Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

186441 March 3, 2010

SALVADOR FLORDEL ! " A#ENO$AR, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF T%E P% L PP NES, Respondent. D NAC%URA, J.: "or revie# are the !ourt of $ppeals %!$& Decision' and Resolution( dated )ul* (+, (,,- and "ebruar* '., (,,+, respectivel*, in !$/ 0.R. !R No. 1,+2+. The assailed decision affir3ed the Re4ional Trial !ourt5s1 %RT!5s& )oint )ud43ent2 dated March +, (,,6, convictin4 petitioner Salvador "lordeli7 * $beno8ar of nine %+& counts of Rape and one %'& count of $cts of 9asciviousness, #ith a 3odification of the a#ard of da3a4es, #hile the assailed resolution denied petitioner5s 3otion for reconsideration. The case ste33ed fro3 the follo#in4 facts: So3eti3e in March '++;, $<!, the #ife of petitioner and the 3other of private co3plainants $$$ and <<<, left for Mala*sia as an overseas #or=er. $$$ and <<< #ere left under the care and custod* of petitioner. The* resided in a s3all house in >ue7on Hill, <a4uio !it*.; In $pril '++;, #hile sleepin4 #ith <<< and $$$, #ho #as then eleven %''& *ears old, petitioner #o=e up $$$, touched her va4ina, then pla*ed #ith it. $$$ cried and told petitioner that it #as painful. The latter stopped, but #arned $$$ not to tell an*one about it? other#ise, she #ould be har3ed.. Petitioner alle4edl* co33itted the sa3e acts a4ainst $$$ repeatedl*. Petitioner and his dau4hters later transferred residence and lived #ith the for3er5s siblin4s. Not lon4 after, petitioner #as convicted of ho3icide and i3prisoned in Muntinlupa !it*. !onse@uentl*, $$$ and <<< lived #ith their 4randparents in 9a Trinidad, <en4uet.6 Ahile petitioner #as incarcerated, $$$ and <<< visited hi3 and sent hi3 t#o 4reetin4 cards containin4 the follo#in4 teBts, a3on4 others: Chapp* valentineC? Cur the best dad in the #orldC? CI love *ou papa, love <<<, 9ove <)C? Ctill #e 3eet a4ainC? portrait of )esus !hrist #ith a heart, Cthis is for *ou dadC? Cflordeli7, $$$ P., love $$$ and I*os.C In (,,', petitioner #as released on parole. He #ould fre@uentl* fetch $$$ and <<< fro3 their 4randparents5 house durin4 #ee=ends and holida*s and the* #ould sta* #ith hi3 in 0abriela Silan4, <a4uio !it*. + Dnsatisfied #ith the abuses co33itted a4ainst $$$, petitioner alle4edl* started 3olestin4 <<< in Ma* (,,(. ', In (,,1, <<< spent Ne# Eear5s Da* #ith her father. On )anuar* 1, (,,1, #hile the* #ere sleepin4, petitioner inserted his t#o %(& fin4ers into <<<5s va4ina.'' <<< did not atte3pt to stop petitioner because of fear. Thereafter, the* slept beside each other. '( <<< suffered the sa3e ordeal the follo#in4 ni4ht.'1 On "ebruar* -, (,,1, <<< visited petitioner. $4ain, petitioner held her va4ina, pla*ed #ith it and inserted his fin4ers, #hich caused her pain.'2 The sa3e incident alle4edl* too= place on $u4ust 1, (,,1.'; On October (., (,,1, a da* before $$$5s birthda*, #hile <<< #as #ith petitioner, the latter co33itted the sa3e dastardl* act. This ti3e, it #as for a lon4er period.'. Durin4 $ll Saints5 Da* of (,,1, <<< spent t#o ni4hts #ith her father and, durin4 those ni4hts %Nove3ber ' and (&, she eBperienced the sa3e seBual abuse.'6 The sa3e thin4 happened on Dece3ber (-, (,,1.'Not#ithstandin4 the repeated incidents of seBual abuse co33itted a4ainst her, <<< did not reveal her ordeal to an*bod* because of fear for her life and that of her 3other.'+ $$$ and <<< had the chance to reveal their horrif*in4 eBperiences #hen their 3other $<! arrived for a vacation. $$$ i33ediatel* told $<! #hat petitioner did to her. Ahen confronted b* $<!, <<< li=e#ise ad3itted the repeated abuses co33itted b* petitioner. $<! forth#ith reported the incidents to the National <ureau of Investi4ation.(, !ISION

$fter conductin4 3edical eBa3inations on $$$ and <<<, the attendin4 ph*sician re3ar=ed that there #as a Cdisclosure of seBual abuse and she noted the presence of h*3enal notch in posterior portion of h*3enal ri3 that 3a* be due to previous blunt force or penetratin4 trau3a su44estive of abuse.C(' Aith these findin4s, petitioner #as char4ed #ith the cri3es of $cts of 9asciviousness, (( co33itted a4ainst $$$, and nine %+& counts of >ualified Rape throu4h SeBual $ssault,(1 co33itted a4ainst <<<, before the RT!. The cri3e of acts of lasciviousness #as alle4edl* co33itted as follo#s: That so3eti3e in the 3onth of $pril '++; up to '++. in the !it* of <a4uio, Philippines, and #ithin the 8urisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, the above/na3ed accused, #ith le#d desi4n and deliberate intent to cause 3alice and satisf* his lascivious desire, did then and there #illfull*, unla#full* and feloniousl* touched and pla* the private part of the offended part* $$$, a 3inor '2 *ears of a4e a4ainst her #ill and consent #hich act debeased %sic&, de3eaned and de4raded the intrinsic #orth and di4nit* of the 3inor as a hu3an bein4. !ONTR$RE TO 9$A.(2 On the other hand, eBcept for the dates of the co33ission of the cri3e, each Infor3ation for Rape reads: That on or about the -th da* of "ebruar* (,,1, in the !it* of <a4uio, Philippines, and #ithin the 8urisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, the above/na3ed accused, b* 3eans of force and inti3idation and ta=in4 advanta4e of his 3oral ascendanc* over the private offended part* he bein4 the biolo4ical father of said offended part*, did then and there re3ove the pants and under#ear of said offended part* and thereupon fondles her private part and forcibl* inserted his fin4er into the va4ina of the offended part* <<<, a 3inor, '' *ears of a4e a4ainst her #ill and consent, #hich acts constitute Rape as defined under Republic $ct -1;1 and #hich acts de3eaned, debased and de4raded the intrinsic #orth and di4nit* of the 3inor as a hu3an bein4. !ONTR$RE TO 9$A.(; Dpon arrai4n3ent, petitioner pleaded CNot 4uilt*C to all the char4es. Durin4 trial, he interposed the defense of denial and insisted that the char4es a4ainst hi3 #ere fabricated b* his #ife to cover up the infidelit* she co33itted #hile #or=in4 abroad. (. Petitioner also relied on the testi3onies of "lorabel "lordeli7, 9ev* Hope "lordeli7 and Roderic= "lordeli7, #hose testi3onies consisted 3ainl* of the alle4ed infidelit* of $<!? and petitioner, bein4 a 4ood father, #as often visited b* his dau4hters at his residence, #here the roo3s the* occupied #ere onl* separated b* see/throu4h curtains.(6 On March +, (,,6, the RT! rendered a )oint )ud43ent(- findin4 petitioner 4uilt* as char4ed, the dispositive portion of #hich reads: AH R "OR , pre3ises all dul* consideredF,G the court finds that the prosecution has established the 4uilt of the accused be*ond reasonable doubt and hereb* i3poses upon hi3 the follo#in4 penalties: '. In !ri3inal !ase No. (1'2;/R for $cts of 9asciviousness, the Indeter3inate Penalt* of . 3onths of $rresto Ma*or as the 3ini3u3 penalt* to . *ears of Prision !orreccional as the 3aBi3u3 penalt* and to inde3nif* the victi3 $$$ the a3ount of P(,,,,,.,, as 3oral da3a4es and to pa* the costs. The penalt* shall also carr* the accessor* penalt* of perpetual special dis@ualification fro3 the ri4ht of suffra4e %$rt. 21, Revised Penal !ode&F.G (. In !ri3inal !ases Nos. (1,6(/R to (1,-,/R, the Indeter3inate Penalt* of t#elve %'(& *ears of Prision Ma*or as the 3ini3u3 penalt* to t#ent* %(,& *ears of Reclusion Te3poral as the 3aBi3u3 penalt* for each case or nine %+& counts of seBual assault considerin4 the a44ravatin4H@ualif*in4 circu3stance of relationship a4ainst the accused and to inde3nif* <<< the a3ount of P6;,,,,.,, as 3oral da3a4es and to pa* the costs. The penalties shall carr* #ith the3 the accessor* penalties of civil interdiction for life and perpetual absolute dis@ualification %$rt. 2', Revised Penal !ode&. The accused shall be credited #ith 2H; of his preventive i3prison3ent in the service of his sentences. In the service of his sentences, the sa3e shall be served successivel* sub8ect to the provisions of $rticle 6, of the Revised Penal !ode or the Three/"old Rule. SO ORD R D.(+ On appeal, the !$ affir3ed petitioner5s conviction #ith a 3odification of the a3ount of his civil liabilities.

