EN BANC
[G.R. No. 137401-03.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TOMAS
MARCELLANA, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
This is an automatic review of the decision dated
“PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds the accused TOMAS MARCELLANA, as having committed beyond reasonable doubt the crime of RAPE against her (sic) daughter FRANCIA MARCELLANA, who was sixteen (16) years old at the time of the incidents complained of. He is therefore declared GUILTY of the crime as charged on three (3) counts.
“Pursuant to the provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, Under Criminal Case No. 7584, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH. He is likewise ordered to pay the victim the amounts of Php50,000.00, as damages for the offense of rape, Php30,000.00 as moral damages, and Php20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
“Under Criminal Case No. 7585, accused is likewise hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and ordered to pay the victim the amounts of Php50,000.00 as damages for the offense of rape, Php30,000.00 as moral damages, and Php20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
“Under Criminal Case No. 7586, accused is also hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and ordered to pay the amounts of Php50,000.00 as damages for the offense of rape, Php30,000.00 as moral damages, and Php20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
“SO ORDERED.”[1]
The antecedents of the case are as follows:
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 Novembers 10 and 12, and
Dr. Jose Cope, the Municipal Health Officer of Daraga, Albay,
conducted a medical examination on Francia and found one deep old hymenal
laceration at
On
“CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7584
“The undersigned PROSECUTOR II, upon sworn written complaint of private complainant FRANCIA MARCELLANA, hereby accuses TOMAS MARCELLANA, of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:
“That on November 10, 1996 at 7:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, at Barangay Kilicao, Municipality of Daraga, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste designs, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own 16 years old daughter, FRANCIA MARCELLANA, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
“ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”[7]
“CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7585
“The undersigned PROSECUTOR II, upon sworn written complaint of private complainant FRANCIA MARCELLANA, hereby accuses TOMAS MARCELLANA, of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:
“That on November 12, 1996 at 7:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, at Barangay Kilicao, Municipality of Daraga, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste designs, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully an feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own 16 years old daughter, FRANCIA MARCELLANA, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
“ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”[8]
“CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7586
“The undersigned PROSECUTOR II, upon sworn written complaint of private complainant FRANCIA MARCELLANA, hereby accuses TOMAS MARCELLANA, of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:
“That on December 5, 1996 at 7:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, at Barangay Kilicao, Municipality of Daraga, province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste designs, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own 16 years old daughter, FRANCIA MARCELLANA, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
“ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”[9]
Upon arraignment on
In disowning liability, accused-appellant simply denied the same
and argued that the charges were mere fabrications as a consequence of an
isolated incident wherein he reprimanded her daughter, herein complainant, for
going home late.[11]
After trial on the merits, accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged and was sentenced accordingly. Hence, this case before us for review.
In his brief, accused-appellant raised the following errors:
“ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
“I.
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
“II.
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN EACH OF THE THREE (3) RAPE CHARGES.
“III.
“ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT INDEED HAD SEXUAL
INTERCOURSE WITH PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, NONETHELESS, THE COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING
UPON HIM THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH, CONSIDERING THAT THE ESTABLISHED FACTS
SHOW THAT, IF EVER A CRIME IS COMMITTED, THE SAME IS ONLY QUALIFIED SEDUCTION.”[12]
The first and the second assigned errors were explained simultaneously in appellant’s brief. Consequently, We will examine and discuss them jointly.
Three indications, allegedly upholding accused-appellants innocence, were laid down. First, accused-appellant points to the delay in reporting the incidents complained of.
We are not persuaded. The
delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her
virtue is neither unknown or uncommon.[13]
Particularly in incestuous rape, this Court has consistently held that delay in
reporting the offense is not indicative of a fabricated charge.[14]
“Delay in reporting a rape incident neither diminishes
complainant’s credibility nor undermines the charges of rape where the delay
can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily
harm, specially by one who exercised moral ascendancy over the victims. (underscoring supplied)”[15]
Moreover, the young victim might just opt to bear the ignominy
and pain in private rather than reveal her shame to the whole world.[16]
She may also be too overwhelmed with fear and confusion as to why her very own
father would commit such a nefarious act.[17]
In the case before us, Francia’s ordeal in the hands of her father began in 1992.[18] Based on her Certificate of Live Birth,[19] 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.[20] Withal, we do not consider the delay to be fatal.
