to the credibility of witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence to convict appellant.

In the assessment of credibility of witnesses, we have laid down the following parameters:[17]

“First, the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case;

Second, the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect since it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor as they testified on the witness stand; and

Third, a witness who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.”

In this case, the victim’s actuations after the rape and her testimony during trial bear the earmarks of a credible witness.  As held in People v. Lamarroza,[18] the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged assault is of utmost importance in establishing the truth or falsity of the charge.  The aunt of the victim, Cherry Diaz, testified that when the victim told her about the rapes, the victim was trembling and crying, and did not want to report the matter to the authorities because appellant threatened to kill her.[19] Further, the young victim consistently narrated her ordeal to her other close relatives, namely her aunt, Cherry Diaz; and her grandmother, Alberta Diaz.  She willingly executed a sworn statement narrating the rapes.  She recounted her story candidly during trial.  She remained steadfast when she was subjected to rigid cross-examination by the defense.  All throughout, the victim maintained that appellant had repeatedly raped her in the month of May, 1992.  Indeed, no person would subject herself to the humiliation of a rape trial, with the attendant embarrassment of a medical examination and the stigma of a sexual assault, unless the accusation be true.[20] In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[21]

Appellant attempts to discredit the testimony of the grandmother of the victim by claiming that she merely wanted him to separate from the victim’s mother.  As can be gleaned from the record, appellant and his mother-in-law are clearly not in the best of terms.  Nevertheless, it would go against the grain of human nature for a grandmother to subject her granddaughter to the humiliation of a rape trial, and expose the indecencies committed against her, for the alleged purpose of separating the victim’s mother from the latter’s common-law husband.  Appellant’s version on this point simply taxes our credulity.

Further, the medical findings of Dr. Obedoza are indicative of rape.  It is not indispensable that marks of external bodily injuries should appear on the victim of rape.[22] Considering that in the commission of the first, second and third rapes, appellant threatened the victim with a knife, it is logical that no external injuries would appear on her body.  What is more telling is that the victim, at her young age, sustained lacerations in her genitalia.  We have ruled that lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[23]

Appellant’s defense of alibi, albeit supported by the testimonies of his common-law wife, her son, and his fellow jueteng collector, cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the victim.  Alibi is an inherently weak defense whose value loses a lot when time and distance do not make the imputed offense impossible of commission.[24] As to appellant’s claim that the presence of people who would drop by the house to place jueteng bets would deter the commission of the rapes, suffice it to say that there is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[25]

Appellant was charged with the crime of rape committed in May 1992 through force or intimidation under Article 335, first paragraph of the Revised Penal Code.  The victim testified that the first time appellant raped her, he first inserted his penis into her mouth before inserting it in her vagina.[26] The first rape was done with threats against the victim.  The second and third were committed similarly.  Appellant threatened the victim with a knife in these 3 instances.[27] We have held that intimidation includes the moral kind such as the fear caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol.[28] As to the fourth and fifth rapes, appellant did not use a knife to force the victim into submission.[29] However, the apparent submission of the victim herein does not indicate consent.  She had already been repeatedly abused by a person who had ascendant authority over her.  On three occasions of those rapes, she had cowered with fear for her life.  As common-law husband of her mother, appellant clearly had moral dominance and influence over the victim.  He easily intimidated and forced her to submit to his bestial desires.  Considering the masculine strength of appellant, with or without a knife, the victim obviously knew that resistance would be futile.  Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to the rapist because of fear.[30] Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule.[31]

At the time of the commission of the rape in 1992, the penalty for the crime of rape was reclusion perpetua to death.  Under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the use of a deadly weapon, like a bolo,[32] in committing the rape is a circumstance which could have increased the penalty to death.  However, in view of the Constitutional proscription[33] against the imposition of capital punishment at the time, the use of a deadly weapon as an aggravating circumstance would not alter the imposable penalty in this case, which is reclusion perpetua only for each count of rape.

As to damages.  Pursuant to jurisprudence, the award of indemnity should be increased to P50,000.00 for each count of rape.  In addition, we award the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape without need of additional proof.[34] Moral damages is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to rape victims.[35]

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the trial court convicting appellant, Loreto Cuadro y Obedoza, of five (5) counts of rape is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that for each count of rape he is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and to pay the victim, Venus D. Addato, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, and the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.


[1] Rollo, pp. 26-27.

[2] Id. at 28-30.

[3] Records, p. 3.

[4] Id. at 12-13.

[5] Records, Crim. Case No. L-4711, p.1; Records, Crim. Case No. L-4712, p. 1, Records, Crim. Case No. L-4713, p. 1; Records, Crim. Case No. L-4714, p. 1; Records, Crim. Case No. L-4715, p. 1.  Appellant having been acquitted in Criminal Case No. L-4716, the records thereof were not forwarded to this Court.  The following Information did not allege that appellant was the “stepfather” of the victim:  Crim. Case No. L-4712 and L-4713.

[6] Records, p. 22.

[7] TSN, January 5, 1993, pp. 5-6.

[8] Id. at 17-21.

[9] TSN, January 6, 1993, pp. 4-5.

[10] TSN, February 9, 1993, pp. 4-10; Medical Certificate dated July 6, 1992, “Exhibit “B,” Records, p. 7.

[11] TSN, February 10, 1993, pp. 7-8, 13-14, 17-18, 23-25; TSN, March 2, 1993, pp. 7-10, 16-17; TSN, March 8, 1993, pp. 4-8, TSN, April 28, 1993, pp. 3-14.

[12] TSN, July 12, 1995, pp. 3-4.

[13] TSN, July 13, 1994, pp. 4-7.

[14] Records, pp. 60-68.

[15] Rollo, p. 81.

[16] Id. at 79-94.

[17] People v. Bañago, 309 SCRA 417, 421-422 (1999).

[18] 299 SCRA 116, 122 (1998).

[19] TSN, January 5, 1993, p. 6.

[20] People v. Gastador, 305 SCRA 659, 673 (1999).

[21] People v. Medina, 300 SCRA 98, 106 (1998).

[22]  People v. Reñola, 308 SCRA 145, 162 (1999).

[23] People v. Acala, 307 SCRA 330, 345 (1999).

[24] People v. Akhtar, 308 SCRA 725, 738 (1999).

[25] People v. Silvano, 309 SCRA 362, 386 (1999).

[26] Under Republic Act No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, the act of sexual assault by inserting the penis into another person’s mouth or orifice is already considered rape.

               SEC. 2.  Rape as a Crime Against Persons. ...

“Article 266-A.  Rape; When and How Committed.-Rape is Committed-

               “1)  By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

               “a)  Through force, threat or intimidation;

               “b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

               “c)  By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

               “d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

               “2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.”

[27] TSN, December 15, 1992, p. 9.

[28] People v. Bartolome, 296 SCRA 615, 624 (1998); People v. Bayani, 262 SCRA 660, 680 (1996).

[29] TSN, December 15, 1992, p. 10.

[30] People v. Baltar, G.R. No. 130341, February 10, 2000, pp. 7-8.

[31] People v. Garcia, 281 SCRA 463, 478 (1997).

[32] People v. Alfeche, 294 SCRA 352, 378 (1998).

[33] Sec. 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.  Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.  Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.  (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

[34] People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411, 431 (1998).

[35] People v. Bañago, 309 SCRA 417, 423 (1999).