Petitioner no# co3es before us, raisin4 the follo#in4 errors: $!TS O" 9$S!IVIODSN SS The Honorable !ourt $ >uo 4ravel* erred in affir3in4 the 8ud43ent of conviction of the Honorable Re4ional Trial !ourt for the cri3e char4ed despite the fact that the 4uilt of the petitioner has not been proven be*ond reasonable doubt #ith 3oral certaint*. R$P S THROD0H S ID$9 $SS$D9T '. The Honorable !ourt $ >uo 4ravel* erred in affir3in4 the 8ud43ents of conviction of the Honorable Re4ional Trial !ourt in !ri3inal !ases Nos. (1,6;/R %alle4ed rape throu4h seBual assault so3eti3e in Ma*, (,,(& and (1,6-/R %alle4ed rape throu4h seBual assault on $u4ust 1, (,,1& respectivel*, despite the co3plete absence of evidence to sho# ho# the alle4ed incidents of rape throu4h seBual assault #ere co33itted b* petitioner on said particular dates. (. The Honorable !ourt $ >uo 4ravel* erred in affir3in4 the 8ud43ents of conviction of the Honorable Re4ional Trial !ourt in the other alle4ed counts of rape throu4h seBual assault despite the fact that the 4uilt of the petitioner has not been proven be*ond reasonable doubt #ith 3oral certaint*.1, Si3pl* put, petitioner assails the factual and le4al bases of his conviction, alle4edl* because of lac= of the essential details or circu3stances of the co33ission of the cri3es. Petitioner, in effect, @uestions the credibilit* of the #itnesses for the prosecution and insists that the char4es a4ainst hi3 #ere desi4ned to conceal $<!5s infidelit*. Ae have repeatedl* held that #hen the offended parties are *oun4 and i33ature 4irls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of #hat transpired, considerin4 not onl* their relative vulnerabilit*, but also the sha3e and e3barrass3ent to #hich the* #ould be eBposed if the 3atter about #hich the* testified #ere not true. 1' It is not unco33on in incestuous rape for the accused to clai3 that the case is a 3ere fabrication, and that the victi3 #as 3oved b* fa3ilial discord and influence, hostilit*, or reven4e. There is nothin4 novel about such defense, and this !ourt had the occasion to address it in the past. In People v. Ortoa,1( #e held that: Veril*, no child #ould =no#in4l* eBpose herself and the rest of her fa3il* to the hu3iliation and strain that a public trial surel* entails unless she is so 3oved b* her desire to see to it that the person #ho forcibl* robbed her of her cherished innocence is penali7ed for his dastardl* act. The i3putation of ill 3otives to the victi3 of an incestuous rape For lascivious conductG beco3es even 3ore unconvincin4 as the victi3 and the accused are not stran4ers to each other. <* electin4 to proceed #ith the filin4 of the co3plaint, the victi3 ris=s not onl* losin4 a parent, one #ho3, before his 3oral descent, she previousl* adored and loo=ed up to, but also the li=elihood of losin4 the affection of her relatives #ho 3a* not believe her clai3. Indeed, it is not unco33on for fa3ilies to be torn apart b* an accusation of incestuous rape. 0iven the serious nature of the cri3e and its adverse conse@uences not onl* to her, it is hi4hl* i3probable for a dau4hter to 3anufacture a rape char4e for the sole purpose of 4ettin4 even #ith her father. Thus, the alle4ed ill 3otives have never s#a*ed the !ourt a4ainst 4ivin4 credence to the testi3onies of victi3s #ho re3ained fir3 and steadfast in their account of ho# the* #ere ravished b* their seB offenders.11 Neither can #e sustain petitioner5s clai3 that the char4es a4ainst hi3 #ere products of $<!5s fabrication to cover up the infidelit* she co33itted #hile #or=in4 abroad. No 3atter ho# enra4ed a 3other 3a* be, it #ould ta=e nothin4 less than ps*cholo4ical depravit* for her to concoct a stor* too da3a4in4 to the #elfare and #ell/bein4 of her o#n dau4hter. !ourts are seldo3, if at all, convinced that a 3other #ould stoop so lo# as to eBpose her o#n dau4hter to ph*sical, 3ental and e3otional hardship conco3itant to a rape prosecution.12 Ae no# proceed to discuss the specific cri3es #ith #hich petitioner #as char4ed. !ri3inal !ase Nos. (1,6(/R, (1,61/R, (1,62/R, (1,6./R, (1,66/R, (1,6+/R, and (1,-,/R for Rape Throu4h SeBual $ssault The RT!, affir3ed b* the !$, correctl* convicted petitioner of Rape in !ri3inal !ase Nos. (1,6(/R, (1,61/R, (1,62/R, (1,6./R, (1,66/R, (1,6+/R, and (1,-,/R. In her direct testi3on*, <<< clearl* narrated that, on seven %6& separate occasions, petitioner #o=e her up, held her va4ina, pla*ed #ith it, and inserted his fin4ers. Durin4 trial, the prosecutor presented a s3all doll #here <<< de3onstrated ho# petitioner inserted his forefin4er and 3iddle fin4er, 3a=in4 an up and do#n 3otion bet#een the doll5s le4s. 1; The insertion of petitioner5s fin4ers into the victi35s va4ina constituted the cri3e of Rape throu4h seBual assault 1.under Republic $ct %R.$.& No. -1;1, or CThe $nti/Rape 9a# of '++6,C #hich in part provides: $rt. (../$. Rape: When And How Committed. / Rape is co33itted:

