EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 141189-141202. July 23, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. DOMINGO D. PATANAYAN JR., accused-appellant.
KAPUNAN, J.:
D E C I S I O N
Fourteen (14)
separate informations for rape were filed against accused-appellant Domingo D.
Patanayan Jr. Each information reads as
follows:
Criminal
Case No. IR-4769
That sometime in the month of
December 1997 in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
the father of the complainant, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with abuse of confidence, by means of threats and intimidation,
and taking advantage of complainants youth and weakness, have carnal knowledge
of the said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y MOLINA, 18 years of age, for the 12th
time against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said
Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina in such amount as may be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4770
That sometime in the month of
October 1997 in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
the father of the complainant, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with abuse of confidence, by means of threats and intimidation,
and taking advantage of complainants youth and weakness, have carnal knowledge
of the said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y
MOLINA, 17 years of age, for the 11th time against her will and
consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said Cherry Grace Patanayan y
Molina in such amount as may be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4771
That sometime in the month of July
1997 in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the father
of the complainant, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
with abuse of confidence, by means of threats and intimidation, and taking
advantage of complainants youth and weakness, have carnal knowledge of the
said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y MOLINA, 17 years of age, for the 10th
time against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said
Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina in such amount as may be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4772
That sometime in the month of May
1997 (middle part) in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga City, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
being the father of the complainant, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, with abuse of confidence, by means of threats and
intimidation, and taking advantage of complainants youth and weakness, have
carnal knowledge of the said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y MOLINA, 17 years of age,
for the 9th time against her will and consent, to the damage and
prejudice of the said Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina in such amount as may be
proven in court.
ACT
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4773
That sometime in the month of
February 1997 (after Valentines Day and before Barangay Fiesta, February 20
1997) in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the father
of the complainant, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
with abuse of confidence, by means of threats and intimidation, and taking
advantage of complainants youth and weakness, have carnal knowledge of the said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y MOLINA, 17
years of age, for the 8th time against her will and consent, to the
damage and prejudice of the said Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina in such amount
as may be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4774
That sometime in the month of
December 1996 in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
the father of the complainant, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with abuse of confidence, by means of threats and intimidation,
and taking advantage of complainants youth and weakness, have carnal knowledge
of the said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y
MOLINA, 17 years of age, for the 7th time against her will and
consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said Cherry Grace Patanayan y
Molina in such amount as may be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4775
That sometime in the month of
November 1996 in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
the father of the complainant, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with abuse of confidence, by means of threats and intimidation,
and taking advantage of complainants youth and weakness, have carnal knowledge
of the said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y MOLINA, 17 years of age, for the 6th
time against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said
Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina in such amount as may be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4776
That sometime in the month of April
1996 (Summer) in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
the father of the complainant, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with abuse of confidence, by means of threats and intimidation,
and taking advantage of complainants youth and weakness, have carnal knowledge
of the said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y MOLINA, 16 years of age, for the 5th
time against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said
Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina in such amount as may be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4777
That sometime in the month of
January 1996 (a week after New Year), in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga
City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, being the father of the complainant, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with abuse of confidence, by means of
threats and intimidation, and taking advantage of complainants youth and
weakness, have carnal knowledge of the said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y MOLINA, 16
years of age, for the 4th time against her will and consent, to the
damage and prejudice of the said Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina in such amount
as may be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[9]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4778
That sometime in the last week
of November 1995 in their house in San
Vicente Sur, Iriga City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the father of the complainant,
did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with abuse of
confidence, by means of threats and intimidation, and taking advantage of
complainants youth and weakness, have carnal knowledge of the said Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina, 16
years of age, for the 3rd time against her will and consent, to the damage
and prejudice of the said Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina in such amount as may
be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[10]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4779
That sometime in the month of
October 1995 in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
the father of the complainant, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with abuse of confidence, by means of threats and intimidation,
and taking advantage of complainants youth and weakness, have carnal knowledge
of the said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y
MOLINA, 15 years of age, for the second time against her will and consent, to
the damage and prejudice of the said Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina in such
amount as may be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[11]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4780
That sometime in the month of
September 1995 in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
the father of the complainant, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with abuse of confidence, by means of threats and intimidation,
and taking advantage of complainants youth and weakness, have carnal knowledge
of the said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y
MOLINA, 15 years of age, for the first time against her will and consent, to
the damage and prejudice of the said Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina in such
amount as may be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[12]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4781
That sometime in the month of
February 1998 in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
the father of the complainant, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with abuse of confidence, by means of threats and intimidation,
and taking advantage of complainants youth and weakness, have carnal knowledge
of the said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y MOLINA, 18 years of age, for the 13th
time against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said
Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina in such amount as may be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[13]
Criminal
Case No. IR-4782
That sometime in the month of April
1998 (before Good Friday) in their house in San Vicente Sur, Iriga City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, being the father of the complainant, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with abuse of confidence, by means of
threats and intimidation, and taking advantage of complainants youth and
weakness, have carnal knowledge of the said CHERRY GRACE PATANAYAN Y MOLINA, 18
years of age, for the 14th time against her will and consent, to the
damage and prejudice of the said Cherry Grace Patanayan y Molina in such amount
as may be proven in court.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW.[14]
The cases were
raffled to, and consolidated for trial before, Branch 37 of the Regional Trial
Court in Iriga City.
