EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 139698-726.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
WILFREDO D. MATUGAS, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
This is an automatic review of the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXVIII, P75,000.00, and to pay the costs.
Except as to the date of the commission of the rape and the age
of the complainant on the several dates indicated, the 29 amended complaints,[2] which formed the basis of the 29
informations against accused-appellant, uniformly alleged as follows:
“The undersigned complainant, assisted by the undersigned prosecutor, accuses WILFREDO D. MATUGAS of RAPE, committed as follows:
That on or about the [date[3]], in Mandaue City, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the
father of complainant AIMEE G. MATUGAS, who is 13-year-old girl,[4] with deliberate intent, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the said
offended party against the latter’s will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty, whereupon the cases were jointly tried.
The prosecution presented complainant Aime who testified as follows:
Aime was the eldest of three children of the spouses Librada
Matugas and accused-appellant Wilfredo Matugas.[5] At the time she testified, she was 16 years
old, having been born on November 1, 1981, and a fourth year high School
student at the
In the evening of
Again, in the evening of
After that, as if by habit, accused-appellant abused his daughter
27 times more, on December 9, 1995, February 18, 1996, February 26, 1996, March
6, 1996, April 10, 1996, May 3, 1996, June 6, 1996, July 1, 1996, August 26,
1996, September 8, 1996, September 16, 1996, October 6, 1996, November 7, 1996,
January 7, 1997, January 18, 1997, February 2, 1997, March 24, 1997, April 6,
1997, May 17, 1997, May 27, 1997, June 5, 1997, July 2, 1997, July 10, 1997,
August 21, 1997, September 8, 1997, September 16, 1997, and October 6, 1997.[8] Except for the first and the last dates, the
others were her mere estimates of the dates she was raped by her father. She
wrote these dates (Exh. “JJ”) by referring to the calendar in relation to the
time her mother was allegedly away for work.[9] She said there could be more than 29
instances when her father raped her.[10] On each occasion, complainant said, her
father beat her up whenever she refused to accede to his demands.[11] The incidents happened either at about
Fearing harm to her and her family, complainant said she kept the
incidents to herself and did not tell anyone about them. On
From the police precinct, her mother Librada Matugas and her aunt
Elisa Gerundio took complainant to the
“Ext. gen. phys. injuries present: Extremity 1 (+) Contusion Hematoma 2x3, posterior aspect of the right forearm, 2x2 cm contusion hematoma, dorsum of the left hand, 2x2 cm hematoma, posterior the neck R, (+) eyethema dorsal aspect of the R area
Hymen: + old healed laceration with 2, 4, 6 &
Orifice: Admits 2 finger with ease
Conclusions: Spermatozoa Identification (-)
Gram staining of the vaginal discharge”
On
The defense presented six witnesses: the accused-appellant Wilfredo D. Matugas, his wife Librada Matugas, Crescencia Matugas, Evelyn Matugas-Avila, Dr. Besie Acebes, and Senen Batoon, Sr.
Accused-appellant’s defense was alibi. According to him, he
usually left their house at
He denied ever watching television alone with his daughter Aime.[17] He claimed the charges were fabricated by
his daughter and by his sister-in-law, Elisa Gerundio. According to him,
complainant concocted the story because he had laid hands on her on
Accused-appellant’s testimony was corroborated by his wife Librada
Matugas[19]
and his sister Evelyn Matugas-Avila.[20] On the other hand, accused-appellant’s
cousin, Crescencia Matugas, testified that she lived in the house of
accused-appellant from September 1996 to September 1997, sharing a room on the
second floor with complainant. She denied ever seeing complainant being raped
by her father.[21]
Dr. Besie Acebes, the medical officer who examined complainant
and prepared the medical report, testified that while the old healed
lacerations in the hymen of the complainant could have been caused by
masturbation, it was also possible that it was caused by the insertion of the
male organ.[22]
Lastly, Senen Batoon, Sr., a kagawad in Dunggoan, Danao City,
whose wife was accused-appellant’s niece, testified that he had secured certifications
attesting to the good moral character of accused-appellant Wilfredo Matugas
from the barangay captain of Guinsay, Danao City, Chief of Police of Guinsay,
and MTCC of Danao City. However, he admitted that he was not able to secure a
similar certification from the barangay captain of Canduman,
Based on the evidence presented by both parties, the trial court
rendered a decision on P75,000.00 and to pay the costs.