'& <* a 3an #ho shall have carnal =no#led4e of a #o3an under an* of the follo#in4 circu3stances: a& Throu4h force, threat, or inti3idation? b& Ahen the offended part* is deprived of reason or other#ise unconscious? c& <* 3eans of fraudulent 3achination or 4rave abuse of authorit*? and d& Ahen the offended part* is under t#elve %'(& *ears of a4e or is de3ented, even thou4h none of the circu3stances 3entioned above be present. (& <* an* person #ho, under an* of the circu3stances 3entioned in para4raph ' hereof, shall co33it an act of seBual assault b* insertin4 his penis into another person5s 3outh or anal orifice, or an* instru3ent or ob8ect, into the 4enital or anal orifice of another person.16 $side fro3 provin4 the fact that Rape #as co33itted, the prosecution also established that petitioner is the biolo4ical father of <<< and that the latter #as less than t#elve %'(& *ears old at the ti3e of the co33ission of the cri3es. Dnder $rticle (../< of the Revised Penal !ode %RP!&, rape b* seBual assault, if attended b* an* of the a44ravatin4 circu3stances under para4raph ' 1- of $rticle (../<, #ould carr* the penalt* of reclusion te3poral, ran4in4 fro3 t#elve %'(& *ears and one %'& da* to t#ent* %(,& *ears. $ppl*in4 the Indeter3inate Sentence 9a#, the 3aBi3u3 ter3 of the indeter3inate penalt* shall be that #hich could be properl* i3posed under the RP!. Other than the a44ravatin4H@ualif*in4 circu3stances of 3inorit* and relationship %#hich are alread* ta=en into account to raise the penalt* fro3 prision 3a*or to reclusion te3poral&,1+ no other a44ravatin4 circu3stance #as alle4ed and proven. Hence, the penalt* shall be i3posed in its 3ediu3 period, or fourteen %'2& *ears, ei4ht %-& 3onths and one %'& da* to seventeen %'6& *ears and four %2& 3onths. On the other hand, the 3ini3u3 ter3 of the indeter3inate sentence should be #ithin the ran4e of the penalt* neBt lo#er in de4ree than that prescribed b* the !ode #hich is prision 3a*or or siB %.& *ears and one %'& da* to t#elve %'(& *ears. "or each count of seBual assault, petitioner should be 3eted the indeter3inate sentence of ten %',& *ears of prision 3a*or as 3ini3u3, to seventeen %'6& *ears and four %2& 3onths of reclusion te3poral as 3aBi3u3. In line #ith prevailin4 8urisprudence, the victi3 of Rape throu4h seBual assault is entitled to recover civil inde3nit* in the a3ount of P1,,,,,.,, for each count. This is 3andator* upon a findin4 of the fact of Rape.2, Moreover, the a#ard of 3oral da3a4es is auto3aticall* 4ranted #ithout need of further proof, it bein4 assu3ed that a rape victi3 has actuall* suffered 3oral da3a4es entitlin4 her to such a#ard. She is, thus, entitled to recover 3oral da3a4es of P1,,,,,.,, for each count.2' In addition, the presence of the a44ravatin4 circu3stances of 3inorit* and relationship entitles her to an a#ard of eBe3plar* da3a4es. The a3ount of P1,,,,,.,, for each count is appropriate under the circu3stances. !ri3inal !ase Nos. (1,6;/R and (1,6-/R In !ri3inal !ase No. (1,6;/R, it #as alle4ed that petitioner seBuall* abused <<< on $u4ust 1, (,,1. Indeed, the RT! and the !$ stated in their narration of facts that on that particular date, #hile <<< #as visitin4 her father, the incident happened. $ perusal of the transcript of the prosecution #itnesses5 testi3onies, ho#ever, reveals that no such incident too= place. No details #ere related b* <<< herself as to the circu3stances surroundin4 the alle4ed incident. In !ri3inal !ase No. (1,6-/R, it #as also stated in the Infor3ation that, fro3 Ma* (,,( to Dece3ber (,,1, petitioner co33itted the cri3e of Rape throu4h seBual assault a4ainst <<<. The !ourt notes, ho#ever, that the RT! decision is silent as to the seBual abuse alle4edl* co33itted in Ma* (,,(. The RT!5s narration of facts started onl* #ith the incident that occurred in )anuar* (,,1. Ahile the !$ stated that, in Ma* (,,(, petitioner started seBuall* abusin4 <<<, the state3ent #as 3erel* a conclusion unsupported b* proof of ho# the cri3e #as co33itted. $ssu3in4 that acts of Rape #ere indeed co33itted in (,,1 %#hich is #ithin the period fro3 Ma* (,,( to Dece3ber (,,1 as stated in the Infor3ation&, those instances could ver* #ell be the sa3e incidents covered b* the other Infor3ations discussed earlier. $bsent specific details of ho# and #hen the seBual abuses #ere co33itted, petitioner should be ac@uitted in !ri3inal !ase Nos. (1,6;/R and (1,6-/R. !ri3inal !ase No. (1'2;/R for $cts of 9asciviousness In !ri3inal !ase No. (1'2;/R, petitioner #as char4ed #ith and convicted of $cts of 9asciviousness and sentenced to suffer the penalt* prescribed b* $rticle 11. of the RP!. Ahile #e sustain petitioner5s conviction of acts of lasciviousness, #e 3odif* the

