Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 138235       May 10, 2001

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROBERTO PALERO y DELOS SANTOS, accused-appellant.

PER CURIAM:

Despite the number of like cases elevated to this Court and their increasing frequency, the
members of this Tribunal never cease to be appalled at the perversity and depravity each new
case of incestuous rape brings. The figures could well be staggering but perhaps more jolting
still are the undeniable plights of numerous yet unknown victims which have yet to reach the
court. Fortunately, the case of herein private complainant will not be among the pageless
incidents.

The proliferation of incestuous rape of minors, a crime which scrapes the bottom of the barrel of
moral depravity is a revolting phenomenon.1 For every girl such as Gigi Palero who has had the
opportunity to knock into the portals of the courts to seek justice, approximately a hundred more
suffer in silence. Indeed, one may ask – does the seemingly god-fearing attitude and parental
tenderness that characterize the Filipino persona, a mere veneer for the more sinister aspect of
personality?

Gigi Palero was born on 18 July 1982 to accused-appellant Roberto Palero y De los Santos and
Estrella Bañas Palero both from Barangay Cagliliog, Municipality of Tinambac, Camarines Sur.
Roberto Palero supported his family by fishing, gathering shrimps and making copra. Sometime
in the month of May 1996, the exact date Gigi could no longer recall, about eight o'clock in the
evening, the members of the Palero household, as was their wont, were already in bed for the
night. Gigi and her sisters – Geraldine age 2 years old and 6 months, Mary Jane 9 years old
and Ginalyn 6 years old – were sleeping side by side on a floor mat in the same room with their
father. The Palero boys – Roberto and Ronnie who usually would sleep outside the room -–
were at the movies. Estrella Palero, their mother, was at that time in Manila. An older half-sister,
Gemma, born to Estrella Palero and her first husband, was also away. During the night, at an
unknown hour, Gigi was roused from her slumber when she felt her underwear being removed
by her father. Accused appellant then removed his shorts, laid on top of the terrified child, and
inserted his penis into her vagina. Crying, she struggled but her two hands were pinned down
by accused-appellant. She was told not to make any noise. Gigi could not estimate just how
long her father remained in her. All she could remember was that he was meanwhile making
push and pull movements (nag-iirad). While Roberto Palero writhed in ecstasy, his young
daughter suffered in excruciating pain of a virgin's initiation into the carnal world. Her younger
sisters slept in the deep slumber of the innocents, completely oblivious to the nefarious deed
being committed but a few feet away. The appetites of his loins sated, Roberto Palero left Gigi
and returned to his far-end corner of the room and resumed sleeping. Putting on her underwear,
private complainant stayed awhile but afterwards brought a flashlight and proceeded downstairs
to urinate. While urinating, the young girl felt sharp twinge and saw blood in her discharge.
Extremely worried, she went back upstairs to sleep.

Unluckily for Gigi Palero, the assault on her virtue was but the beginning of similar other
incidents yet to come. Again, one evening, Roberto Palero undressed his daughter and satisfied
his lust. With one hand on the mat, and his other hand touching his organ, accused-appellant
made "irad." Gigi could only cry in pain.

At still another time, in the copra kiln located in the hinterlands of barangay Cagliliog, he once
more came into her. The Palero property, which was planted with coconut trees, could be
reached from the Palero residence after a one-hour boat ride. In the premises was a copra kiln
where the coconut harvest was dried. Accused-appellant brought Gigi and her brother to help

1
him with the farm work. When night fell, Roberto Palero told his son to go home ahead, leaving
accused-appellant and Gigi to spend the night at the copra kiln. That night, while she was about
to sleep, accused-appellant got some medicine messaged her, and removed her panty and her
skirt. He then undressed himself, laid on top of his daughter and hastily took her. Although her
memory was somewhat hazy on the exact dates, private complainant was certain that her father
succeeded in forcing himself upon her approximately three times in the same coconut kiln area.
As always, accused-appellant subdued his daughter with intimidating threats and repeatedly
warned her not to tell anyone about it.1âwphi1.nêt

The young girl bore her agony in silence until much later when her elder half-sister, Gemma
Palero, arrived from Manila. Gigi confided to Gemma her predicament. Gigi's hesitation to tell
her mother, who under natural circumstances would have been the child's best ally, was
explained by her as so stemming from resentment due to the neglectful attitude of Estrella
Palero towards her children. Gigi recalled that when her elder half-sister Gemma had reported
to Estrella the same indignity committed against her person by accused-appellant, Estrella
expressed disbelief, a reaction, it turned out, she would also exhibit when confronted about
Gigi's own defilement. Indeed, throughout the trial, Estrella Palero stood by her husband's side
and even tried to discredit her daughter at the witness stand.2

The findings of Salvador Betito, Jr., the doctor who had conducted the physical examination at
the request of the investigating municipal trial court judge, showed that the already widened
vaginal orifice of the victim would readily admit two fingers with least resistance, a fact that must
have been caused by the insertion into the vagina of a foreign object or a male organ. A healed
lacerated wound on the victim's upper arm was explained by private complainant as having
been inflicted by her father.

For reasons not disclosed at the trial, private complainant fell into the custody of the Department
of Social Welfare and Development ("DSWD"). The DSWD assisted private complainant in
pursuing the case against her tormentor and in extending rehabilitative therapy for her trauma.
Oscillada recalled that in one role-playing activity which required private complainant to reveal
her feelings, Gigi Palero, in reference to her disbelieving mother, expressed grudge but
exhibited happiness that her half-sister Gemma gave credence to her story. When asked to
draw the picture of the person she hated the most, private complainant, with all the fury of a 13
year old, portrayed Roberto Palero as the devil.

On 28 August 1996, an Information, charging accused-appellant with rape, was filed by the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor –

"The undersigned 1st Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur upon sworn
complaint filed by Gigi B. Palero which is hereto attached accuses Roberto Palero y de
los Santos of the crime of rape, defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 committed as follows:

"That on or about the month of May 1996 at barangay Cagliliog, Municipality of

Tinambac, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, and intimidation did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with Gigi B.
Palero, a 13-year old, his own daughter against her will and the offended party suffered
damages."3

Accused-appellant pled "not guilty" to the indictment.

At the trial, the account of private complainant was straightforward and unequivocal –

"Q.       Can you please tell us what was that incident was all about?

"A.       We were all sleeping, then he went to the place where we were sleeping and
then he removed my panty.

"Q.       Where were you sleeping, Gigi Palero?

2
"A.       In our bedroom beside my brothers and sisters.