On October 16,
1998, the accused-appellant was arraigned in all cases; and in all of them, he
pleaded not guilty.[15]
Trial ensued.
On November 18,
1998, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, this Court finds the evidence of the prosecution to have established
the guilt of accused Domingo D. Patanayan, Jr. of the crime charged in the 14
informations, beyond reasonable doubt, as principal thereof, and although the
nature and the number of the penalty that may be imposed is physically
impossible of execution as a person has only one life but same is legally
proper in imposition, the Court hereby sentences accused to suffer the supreme
penalty of death in each case, or 14 death penalties in the 14 cases, to
indemnify Cherry Grace P75,000.00 in each case as actual damages (People vs.
Victor, G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998) which is, however, awarded only in
compliance with the law.
SO ORDERED.[16]
The relevant
antecedents are as follows:
At around ten oclock
in the morning sometime in September, 1995, private complainant Cherry Grace M.
Patanayan was busy sweeping their yard at San Vicente Sur, Iriga City. At that
time, her mother was preparing firewood for cooking, her younger siblings were
playing, and the accused-appellant was inside their house.[17] After a while, the
accused-appellant requested his wife to go to the poblacion to buy some
goods.[18] As soon as his wife departed, the
accused-appellant instructed his eldest son to buy some cigarettes and then,
directed his younger children to play at their grandmothers house. Moments later, he summoned Cherry Grace
inside a room in the house.[19] As soon as Cherry Grace entered the
room, the accused-appellant, who was then sitting on the bed, told her to yield
(pagbigyan) to his request. Cherry Grace could not understand what he
meant.[20] Then, to her horror, the
accused-appellant forcefully dragged Cherry Grace and pinned her against the
wall. He whacked her head against the
wall, then, made her stand on a seven-inch bench or bangkito.[21] He gripped her hands with one hand, then, lowered her
garterized panty and shorts to her knees with his other hand.[22] The accused-appellant then
muttered: Para ngaya ko umu-usad
(I will just take one).[23] Cherry Grace tried to escape his
fathers tight grip to no avail.[24] The more she tried to wrestle out
of his grip, the more he tightened his hold on her and pinned her further to
the wall. This frightened Cherry Grace.[25] Amidst her struggle, she felt the
accused-appellants erect penis enter her vagina. She was in tremendous pain.[26] Cherry Grace could only stifle her
cry because the accused-appellant covered her mouth.[27] After sexually relieving himself,
the accused-appellant loosened his hold on her, then, bowed down to wipe
something on the floor.[28] Cherry Grace pulled up her panty
and shorts and ran downstairs, crying as she went under a coconut tree.[29] The accused-appellant again
summoned her and warned her not to tell anyone, even her mother, of the
incident, if she wanted herself and her family members to live longer.[30] He then ordered her to finish
sweeping the yard.[31]
When her mother
came home, she noticed her disheveled hair and when she asked her about it,
Cherry Grace didnt say anything. But Cherry
Grace's nightmarish ordeal has just begun.