assailed Decision in order to 4ive the proper desi4nation to the cri3e co33itted and the la# violated, and eventuall* to i3pose the proper penalt*. It is undisputed that at the ti3e of the co33ission of the seBual abuse, $$$ #as eleven %''& *ears old. 2( This calls for the application of R.$. No. 6.', or CThe Special Protection of !hildren $4ainst !hild $buse, Bploitation and Discri3ination $ct,C #hich defines seBual abuse of children and prescribes the penalt* therefor in its $rticle III, Section ;, to #it: S !. ;. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. J !hildren, #hether 3ale or fe3ale, #ho for 3one*, profit, or an* other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of an* adult, s*ndicate or 4roup, indul4e in seBual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are dee3ed to be children eBploited in prostitution and other seBual abuse. The penalt* of reclusion temporal in its 3ediu3 period to reclusion perpetua shall be i3posed upon the follo#in4: BBBB %b& Those #ho co33it the act of seBual intercourse or lascivious conduct #ith a child eBploited in prostitution or sub8ected to other seBual abuse: Provided, That #hen the victi3 is under t#elve %'(& *ears of a4e, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under $rticle 11;, para4raph 1, for rape and $rticle 11. of $ct No. 1-';, as a3ended, the Revised Penal !ode, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case 3a* be: Provided, That the penalt* for lascivious conduct #hen the victi3 is under t#elve %'(& *ears of a4e shall be reclusion temporal in its 3ediu3 period.21 Para4raph %b& punishes seBual intercourse or lascivious conduct not onl* #ith a child eBploited in prostitution, but also #ith a child sub8ected to other seBual abuses. It covers not onl* a situation #here a child is abused for profit, but also #here one // throu4h coercion, inti3idation or influence // en4a4es in seBual intercourse or lascivious conduct #ith a child. 22 Ho#ever, pursuant to the fore4oin4 provision, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse throu4h lascivious conduct co33itted a4ainst a 3inor belo# '( *ears of a4e, the re@uisites for acts of lasciviousness under $rticle 11. of the RP! 3ust be 3et in addition to the re@uisites for seBual abuse under Section ; of R.$. No. 6.',.2; The cri3e of $cts of 9asciviousness, as defined in $rticle 11. of the RP!, has the follo#in4 ele3ents: %'& That the offender co33its an* act of lasciviousness or le#dness? %(& That it is done under an* of the follo#in4 circu3stances: a. <* usin4 force or inti3idation? or b. Ahen the offended part* is deprived of reason or other#ise unconscious? or c. Ahen the offended part* is under '( *ears of a4e? and %1& That the offended part* is another person of either seB.2. In addition, the follo#in4 ele3ents of seBual abuse under Section ;, $rticle III of R.$. No. 6.', 3ust be proven: %'& The accused co33its the act of seBual intercourse or lascivious conduct? %(& The said act is perfor3ed #ith a child eBploited in prostitution or sub8ected to other seBual abuse? and %1& The child, #hether 3ale or fe3ale, is belo# '- *ears of a4e.26 Section 1(, $rticle IIII of the I3ple3entin4 Rules and Re4ulations of R.$. No. 6.', defines lascivious conduct as follo#s: FTGhe intentional touchin4, either directl* or throu4h clothin4, of the 4enitalia, anus, 4roin, breast, inner thi4h, or buttoc=s, or the introduction of an* ob8ect into the 4enitalia, anus or 3outh of an* person, #hether of the sa3e or opposite seB, #ith an intent to abuse, hu3iliate, harass, de4rade, or arouse or 4ratif* the seBual desire of an* person, bestialit*, 3asturbation, lascivious eBhibition of the 4enitals or pubic area of a person.2-

<ased on the fore4oin4 definition, petitioner5s act of touchin4 $$$5s va4ina and pla*in4 #ith it obviousl* a3ounted to lascivious conduct. !onsiderin4 that the act #as co33itted on a child less than t#elve *ears old and throu4h inti3idation, it is be*ond cavil that petitioner is 4uilt* under the aforesaid la#s. Ae are a#are that the Infor3ation specificall* char4ed petitioner #ith $cts of 9asciviousness under the RP!, #ithout statin4 therein that it #as in relation to R.$. No. 6.',. Ho#ever, the failure to desi4nate the offense b* statute or to 3ention the specific provision penali7in4 the act, or an erroneous specification of the la# violated, does not vitiate the infor3ation if the facts alle4ed therein clearl* recite the facts constitutin4 the cri3e char4ed. The character of the cri3e is not deter3ined b* the caption or prea3ble of the infor3ation nor b* the specification of the provision of la# alle4ed to have been violated, but b* the recital of the ulti3ate facts and circu3stances in the co3plaint or infor3ation.2+ In the instant case, the bod* of the Infor3ation contains an aver3ent of the acts alle4ed to have been co33itted b* petitioner and un3ista=abl* describes acts punishable under Section ;%b&, $rticle III of R.$. No. 6.',.
1avvphi1

It is also undisputed that petitioner is the father of $$$. The RT! did not appreciate the alternative circu3stance of relationship, because it #as not alle4ed in the Infor3ation. Ae do not a4ree. The resolution;, of the investi4atin4 prosecutor, #hich for3ed the basis of the Infor3ation, a cop* of #hich is attached thereto, stated that petitioner is the victi35s biolo4ical father. There #as, therefore, substantial co3pliance #ith the 3andate that an accused be infor3ed of the nature of the char4e a4ainst hi3.;' In cri3es a4ainst chastit*, li=e acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered a44ravatin4.;( !onsiderin4 that $$$ #as less than t#elve %'(& *ears old at the ti3e the cri3e #as co33itted, petitioner should be 3eted the penalt* of reclusion te3poral in its 3ediu3 period, or fourteen %'2& *ears, ei4ht %-& 3onths and one %'& da* to seventeen %'6& *ears and four %2& 3onths. $ppl*in4 the Indeter3inate Sentence 9a#, petitioner should be 3eted the indeter3inate penalt* of thirteen %'1& *ears, nine %+& 3onths and eleven %''& da*s of reclusion te3poral as 3ini3u3, to siBteen %'.& *ears, five %;& 3onths and ten %',& da*s of reclusion te3poral as 3aBi3u3. Aith respect to the lascivious conduct a3ountin4 to child abuse under Section ;%b& of R.$. No. 6.', co33itted b* petitioner, #e i3pose a fine of P';,,,,.,,.;1 !ivil inde3nit* eB delicto in the a3ount of P(,,,,,.,, shall be a#arded.;2 $dditionall*, upon a findin4 of 4uilt of the accused for acts of lasciviousness, the a3ount of P';,,,,.,, as 3oral da3a4es 3a* be a#arded to the victi3 in the sa3e #a* that 3oral da3a4es are a#arded to victi3s of rape even #ithout need of proof because it is assu3ed that the* suffered 3oral in8ur*. ;; In vie# of the presence of the a44ravatin4 circu3stance of relationship, the a3ount ofP';,,,,.,, as eBe3plar* da3a4es should li=e#ise be a#arded. AH R "OR , pre3ises considered, the !ourt of $ppeals5 )ul* (+, (,,- Decision and "ebruar* '., (,,+ Resolution in !$/0.R. !R No. 1,+2+ are $""IRM D #ith MODI"I!$TIONS. The !ourt finds petitioner Salvador "lordeli7 * $beno8ar: '. 0DI9TE of seven %6& counts of R$P Throu4h SeBual $ssault in !ri3inal !ase Nos. (1,6(/R, (1,61/R, (1,62/R, (1,6./R, (1,66/R, (1,6+/R, and (1,-,/R. He is sentenced to suffer the indeter3inate penalt* of ten %',& *ears of prision 3a*or, as 3ini3u3, to seventeen %'6& *ears and four %2& 3onths of reclusion te3poral, as 3aBi3u3, for each count. Petitioner is ordered to inde3nif* <<< P1,,,,,.,, as civil inde3nit*? P1,,,,,.,, as 3oral da3a4es? andP1,,,,,.,, as eBe3plar* da3a4es, for each count? (. 0DI9TE of $!TS O" 9$S!IVIODSN SS in !ri3inal !ase No. (1'2;/R. He is sentenced to suffer the indeter3inate penalt* of thirteen %'1& *ears, nine %+& 3onths and eleven %''& da*s of reclusion te3poral, as 3ini3u3, to siBteen %'.& *ears, five %;& 3onths and ten %',& da*s of reclusion te3poral, as 3aBi3u3. He is li=e#ise ordered to pa* a fine ofP';,,,,.,, and to inde3nif* $$$ P(,,,,,.,, as civil inde3nit*, P';,,,,.,, as 3oral da3a4es, and P';,,,,.,, as eBe3plar* da3a4es? 1. NOT 0DI9TE in !ri3inal !ase Nos. (1,6;/R and (1,6-/R. SO ORD R D. ANTON O EDUARDO #. NAC%URA $ssociate )ustice A !ON!DR:

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila N <$N!

G.R. No. 12&112 $'(" 23, 1&&& PEOPLE OF T%E P% L PP NES, plaintiff/appellee, vs. $ MM) M $ANO " TAMORA, accused/appellant.

PER CUR AM* <ecause a 3an is poor, uneducated and 8obless, and lac=s catechetical instruction, should he be eBe3pted fro3 the i3position of the death penalt* after it is proved be*ond 3oral certainl* that he indeed had seBuall* abused a five/*ear old 4irlK The !ourt is burdened, once a4ain, #ith the heav* tas= of passin4 upon, b* #a* of auto3atic revie#, a 8ud43ent of conviction i3posin4 the death penalt* for statutor* rape, in this case, alle4ed to have been perpetrated b* accused/appellant )i33* T. Mi8ano.
1wphi1.n t

$ccused/appellantLs conviction for said cri3e arose fro3 an Infor3ation readin4 as follo#s: That on or about the ',th da* of Ma*, '++., in the Municipalit* of 9as PiMas, Metro Manila, Philippines and #ithin the 8urisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, the above/na3ed accused, b* 3eans of force and inti3idation, did, then and there #ilfull*, unla#full* and feloniousl* have carnal =no#led4e #ith one H$N 9 R$MIR N E $<IN0, #ho is a child belo# seven %6& *ears old, a4ainst her #ill and consent. !ONTR$RE TO 9$A. $ccused/appellant pleaded not 4uilt* to the char4e and stood trail, resultin4 in a 8ud43ent of conviction, accordin4l* disposin4: AH R "OR , 8ud43ent is rendered findin4 the accused, )i33* * Mi8ano * Ta3ora 0DI9TE be*ond reasonable doubt of rapin4 Ha7el Ra3ire7 * $bin4, a child belo# 6 *ears of a4e, #hich is punished $rt., 11; %No. 2& of the Revised Penal !ode, as a3ended, #ith death, and in vie# of $rticle .1 of the sa3e !ode, accused )i33* Mi8ano * Ta3ora is sentenced to die and such accused be put to death 3ethod or 3eans prescribed b* la#? to inde3nif* the victi3, Ha7el Ra3ire7, the su3 of P',,,,,,.,,, and to pa* the costs. SO ORD R D. The prosecutionLs version of the events is based principall* on the testi3on* of victi3 Ha7el Ra3ire7, her 3other Dina Ra3ire7, and a nei4hbor b* the na3e of $rnulfo Valiente. The Office of the Solicitor 0eneral adopted the su33ari7ation b* the trail court of its findin4s, to #it: Dina Ra3ire7 is the 3other of five/*ear old Ha7el Ra3ire7 #ho #as born on ,( $pril '++'. In the 3ornin4 of ', Ma* '++., she #ashed clothes #hile one of the her nei4hbors, )i33* Mi8ano, #as havin4 a drin=in4 session #ith so3e friends. Ha7el #as then pla*in4 to4ether #ith other children. The children #ere later brou4ht b* the accused to their house at Helen !atral Street. Dina later in the afternoon beca3e suspicions and started loo=in4 for Ha7el and as=ed the pla*3ates of Ha7el #here she #as. She #as told that the accused #as pla*in4 #ith her. She #ent out to the street but #as not able to find her dau4hter. Instead, she sa# one $rnulfo Valiente #ho infor3ed her that he sa# Ha7el to4ether #ith )i33* at Helen !atral Street. $rnulfo Valiente and Dina proceeded to the said place #hich #as a 4rass* area beside a river and near <acoor, !avite. The* reached the said place at around ; oLcloc= in the afternoon. It #as $rnulfo #ho first sa# Ha7el alread* pale and her va4ina #as profusel* bleedin4. She #as #earin4 a dress but her pant* and s=irt #ere 4one. Ha7el also fond had an abrasion on her ri4ht hip. Dina first brou4ht Ha7el to the 9as PiMas Police Station to report the incident but the

police su44ested that Ha7el be brou4ht to the N<I. The Medico 9e4al Officer advised the3 to brin4 Ha7el to the P0H because the* cannot eBa3ine her va4ina #hich #as bleedin4 profusel*. $ccused has a reputation for 3olestin4 #o3en and even rapin4 the3 #henever he is drun=. Dina identified the accused in open court. %TSN, )ul* ((, '++., pp. (/;&. $rnulfo Valiente corroborated the testi3on* of Dina Ra3ire7. The third #itness for the prosecution #as the victi3 herself. "ive/*ear old Ha7el Ra3ire7 herself confir3ed that the penis of )i33* Mi8ano #as inserted into her va4ina. Ha7el identified the accused in open court. %TSN, )ul* (+, '++., pp. (1&. The defense is based on the testi3on* of its sole #itness, accused/appellant. He denied the char4es and testified that on Ma* ',, '++. at around ( oLcloc= in the afternoon, he #as at ho3e @uaffin4 alcoholic drin=s #ith his friends. Ho#ever, he could not recall ho# 3an* the* #ere and neither could he 4ive their na3es. $ccordin4 to hi3, #hile the* #ere havin4 a drin=in4 spree, he #as suddenl* arrested, for #hat reason he #as not a#are. 9i=e#ise, he could not re3e3ber #ho arrested hi3 and #hat ti3e he #as brou4ht to 8ail because he #as too drun=, and he failed to in@uire fro3 the arrestin4 officer #h* he #as 8ailed %tsn, Nove3ber 2, '++., pp. (/1&. The trial court did not accord credence to the testi3on* of accused/appellant, pointin4 out in its decision that the defense denial and accused/appellantLs alibi that he #as at ho3e a drin=in4 spree #ith alle4ed friends he could not identif*, deserve no serious preoccupation of the 3ind. Nor *et can his clai3 that he #as too drun= to =no# #hat transpired at the ti3e #hen the rape #as co33itted, be 4iven #ei4ht to disprove the char4e a4ainst hi3. Hence, the instant revie# and appeal, anchored on a sin4le enco3passin4 and catch/all ar4u3ent that the trial court erred in findin4 accused/appellant 4uilt* be*ond reasonable doubt of the cri3e char4ed. $bsolute certaint* of 4uilt is not, ho#ever, de3anded b* la# for a conviction. It is sufficient that 3oral certaint* as to the presence of the ele3ents constitutin4 the offense, as #ell as of the identit* of the offender be established %People vs. !asinillo, ('1 S!R$ 666 F'++(G&.
1wphi1.n t