With regard to the second indication, accused-appellant lays too much emphasis on the accuracy of the frequency offered by Francia regarding the number of times she was raped.
In People vs. Alicante,[21] this Court aptly said,
“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.”
In People vs. Villar,[22] We held that the burden of exactness cannot be imposed on a young victim who claimed to have been raped for more than 100 times in a span of one year.
Considering private complainant Francia Marcellana’s harrowing
experience lasting for four (4) years[23],
it is with more reason that we should not demand such a high degree of accuracy
and detail on the poor victim. What is
important is that Francia remained steadfast in her claim that her father raped
her.[24]
As to the third indication of accused-appellant’s alleged innocence, he argued and we quote:
“The prosecution failed to rebut defense’s theory that it was Rudy Completo, Francia’s fiancé, who had sexual intercourse with her. It must be remembered that Rudy and Francia were set to be wed in January 1997 and yet, Rudy decided not to pursue with the wedding. Does this fact not raise doubt that the supposed groom backed out from the marriage plan because, any way, he has already had carnal knowledge with his would-be-bride?
“Further, likewise undisputed from the records is the fact that it
was not only once that private complainant went home drunk, and that when she
attended a ball one time, she returned home late after the socials. Could it not be possible that in one or all
occasions Francia Marcellana committed sexual indiscretions which is now being
charged against herein accused?”[25]
The foregoing attempt to blacken Francia’s character is but a futile
attempt to discredit her unfaltering testimony.
These suggestions mock the intelligence of the court and sorely test its
patience. Accused-appellant should, at
the very least, offer some basis to support these suppositions. Generally, no young woman would accuse her
father of so grave a crime as rape unless she was truly wronged[26]
and is now seeking retribution for the abominable violation against her.[27]
Neither would she publicly disclose a humiliating and painful experience if it
were not the truth.[28]
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.[29]
In the present case, not only was Francia’s testimony unwavering,
it was also clear, convincing and straightforward.[30]
More importantly, her credibility was bolstered beyond reproach by her
spontaneous emotional breakdown during trial.[31]
With regard to accused-appellants' third and final assigned error,
we find the same to be both repulsive to this Court’s luminosity and that of
the young Francia’s person. In the words
of Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, “Of all so called heinous crimes, none
perhaps more deeply provokes feelings of outrage, detestation and disgust than
incestuous rape.”[32]
No daughter in her right mind would consent to having carnal knowledge with her
own father.[33]
Besides, accused-appellant’s reliance on the case of People vs. Castillan is misplaced. The peculiarities of that case are:
1) the complainant and the accused were sweethearts; and
2) the complainant’s testimony showed inherent lack of credibility on crucial points.
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.[34]
Moreover, failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance will not make a rape
victim’s submission voluntary.[35]
As a last note, on accused-appellant’s overtones that he should only be held liable for qualified seduction,[36] we said:
“The accused charged with rape cannot be convicted of qualified
seduction under the same information.
Then, too, rape and qualified seduction are not identical offenses. While the two felonies have one common
element which is carnal knowledge of a woman, they significantly vary in all
other respects.”[37]
In view of the foregoing, we uphold the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape.
In accordance with recent jurisprudence, accused-appellant should
indemnify the victim Francia Marcellana the amount of PhP75,000.00 for each of
the three (3) counts of rape since these were committed or effectively
qualified by circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by
applicable amendatory laws.[38]
The award of moral damages in favor of Francia should be increased from
PhP30,000.00 to PhP50,000.00 in each of the three counts of rape without need
of proof save for the conviction of accused-appellant.[39]
The award of exemplary damages is deleted for lack of legal basis.[40]
Four Justices of the Court maintain their position that R.A. No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. Nevertheless they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.