For, around ten
oclock in the morning sometime in October, 1995, the accused-appellant again
requested his wife to go to the poblacion and then, allowed his younger
children to play at their cousins house.[32] Thereafter, he angrily called for
Cherry Grace to come to him.[33] He made her stand on the bangkito,
lowered her undergarments,[34] and inserted his penis into her
vagina.[35] When Cherry Grace asked her father
why he was doing this to her, he covered her mouth, banged her head on the wall
and declared that what he took from her is not even enough to compensate him
for his efforts in feeding her and sending her to school.[36] After he had satisfied his lust, he
warned her daughter not to tell anyone about it.[37] Then, he slapped her and chided her
for being of no service.[38]
Without remorse,
at around nine oclock of a Sunday morning sometime in November, 1995, the
accused-appellant told Cherry Grace to stand on the same bangkito at a
post in their house,[39] removed her clothing,[40] inserted his penis into her vagina,[41] and reminded her not to tell anybody what he did to her.[42] Again, Cherry Grace did not tell
her mother what happened because she didnt want to hurt her mother.[43]
Similarly, at
around nine oclock in the morning sometime in January, 1996, the
accused-appellant asked Cherry Grace's mother to go to the poblacion;[44] and he allowed her siblings to go
to their cousin's house.[45] The accused-appellant called for
Cherry Grace, told her to stand on the bangkito, and pushed her on the
post.[46] Afraid that her father would hurt
her again, she did not physically resist when he removed her shorts.[47] Thereafter, he inserted his penis
into her vagina.[48] She let him rape her because she
did not want to be beaten again.[49] He repeated his threats to kill her
and her family if she disclosed the grueling incidents she suffered in his
hands to anybody.[50] Thus, when her mother came home,
Cherry Grace did not tell her about the incident.[51]
Unfortunately,
at nine oclock in the morning sometime in April, 1996, Cherry Grace was again
left with the accused-appellant in their house because her mother and siblings
went out.[52] To Cherry Graces dismay, the
accused-appellant again called her, ordered her to stand on the bangkito
near the post, removed her shorts and inserted his penis into her vagina.[53] She was in pain.[54] She did not tell her mother what
happened when the latter came home. She just helped her mother with the chores.[55]
Cherry Grace's
debasement was repeated at nine oclock in the morning sometime in November,
1996, when the accused-appellant again told Cherry Grace's mother to go to the
poblacion,[56] and directed her siblings to go and
play at their cousin's house.[57] Mercilessly, the accused-appellant
boxed her, banged her head, and hit her with whatever he could get hold of,
even when she was already hiding under the bed.[58] Then, he told her to stand on the bangkito,
pushed her on the post, removed her shorts, and inserted his penis into her
vagina.[59] She could not fight back because
her body was already very painful from his beatings.[60] Although she thought of leaving
their house, she stayed because she was worried about what the
accused-appellant would do to her mother and siblings.[61]
Thus, at around nine
oclock in the morning sometime in December, 1996, accused-appellant again had
the opportunity to rape Cherry Grace.[62] Her mother was then at the poblacion
while her siblings were at their grandmother's house.[63] The accused-appellant ordered her
to stand on the bangkito near the post, removed her shorts, and inserted
his penis into her vagina.[64] After he was finished, he told her
he would kill people if she would tell anybody what he did to her.[65] When her mother arrived, Cherry
Grace kept silent.[66]
Likewise, at
around nine oclock in the morning sometime in February, 1997, Cherry Grace's
mother went to the poblacion;[67] while said siblings were at their
grandmother's house.[68] The accused-appellant summoned
Cherry Grace, told her to stand on the bangkito, leaned her on the post,
removed her shorts, and inserted his penis into her vagina.[69] She could only let him rape her
because she did not want to be beaten again.[70] Thereafter, she put on her dress
and went down the house.[71]
Nothing changed
when at around nine oclock in the morning sometime in May, 1997, the
accused-appellant asked Cherry Grace's mother to go to the poblacion,[72] and got angry with Cherry Grace's
siblings so that they will leave the house.[73] The accused-appellant again
directed Cherry Grace to stand on the bangkito, leaned her on the post,
removed her shorts, and inserted his penis into her vagina.[74] Afterwards, he told her to continue
with her work so that nothing will happen.[75]
Still, at around
nine oclock in the morning sometime in July, 1997, the accused-appellant told
Cherry Grace's mother to go to the poblacion,[76] and got angry with Cherry Grace's
siblings so that they will leave the house.[77] He called for her again; but Cherry
Grace did not want to obey him anymore even if he would hurt her.[78] Nonetheless, he kicked her at her
back for being stubborn, forcibly pulled her up, let her stand on a chair,
leaned her on the wall, removed her shorts, and inserted his penis into her
vagina.[79] Thereafter, he told her to continue
with her work so that she could repay her for his efforts in feeding her.[80] Although she already wanted to tell
her mother what happened when the latter came home, she still did not have the
courage to do so.[81]
As before, at
around nine-thirty in the morning sometime in October, 1997, Cherry Grace's
mother left the house to go to the market.[82] Cherry Grace wanted to go with her
but the accused-appellant did not allow it.[83] Instead, he got mad at her siblings
and told them that they can play anywhere so long as they leave the house.[84] When Cherry Grace and the
accused-appellant were already alone in the house, he pulled her upstairs, let
her stand on the bangkito, leaned her on the post, removed her shorts,
and inserted his penis into her vagina.[85] She did not tell her mother what
transpired.[86] Hence, the accused-appellant would
rape her again.