In the instant case, it does appear that the 3ain issue raised b* accused/appellant is the credibilit* of victi3 Ha7el Ra3ire7. $ccused/appellant clai3s that the child/#itness #as too *oun4 to =no# the si4nificance of an oath because she could not ans#er @uestions. She should have =no#n that she #as supposed to ans#er all @uestions and not onl* those to #hich ans#ers had been rehearsed, hence, her entire testi3on* should be stric=en off the record for lac= of proper ans#ers durin4 cross/eBa3ination. Ae do not a4ree. Man* ti3es has this !ourt said that in revie#in4 rape cases, it #ill be 4uided b* the settled realities that an accusation for rape can be 3ade #ith facilit*. Ahile the co33ission of the 3a* not be eas* to prove, it beco3es even 3ore difficult, ho#ever, for the person accused, althou4h innocent, to disprove that he did not co33it the cri3e. In vie# of the intrinsic nature of the cri3e of rape #here onl* t#o persons nor3all* are involved, the testi3on* of the co3plainant 3ust al#a*s be scrutini7ed #ith 4reat caution, and the evidence for the prosecution 3ust stand or fall on its o#n 3erits and should not be allo#ed to dra# stren4th fro3 the #ea=ness of the evidence for the defense %People vs. 0abris, (;- S!R$ ..1 F'++.G? People vs. !asinillo, supra&. In the instant appeal, as invariabl* in al3ost all rape cases, the issue boils do#n to the credibilit* and stor* of the victi3. )ust as often, the !ourt is no# constrained to rel* on the observations of the trial court in the appreciation of testi3on*, said court bein4 4iven the opportunit* not e@uall* en8o*ed b* the appellate courts. It has thus since beco3e doctrinal that the evaluation b* the trial court of testi3onial evidence is accorded 4reat respect because it has the direct chance to observe first hand the de3eanor of the #itness on the stand %People vs. De la !ru7, 6;2 S!R$ ((+ F'++2G& and, therefore, is in a better position to for3 an accurate i3pression and conclusion %People vs. !astillo, (.' S!R$ 2+1 F'++.G&. The !ourt has 3eticulousl* 4one over the testi3on* of the victi3 and ulti3atel* reaches the dispiritin4 conclusion that the act co3plained of did occur. Ha7elLs testi3on* on the rape perpetrated a4ainst her is clear and could have onl* been narrated b* a victi3 sub8ected to that seBual assault. Thus: >: Do *ou =no# this person #ho is the accused in this case b* the na3e of )i33* Mi8anoK $: %Aitness noddin4 her head.& >: Ahat do *ou 3ean b* noddin4 *our head, Ha7elK $: No ans#er.

>: No#, Ha7el, if I sa* that *ou =no# )i33* Mi8ano and he is inside the courtroo3, please stand up and point to hi3K $: That person, sir. %Aitness cr*in4 as she points to a person inside the courtroo3 #ho, #hen as=ed b* the interpreter, ans#ered b* the na3e of )i33* Mi8ano& >: Ah* are *ou cr*in4K $re *ou an4r* to )i33* Mi8anoK $: Ees, sir. >: Eou said *ou sa# the titi of Ou*a )i33* Mi8ano, #hat did he do #ith his titi to *ouK $: Ipinaso= ni*a sa pe=pe= =o. >: Ahat happened to *our pe=pe= #hen Ou*a )i33* Mi8ano inserted his penis to *our va4inaK $: It #as bleedin4. >: Ahen )i33* Mi8ano inserted his penis into *our va4ina, #hat did *ou feelK $: I felt ver* painful, napa=asa=it po. >: Aill *ou please elucidate before this !ourt, I #ithdra#. Aill *ou please illustrate ho# )i33* Mi8ano inserted his penis into *our va4inaK $: %No ans#er. Instead, #itness cries aloud.& $ccused/appellant atte3pts to discredit the victi3Ls testi3on* b* assailin4 her attitude and behavior durin4 cross/eBa3ination. Ho#ever, it 3ust be borne in 3ind that the victi3 is an innocent, #holeso3e, and naive ;/*ear old 4irl that this !ourt, or an*one for that 3atter, can not eBpect to articulate and verbali7e ans#ers to all the @uestions thro#n at her. <ein4 a child and a victi3 of rape, her testi3on* should be eBpected to be acco3panied b* e3otional overtures. Veril*, it is not ri4ht to 8ud4e the actions of a child #ho has under4one a trau3atic eBperience b* the nor3s of behavior eBpected under the circu3stances fro3 nor3al and 3ature people %People vs. Tadulan, (6' S!R$ (11 F'++6G&. In fact, #hen victi3 Ha7el #as as=ed to illustrate ho# accused/appellant inserted his penis into her va4ina, she could no lon4er 4ive an ans#er and instead cried aloud. She #as then forth#ith cross/eBa3ined defense, and Ha7el #as 8ust too da7ed and sha=en up, due b* the probabl* to havin4 to recall trau3atic eBperience, to ans#er the @uestions. She 8ust continued to cr*. Such scenario evidentl* stren4thens the clai3 of the victi3 that she #as seBuall* abused b* accused/ appellant, and not other#ise. Ha7el cannot be eBpected to re3e3ber ever* u4l* detail of the appallin4 outra4e, especiall* so since she 3i4ht in fact have been tr*in4 not to re3e3ber the3 and to erase the3 fro3 her 3ind %People vs. <utron, (6( S!R$ 1;( F'++6G&. She cannot be eBpected to 3echanicall* =eep and narrate an accurate account of the horrif*in4 eBperience she had under4one %People vs. Rabosa, (61 S!R$ '2( F'++6G&. Ahen a #o3an, 3ore so if she is a 3inor, sa*s that she has been raped, she sa*s in effect all that is necessar* to sho# that rape #as co33itted %People vs. !aba*ron, (6- S!R$ 6- F'++6G&. Thus, Ha7elLs testi3on* is 4iven full #ei4ht and credit. Moreover, no rule in cri3inal 8urisprudence is 3ore settled than that alibi is the #ea=est of all defenses and should be re8ected #hen the identit* of the accused has been sufficientl* and positivel* established b* e*e#itnesses to the cri3e %People vs. Sancholes, (6' S!R$ ;(6 F'++6G&. In the case at bar, accused/appellantLs alibi that at the Ha7el #as bein4 raped he #as at ho3e 4ettin4 drun= #ith his friends, cannot possibl* be 4iven 3ore probative #ei4ht than the clear and positive identification provided b* no less than three credible e*e#itnesses in the persons of Ha7el Ra3ire7, her 3other Dina Ra3ire7, and their nei4hbor $rnulfo Valiente. The testi3on* of Valiente pointin4 to accused/appellant as the perpetrator of the cri3e and positive, thusl*:
@ $nd #ho #as the co3panion if an* of Ha7el in that areaK a She #as #ith other children and )i33* Mi8ano. @ Ahat else did *ou seeK a Ha7el #as e3braced, sir.