Accused-appellant assails the judgment of conviction. He contends that-
“I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE A CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE POLICE AND THE PROSECUTION HAD COMMITTED MANY IRREGULAR ACTS AND PROCEDURAL LAPSES, WHICH TAMPERED WITH THE EVIDENCE AND VIOLATED CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED.
II. THE TRIAL COURT DISREGARDED THE LAW AND THE EVIDENCE IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT, FOR IT IS VERY PATENT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, OR OTHERWISE OVERTURN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
III. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND UNTRUSTWORTHY TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINING WOMAN, IN THIS CASE, WHO WAS OBVIOUSLY INCONSISTENT ON VERY MATERIAL POINTS.”
Accused-appellant’s contentions will be discussed seriatim.
First. Accused-appellant claims that his arrest by
the police officers on
We agree with the accused-appellant’s contention, considering
that the arrest was not one of the instances enumerated in Rule 113, §5 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure when an arrest without a warrant may be made not
only by a police officer but even by a citizen. However, for this objection to
prosper, accused-appellant should have interposed it before entering his plea.[24] As he did not do so, he is now estopped from
questioning any defect in the manner his arrest was effected as in fact he not
only pleaded to the charge but also participated in the trial.[25] The fact that his arrest was illegal does
not render the subsequent proceeding void and deprive the State of its right to
convict him when all the facts point to his culpability.[26] His contention that he was arbitrarily
detained for four days must fail. This contention stems from the fact that he
was arrested without warrant.
Second. Accused-appellant makes much of the fact
that the charges were filed in installments. This was because of the failure of
complainant to mention in her first sworn statement the 28 other incidents of
rape. Except for the dates of the first and last incidents of rape, complainant
was unable to supply the dates and number of times she was raped by her father.
In fact, she said she could actually have been raped more than 29 times by her
father.[27] The dates which she wrote down at the
instance of the police were mere approximations based on reference to the
calendar. Consequently, for lack of certitude as to the number of times
complainant was raped between the first, which happened on
In her direct examination, complainant testified:
Q- There were several dates that according to you, the crimes of rape were committed on you. Tell this Court how were you able to keep track of these specific dates?
(There was no answer from the witness.)
How come that according to you, your father committed rape on you on those specific dates and not on other dates?
(Still no answer.)
How did you know that the crime of rape was committed on you on September 6, 1995, November 29, 1995, December 9, 1995, and so on, and not on any other dates?
(Still no answer.)
Did you understand my question?
A- Yes.
Q- Answer it?
(No answer from the witness.)
Who supplied those dates of the commission of rape on you?
A- Only myself.
Q- Where did you base that?
A- When my mother was working.
Q- You mean your mother is not working everyday?
A- There were times that she did not work.
Q- That actually the dates in the complaints were based only on your memory?
A- Yes.
Q- It could not be 29 cases?
A- It reached that number.
Q- How did you know? Did
you count it?
(There was no answer from the witness.)
Court:
Do you still have other questions, Fiscal?
Fiscal Perez:
That is all, Your Honor.
Atty. de Dios:
May we manifest that the witness
has not answered the last question of the Court. xxx[28]
Testifying further on direct examination, complainant said:
Fiscal Perez:
Q: Aime, you also told this
Honorable Court that on several occasions aside from the first on
Atty. de Dios:
We will object to that, Your Honor. That was already answered during the last setting. It was even the Honorable Presiding Judge who propounded the question.
Court:
She did not answer. Let her answer.