At around nine
oclock in the morning sometime in December, 1997, Cherry Grace's mother went
to the market.[87] The accused-appellant got mad at
her siblings so they would leave the house.[88] Then, he physically hurt Cherry
Grace, forcibly pulled her upstairs while she was crying, let her stand on the bangkito,
leaned her on the post, removed her pants, and inserted his penis into her
vagina.[89] When her mother arrived, she
remained silent on what happened.[90]
Undaunted, at
around nine oclock in the morning sometime in February, 1998, the
accused-appellant told Cherry Grace's mother to go to the market[91] and got mad at her siblings so they
would leave the house.[92] When they left, he pulled Cherry
Grace upstairs, made her on the bangkito, leaned her on the post,
removed her pants, and inserted his penis into her vagina.[93] When
her mother arrived, Cherry Grace just continued working.[94]
For the 14th and the last time, at around nine
oclock in the morning sometime in April, 1998, the accused-appellant raped
Cherry Grace. When Cherry Graces
mother was at the market,[95] and
her siblings were outside the house,[96] the
accused-appellant told Cherry Grace that he would allow her to go with her
mother to San Jose, but would use her again.[97] In
reply, she defiantly told him that she did not care if he would not allow her
to go to San Jose so long as he would not use her.[98] He
angrily brought her up the house and told her that he will prevail because he
was the king of the house.[99] Then,
he told her to stand on the bangkito, leaned her on the post, removed
her pants, and inserted his penis into her vagina.[100] When her mother arrived, Cherry
Grace did not tell her anything, although she already intended to do so.[101]
It was sometime
in June, 1998 that Cherry Grace finally found the courage to disclose her
harrowing ordeal to her grandmother.[102] On June 22, 1998, her mother took
her to the City Health Office for physical examination. Dr. Loreto G. Leonido
made the following findings:
1. Complete,
healed laceration with rounded, non-coaptable borders and retraction of the
edges of the hymen at 6 o'clock;
2. Test
tube with a diameter of 3/4 inch entered easily the vagina.
3. Erythema
of the vulva.
4. No other external physical findings.[103]
The accused-appellant
was brought to trial; and thereafter, he was convicted by the trial court as
above stated. Hence, the automatic review of said decision.
The
accused-appellant raised the following assignment of errors, viz:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING
THE (APPELLANT) GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF FOURTEEN (14) COUNTS OF RAPE
IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. IR-4769 TO IR-4782 DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
FOR THE PROSECUTION.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE (APPELLANT).
III.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING
THE (APPELLANT) PARTICULARLY IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. IR-4769, IR-4781 AND IR-4782
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGATIONS THEREIN WITH RESPECT TO THE AGE OF THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE RAPES WERE DEFECTIVE.[104]
The
accused-appellant contends that Cherry Grace's testimony that he raped her
should not have been believed by the trial court because it was impossible for
him to have inserted his penis into Cherry Grace's vagina in a standing
position. He submits that since Cherry
Grace's lower garments were simply pulled down the knee level, indicating that
her thighs were "tightly fixed," the alleged sexual act could not
have been consummated. He takes stock
of the fact that Cherry Grace testified that she never spread her legs, making
it impossible for the consummation of the sexual act in a standing position.
We disagree.
In the first
place, it is settled that "sexual intercourse in a standing position while
perhaps uncomfortable, is not improbable."[105] In these cases, the
accused-appellant failed to sufficiently show that he could not have raped
Cherry Grace in such position. On the other hand, Cherry Grace clearly and
consistently testified how the accused-appellant inserted his penis into her
vagina fourteen (14) times.[106]
In the second
place, the established facts and circumstances show that it was not impossible
for the accused-appellant to have inserted his penis into her vagina in said
position, to wit:
1. The accused-appellant has been shown to be a
strict and cruel man who inflicts beatings even without any reason at all on
Cherry Grace and her siblings.[107] In fact, he admitted that he is a
strict and cruel man.[108] Even his wife could not do
anything because she was afraid of him.[109] In a sense, Cherry Grace was
trapped in a web of cruel moral ascendancy of her father over her which
deprived her the courage to fight back every time he would rape her and made it
quite possible for him to rape her with impunity while in a standing position.
