FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 137660. March 28, 2001]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS L. ALCANTARA, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO,
J.:
Defilement of a child
causes trauma that not only destroys her future, it painfully mars a youth of
this country.
We are faced with a crime
committed by a stepfather against his wife’s daughter by a prior marriage,
violating the trust reposed in him and robbing an innocent child of her future.
Rosalie Gonzales was a
Grade 5 student of Pangpang, Sorsogon, Sorsogon. On February 13, 1996, she testified that her stepfather, Carlos
L. Alcantara, had been sexually abusing her since 1988, when she was six (6)
years old.[1] The last incident occurred on November 19,
1991.
She recounted that while
the rest of the family slept at night, the accused would go to where she was
sleeping, and then rape her.
Rosalie tried to call for
help but Carlos covered her mouth and threatened to kill her if she would tell
anyone about the incident. She felt
severe pain all over her body and would wake up the following morning with a
swollen sexual organ.
The sexual abuse was
repeated several times. Rosalie did not
inform her mother because she was afraid of the threats.
Sometime in 1994, Rosalie’s
sister, Daisy, told Rosalie that accused intended to abuse her as well. Rosalie decided to inform her mother,
Salvacion, about the sexual abuse. On
October 13, 1994, Rosalie submitted herself to a medical examination by Dr.
Salve Bermundo Sapinoso of the Castilla Rural Health Unit. Dr. Sapinoso found that Rosalie’s vaginal
opening admitted two fingers freely and had old lacerations at 9:00 o’clock to
1:00 o’clock position,[2] compatible with rape involving the insertion
of a hardened penis into the private organ of the victim.
On November 17, 1994,
Maximino R. Ables, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon, filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Sorsogon an information for rape against Carlos L.
Alcantara, as follows:
“The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses CARLOS ALCANTARA of La Union, Castilla, Sorsogorn, of RAPE, defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
“That sometime in the year 1988, while the victim was only 6 years
old, and the following years thereafter up to 1991 at Barangay La Union,
Municipality of Castilla, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force
and intimidation, have sexual intercourse with one Rosalie Gonzales, his step
daughter against her will and consent.”[3]
Upon arraignment on
February 13, 1995, the accused pleaded not guilty.[4]
The facts are as follows:
Salvacion Alcantara had
five children with her deceased husband.
Rosalie Gonzales was one of them.
Sometime in 1986,
Salvacion started living with accused Carlos L. Alcantara.[5]
Sometime in 1988, when
Rosalie was just about six (6) years of age, Carlos started the series of abuse
against Rosalie in a small nipa hut owned by Carlos’ father in law.
Rosalie did not report the
rape to her mother because Carlos threatened to kill her if she told anyone.
Sometime in 1990,
Salvacion and Carlos got married.
In the evening of
November 19, 1991, Carlos raped Rosalie for the last time at their house in La
Union, Castilla, Sorsogon. Rosalie was
beside her elder sister, Daisy, when Carlos went to where they were sleeping,
held her hand, placed his other hand on her mouth and went on top of her,
preventing her from waking up his sister.
While undressing her, he covered her mouth with his hand, preventing her
from calling for assistance.
He then placed his finger
in her sex organ and then subsequently inserted his penis into her private
part.[6]
Carlos threatened Rosalie
with death if she told anybody what happened.[7]
Sometime in October 1994,
Daisy (Rosalie’s elder sister) informed Rosalie that Carlos threatened to abuse
her too. Rosalie informed her mother immediately.[8]
When Salvacion learned
about the incident, she could not believe that her husband was capable of
abusing her child so she approached Rosalie’s schoolteacher, Teresita
Yumol. Yumol suggested that they go to
the doctor so that Salvacion would believe that the abuse was real.
On October 13, 1994, at
about 1:45 p.m., Yumol brought Salvacion and Rosalie to Cumadcad to see a
doctor.[9]
Dr. Salve Sapinoso
examined Rosalie and found that her hymen in the genitalia had an old
laceration. In examining the hymen as
compared to the face of a watch, the old laceration was at 9:00 o’clock to 1:00
o’clock position. The vaginal opening
admitted of two (2) fingers freely without feeling pain possibly due to the
insertion of a hardened object to her private part.[10]
On the same day, October
13, 1994, Salvacion filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Castilla, Sorsogon a
criminal complaint[11] against her husband.
During the trial, Daisy
left their house and could not be served with subpoena. Thus, she was not presented as a witness.
On July 27, 1998, the
trial court rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the guilt of the accused Carlos Alcantara having been proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt, this court hereby sentenced (sic) the accused to suffer an imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua, to indemnify the complainant the amount of P50,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
“SO ORDERED.
“Given in Chamber this 27th of July 1998, at Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Philippines.
“HONESTO A. VILLAMOR
“Judge”[12]
On August 27, 1998, the
accused filed a notice of appeal.[13]
On July 12, 1999, we
accepted the appeal.[14]
Accused Carlos maintains
that the trial court erred in not acquitting him on the ground that his guilt has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Carlos’ argument hinged
on three points.
First, he was innocent because he “denies strongly
the accusation”[15] and that it was unlikely for him to commit
such a serious charge against Rosalie whom he treated as his own dear child.[16] He contended that the allegations of the
prosecution are well-nigh fabrications.