"x x x      x x x      x x x

"Q.       Was it day time or nighttime?

"A.       Nighttime, sir.

"Q.       Who were present inside your house during that night?

"A.       Only my three sisters.

"Q.       What about your brothers?

"A.       They went out to see a movie.

"x x x      x x x      x x x

"Q.       After your father had removed your underwear, what if anything happened, next?

"A.       He laid down on top of me.

"Q.       What did he wore, if anything?

"A.       Shorts and then he also removed his shorts.

"Q.       So after he removed his shorts and laid on top of you, what if anything happened
next?

"A.       And then he inserted his penis to my vagina.

"Q.       What, if anything did you feel?

"A.       It was painful, sir.

"Q.       By the way, during that time when your father inserted his penis to your vagina,
where were his hands if at all located?

"A.       He was holding my two hands.

"Q.       Can you please demonstrate to us Gigi how your father was holding your hands?

"INTERPRETER:

"A.       The witness demonstrating how her hands were held by her father during the
rape incident by using as a medium the interpreter as the victim and then herself as the
accused. The right hand of the accused holding the left hand of the victim and his left
hand holding the right hand of the victim.

"PROS. CU:

"Q.       At that instance, was your father saying anything to you, if he was saying
anything to you?

"A.       Yes, sir.

"Q.       What did he tell you?

"A.       That I don't make noise.

3
"Q.       During that time, were you crying already?

"A.       Yes, sir.

"x x x      x x x      x x x

"Q.       By the way, where were your sisters then?

"A.       Beside me, sir.

"Q.       What were they doing?

"A.       They were all fast asleep.

"Q.       For how long did your father lay on top of you?

"A.       I don't know, sir, but it took a long time.

"x x x      x x x      x x x

"Q.       So at that time when the penis of your father was inside your vagina, what if
anything was he doing?

"A.       He was making push and pull movement while his penis was inside my vagina
(nag-iirad).

"PROS. CU:

"Nag-iirad", making push and pull movement.

"x x x      x x x      x x x

"PROS. CU:

"Q.       And what happened to you?

"A.       I was crying and then I laid down.

"Q.       For how long did you lie down?

"A.       After I wore my underwear, I immediately laid down.

"x x x      x x x      x x x

"PROS. CU:

"Q.       Did you try to resist your father Roberto Palero at the time when he laid on top of
you?

"A.       Yes, sir.

"Q.       What if anything did you do?

"A.       I was pushing him sir, but he was very strong.

"Q.       So what time did you wake up the following day, Gigi Palero?

"A.       I woke up early in the morning, sir.

4
"Q.       Did you report the matter to your mother?

"A.       No, sir.

"Q.       Why, where was your mother at that time?

"A.       She was not inside our house.

"Q.       Where was your mother?

"A.       She was in Manila.

"Q.       How about that incident when that incident that happened, where was your
mother?

"A.       She was not inside our house. We were the only ones inside our house.

"x x x      x x x      x x x

"Q.       Was that incident repeated again?

"A.       Yes, sir.

"x x x      x x x      x x x

"Q.       So have you have the occasion to be with your father in the coconut plantation
when your father was making copra?

"A.       Yes, sir. He was bringing me along.

"Q.       Where is this located, Gigi?

"A.       In our place in the mountain.

"Q.       In what barangay?

"A.       Barangay Cagliliog.

"Q.       Is this in Tinambac?

"A.       Yes, sir.

"Q.       So do you recall what time were you brought by your father there?

"A.       We go there early in the morning.

"Q.       And how long did you stay there?

"A.       Usually, we don't go home and he just sent back my brother, I and my father
stayed overnight.

"Q.       And do you recall what month was that?

"A.       I could no longer remember.

"Q.       Do you still recall what year was that?

"A.       1995.

5
"Q.       Do you recall whether there was any unusual incident that happened between
you and your father on that night?

"A.       Yes, sir.

"Q.       What did he do?

"A.       Similar thing that he did to me, sir.

"Q.       You mean he removed again your underwear?

"x x x      x x x      x x x

"Q.       So what particular thing did he do?

"A.       During that time when I was sleeping, he got some medicine and then when he
arrived, he massaged me and then after a while, he already undressing me.

"Q.       Was he able to undress you.

"A.       Yes, sir.

"x x x      x x x      x x x

"Q.       What particular clothing was removed from you?

"A.       My skirt and my panty.

"Q.       After your father had removed your underwear and skirt, panty and palda, what if
anything did he do next?

"A.       And then he also undressed.

"Q.       What did he do next?

"A.       Then he laid on top of me, sir, and inserted his penis to my vagina.

"Q.       What again did you feel?

"A.       Always painful.

"Q.       While the penis of your father was inside your vagina, what movement if anything
was he doing?

"A.       He was making push and pull movement.

"Q.       For how long?

"A.       All I know it took a long time.

"Q.       What happened after that?

"A.       And then he stood up, and he wore his underwear and then he left me crying
then after a while I urinated and it was again very painful.

"Q.       Now was this incident which you have just narrated to us repeated again?

"A.       Yes, sir, in the mountain.

6
 "Q.       For how many times?

"A.       Three (3) times in the mountain.

"Q.       And that was in 1995?

"A.       Yes, sir, in the year 1995."4

Taking the witness stand, accused-appellant denied the accusations, claiming that his wife,
Estrella, was never away from home. When evening fell and the family retired for the night, he
was positioned between Estrella and the wall at the far end of the room. Beside his wife was the
youngest child, Geraldine. Gigi slept at the opposite side of the room together with her sisters
Mary Jane and Gina. Accused-appellant said he could not have committed the dastardly act
against his daughter by the copra kiln as she was never there to assist in the work. Asked about
the healed lacerations found on the arm of the victim, accused-appellant admitted having
caused them but explained that he did so only to discipline his daughter. Gigi allegedly incurred
the corporal punishment after his nine-year old daughter, Mary Jane, reported having caught
Gigi and her boyfriend by the name of Domingo Valenzuela, a frequent visitor, embracing and
kissing each other inside the room of their house.5

When further queried about what could have motivated Gigi to turn against him, accused-
appellant pointed to his stepdaughter Gemma who, sometime in June 1996 after returning home
from Manila, had demanded her share of an unspecified piece of land but she was refused.
Accused-appellant speculated that Gemma, in anger, could have turned to Gigi Palero in order
to get even with him.