2. The accused-appellant would initially beat
Cherry Grace until he was contented every time he would rape her, i.e.,
he would pin her on the wall, whack her head, and whip her with a belt.[110] Hence, it is not difficult to
understand why Cherry Grace would simply succumb to what he wanted to do.[111] Indeed, after being beaten up, all
she could do was to obey the accused-appellant when he made her stand on the bangkito,
and to just listlessly stand while he was raping her.[112] Being in pain from the beatings,
she could do nothing but yield her body to be sexually violated by him. Consequently, there is no doubt that after
physically and violently beating Cherry Grace, the accused-appellant could have
spread her legs while she was standing, penetrated her vagina, as well as
pushed and pulled his penis therein.
3. The accused-appellant admitted that he was
almost six (6) feet tall while Cherry Grace, at age fifteen (15), was five (5)
feet and three (3) inches.[113] To bridge the gap in height, the
accused-appellant made Cherry Grace stand on the bangkito which is about
seven (7) to eight (8) inches.[114] With his penis at level with Cherry
Grace's vagina, he could have penetrated her in said standing position.
Nor are we
persuaded with the accused-appellant's assertion that since Cherry Grace's
buttocks was not "lifted," no sexual coitus could have happened. In
no uncertain terms, Cherry Grace testified that in all the times that the
accused-appellant was raping her, she was pinned to the wall or pushed to the
post, making possible the insertion of his penis into her vagina even without
the lifting of her buttocks. Stated
differently, the accused-appellant consummated said rapes by forcing himself into
her vagina while she was pinned to a wall or pushed to a post. There was
therefore no need for him to lift her buttocks. Verily, with her clear and categorical testimony that he inserted
his penis inside her vagina, there can be no other conclusion than that his
penis touched her labia majora or the labia minora of her pudendum,
thereby, constituting consummated rape.[115]
Moreover, Cherry
Grace's testimony was corroborated by Dr. Loreto G. Leonido who testified that,
as he declared in the medical certificate, after he examined Cherry Grace, he
found (a) that she has "(c)omplete, healed laceration with rounded,
non-coaptable borders and retraction of the edges of the hymen at 6
o'clock;" (b) that a "(t)est tube with a diameter of 3/4 inch entered
easily the vagina;" (c) that there was "(e)rythema of the
vulva;" (d) that it was possible that the laceration could have been
caused by the organ of a person; and (e) that since said test tube easily
entered her vagina, it could be
possible that she had several sexual intercourse.[116] It is settled that "(t)he mere introduction of the
male organ in the labia majora of the victims genitalia consummates the
crime;[117] and that the medical evidence,
notably the finding of healed lacerations on the victims private parts, supports
the theory that Cherry Grace had been a victim of rape.[118] In any event, the established facts
and circumstances lead us to the ineluctable conclusion that Cherry Grace was
raped, what with (a) her positive identification of the accused-appellant, declaration
that he made her stand on the bangkito, pinned her against the wall,
removed her shorts, and inserted his sex organ in her vagina; and (b) Dr.
Leonido's findings of the presence of
healed laceration in her vagina.
At any rate, we
are not persuaded by the accused-appellant's contention that Cherry Grace is
not a credible witness.
(T)he Court has said time and time
again that the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court,
because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to
note their demeanor, conduct and attitude.
Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive
on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[119]
Here, the trial
court found, to which finding we fully agree, that Cherry Grace's testimony was
credible, viz:
In answer to the questions on cross
examination, Cherry Grace admitted certain reasons why she finally revealed
what her father has been doing to her (T.S.N., March 2, 1999, p. 11) but then
this Court believes that "even if complainant is consumed with revenge, it
takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct
a story which would put her own father as a candidate for lethal injection and
drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame" (People
v. Melivo, 253 SCRA 347).
Neither would the cruelty of her
father be sufficient for the complainant to file a charge so serious as the
heinous crime of rape against her father simply because she was maltreated,
only the compulsive motive to seek justice could be strong enough for her to
implicate her flesh and blood (People v. Esquila, 254 SCRA 140).