A: It was only my
estimate, sir, because this was done against me for several times already.
xx xx xx xx xx[29]
At one time, when she testified as to the date of the alleged third rape, complainant admitted that she was uncertain as to the date. Further, she testified that she was uncertain as to the number of times she was raped. Thus,
Q- You were allegedly raped
by your father for the third time on
A- Yes, sir.
Q- Why can you remember
the date exactly, on
(There was no answer from the
witness.)
Did you make a marking on the calendar?
A- No.
Court:
Q- How come you can say that
the third time you were raped was on
A- I looked at the calendar, Your Honor, and I only made an estimate.
Q- So, you can not really
say that the third time that you were raped by your father was really on
A- No, I can not.
Court:
Proceed.
Atty. de Dios:
Q- You told the Court that
these dates are just your estimates. Now, you are a complainant against your
father that you have been allegedly raped by your father 29 times. The
number of times that you were allegedly raped, that is not an estimate. You are
sure of that?
Fiscal Perez:
Your Honor please, I would like to, clarify. The good counsel was just asking for all these dates when it would mislead because as we recalled, the witness has already testified that she can clearly remember the first and the last. The question now included all the dates.
Court:
It has nothing to do with the 29 cases. Because according to him 29 cases of rape, he is referring to the number of times if they are also estimates of the witness.
Fiscal Perez:
But he is stating or he is including the first and the second as an estimate. What the witness has testified a while ago was the third time was an estimate.
Court:
Let her answer.
Atty. de Dios:
I am not asking about the dates
anymore but the number of times.
Witness
A- Yes, and in fact, it
could even be more than 29 times.
Court:
Q- In other words, these 29 cases of rape that you have filed against your father are also estimate[s] insofar as the number is concerned because according to you, it could even be more than 29?
A- Yes. xxx[30]
This Court cannot thus sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for 29 counts of rape because only two incidents were sufficiently proven by the prosecution. While we do not doubt that she was raped on other dates, we cannot ascertain the exact number of times she was actually raped. It must be remembered that each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime so that each of the 27 other alleged incidents of rape charged should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If, as complainant claimed, the number could be more, the possibility that it could be much less than 27 cannot be discounted.
Third. Accused-appellant points out alleged inconsistencies between complainant’s testimony and her sworn statement. He claims that-
1. Aime lied about the circumstances surrounding the first rape for she states on one hand that she was raped upstairs, and then caught by the established non-existence of a bed upstairs, she reversed herself;
2. She lied about her age during the first time that she was allegedly raped;
3. She lied about the presence of her sister in the room at the time of the alleged rape;
4. She lied about the absence of her mother during the alleged second rape;
5. She refused to answer questions during the cross-examination;
6. She lied about the alleged mauling which were never substantiated in the physical examination report; and
7. She fabricated all the
charges, upon the instigation of her maternal aunt, Elisa Gerundio.[31]
Errorless recollection of a harrowing incident cannot be expected
of a witness especially when she is recounting details of an experience so
humiliating and so painful as rape.[32] Ample margin of error and understanding
should be accorded to the young complainant who, naturally, would be seized
with fear much more than adults when required to relive an experience she would
most definitely rather forget.[33]
Moreover, as we have time and again held, discrepancies between
the statement of an affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the
witness stand will not necessarily discredit him since ex parte affidavits
are generally incomplete. Affidavits are generally subordinated in importance
to open court declarations because they are oftentimes not in such a state as
to afford a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has
transpired.[34] In addition, an extrajudicial statement is
generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own
language in writing the affiant’s statement, hence omission and
misunderstanding by the writer are not infrequent.[35]
In addition, the inconsistencies alleged refer to incidents of rape committed between the first and the last incidents. As we have already declared that accused-appellant cannot be convicted of any of these offenses for lack of evidence when and how many times these incidents took place, these alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities are clearly immaterial. Moreover, these inconsistencies and improbabilities actually concern minor matters not touching upon accused-appellant’s guilt.
Re: Complainant’s
inconsistency as to the location of the first rape
Accused-appellant points out that while complainant stated in her affidavit that she was raped downstairs where there was a bed, she allegedly reversed herself in court by testifying that she was raped upstairs.