On 26 February 1999, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, of Calabanga, Camarines Sur,
promulgated its decision, finding accused-appellant Roberto Palero guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape and meting upon him the penalty of death –

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the prosecution having proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused is hereby found guilty of the crime of rape
filed against him. The rape having been committed on May 1996, and applying the
above-quoted provision of Republic Act No. 7659, accused Roberto Palero is hereby
sentenced to the penalty of death and to indemnify the private complainant, Gigi Palero
the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the cost."6

In the instant automatic appeal to the Court, accused-appellant raised a lone assignment of
error –

"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME
OF RAPE UNDER ARTICLE 335 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AS AMENDED BY
REPUBLIC ACT 7659"7 -

questioning the veracity of the account of private complainant and asserting that the court a quo
erred in giving undue reliance thereon.

Accused-appellant theorizes that a wisp of a girl, such as private complainant, consumed with
thoughts of revenge for the corporal punishment inflicted on her, has decided to go through the
inconvenience of getting herself estranged from her family, to stay at the unfamiliar
surroundings of the DSWD Center for Girls, to concoct a story of her defilement embellished
with elaborate details, to bear the humiliation of being subjected to physical examination and
undergo the rigors of a public trial, and to have her father suffer in prison. These speculations
certainly invite incredulity and give too much credit to an unusual cunning of a mere 13-year old
provincial lass.

Rape, indeed, is hard to prove and even harder to disprove. It is no less true when both
protagonist and antagonist live under one roof and are expected, under societal norms, to
conduct themselves with the affinity and intimacy befitting those of close consanguinity. In
incestuous rapes, the ties that bind the family are also ties that gag its members to a conspiracy
of silence. While the option of seeking justice could vindicate her rights, the choice would

7
nevertheless lead to the paradoxical consequence of wrecking the family and the family honor
with the stigma that societal taboo such as incestuous rape brings. This no-win situation is often
the reason why victims of incestuous rapes would rather bear than not their degradation in
obscurity. For the brave few who do come forward and bear the burden that accompany such a
choice, it can rightly be assumed that they do so for no greater reason than to seek justice.
Thus, the testimony told at high personal cost cannot easily be ignored by bare denial.
Understandably, the self-serving version of an accused cannot prevail over the positive
assertion of the victim.

In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue
and, when her testimony meets the test of credibility, an accused may be convicted solely on
the basis thereof.8 Surely, the account of the victim, detailing the sexual assault on her, can only
be given by one who has been subjected to it.9 The tears that accompany her story told at the
witness stand would indicate that her account can satisfy the verity born out of human nature
and experience.10 The victim's actions are oftentimes overcome by fear rather than by reason,
and it is this fear, springing from an initial assault, that the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of
psychological terror, a terror that is magnified by incestuous rape.11

Even more, matters affecting the credibility of a witness are best addressed by the trial judge,
and unless it is shown that he has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance which, if
considered, might affect the result of the case, his assessment on the credibility of the witness is
close to being conclusive on an appellate tribunal.12

The allegation that the complaint against accused-appellant could only be but private
complainant's way of merely getting back at him for the punishment administered to her is too
flimsy to be belabored.

Accused-appellant harps on the fact that the presence of his other children in the same room
where the rape he has been accused of is supposed to have been committed makes the
accusation against him improbable. This argument fails to convince, there being no rule that
rape can be perpetrated only in seclusion; indeed, it has been said that rape regards neither
time nor place in its commission.13

The evidence would show that private complainant was born on 18 July 1982 that would mean
that she was 13 years old, short of 2 months before her 14th birthday, when raped in May of
1996 by her own father, No less than Ma. Alona Clavo Delloro, the registration officer of the
municipal registrar's office of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, taking the witness stand, presented the
birth certificate of Gigi Palero indicating that, truly, private complainant was born to Roberto
Palero and Estrella Palero on 18 July 1982, thereby corroborating the testimony of private
complainant that she was 13 years and 10 months old when raped sometime in May 1996 for
which he was indicted. Even accused-appellant himself conceded to his being the father of
private complainant, a fact likewise testified to by private complainant.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, states:

"The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of
the following attendant circumstances:

"(1) when the victim is under eighteen (18) years and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim."

The testimony of Gigi Palero would show that the young girl was repeatedly raped by the
accused-appellant several times from 1995 to 1996. The Information, however, charged
Roberto Palero only with one count of rape committed by him in the month of May 1996. The
trial court was thus correct in meting accused-appellant a single punishment. State prosecutors
might be reminded to be more circumspect in seeing to it that informations correspond to the
evidence they might have in their hands.14

With respect to the civil liability imposed by the trial court, the award of civil indemnity should be
increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. For her shame,

8
as well as mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, moral shock and
social humiliation which rape necessarily cause to the offended party, Gigi Palero should also
be entitled to recover moral damages15 which, conformably with current jurisprudence, should
be placed in the amount of P50,000.00.16

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, of Calabanga, Camarines
Sur, finding herein accused-appellant Roberto Palero guilty of the crime of rape and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of Death, is AFFIRMED with the modification that the civil indemnity
awarded to Gigi Palero is increased to P75,000.00 and that moral damages of P50,000.00 be
additionally, as it is hereby also, awarded to her.

Four Justices of the Supreme Court maintain their position that the law, insofar as it prescribes
the death penalty, is unconstitutional; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that
the law is constitutional and that the death penalty could thereby be imposed.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised
Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to
the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.1âwphi1.nêt

SO ORDERED.1âwphi1.nêt

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Gonzaga-
Reyes, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., no part.

Footnote

1
People vs. Sangil, Sr., 276 SCRA 532.

2
For her failing to subsequently appear for cross-examination, however, her testimony
was subsequently stricken off the records.

3
Rollo, p. 18.

4
TSN, 10 December 1995, pp. 8-26.

5
Upon cross-examination, accused-appellant admitted not having confronted Domingo
Valenzuela or Jocelyn Abendan for the purported transgression against his daughter's
chastily.

6
Rollo, p. 86.

7
Rollo, p. 60.

8
People vs. Gagto, 253 SCRA 455, People vs. Pasayan, 261 SCRA 558.

9
People vs. Dimapilis, 300 SCRA 279.

10
People vs. Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82.

11
People vs. Melivo, 253 SCRA 347.

12
People vs. Excija, 258 SCRA 424.

13
People vs. Fuertes, 296 SCRA 602.

14
People vs. Ramirez, 266 SCRA 335.

9
15
People vs. De Guzman, 265 SCRA 228.