@ <* #ho3K a )i33*, sir. @ !ould *ou please stand up and de3onstrate before this Honorable !ourt ho# )i33* Mi8ano e3braced Ha7elK Ma* #e as= the 3other supposed she is Ha7elK a )i33* Mi8ano e3braced the child #hile the #hile #as facin4 her bac= to#ards the accused and the hands of )i33* Mi8ano #as pressed at the nipple of Ha7el Ra3ire7. BBB BBB BBB @ Ahere did *ou find the second ti3e )i33* Mi8ano the accused in this caseK a $t the 4rass* area, sir. @ $nd tell this Honorable !ourt #hat #as )i33* doin4 in that 4rass* portion of Helen !atralK a He as on top of the child and has no pants. @ Eou are tellin4 us that )i33* Mi8ano #as also na=edK a Ees, sir. @ $nd *ou sa# hi3 #ith *our t#o e*es on top, #ith na=ed buttoc=sK a Ees, sir. @ Did *ou see if the bod* of )i33* Mi8ano #as 3ovin4 side#ards or up and do#nK a I did not notice I sa# onl* he #as on top of the child. ValienteLs account of the incident finds support in Dina Ra3ire7L stor* recountin4 her dau4hterLs horrif*in4 eBperience J @ If this )i33* Mi8ano * Ta3ora is inside the court roo3, please point at hi3K a There, sir. %Aitness pointin4 to a person in *ello# T/shirt #ho stood up and ans#ered to the na3e of )i33* Mi8ano, the accused in this case&. @ Eou stated a #hile a4o accused is *our nei4hbor #ill *ou please tell us #hat place are *ou a nei4hbor of )i33* Mi8anoK a Inside the !arnival Par= J 9ooban #e are nei4hbors, sir. @ 9et 3e ta=e *ou bac= on Ma* ',, '++., in the afternoon Mada3 AitnessK a Ees, sir. @ In the afternoon, could *ou tell this Honorable #hat #ere *ou doin4K a In the 3ornin4 of Ma* ',, '++. I #as then #ashin4 clothes #hile accused )i33* Mi8ano to4ether #ith his friends #as havin4 a drin=in4 session under our house. M* child #as then pla*in4 and then 3* child to4ether #ith her children #as brou4ht b* )i33* a#a* fro3 our house called the Helen !astral St. @ Then #hat happened #hen *ou ca3e to =no# *our dau4hter Ha7el #as #ith other children #ith the accused at Helen !atralK a It #as li=e this in the afternoon it #as dri77lin4. I as=ed 3* childLs pla*3ates the #hereabout of Ha7el #ho told 3e that )i33* #as pla*in4 #ith the3 and then I beca3e suspicious and started loo=in4 for 3* child. I #ent out of the street but I #as unable to see 3* child and sa# one $rnulfo Valiente standin4 on the street and as=ed hi3 if he sa# 3* child and ans#ered CEes I sa# her to4ether #ith )i33* at Helen !atral StC. @ Did *ou 4o to the place #here *ou described as Helen !atralK a Ees, sir.

@ Aho #as *our co3panion in 4oin4 to Helen !atralK a $rnulfo Valiente, sir. @ Ahen *ou reached Helen !atral #hat did *ou observe if an*K a The place is a 4rass* area and near <acoor and there is a river. @ Ahen *ou #ent to the said Helen !atral #here *ou able to see *our dau4hter Ha7elK a I #as not able to see her but it #as $rnulfo Valiente #ho first sa# her. @ $nd #hen #as the ti3e *ou sa# *our dau4hterK a $t around ; oLcloc= in the afternoon. @ In #hat place did *ou see Ha7elK a $t Helen !atral, sir. @ Aill *ou tell this Honorable !ourt. 9et 3e clarif* Mada3 #itness #hen *ou #ent there after a fe# 3inutes also in the place of Helen !atralK a Ees, sir. @ Aill *ou please tell this Honorable !ourt #hat #as the condition of *our dau4hter #hen *ou sa# herK a Ahen I sa# 3* dau4hter she #as pale and #hen $rnulfo Valiente lifted her #e sa# her va4ina #as bleedin4. @ Ahat else did *ou see, if an*K a She #as bleedin4 profusel* and her va4ina #as in8ured. @ Ho# about her clothin4K a Ae #ere not able to see her clothes eBcept her blouse #hich she #as #earin4 and she has no pant* and s=irt. @ Ho# about the other part of the bod* did *ou observe an* in8ur* or contusionK a She has abrasion on the ri4ht hip, sir. @ Eou stated a #hile *ou brou4ht *our dau4hter to the police station here after *ou brou4ht *our dau4hter to this police station of 9as PiMas, #hat happened neBtK a The police su44ested that 3* dau4hter be brou4ht to the hospital because of the profuse bleedin4 and #e #ent directl* to the N<I. @ Ahat happened at the N<I Mada3 AitnessK a Ae #ere advised to brin4 the child to the P0H. The* cannot eBa3ine the va4ina because of the profuse bleedin4.

Prosecution #itness Dr. Stella 0uerrero Manalo confir3ed the clai3 of victi3 Ha7el Ra3ire7 that she #as raped to #it: > On *our o#n 3edical and professional opinion based on the ph*sical eBa3ination *ou conducted on the person of the victi3, #hat #ould have caused this lacerationK Aould it have been caused b* a penisK $ It is hi4hl* probable #ith the histor* 4iven. $nd on the basis of the histor* that I 4athered fro3 the child, I #ould sa* that it #as a case for rape. "urther3ore, the eBa3ination of the victi3Ls under#ear 4ave positive result for se3inal stains.