He pointed out that the prosecution failed to present Daisy Gonzales in
court.
Second, Rosalie testified that accused Carlos
ravished her when her siblings were around.
Carlos argued that Rosalie must have been telling a lie since he could
not have done the crime when they were not alone.[17]
Third, his wife’s motive in filing the complaint
against him was jealousy. Accused
Carlos alleged that his wife always fought him due to ill feelings against him.[18]
We are not convinced.
All the defenses of
accused Carlos L. Alcantara are self-serving.
We cannot discount the evidence presented by the prosecution just
because of his denial, uncorroborated by any other evidence. His allegations cannot stand against the
solid testimony of the victim.
A child of tender years
narrated a story worthy of belief since her account of the details of her abuse
was well supported by the testimony of the doctor who examined her. She was not concocting a story about her own
defloration. Only one who has been subjected to such ravishing could give a
testimony like that of Rosalie.
The testimony of
Rosalie’s sister, Daisy Gonzales, was not necessary to convict the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Time and again we have
ruled that the testimony of the victim alone, if credible, will suffice to
sustain a conviction.[19] Further, the doctrine is well settled that
testimonies of child-victims of rape are given full weight and credit,[20] since when a child says she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed
committed.[21]
Lust is no respecter of
time and precinct and is known to happen in most unlikely places such as in
parks, along roadsides, within school premises or even in occupied or small
rooms.[22] There is no rule that rape can be done only
in seclusion.[23] It is a common judicial experience that
rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of
people nearby.[24] In one case, we said that rape was committed
in the same room while the rapist’s spouse was asleep, or in the same room
where other family members also slept.[25] Thus, it is not unlikely that accused could
rape his stepdaughter in the same room where the victim’s siblings were also
sleeping.
The claim that his wife
charged him with rape of her own child because she had ill feelings against him
is not worthy of belief. We find it
unthinkable that a mother would sacrifice her own daughter, concoct a story
about her defloration, allow an examination of her daughter’s sexual organs and
subject her to public trial just because she was jealous of her husband or she
felt bad about something her husband did.
The Court has held that this act was unnatural since no mother in
her right mind would stoop so low.[26]
As to the award of
indemnity, moral damages may be awarded to the victim of rape in addition to
the civil Indemnity.[27] Civil indemnity, which is mandatory upon the
finding of rape, is distinct from and must not be denominated as moral damages
which are based on different jural foundation.[28] In People vs. Baygar,[29] we held that the grant of moral damages is
automatically made in rape cases without need of proof for it is assumed that
the complainant has sustained mental, physical and psychological sufferings.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 53 in Criminal Case Number 94-3820
finding accused-appellant Carlos L. Alcantara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
RAPE defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with modification that the
accused-appellant shall pay the additional amount of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) as moral damages.
Costs against
accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago,
JJ., concur.
Puno, J., on official business
abroad.
[1] TSN, February 13,
1996, pp. 2-7.
[2] TSN, July 9, 1998,
p. 4.
[3] Rollo, pp.
9-10.
[4] Certificate of
Arraignment, Original Record, p. 38.
[5] TSN, March 31, 1998,
pp. 3-4.
[6] TSN, February 13,
1996, p. 10.
[7] TSN, February 13,
1996, p. 5.
[8] TSN, February 13,
1996, p. 4.
[9] TSN, August 15,
1995, p. 5.
[10] TSN, July 9, 1996,
pp. 4-6.
[11] Original Record, p.
1.
[12] In Criminal Case No.
94-3820, Rollo, pp. 116-120.
[13] Rollo, p. 21.
[14] Rollo, p.
24-A.
[15] Reply Brief, Rollo,
p. 90.
[16] Reply Brief, Rollo,
p. 91, citing TSN, March 31, 1998, pp. 10-11
[17] Appellant’s Brief, Rollo,
p. 50.
[18] Ibid.
[19] People vs. Geromo,
321 SCRA 355 (1999); People vs. Tayaban, 296 SCRA 497 (1998).
[20] People vs.
Saban, 319 SCRA 36 (1999); People vs. Perez, 319 SCRA 622 (1999); People
vs. Apostol, 320 SCRA 327 (1999); People vs. Villamor, 297 SCRA
262 (1998); People vs. Abangin 297 SCRA 655 (1998).
[21] People vs.
Emocling, 297 SCRA 214 (1998).
[22] People vs.
Ramon, 320 SCRA 775 (1999); People vs. Torio, 318 318 SCRA 345 (1999);
People vs. Cabanela, 299 SCRA 153 (1998).
[23] People vs.
Batoon, 317 SCRA 545 (1999), People vs.
Perez, 296 SCRA 17 (1998).
[24] People vs.
Ramos, 296 SCRA 559 (1998).
[25] People vs.
Perez, 296 SCRA 17 (1998).
[26] People vs.
Perez, 319 SCRA 622 (1999).
[27] People vs.
Villamor, 297 SCRA 262 (1998).
[28] People vs.
Emocling, 297 SCRA 214 (1998).
[29] 318 SCRA 358 (1999).