16
People vs. Laray, 253 SCRA 654.

10
EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 137037-38.  August 5, 2002]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIRGILIO ROMERO, accused-appellant.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

On automatic review is the joint decision dated December 17, 1998, of the Regional Trial Court of Ligao,
Albay, Branch 13, in Criminal Cases Nos. 3598 and 3599, which decreed as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

(a) in Criminal Case No. 3598 finding the accused, Virgilio Romero, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659 and consequently sentences him to suffer the death penalty;

(b) in Criminal Case No. 3599 finding the accused, Virgilio Romero, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659 and consequently sentences him to suffer the death penalty.

In addition, accused Virgilio Romero, is ordered to indemnify the offended party the amount of
P50,000.00 each in both cases or a total amount of P100,000.00 and to pay the costs.

The records of these two (2) cases, exhibits and transcripts of stenographic notes are ordered immediately
transmitted to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

SO ORDERED.

The case stemmed from two separate informations, both for rape, filed on September 12, 1997 against
appellant Virgilio Romero.  In Criminal Case No. 3598, the information alleged:

That sometime in April, 1996 at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, at Barangay Apad,
Municipality of Polangui, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste designs, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his own ward and stepgrand-daughter MARILOU
ROMERO, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.

In Criminal Case No. 3599, the information contained substantially the same averments, except the time
of the alleged rape, which was allegedly 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon.

When arraigned in each of the two cases, Romero pleaded not guilty.  Trial ensued.

The prosecution presented Rodolfo Sameniano, Dr. Arnel Borja, and Marilou Romero as witnesses, while
the defense presented appellant Virgilio Romero and Flora Romero.

RODOLFO SAMENIANO, the barangay chairman of Apad, Polangui, Albay, at the time of the alleged
offense, testified that in March 1997, Marilou Romero lodged a complaint with his office against Flora
Romero, Marilou’s grandmother, for physical abuse and against her ama-amahan, Virgilio Romero, for
rape.  Rodolfo Sameniano testified that according to Marilou, her ama-amahan first raped her when she
was 10 years old and while they were still in Batangas. She was again raped twice in April 1996, when
she was about 13, at 10:00 A.M. and at 1:00 P.M. Rodolfo accompanied Marilou to the police
headquarters of Polangui, Albay, to have the incident of April 1996 entered in the blotter.  Thereafter, he
and Marilou went to Dr. Arnel Borja for medical examination.  Rodolfo reported the incident to the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in Albay, which advised him to temporarily

11
take custody of Marilou because said office could not accommodate her.  Marilou stayed with Rodolfo’s
family for a couple of days, after which she was transferred to DSWD.

On cross-examination, Rodolfo stated that he did not want Marilou to stay with his family for he had
grown male children and he also had other obligations.

DR. ARNEL BORJA was the Rural Health Unit Officer of Polangui.  He testified that on March 6, 1997,
he conducted physical, genital and internal examinations on Marilou and reported that there was no sign
of minor or major injury in the genitalia. The internal examination revealed that Marilou’s vagina
admitted examining fingers freely and there were old hymenal lacerations along the 5:00 o’clock and 7:00
o’clock positions.  These lacerations could have been caused by sexual intercourse that happened several
months before the examination.

During cross-examination, Dr. Borja admitted that the hymenal lacerations could also have been caused
by engaging in strenuous exercises. He also stated that the lacerations could have occurred at least three
months before the date of examination.

MARILOU ROMERO, private complainant was 15 years old when she testified in court.  She is the
daughter of Asuncion Wasnon, one of the children of Flora Romero by a previous marriage.  Flora is the
common-law wife of appellant Virgilio. Marilou had been under the care of Flora and Virgilio since she
was one year old. Before they transferred to Polangui, they resided in Batangas.

Marilou testified that she was first raped by appellant when she was ten years old, in the grassy portion of
a coconut plantation in Batangas where they lived. She was raped again twice in April 1996 after they
transferred to Apad, Polangui, at 10:00 in the morning and at 1:00 in the afternoon.  Marilou recounted
that on the first occasion, she and appellant went to the ricefield cultivated by the latter, purportedly to get
kangkong (native vegetable).  When they reached the place, appellant ordered her to go near the ditch and
undress.  As appellant threatened to kill her, she obeyed.  Thereafter, appellant, who had already removed
his clothes, told Marilou to lie down on the grassy portion.  He lay on top of her, inserted his penis into
her vagina and did push and pull movements.  Marilou felt pain and noticed that something came out
from her and appellant.  After venting his lust on her, appellant told Marilou to put on her dress and go
home.  Upon arriving home, Marilou told her grandmother about the incident.  Instead of expressing
sympathy, Flora got angry at her and refused to believe that Virgilio would do such a dastardly act.

The second rape happened in the same place where the first rape occurred.  Appellant told Marilou to go
with him to the ricefield for they would harvest palay.  They did harvest palay, but after they have done
so, appellant again told Marilou to go near the ditch.  On the same grassy portion, appellant ravished her
again.  Marilou vividly recounted that she cried because of the pain she felt as appellant inserted his
penis.  She noticed that something came out of her and from the penis of appellant who wiped it with his
own clothing.  She went home at 1:30 in the afternoon and again told her grandmother about the incident. 
Once more, the latter refused to believe her.

As Marilou was continuously beaten by her grandmother who started calling her a traitor, she went to the
office of their barangay chairman and told the latter that her grandmother maltreated her and her
stepgrandfather raped her. The barangay chairman brought her to the doctor for medical examination and
later to the police headquarters where she executed a sworn statement. Marilou testified that as an
aftermath of the rape, she could hardly sleep at night.

On cross-examination, Marilou admitted that appellant never forced himself on her on occasions when
she and appellant were left alone in the house by her grandmother.  Nor did appellant sexually assault her
again after the two rapes up to the time she reported her ordeal to the barangay chairman. She denied
sleeping in other people’s houses, stating that this was merely concocted by her grandmother. Marilou
also said that although her real mother visited her after April 1996, she did not tell her of the incident
because she was afraid.

For his part, appellant interposed the defense of alibi.  He stated that Flora was his common-law wife who
had seven children by her previous marriage.  He knew Marilou for she was Flora’s granddaughter who
had been living with them since she was nine months old. He recounted that before they transferred to
Apad, they lived in Batangas where he was engaged in the buy and sell of copra. Said business required
him to be away from home most of the time, including Saturdays and Sundays. In 1996, they decided to
transfer to Polangui.  As appellant had to find a place to reside in, he went there ahead of Flora and

12
Marilou in January 1996. While in Polangui, he shifted to buying and selling mangoes which, like his
previous business, demanded a lot of his time. It was only in May 1996 when he fetched Flora and
Marilou from Batangas. Hence, he could not have raped Marilou for he was in Polangui when the alleged
rapes were committed.  Appellant testified that Marilou charged him with rape because of the spanking
she got from her grandmother, which he discovered only after Marilou went to the barangay chairman in
March 1997. He also said that he did not have a chance to confront Marilou regarding the rape complaint
and that he only learned of it when he was apprehended.