The inconsistency alleged is a minor one and does not detract from the fact that the testimony of complainant is credible. Complainant Aime explained that the first time she was raped was actually on the ground floor of their house where there was really a bed. She said:
“Q You told the Court just a while ago repeatedly that there was no bed, while here in your sworn statement marked as Exh. “B” adopted as Exh. "I," it is clearly stated that your father maltreated you. In that rape in the year 1995, part of this maltreatment was that you were struck into the bed.
My question is, you were not telling the truth then in your sworn statement?
A During the first time when I was raped this occurred downstairs and there is a bed in the room downstairs. It is not upstairs where there was no bed.
Q But you told the Court Miss Witness that in the year 1995, your family never owned a bed. You did not make any qualification?
A Upstairs there was
none but downstairs there was a bed. But we were living upstairs.[36]
Re: Complainant’s
inconsistency as to her age at the time of the first rape
Accused-appellant calls complainant Aime an inveterate liar
because she allegedly lied about her age when she was first raped on
Accused-appellant makes much of the fact that on April 27, 1998,
complainant Aime testified that she was in third year high school[38] when the fact was that she was then already
in her fourth year. First, this testimony does not refer to complainant’s age
but to her high school level. Second, complainant clarified the alleged
discrepancy:
“Q So, which is which, your statement now [April 30, 1998] that you are a 4th year high school or your statement on April 27, 1998 when you told the Honorable Presiding Judge that you were 3rd year?
A I am 4th year.”[39]
Re: Complainant
lied about the presence of her sister and mother during the several incidents
of rape
Accused-appellant next points to the inconsistencies of the
complainant as to whether her mother and sister were in the house on the
several dates she claimed she had been raped by her father. According to
accused-appellant, complainant testified in court that she was raped while her
sister was asleep on the floor in the same room where she was,[40] but in her sworn statement dated
Again, sworn statements, which are ex parte, are often
incomplete and inaccurate, because of partial suggestion or want of suggestions
and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall all
connected circumstances.[44] As between the sworn statement and the
testimony of the complainant given in court, the latter is given more weight.[45]
Aime testified in open court that her mother was not in their house when she was raped, but that her sister was. She thus ably explained the seeming inconsistency as to what was stated in her affidavit. Errorless testimony cannot be expected of the complainant. It is unfair to impose upon her the job of testifying in court with the ability to recall all the details surrounding the incidents of rape.
Needless to say, however, the presence or absence of the mother and sister of Aime during the incidents of rape does not discount the fact that the rapes were committed, as she clearly testified. Lust is no respecter of time and place, and rape can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, alongside the road, within school premises, inside the house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where there are other members of the family who are sleeping.[46]
Re: Complainant refused to answer
questions during cross-examination
Accused-appellant next claims that as complainant Aime refused to answer questions during the cross-examination, she is not a truthful or credible witness.
The fact that complainant Aime failed or refused to answer questions on cross-examination does not affect her credibility as a witness. The questions pertained to the contents of her first sworn statement, which was prepared by police officer SPO3 Alejandro Vidal, Jr. She, however, remained steadfast in her claim that her father raped her. She testified:
“Fiscal Perez:
Q Aime, you said your father forced you to have sexual intercourse by inserting his penis inside your vagina. Now, before your father inserted his penis into your vagina, what, if anything, would he tell you?
A That if I will refuse though I did not like it, he said he will kill me.
Court
Q How did he manifest that he will really kill you if you will not submit to his bestial act or desire?
A He was in rage (nangisog).
Q How did he manifest his enragement?
A He will harm me.
Q How will he harm you?
A By boxing me.
Q Did he really box you?
A Yes.
Q Where were you hit? What portion of your body was hit?
A Here (witness indicating the right shoulder).
Q What happened to you when you were hit?
A I cried.
Q Why did you cry?
A It was painful.
Q You were only hit once?
A Several times.
Court:
Proceed.
Fiscal Perez:
Q After your father inserted his penis inside your vagina, … What would your father do with his penis inside your vagina?