WHEREFORE, the decision under review convicting accused-appellant Tomas Marcellana for three (3) counts of rape and sentencing him to DEATH for each of the three counts is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay the following:
a) the amount of PhP75,000.00 as civil indemnity for each of the three counts of rape: and
b) the amount of PhP50,000.00 as moral damages for each of the three counts of rape.
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let certified copies thereof, as well as the records of this case, be forwarded without delay to the Office of the President for possible exercise of executive clemency.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, and Carpio,
JJ., abroad on official business.
[1] RTC Decision, p. 16,
ROLLO.
[2] TSN,
[3] TSN,
[4] Mrs. Herminia
Esporlas.
[5] TSNs,
[6] TSN,
[7] Amended Information
for Criminal Case No. 7584, p. 3, ROLLO.
[8] Ibid., p. 4, ROLLO.
[9] Amended Information
for Criminal Case No. 5, ROLLO.
[10] Certificate of Arraignment
in Criminal Case No. 7584, dated
[11] TSN,
[12] Appellant’s Brief,
pp. 30-31, ROLLO.
[13] People vs. Cabana, 331 SCRA
569, 581 [2000].
[14] People vs. Silvano, 309 SCRA 362,
392 [1999].
[15] People vs. Padil, 318 SCRA 795,
807 [1999].
[16] Ibid., 318
SCRA 795, 807-808 [1999].
[17] People vs. Narido, 316 SCRA 131,
145-146 [1999].
[18] TSN,
[19] Exh. “E,” p. 7,
RECORDS.
[20] TSN,
[21] 332 SCRA 440,
453-454 [2000].
[22] 322 SCRA 393, 400
[2000].
[23] TSN,
[24] Ibid., p. 21.
[25] Appellant’s Brief,
p. 39, ROLLO.
[26] People vs. Mangila, 325
SCRA 586, 597 [2000].
[27] People vs. Razonable, 330
SCRA 562, 574 [2000].
[28] People vs. Alicante, 332
SCRA 440, 455 [2000]; see also People vs.
Pineda, 311 SCRA 368, 380 [1999].
[29] People vs. Razonable, 330
SCRA 562, 575 [2000]; see also People vs.
Bation, 305 SCRA 253, 269-270 [1999].
[30] TSN,
[31] TSN,
[32] People vs.
Baculi, 246 SCRA 756, 758 [1995].
[33] People vs. Traya, 332 SCRA
499, 505 [2000].
[34] People vs. Traya, 332 SCRA
499, 513-514 [2000]; People vs. Javier,
311 SCRA 122, 138-139 [1999]; People
vs. Burce, 269 SCRA 293, 314 [1997] citing People vs.
Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613, 632 [1992].
[35] People vs. Vergel, 316 SCRA 199,
212 [1999].
[36] Appellant’s Brief,
pp. 43-44, ROLLO.
[37] People vs. Javier, 311 SCRA 122,
139 [1999].
[38] People vs. Sancha, 324 SCRA
646, 669 [2000]; see also People vs.
Ramos, 312 SCRA 137, 157 [1999]; People
vs. Bation, 305 SCRA 253, 271 [1999]; and People vs. Prades, 293 SCRA
411, 430 [1998].
[39] People vs. Alicante, 332
SCRA 440, 470 [2000]; see also People
vs. Sancha, 324 SCRA 646, 669 [2000]; People vs. Padil, 318 SCRA 795,
811 [1999]; People vs. Vergel,
316 SCRA 199, 213-214 [1999]; People vs.
Ramos, 312 SCRA 137, 151 [1999]; and People
vs. Bation, 305 SCRA 253, 271 [1999].
[40] Article 2230, Civil
Code; see People vs. Alquizalas,
305 SCRA 367, 379 [1999].