On cross-examination, appellant cited another possible motive for the accusation.  He said Marilou’s
mother wanted to take her back so she could work as a housemaid. Appellant also said that it was only in
December 1996, when the ricefield was entrusted to him, that he started working on it.

FLORA ROMERO, the grandmother of complainant, corroborated Virgilio’s testimony.  She affirmed
her common-law relationship with him. She denied that Virgilio sexually assaulted complainant, who is
her granddaughter.  She explained that the controversy started when she spanked complainant. The office
of the barangay chairman informed them that there would be a confrontation to clarify matters but this
did not materialize and instead, a case was filed against Virgilio. Flora described complainant, Marilou, as
“intellectually slow” and stubborn.  She cut classes in school and slept in other people’s homes. 
Sometimes she would do household chores. Flora denied that Marilou had ever gone to the coconut
plantation or the ricefield as it was she who accompanied her husband there.  She also said that Marilou
never knew when appellant would go there. Flora revealed that because of Virgilio’s job, he would
sometimes return home only a week after he left home. She corroborated Virgilio’s story that she and
Marilou were fetched from Batangas to Polangui in May 1996, but contradicted him when she said that
Virgilio went ahead of them in April 1996. She said Marilou never told her of the alleged sexual assaults. 
She added that she only learned of the allegations from the people in the municipal office when the
criminal cases were filed.

On cross-examination, Flora admitted that she was not always with her husband whenever he would go to
the farm, but insisted she never told Marilou to bring food for him in the farm as Marilou claimed.  It was
always Flora who brought Virgilio food.  Lastly, Flora declared that Marilou was a liar and that people
should not believe her.

Giving credence to the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the trial court found appellant Virgilio
Romero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape in both Criminal Cases Nos. 3598 and 3599,
and imposed upon him the penalty of death.

Hence, this automatic review where appellant assigns the following errors:

I.    THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY AS CHARGED
DESPITE THE DISCREPANCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

II.   THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY DESPITE THE
ABSENCE OF THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY IN CHARGE SHEETS.

Simply put, the issues before us are:  (1) whether the prosecution witnesses are credible; and (2) whether
the rape committed was in its qualified form.

On the first issue, appellant claims prosecution witnesses were inconsistent.  Regarding the date when the
rape was reported to barangay chairman Rodolfo Sameniano, Marilou testified that she reported the
incident in March 1997.  The chairman corroborated this during his direct examination and added that
since said date, Marilou had been under his custody until she was transferred to DSWD.  However, when
cross-examined, he contradicted himself and said that he had custody of Marilou beginning January
1997.  According to appellant, he could not have raped Marilou in April 1996 because as Dr. Borja
testified, the hymenal lacerations had “only healed several days ago,” counting from the date of
examination on March 6, 1997.  Appellant points to the one-year delay in reporting the rape, which
appellant claims tainted Marilou’s credibility as a witness.

The Office of the Solicitor General argues that witness Sameniano’s inconsistency regarding the date
when the rape was committed does not impair his credibility, but rather bolsters it.  Inconsistencies in the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance,

13
veracity or weight of their declaration, but add credence to their categorical, straightforward, and
spontaneous testimonies.  Also, the OSG stresses, even though the defense tried to mislead Marilou on the
matter of dates, during her cross-examination, she consistently maintained that she reported the rape to
barangay chairman Sameniano in March 1997.  The OSG points out that at no time did Dr. Borja mention
that the lacerations in complainant’s hymen were healed only days ago.  He merely stated in the medical
examination that he noted old hymenal lacerations along the 5:00 o’clock and 7:00 o’clock positions.  Nor
did Marilou keep silent about the rape, according to the OSG.  For indeed, Marilou testified that she
related it to her grandmother, who did not believe her but instead got jealous of her.  The OSG notes that
no improper motive was ascribed to Marilou in making her complaint.  Undoubtedly, says the OSG, she
was actuated by no other purpose than the desire to tell the truth and seek redress for the wrong inflicted
on her.

As consistently held on review, the trial judge is in the best position to rule on the credibility of witnesses,
for he has the vantage point of observing first hand their conduct, demeanor and deportment in court.  In
the absence of proof that the trial judge had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily certain significant facts
and circumstances, his assessment of the credibility of witnesses will not be altered on review. Nothing
on record appears to show that the trial court omitted or misinterpreted any important detail that would
significantly affect the result of this case.  The alleged inconsistency regarding the date when Marilou
reported the rape appears to us a minor lapse that should not adversely affect the credibility of prosecution
witnesses and the weight of their testimonies.  Witnesses, including private complainant, are not expected
to remember an occurrence with perfect recollection of minute details.  A miscalculation as to the exact
time of an occurrence is insufficient to discredit the testimony of a witness, especially where time is not
an essential element of the offense.  In a rape charge, what is decisive is the positive identification of the
accused as the malefactor. This requirement, in our view, was sufficiently met in this case by the direct
testimony of the offended party herself.

Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. It is not uncommon
for a young girl to conceal for some time the assault on her virtue.  Her hesitation may be due to her
youth, the moral ascendancy of the ravisher, and the latter’s threats against her. In the present case, we
cannot deny appellant’s moral ascendancy over Marilou because he had taken the role of a father to
Marilou since her childhood.  Note that Marilou did not totally keep silent about her rape.  She told her
grandmother about it right after each incident.  If there was a delay in reporting the crime to the barangay,
DSWD, and other officials, it could not be ascribed to the young victim but to her kin who refused to take
heed of her plight.

Remarkable also was Marilou’s straightforward and clear testimony during direct examination on how
she was raped by appellant. Her testimony remained consistent during cross-examination, despite efforts
to mislead her. Her candid and straightforward account of her ravishment must be given full faith and
credit for in its simplicity it bears the earmarks of credibility. When the offended parties are young girls
from the ages of 12 to 16, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only
because of their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be
exposed by a public trial if the matters about which they testified were not true.