Witness:
A He started to push and pull.
Fiscal Perez:
Q How did you feel while your father’s penis was being pushed and pulled?
A Pain.
Q And after your father had
committed sexual intercourse with you... We manifest, your Honor, that she is
continuously wiping tears rolling down her cheeks.”[47]
At several instances during her testimony, Aime cried as she was
overcome by emotion, indicating that she was telling the truth.[48] The Court is hard put to dismiss her
testimony as a mere concoction. If she had concocted her tale, she would not
have remained consistent throughout her entire testimony in the face of intense
and lengthy interrogation.[49]
Re: Complainant
lied about the mauling inflicted upon her by the accused-appellant
Accused-appellant claims that complainant Aime lied about the mauling inflicted upon her by accused-appellant since these were never substantiated in the physical examination report.
Contrary to accused-appellant’s contention, the medical report clearly states the result of the mauling. The report reads in pertinent parts:
“Ext. gen. phys. injuries present: Extremity 1 (+) Contusion
Hematoma 2x3, posterior aspect of the right forearm, 2x2 cm contusion
hematoma, dorsum of the left hand, 2x2 cm hematoma, posterior the
neck R, (+) eyethema dorsal aspect of the R area. x x x”[50]
The lower court found her credible; its findings, conclusions,
and evaluation of the testimony and credibility of the complainant are received
on appeal with the highest respect, the same being supported by substantial
evidence on record.[51]
Moreover, in a rape committed by a father against his own
daughter, the former’s moral ascendancy and influence over the latter takes the
place of violence or intimidation.[52] In People vs. Matrimonio,[53] the Court said that the test is whether the threat or intimidation
produces a reasonable fear in the victim that if she resists or does not yield
to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out.
Re: Complainant lied as to the date of
the second rape
Accused-appellant also claims that complainant’s testimony is
incredible and untrustworthy because she allegedly lied as to the date of the
second rape. According to him, while complainant Aime related in her statement
before SPO3 Alejandro Vidal, Jr. that she was raped one week after the first
rape on
The discrepancies in the testimony of Aime regarding the exact
dates she was allegedly raped are inconsequential, immaterial and, cannot
discredit her credibility as a witness. The exact date of the commission of the
rape is not an element of the crime.[54] What is decisive in a rape charge is that
the commission of the rape by accused-appellant has been sufficiently proven.
Inconsistencies and discrepancies as to minor matters irrelevant to the
elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal. In fact, in
one case, the accused was validly convicted under an information alleging that
he committed the rape on
Fourth. Accused-appellant claims that the charges
filed against him were fabricated by his daughter because he chastised her when
he found that she had a tryst with her boyfriend at the
It is unthinkable, however, for Aime to falsely accuse her father
solely by reason of resentment. It would take a certain amount of psychological
depravity for her to concoct a story which would put her own father for most of
his remaining life in jail, if not put him to his death, and drag herself and
the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.[56] It is hard to believe that a young girl,
like complainant, who is inexperienced in the ways of the world, to make up a
story of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, subject
herself to public trial, and tarnish her family’s honor and reputation unless
her motive is really to seek justice for the wrong committed to her.[57]
Nor do we find merit in accused-appellant’s claim that Elisa
Gerundio instigated the filing of the charges because she hates him. No blood
relative could be so foolish as to expose her niece to such a disgrace just to
manifest her spite for her brother-in-law.[58] There could have been so many ways to
alienate her sister from accused-appellant.
In the end, all the foregoing boils down to the issue of credibility of the complainant. The issue is to be resolved primarily by the trial court which is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witness and observed her deportment and manner of testifying on the witness stand. We hold that the trial court correctly gave credence to the testimony of the complainant.