Indeed, as early
"as in the case of People v. Villaroya,[120] we ruled that 'hatred cannot be
considered sufficient motive to testify falsely to convict a person for a crime
punishable by death.'" A careful review of the evidence on record shows
that Cherry Grace testified on the details of the rapes in a straightforward,
positive and convincing manner. She did
not waiver even during cross-examination, despite her tender age. "It is
an established rule that courts usually give credence to the testimony of a
girl who is a victim of sexual assault, particularly if it constitutes
incestuous rape because, normally, no person would be willing to undergo the
humiliation of a public trial and to testify on the details of her ordeal were
it not to condemn an injustice."[121]
Besides, we find
unworthy of belief and credence the accused-appellant's claim that Cherry Grace
charged him with rape because she and his in-laws connived with each other in
maliciously charging him with committing the acts of rape against Cherry Grace. He asserts that Cherry Grace was raped not
by him but by Leopoldo Magistrado, whose wife is the sister of the
accused-appellant's mother-in-law.[122] He claims that he saw Magistrado
place Cherry Grace on the latter's lap, pull down her shorts and use her.[123] Even if we were to assume for the
sake of argument that she had sexual intercourse with Magistrado at the time
the accused-appellant saw them together, such does not contradict the version
of the prosecution that she was raped by the accused-appellant fourteen (14) times
on different dates.
What is more, it
is unbelievable that Cherry Grace's mother would expose her to embarrassment,
ridicule and stigma just to ensure that Magistrado would not be held liable for
his alleged sexual act with Cherry Grace. "No self-respecting individual
would want to subject a loved one to the rigors of public trial and the trauma
of rigid cross-examination by opposing counsels if (s)he was not purely and
solely motivated by the desire to punish the perpetrator of the crime."[124]
Anent Cherry
Grace's delay in reporting the acts of
rape against her, suffice it to state that her failure to immediately report
the same does not detract from her credibility, her timidity and hesitation
being attributable to her age, the moral ascendancy of the accused-appellant
over her, and his threats against her and her family.[125] It is extant from the records that
Cherry Grace testified that the accused-appellant threatened to kill her and
her family if she divulged to anybody what he had been doing to her. It was
thus quite natural for her to be scared and to keep her horrible ordeal to
herself until she found enough courage to disclose the same to her grandmother.
Cherry Grace's reluctance to disclose what the accused-appellant did to her did
not render her testimony unworthy of belief.
Settled is the rule that delay in reporting a rape incident due to death
threats are not to be taken against the victim.[126]
Furthermore, it
bears stressing that Cherry Grace indeed may have failed to escape from the
accused-appellant at the earliest opportunity, and even stayed at home even
after he raped her fourteen (14) times, but different people react differently
to different situations and there is no standard form of human behavioral
response when one is confronted with a frightful experience. The victim's mien, rather than composure,
could mean resignation, considering her continuing suffering or apoplexy and
numbness as the aftermath of her ordeal."[127] The fact, therefore, that Cherry Grace
failed to run away immediately from the accused-appellant and avoid his evil
clutches should not be taken against her.
We thus hold
that the accused-appellants defense of denial cannot overcome Cherry Grace's
positive testimony that he raped her fourteen (14) times, which was
substantially corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses. The rule is that the positive and
categorical assertions of witnesses generally prevail over bare denials.[128] Such accordance of greater
probative value to evidence that is positive in nature than that which is
negative in character is a time-honored principle. Hence, the negative
assertions of the accused-appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimony
of the complainants.[129] Without doubt, Cherry Grace's unwavering
and positive identification of her father as her defiler and tormentor cannot
prevail over the latter's defense of denial the same being feeble, flimsy,
self-serving and uncorroborated.[130]
Neither do we
find meritorious the accused-appellant's claim that he could not have raped
Cherry Grace because from September 1995 to April 1998, he sometimes worked in
Legaspi. The defense of alibi is
inherently weak, unreliable and easily fabricated. "For alibi to serve as
basis for acquittal, it must be established with clear and convincing
evidence. The requisites of time and
place must be strictly met."[131] Here, the accused-appellant failed
to reasonably demonstrate that during the time the rapes were committed upon
Cherry Grace, it was physically impossible for him to have been in their house
at San Vicente Sur, Iriga City, where Cherry Grace was raped fourteen (14)
times. It was not sufficiently proven
that both the house at San Vicente Sur and the place where he allegedly worked
at Legaspi were too far apart to make it possible for the accused-appellant to
have raped Cherry Grace on the dates stated in the aforementioned informations
against him.
Be that as it
may, while we affirm the trial courts judgment of conviction, we do not agree
with the trial courts imposition of the death penalty. As we declared in People v. Esureņa,[132] to wit:
Under Republic Act No. 7659, the
imposition of the death penalty in rape cases becomes mandatory when the
offended party is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim. The qualifying
circumstances of age and relationship of the victim to the accused must
specifically be alleged and proved (People v. Villaraza, G.R. Nos. 131848-50, September 5,
2000, p. 22, citing People v.
Manggasin, 306 SCRA 228 [1999]).