Complainant’s credibility is enhanced when appellant failed to prove any ill-motive on her part.  That she
would implicate appellant, who took care of her since childhood, in a heinous crime because her mother
wanted to take her back to work as a housemaid is simply far fetched.  No mother in her right mind would
put to trial the honor of her own daughter and of her family if the charge were untrue. Neither would a
young daughter like Marilou be willing to undergo the travails of a prosecution for rape simply to be with
her mother who would eventually send her away as a housemaid.  Complainant would only do so, in our
view, because she had been abused and wanted nothing else than to obtain justice.

Appellant interposed the defense of alibi.  Alibi is almost always flawed not only by its inherent weakness
but also by its implausibility.  Easily susceptible of concoction but viewed invariably with suspicion, an
alibi may succeed only when established by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence.  Significantly,
where no one corroborates the alibi of an accused, such defense becomes all the weaker for this
deficiency. Unfortunately, defense witness Flora Romero, the only person who could have corroborated
his alibi that he was in Polangui as early as January 1996 and only returned to Batangas in May 1996,
contradicted him when she testified that it was only in April 1996 when appellant left for Polangui. The
first requirement for alibi, that accused must be able to prove his presence at another place at the time of
the perpetration of the offense, was therefore not met.

14
On the second issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing upon him the penalty of death
under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659. Said law requires the
concurrent allegation of relationship and minority in the information to qualify the rape into a capital
offense.  Otherwise, the offense committed is considered only simple rape.  Here, there is no allegation of
minority in the two informations filed in the present cases.  Hence, appellant in each case should only be
found guilty of simple rape penalized by reclusion perpetua.

On this point, the OSG concurs with appellant.  According to the OSG, although it was shown that the
accused is the common-law spouse of the victim’s grandmother, the prosecution did not allege in the
information that the victim was a minor, precluding appellant’s conviction for qualified rape.

We find appellant’s contentions on this matter meritorious.  Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by R.A. No. 7659, imposes the penalty of death in cases where rape is committed “when the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim.” Consequently, for the imposition of the death penalty, the information must allege the
qualifying circumstances of relationship between the accused and the victim, and the victim’s minority. In
the present case, the victim’s minority was not alleged in the information.

Moreover, the other qualifying circumstance of relationship is absent in this case.  The information
alleges that Marilou is appellant’s ward and stepgranddaughter, implying that appellant is both an
ascendant and guardian of Marilou.  However, the evidence shows that appellant is merely the common-
law husband of Marilou’s grandmother; he is not Marilou’s real grandfather to qualify as an ascendant.
For the relationship of stepgranddaughter or stepgrandfather presupposes a legitimate relationship, i.e.,
appellant should have been married to Marilou’s grandmother after the latter’s previous marriage to
Marilou’s grandfather was dissolved.

Neither does appellant qualify as a guardian of Marilou.  No evidence was presented to prove that
appellant was legally appointed as guardian of Marilou.  A guardian is a person lawfully invested with the
power and charged with the duty of taking care of the person and managing the property and rights of
another person, who for defect of age, understanding, or self-control, is considered incapable of
administering his own affairs. There is no showing here of that circumstance.  Consequently, appellant’s
death sentence for each count of qualified rape is erroneous.  It must be reduced to reclusion perpetua as
the proper penalty for simple rape.

On the matter of damages, the trial court did not err in awarding the total amount of P100,000 as civil
indemnity for the two counts of rape committed against private complainant.  This is mandatory upon a
finding of rape. In addition, she is entitled to the award of P50,000 for each count of rape, or the total
amount of P100,000, as moral damages without need of further proof other than that said rapes were
indeed committed.

WHEREFORE, the joint decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, Branch 13, in Criminal
Cases Nos. 3598 and 3599, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.  Appellant Virgilio Romero is hereby
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of RAPE and is sentenced to serve the penalty of
reclusion perpetua for each count.  He is also ordered to pay the offended party, Marilou Romero, the
sum of P100,000 as civil indemnity and P100,000 as moral damages, together with the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-
Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.

Rollo, pp. 30-43.

Id. at 42-43.

Records, Vol. I , p. 13.

TSN, January 15, 1998, pp. 3-4.

Id. at 4.

15
Id. at 6.

Id. at 7.

Id. at 9.

TSN, January 14, 1998, p. 9.

Id. at 10.

Id. at 11.

Id. at 12.

TSN, January 15, 1998, p. 16.

Id. at 15.

Id. at 16.

Id. at 19.

Id. at 21.

Id. at 21-22.

Id. at 22-25.

Id. at 25-30.

Id. at 30-31.

Id. at 32.

Id. at 33.

Id. at 34-35.

Id. at 36.

Id. at 37-38.

TSN, July 27, 1998, pp. 5-6.

Id. at 7-8.

Id. at 8-9.

Id. at 10.

Id. at 11.

Id. at 13.

Ibid.

Id. at 14.

Id. at 18.

16
Id. at 26.

TSN, November 5, 1998, pp. 4-5.

Id. at 6.

Id. at 8.

Id. at 7.

Id. at 7-8.

Id. at 8-9.

Id. at 9.

Id. at 11.

Id. at 8.

Id. at 12-13.

Rollo, p. 61.

People vs. Morata, G.R. Nos. 140011-16, March 12, 2001, p. 7.

People vs. Quilatan, G.R. No. 132725, 341 SCRA 247, 254-255 (2000).

People vs. Melendres, G.R. Nos. 133999-4001, 339 SCRA 465, 478 (2000).

People vs. Villanos, G.R. No. 126648, 337 SCRA 78, 86 (2000).

TSN, January 15, 1998, pp. 21-30.

Id. at 36.

People vs. Traya, G.R. No. 129052, 332 SCRA 499, 507 (2000).

People vs. Honra, Jr., G.R. Nos. 136012-16, 341 SCRA 110, 128 (2000).

People vs. Navida, G.R. Nos. 132239-40, 346 SCRA 821, 832 (2000).

Ibid.

People vs. Villaraza, G.R. Nos. 131848-50, 339 SCRA 666, 682 (2000).

TSN, November 5, 1998, p. 11.

Supra, note 51 at 88.

Art. 335. When and how rape is committed.- Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances.

 1. By using force or intimidation;

 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

17
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

xxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:

When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of
the parent of the victim.

xxx

People vs. Diaz, Sr., G.R. Nos. 133735-36, 337 SCRA 521, 540 (2000).

People vs. Lustre, G.R. No. 134562, 330 SCRA 189, 200 (2000).

See People vs. Melendres, supra, at 479.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 635 (1979).

Supra, note 51 at 89.

People vs. Rey, G.R. Nos. 134527-28, September 25, 2001, p. 10.