In rape cases, the following principles have been formulated to
guide the courts in the decision of these cases: (1) it is difficult to prove
rape, but even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to
disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape, where
only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution
stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from
the weakness of the defense.[59] The Court is convinced beyond a shadow of
doubt that accused-appellant committed the two counts of rape alleged in the
amended complaints filed by complainant. Although complainant failed to
sufficiently prove that her father raped her 29 times, the Court believes that
she was abused on two occasions, i.e., on
Moreover, in considering the testimonies of the witnesses for the
defense allowance must be made for the fact that, save for Dr. Besie Acebes,
they are relatives of accused-appellant. Librada Matugas is his wife, Evelyn
Matugas-Avila is his sister, Crescencia Matugas is his first cousin, and Senen
Batoon, Sr. is the husband of accused-appellant’s niece. Obviously, their
testimonies cannot be received at face value.[61]
With respect to the penalty, a modification as to the number of
death sentences imposed by the trial court is proper. R.A. No. 7659, which took
effect on
In the case at bar, there is no dispute that accused-appellant is
the father of the complainant. Accused-appellant even admitted the relationship
during his direct-examination[63] and the same is further corroborated by the
joint affidavit of accused-appellant and his wife Librada Matugas, duly signed,
which indicates that they are the legal parents of Aime.[64]
Nor is there any dispute as to the age of complainant. She was
born on
With regard to the award of damages, the amount of P75,000.00
granted by the trial court for civil indemnity must be applied to each of the
two incidents of rape sufficiently proven. The amount is actually in the nature
of actual or compensatory damages, which is mandatory upon the finding of the
fact of rape.[68] However, an additional award of moral
damages, in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of the two counts of rape, should
be made in line with recent rulings.[69] Moral damages are awarded taking into
account the immeasurable havoc wrought on the complainant’s youthful feminine
psyche.[70]
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the modification that accused-appellant Wilfredo Matugas is hereby declared guilty of two counts of rape, in Criminal Case Nos. DU-6097 and DU-6119, and is sentenced in each case to death and ordered to pay to complainant Aime Matugas in each case P50,000.00 as moral damages, in addition to the P75,000.00 civil indemnity ordered by the trial court to be paid to complainant. In Criminal Case Nos. DU-6120 to DU-6146, accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime of rape on the ground of reasonable doubt.
In accordance with Section 25 of R.A. No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the certified true copies thereof, as well as the records of these cases, be forthwith forwarded without delay to the Office of the President for the possible exercise of the pardoning power.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr.,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
[1] Per Judge Mercedes Gozo-Dadole.
[2] Criminal case Nos. DU-6097, DU-6119, DU-6120, DU-6121, DU-6122, DU-6123, DU-6124, DU-6125, DU-6126, DU-6127, DU-6128, DU-6129, DU-6130, DU-6131, DU-6132, DU-6133, DU-6134, DU-6135, DU-6136, DU-6137, DU-6138, DU-6140, DU-6141, DU-6142, DU-6143, DU-6144, DU-6145, and DU-6146.
[3] September 6, 1995; November 29, 1995; December 9, 1995; February 18, 1996; February 26, 1996; March 6, 1996; April 10, 1996; May 3, 1996; June 6, 1996; July 1, 1996; August 26, 1996; September 8, 1996; September 16, 1996; October 6, 1996; November 7, 1996; January 7, 1997; January 18, 1997; February 2, 1997; March 24, 1997; April 6, 1997; May 17, 1997; May 27, 1997; June 5, 1997; July 2, 1997; July 10, 1997; August 21, 1997; September 8, 1997; September 16, 1997; October 6, 1997.
[4]
Complainant Aime Matugas was 13 years old when she was first raped on
[5]
Counter-Affidavit of Librada Matugas dated
[6]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[7]
[8]
[9]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[10]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[11]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[12]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[13]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[14]
TSN (Librada Matugas),
[15]
[16]
TSN (Wilfredo Matugas),
[17]
TSN (Wilfredo Matugas),
[18]
TSN (Wilfredo Matugas),
[19]
TSN (Librada Matugas),
[20]
TSN (Evelyn Avila),
[21]
TSN (Crescencia Matugas),
[22]
TSN (Dr. Besie Acebes),
[23]
TSN (Senen Batoon, Sr.),
[24] People vs. Baniguid, 340 SCRA 92 (2000); People vs. Patalin, Jr., 311 SCRA 186 (1999); People vs. Cabiles, 284 SCRA 199 (1998).