In the case of People v. Manuel Liban (G.R. No. 138330, November 22, 2000),
this Court ruled that the birth certificate of the victim or in lieu thereof,
any other documentary evidence that can help establish the age of the victim
should be presented.
In People v. Javier (311 SCRA 122 [1999]),
we required the presentation of the birth certificate of the victim to prove
her minority, failing which the imposition of the death penalty cannot be
upheld.
In the case at bar, although the
minority of the victim was alleged in the information, the same was not duly
proved during the trial of the case. No
evidence was presented to show Nenas age, save for her own testimony. It has
been held that while the testimony of a person as to her age, although hearsay,
is admissible as evidence of family tradition, it cannot be considered proof of
age beyond reasonable doubt (People
v. Pine, 346 SCRA 383, 393 [2000]). Hence, the qualifying circumstance
of minority cannot be appreciated, and accordingly the death penalty cannot be
imposed (People v. Virrey, G.R. No. 133910, November 14, 2001).
It is a time-honored principle that
in a criminal prosecution, especially where the life of another human being is
hanging on the balance, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact
necessary to constitute the crime with which the accused is charged must be
established in order for the corresponding penalty thereto to be upheld.
On the other hand, the qualifying
circumstance that the rape was committed in full view of the spouse, parent,
any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of
consanguinity (Revised Penal Code, Article 266-B, sixth paragraph, subparagraph
[3]) although proved, was not alleged in the Information. As such, it also cannot be appreciated to warrant
the imposition of the death penalty.
Qualifying circumstances which increase the penalty by degree rather
than merely affect the period of the penalty, as in the case of aggravating
circumstances, must be properly pleaded in the information consistent with the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him (People v. Labayne, G.R. No. 132170, April 20, 2001).
Since accused-appellant Antonio is
only guilty of simple rape, the amounts awarded as damages must be modified. The amount of P100,000.00 which the trial
court awarded as compensatory damages must be reduced to P50,000.00, while the
award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is justified and should be maintained (People v. Pamilar, G.R. No. 130846, October 23, 2001). Further, the amount
of P25,000.00 should be awarded as exemplary damages, to deter fathers with
perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior, like accused-appellant, from
sexually abusing their daughters.
The records show
that although the victims minority was alleged in the informations in these
cases, the same was not duly proven during the trial. There was no evidence presented to prove Cherry Grace's age.
Consequently, the accused-appellant can only be sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, instead of death, in all the subject cases.
We likewise
award moral damages of P50,000.00 to the victim in each count of rape pursuant
to the Courts current policy that moral damages are automatically awarded to
rape victims without need of proof for it is assumed that they have suffered
moral injuries entitling them to such award.[133] Moreover, we award exemplary
damages of P25,000.00 in each count of rape, to deter fathers with perverse tendencies
and aberrant sexual behavior, like accused-appellant, from sexually abusing
their daughters.[134] We also find that the
accused-appellant is liable to pay Cherry Grace civil indemnity ex delicto. Pursuant to existing jurisprudence,[135] Cherry Grace is entitled to the
amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto for each count of rape.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial
Court in Iriga City, Branch 37, in these cases finding the accused-appellant
Domingo D. Patanayan Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape,
is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
As modified, the accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua in each count of rape, instead of death; and he is
ordered to pay the victim, Cherry Grace M. Patanayan, in each count of rape,
the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Vitug,
Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, and
Corona, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., on
official leave.
Bellosillo,
J., No
part. Did not participate in deliberation.
[1] Rollo, p.
38.
[2] Id., at
39.
[3] Id., at
40.
[4] Id., at
41.
[5] Id., at
42.
[6] Id., at 43.
[7] Id., at 44.
[8] Id., at 45.
[9] Id., at
46.
[10] Id., at
47.
[11] Id., at
48.
[12] Id., at
49.
[13] Id., at
50.
[14] Id., at
51.
[15] Id., at
65.
[16] Id., at
75.
[17] TSN, January 26, 1999, p. 7.
[18] Id., at 8.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Id., at 9.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Id., at
10.
[24] Id., at
11.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Id., at
12.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Id., at
13.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Id., at
15.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Id., at
16.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Id., at
16-17.
[37] Id., at
17.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Id., at
19.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Id., at
20.
[44] Id., at
22.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Id., at 20-21.
[47] Id., at
21.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Id., at
22.
[52] Id., at
23.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Id., at
24.
[56] Ibid
[57] Ibid
[58] Id., at
25.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Id., at
26.
[62] Id.,
January 27, 1999, p. 3.
[63] Id., at 4.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Ibid.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Id., at 5.