Supra, note 62 at 541.

18
 FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 124391. July 5, 2000]

PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELMER YPARRAGUIRE y SEPE,

accused-appellant.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

After his indictment and trial, accused-appellant appeals from his conviction for the crime of
rape of a mental retardate. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, rape
is a crime against person which may be prosecuted de oficio. However, considering that the
alleged rape was committed in 1994, which was prior to the effectivity of R.A. 8353, we apply
the old law and treat rape as a private crime.

The facts as narrated by the trial court are:

"On March 24, 1994, at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening, while complainant
Charmelita D. Ruina, an invalid and mentally retarded, was on her bed at the
store of her mother at the Public Market at Carrascal, Surigao del Sur, where she
and her mother lived, accused Elmer Yparraguirre alias "Lalo" entered her room,
the door of which was not locked because her mother went to the store of her
elder sister. Upon getting inside, he undressed himself and approached the
Complainant who was apparently awake. He caressed her and sucked her
breasts. She shouted for help but nobody came to rescue her, perhaps because
it was late already in the evening and her voice was not loud enough to be heard
at the distance as, in fact, it could be heard at only about three to five meters
away x x x. Accused told her to keep quiet and when she put up some limpy
resistance, he boxed her. He then removed her panty went on top of her and
inserted his manhood into her most private part. She felt pain. After raping her,
he left her room. Soon her mother, Sanselas Leongas Ruina, arrived. She
reported to her the incident. The following morning, accused went back to the
store and apologized for what he did and promised not to do it again. But his plea
would not mollify Sanselas. She took the complainant to the Madrid (Surigao del
Sur) District Hospital for physical examination. Dr. Carlo P. Altrecha recorded the
following findings in the Medical Certificate that he issued on March 26, 1994:

POLIO MYELITIS-MENTALLY RETARDED

PPE:

n ABRASION, AT THE LEVEL OF THE MID-CLAVICULAR AREA,

BOTH, LEFT AND RIGHT.
n CONTUSION, BOTH BREAST, LEFT AND RIGHT.
n CONTUSION, AT THE LEVEL OF THE 8TH THORACIC RIB,
ME-AXILLARY LINE, RIGHT.

GENITALIA:

n LABIA MAJORA: NO CONGESTION, NO HEMATOMA.

n LABIA MINORA: CONGESTED, SLIGHT SWOLLEN.
n VAGINAL ORIPICE: CONGESTED, SLIGHT SWOLLEN
HYMEN NOT INTACT.
n VAGINAL SMEAR FOR THE PRESENCE OF SPERMATOZOA:
NO SPERMATOZOA SEEN."

19
Appellant did not testify in court but instead relied on the lone testimony of his father, who
alleged that the complaint for rape was filed as a result of a "misunderstanding" between
appellant and the mother of the victim.

In this appeal, the basic issue raised by appellant is that the trial court never acquired
jurisdiction over the case because the complaint was signed and filed by the chief of police and
not by the complainant.

Appellant’s contention has no merit. Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
provides in part:

"The offense of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be

prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents,
grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly
pardoned by the above-named persons, as the case may be. In case the
offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she could file the complaint
and has no known parents, grandparents or guardian, the State shall initiate the
criminal action in her behalf.

The offended party, even if she were a minor, has the right to initiate the
prosecution for the above offenses, independently of her parents, grandparents
or guardian, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds
other than her minority. Where the offended party who is a minor fails to file the
complaint, her parents, grandparents, or guardian may file the same. The right to
file the action granted to the parents, grandparents or guardian shall be exclusive
of all other persons and shall be exercised successively in the order herein
provided, except as stated in the immediately preceding paragraph."

Pursuant to the afore-quoted provision, the offended party can initiate a prosecution for rape
even if she is a minor, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other
than her minority. Although the victim in this case is no longer a minor, it is undisputed that she
is a mental retardate and suffering from physical deformity. No woman would come out in the
open, inform the authorities of the injustice done to her, make a statement of what had
happened unless her purpose is to redress the wrong done against her honor. Once the
violation of the law becomes known through a direct original participation initiated by the victim,
the requirements of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), to the effect that the offense
of rape "shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her
parents," are satisfied. Said provision is not determinative of the jurisdiction of courts over the
private offenses because the same is governed by the Judiciary law, not the Revised Penal
Code which deals with the definition of felonies and their punishment. Stated differently, the
complaint required in Article 344 is but a condition precedent to the exercise by the proper
authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty parties. Such condition was imposed out of
consideration for the offended woman and her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in
silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial. The complaint simply starts the
prosecutory proceeding but does not confer jurisdiction on the court to try the case because the
overriding consideration in determining whether the condition precedent in Article 344 has been
complied with is the intent of the aggrieved party to seek judicial redress for the affront
committed.

Article 344 was not enacted for the specific purpose of benefitting the accused.
When it is said that the requirement in Article 344 (that there should be a
complaint of the offended party or her relatives) is jurisdictional, what is meant is
that it is the complaint that starts the prosecutory proceeding. It is not the
complaint which confers jurisdiction in the court to try the case. The court’s
jurisdiction is vested in it by the Judiciary Law.

Going now to the merits of the case, the gravamen of the crime of rape is the sexual congress
of a woman by force and without consent. These elements have been proven beyond
reasonable doubt to concur in this case. The evidence shows that appellant boxed the victim in
the neck and slapped her on the face while she was alone and lying in bed on that fateful night.
When she shouted for help, appellant told her to keep quiet. Appellant then began sucking her

20
breasts and her vagina. Then he removed her panty and forcibly had sexual intercourse with the
mentally retarded victim causing pain in her private part. Her testimony in the oral deposition
confirms the statements she made in the vernacular in her affidavit earlier executed. Thus,

P – Unsa may imong guibuhat paghikita nimo niadtong tawo nga miduol kanimo.

T – Misinggit ako.

P – Unsay guibuhat niadtong tawo sa imong pagsinggit?

T – Iyang guitampa ang akong baba, dayon mipatong siya kanako.

P– Unsay sunod nga guibuhat niadtong tawo sa dihang mipatong na siya

kanimo?

T– Iyang guidun-an ang akong tiyan, apan kay mikisikisi man ako iyang
guisumbag ang akong kilid dayon guihubo ang akong baro ug guisunod usab
dayon ang akong pante.

P – Unsay sunod nga guibuhat niadtong tawo kanimo sa tapos niya paghubo sa
imong baro ug imong pante?

T – Iya akong gui-iyot senyor.