[25]
People v. Escordial, G.R. Nos.
138934-35,
[26]
People vs. Galvez, G.R. No.
136790,
[27]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[28]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[29]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[30]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[31] Appellant’s Brief, p. 6; Rollo, p. 251.
[32] People vs. Calayca, 301 SCRA 192 (1999).
[33] People vs. Marcelo, 305 SCRA 105 (1999).
[34] People vs. Sirad, 335 SCRA 114 (2000); People vs. de la Cruz, 335 SCRA 620 (2000); People vs. Castillo, 261 SCRA 493 (1996); People vs. Leangsiri, 322 Phil. 226 (1996).
[35] People vs. Bergonio, 340 SCRA 269 (2000); People vs. Ramos, 296 SCRA 559 (1998).
[36]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[37] People vs. Sala, 311 SCRA 301 (1999); People vs. Costelo, 316 SCRA 895 (1999); People vs. Bibat, 290 SCRA 27 (1998).
[38]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[39]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[40]
[41] Records, p. 75.
[42]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[43] Records, p. 75.
[44] People vs. Acala, 307 SCRA 330 (1999); People vs. Castillo, 261 SCRA 493 (1996).
[45] People vs. Acala, 307 SCRA 330 (1999); People vs. Conde, 252 SCRA 681 (1996).
[46]
People vs. Paraiso, G.R. No.
131823,
[47]
TSN (Aime Matugas),
[48]
People vs. Bares, G.R. Nos.
137762-65,
[49] People vs. Sancha, 324 SCRA 663 (2000); People vs. Perez, 296 SCRA 17 (1998).
[50] Exh. “GG-1”; Records, p. 81. Emphasis supplied.
[51] People vs. Silvano, 309 SCRA 396 (1999); People vs. Baccay, 284 SCRA 296 (1998); People vs. Tenorio, 284 SCRA 420 (1998).
[52] People vs. Freta, G.R. Nos. 134451-52, March 14, 2001; People vs. Sayao, Jr. G.R. No. 124297, Feb. 21, 2001; People vs. Maglente, 306 SCRA 573 (1999); People vs. Flores, 320 SCRA 560 (1999).
[53] 215 SCRA 613 (1992).
[54] People vs. Alba, 305 SCRA 811 (1999).
[55]
People vs. Montejo, G.R. Nos.
137762-65,
[56] People vs. Acala, 307 SCRA 330 (1999).
[57] People vs. Marabillas, 303 SCRA 352 (1999).
[58] People vs. Atop, 286 SCRA 173 (1998); People vs. Ibalang, 286 SCRA 400 (1998).
[59]
People vs. Painitan, G.R. No.
137665,
[60] People vs. Maglente, 306 SCRA 575 (1999); People vs. Taneo, 284 SCRA 251 (1998).
[61] See People vs. Galvez, G.R. No. 136790, March 26, 2001; People vs. Gopio, G.R. No. 133925, Nov. 29, 2000.
[62] People vs. Fraga, 330 SCRA 669 (2000); People vs. Gianan, 340 SCRA 477 (2000); People vs. Bernalez, 322 SCRA 462 (2000); People vs. Manggasin, 306 SCRA 228 (1999); People vs. Magbanua, 319 SCRA 719 (1999).
[63]
TSN (Wilfredo Matugas),
[64] Exh. “A-1”; Records, p. 74.
[65] Exhs. “A,” “2-A”; records, p. 73.
[66]
TSN (Librada Matugas),
[67] Three (3) members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People vs. Echegaray (267 SCRA 682 (1997)) that R.A. No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death, is unconstitutional, nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.
[68]
People vs. Baring, G.R. Nos.
130515 & 147090,
[69]
People vs. Baring, G.R. Nos.
130515 & 147090,
[70] People vs. Sagun, 303 SCRA 382 (1999).