[68] Ibid.
[69] Id., at
5-6.
[70] Id., at 6.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Id., at 8.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ibid.
[76] Id., at 9.
[77] Ibid.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Id., at
10.
[81] Ibid.
[82] Ibid.
[83] Ibid.
[84] Ibid.
[85] Id., at
10-11.
[86] Id., at
11.
[87] Ibid.
[88] Ibid.
[89] Id., at
12.
[90] Ibid.
[91] Id., at
13.
[92] Ibid.
[93] Ibid.
[94] Ibid.
[95] Id., at
14.
[96] Ibid.
[97] Ibid.
[98] Ibid.
[99] Ibid.
[100] Ibid.
[101] Id., at
15.
[102] Ibid.
[103] Records of Criminal Case No. IR-4769, p. 6; Exhibit
"A".
[104] Rollo, 95
-96 .
[105] People v. Castro, 196 SCRA 679, 685 [1991].
[106] TSN, January 26, 1999, pp. 11, 16, 19, 21, 23-25;
TSN, January 27, 1999, pp. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14.
[107] Id., March
2, 1999, p. 10.
[108] Id., June
17, 1999, p. 3.
[109] Id.,
January 26, 1999, p. 14.
[110] Id., March
2, 1999, pp. 3-4.
[111] Id.,
February 8, 1999, pp. 35 and 41.
[112] Id., at
41-42.
[113] Id., March
2, 1999, pp. 20-21.
[114] Id., at
20.
[115] See People
v. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433,
March 30, 2000.
[116] TSN, January 25, 1999, pp. 5-7.
[117] People v. Gilbero, G.R. No. 142005, January 23,
2002, citing People vs. Almacin,
303 SCRA 399 (1999).
[118] People v. Esureņa, G.R. No. 142727, January 23,
2002 citing People v. Seguis, G.R. No. 135034, January 18, 2001.
[119] People v.
Gonzales, Jr.,
G.R. Nos. 143143-44, January 15, 2002, citing People
v. Tabones, 304 SCRA 781, 791, March 17, 1999; see also People v. Parcia,
G.R. No. 141136, January 28, 2002 citing People v. Brigildo, 323
SCRA 631 (2000); People v. Lopez,
302 SCRA 669 (1999); People v. Mahinay,
302 SCRA 455 (1999).
[120] 101 Phil. 1061 (1957).
[121] People v. Esureņa, supra, citing People
v. Dizon, G.R. Nos. 134522-24 and 139508-09,
April 3, 2001; see also People v. Catoltol, 265 SCRA 109 (1996); People
v. Abordo, 258 SCRA 571 (1996).
[122] Rollo, pp.
110-111.
[123] Ibid.
[124] People v. Parcia, supra, citing People
v. Lasala, 318 SCRA 241 (1999); People
v. Vergel, 316 SCRA 199 (1999); People v. Escober, 281 SCRA 498
(1997).
[125] People v.
Abad, G.R. No. 114144, February 13, 1997 268 SCRA 246, citing People v.
Dio, 226 SCRA 176 (1993); People
v. Historillo, G.R. No. 130408,
June 16, 2000, citing People v.
Antipona, G.R. No. 119071, June
19, 1997.
[126] People v.
Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 124895, March 1, 2000, citing People v. Montefalcon, G.R. No. 116741-43,
March 25, 1999, citing People v.
Sarellana, 233 SCRA 31.
[127] People v.
Rabosa, G.R. No. 119362, June 19, 1997, 273 SCRA 142.
[128] People v. Gonzales, Jr., supra, citing, People
v. Chua, 297 SCRA 229, 237, October 7, 1998.
[129] People v. Gonzales, Jr., supra,
citing People v. Meris,
329 SCRA 33, 46, March 28, 2000; see also People v. Parcia, supra,
citing People v. Brigildo, supra; People v. Alcala, 307 SCRA 330
(1999).
[130] People v. Delovino, 247 SCRA 637, 649 (1995); People v. Gomez, 251
SCRA 455, 470 (1995).
[131] People v.
Canada, 253 SCRA 277 (1996).
[132] Supra.
[133] People v. Gonzales, Jr., supra, citing People
v. Del Mundo Sr., GR No. 132065,
April 3, 2001.
[134] People v. Esureņa, supra .
[135] People v. Gonzales, Jr., supra, citing People
v. Narido, 316 SCRA 131, October 1, 1999; People v. De La Cuesta, 304 SCRA 83,
March 2, 1999; People v. Prades,
293 SCRA 411, July 30, 1998.