P – Unsay imong guibuhat sa dihang guiiyot sa tawo?

T – Misinggit ako senyor apan guipagngan ang akong baba busa mikisikisi ako
apan guisumbag na usab ug maoy nakapalipong kanako. (Italics supplied).

The victim’s narrations are corroborated by the medical findings of the physician who examined
her and found that her labia minora was "congested, slight swollen", and her hymen no longer
intact. She also suffered abrasions and contusions on both breasts and near her right armpit,
which may have been caused by the blows.

In rape, it is not essential that the force employed in accomplishing the crime be so great or of
such character or could not be resisted. Force in rape is relative, depending on the age, size
and strength of the parties. In the same manner, intimidation must be viewed in the light of the
victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard
and fast rule. The victim was a mental retardate and suffering from physical disability when
appellant employed force by boxing and slapping her. And when she shouted for help he
intimidated her to keep her quiet. The fact that the victim did not offer a tenacious resistance is
immaterial considering her physical nature – she is an invalid and unable to rise from the bed
unassisted. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised
upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist’s advances because
of fear for her life and personal safety. Although the victim shouted for help, her voice could be
heard only as far as three to five meters away. This negates the contention of the father of
appellant that the rape could not have been committed because the locus criminis of the crime
was only about fifteen meters away from the passengers’ terminal where there were people
passing. In any case, it has been consistently ruled that rape can be committed even in places
where people congregate, in parks along the roadsides, in a house where there are other
occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping, and even in
places which to many would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its commission. For rape
to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, or the weather to be fine for rapists
bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed.

On the alleged misunderstanding that appellant had with the victim’s mother which allegedly
prompted the mother to file the rape case against him, suffice it to say that no mother would
expose her own daughter to embarrassment and humiliation as well as to the trouble,
inconvenience, ridicule and scandal concomitant with a public trial if such was not the truth and
had not her intention been to bring the culprit to the folds of justice. No mother, virtuous or not,
will voluntarily and without compelling reasons put her own daughter to shame and humiliation if

21
she were not motivated by an honest desire to have her daughter’s transgressor punished
accordingly. Besides, it is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice,
especially if it will subject a daughter to embarrassment.

In an apparent attempt to free himself from liability, appellant on the very same night after the
assault, asked forgiveness from the victim’s mother and promised that the same will never be
repeated. Yet, no mother can just let pass an indignity committed against one of her own blood.
It is easy to forgive, but justice for her would be no less than punishment. Moreover, a plea for
forgiveness may be considered analogous to an attempt to compromise, which offer of
compromise by the appellant may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt
pursuant to Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence.

With respect to the monetary awards, the P50,000.00 "damages" granted by the trial court
should be properly denominated as moral damages, which is allowed even if there was no proof
during the trial as basis therefor. The mental and physical suffering of the victims’ injury is
inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime which per se
warrants the award of moral damages. In addition thereto, the complainant is also entitled to a
civil indemnity of P50,000.00 which is outrightly awarded to rape victims being in the category of
actual or compensatory damages and because the rape herein is not effectively qualified by any
circumstance under which the death penalty is authorized by present amended law.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape is AFFIRMED. Further, appellant is ORDERED TO PAY
the complainant fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity in ADDITION to the fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) moral damages.

SO ORDERED

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.

The complaint reads: "That on the 24th day of March 1994, at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening, more
or less, at Carrascal Public Market, Carrascal, Surigao del Sur, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one Charmelita Ruina, an invalid and
mentally retarded girl, against the will of the latter, to the damage and prejudice of the victim." (Regional
Trial Court (RTC) Records, p. 6)

The dispositive portion of the decision dated December 5, 1995 of RTC Branch 27, Tandag, Surigao del
Sur penned by Judge Ermelindo G. Andal states: "WHEREFORE, finding accused Elmer Yparraguirre y
Sepe guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Rape, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA; to suffer the accessory penalties provided by law; to pay private
complainant Charmelita I. Ruina the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as damages; and to pay
the cost.

"Accused being detained, he is credited in the service of his sentence with the full term of his preventive
imprisonment, if he agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed on convicted
prisoners, otherwise four-fifths (4/5) thereof.

"IT IS SO ORDERED."

People’s Brief, pp. 3-5; Rollo, pp. 79-81.

Samilin v. CFI of Pangasinan, 57 Phil. 298 cited in Valdepeñas v. People, 16 SCRA 871 (1966)

People v. Babasa, 97 SCRA 672 (1980)

People v. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 11 (1983)

People v. Babasa, supra.

People v. Igat, 291 SCRA 100 (1998)

22
 Affidavit of the Complainant; RTC Records, p. 7.

Q - What did you do upon seeing the person who came near you?

A - I shouted.

Q- What did the person do while you were shouting?

A - He covered my mouth, then he came on top of me.

Q- What did the person do next after coming on top of you?

A - He pressed my stomach hard but I wiggled so he boxed my side then he removed my

dress and also my panty.

Q - What did he do next after removing your dress and your panty?

A - He had sexual intercourse with me, Sir.

Q - So, what did you do when he was having sexual intercourse with you?

A - I shouted Sir, but he clamped my mouth so I wiggled again but he boxed me again which caused me to
lose consciousness.

People v. Alfeche, 294 SCRA 352 (1998)

People v. Moreno, 294 SCRA 728 (1998)

People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411 (1998); People v. Tayaban, 296 SCRA 497 (1998)

Exh. "C", RTC Records, p. 148.

People v. Villorente, 210 SCRA 647 (1992)

People v. Lusa, 288 SCRA 296 (1998)

People v. Dado, 314 Phil. 635; People v. Rafanan, 182 SCRA 811 (1990) cited in People v. Tan, Jr., 332
Phil. 465.

People v. Emocling, 297 SCRA 214 (1998)

People v. Deleverio, 289 SCRA 547 (1998)

People v. Tumala, Jr., 284 SCRA 436 (1998)

People v. Galleno, 291 SCRA 761 (1998)

People v. Bartolome, 296 SCRA 615 (1998)

People v. de los Reyes, G.R. No. 124895, March 1, 2000; People v. Medina, 300 SCRA 98 (1998)

People v. Perez, 296 SCRA 17 (1998)

People v. Atienza, G.R. No. 131820, February 29, 2000; People v. Batoon, G.R. No. 134194, October 26,
1999.

People v. Fuertes, 296 SCRA 602 (1998)

People v. Victor, 292 SCRA 186 (1998); People v. Mostrales, 294 SCRA 701 (1998)

23
24