$ccused/appellantLs alibi that he #as drun= #ith his friend #hen the rape #as co33itted, it is to be noted re3ained but a star=, unsupported aver3ent, as veril*, the defense neither identified nor presented an* of the alle4ed drin=in4 partners of accused/ appellant. In su3, the !ourt fails to find an* serious fla# in the testi3on* of the prosecution #itnesses nor in the conclusions of the trial court #hich, to the contrar*, appear to be properl* founded on the direct, positive, and cate4orical state3ents 3ade b* Ha7el and her #itnesses in 3ost 3aterial points. "inall*, accused/appellant in his repl* brief contends that the death penalt* la# is violative of the e@ual protection clause of the '+-6 !onstitution because it punishes onl* people li=e hi3, the uneducated, and the 8obless. The e@ualit* the !onstitution 4uarantees is le4al e@ualit* or, as it is usuall* put, the e@ualit* of all persons before the la#. Dnder this 4uarantee, each individual is dealt #ith as an e@ual person in the la#, #hich does not treat the person differentl* of #ho he is or #hat he is or #hat he possesses %<ernas, The !onstitution of the Republic of the Philippines, $ !o33entar*, '+-6 ed., p. .&. Republic $ct No. 6.;+ specificall* provides: BBB BBB BBB The death penalt* shall also be i3posed if the cri3e of rape is co33itted #ith an* of the follo#in4 attendant circu3stances: BBB BBB BBB 2. Ahen the victi3 is a reli4ious or a child belo# seven %6& *ears old. BBB BBB BBB $pparentl*, as it should be, the death penalt* la# 3a=es no distinction. It applies to all persons and to all classes of persons J rich or poor, educated or uneducated, reli4ious or non/reli4ious. No particular person or classes of persons are identified b* the la# a4ainst #ho3 the death penalt* shall be eBclusivel* i3posed. Ae have ti3e and a4ain e3phasi7ed that our courts are the fora for a protracted debate on the 3oralit* or propriet* of the death penalt* #here the la# itself provides punish3ent for specific and #ell/defined cri3inal acts %People vs. che4ara*, (.6 S!R$ .-( F'++6G&. "urther, co3passion for the poor is an i3perative of ever* hu3ane but onl* #hen the recipient is not a rascal clai3in4 an undeserved privile4e %!ecilleville Realt* and Service !orporation vs. !$, (6- S!R$ -'+ F'++6G&. The evidence pointin4 to accused/ appellant as the perpetrator of the cri3e is over#hel3in4. The la# punishes #ith death a person #ho co33it rape a4ainst a child belo# seven *ears of a4e. Thus, to ans#er the @uer*, the perpetration of rape a4ainst a ;/*ear old 4irl does not absolve or eBe3pt accused/appellant fro3 the i3position of the death penalt* b* the fact that he is poor, uneducated, 8obless, and lac=s catechetical instruction. To hold other#ise #ill not eli3inate but pro3ote ine@ualities. $lthou4h four )ustices of the !ourt continue to 3aintain their adherence to the separate opinions eBpressed in People vs. !che"ara# %supra& that Republic $ct No. 6.;+ is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalt*, the* nonetheless sub3it to the rulin4 of the 3a8orit* that the la# is constitutional and that death penalt* should herein accordin4l* be i3posed. $ppl*in4 the ne# polic* laid do#n in the case of People vs. Prades %0.R. No. '(6;.+, )ul* 1,, '++-&, the civil inde3nit* to be a#arded to the offended part* is and should be P6;,,,,.,,. In addition, 3oral da3a4es in the a3ount of P;,,,,,.,, are li=e#ise a#arded #ithout need for proof of the basis thereof. 9astl*, accused/appellant is liable to pa* the victi3 the su3 of P(,,,,,.,, as eBe3plar* da3a4es as a deterrent a4ainst or as a ne4ative incentive to curb sociall* deleterious actions %Del Rosario vs. !ourt of $ppeals, (.6 S!R$ ';- F'++6G&.
1wphi1.n t

AH R "OR , the decision of the trial court findin4 accused/appellant )i33* T. Mi8ano 4uilt* of Statutor* Rape and sentencin4 hi3 to suffer the severest penalt* of death is hereb* $""IRM D, sub8ect to the 3odifications above/stated. In accordance #ith Section (; of Republic $ct No. 6.;+, a3endin4 $rticle -1 of the Revised Penal !ode, upon the finalit* of this decision, let the records of this case be forth#ith for#arded to the Office of the President for possible eBercise of the pardonin4 po#er. No special pronounce3ent is 3ade as to costs.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No+. 13&346,-0 $'(" 11, 2002

PEOPLE OF T%E P% L PP NES, plaintiff/appellee, vs. $OSE A#AD ES " CLAVER A, accused/appellant. PUNO, J.: This is an appeal fro3 the decision' of the Re4ional Trial !ourt of San Pedro, 9a4una, in !ri3inal !ase Nos. ,.;-/SP9 to ,..'/ SP9, dated Ma* (., '+++, findin4 accused/appellant )ose $badies 4uilt* be*ond reasonable doubt of four counts of violation of Republic $ct No. 6.', or the CSpecial Protection of !hildren $4ainst !hild $buse, Bploitation and Discri3ination $ct,C penali7ed under Section ; %b&, $rticle III and Section 1', $rticle III thereof, and sentencin4 hi3 for each count to suffer the penalt* of reclusion perpetua and to pa* a fine of P1,,,,,.,,. $ccused/appellant $badies #as char4ed #ith a violation of Republic $ct No. 6.', in five separate Infor3ations ( #hich, eBcept for the dates of co33ission, are si3ilarl* #orded as follo#s: CThat on or about )ul* ', '++6, in the Municipalit* of San Pedro, Province of 9a4una, Philippines, and #ithin the 8urisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, said accused actuated b* le#d desi4n did then and there #ilfull*, unla#full* and feloniousl*, #ith force and inti3idation co33it acts of lasciviousness upon the person of his '6/*ear old dau4hter ROS$9I $<$DI S E M$NDN0H$E$ b* =issin4, 3ashin4 her breast and touchin4 her private parts a4ainst her #ill and consent.
1wphi1.n t

!ONTR$RE TO 9$A.C The other incidents #ere alle4edl* co33itted on )ul* (, 1, 6 and (., '++6. In an Order1 dated )ul* '., '++-, the trial court, upon 3otion of the public prosecutor, dis3issed !ri3inal !ase No. ,.;6/SP9 on the 4round that the cri3e char4ed appears to have been co33itted in 9as PiMas !it*, hence, outside the territorial 8urisdiction of the court. Durin4 the arrai4n3ent, accused/appellant entered a plea of not 4uilt* and hence, trial ensued. The facts sho# that accused/appellant has been livin4 for the past t#ent* *ears #ith his co33on/la# #ife, !atalina Manun4ha*a, at <4*. Pulo, 9anda*an, San Pedro, 9a4una, to4ether #ith their t#o children, )onathan and co3plainant Rosalie. The fa3il* sleeps to4ether in one roo3 and usuall* !atalina #a=es up earl* in the 3ornin4 to bu* bread. It #as durin4 these short periods of ti3e #hile !atalina #as out of the house that the abuses too= place. On the dates 3aterial to these cases, co3plainant #as '6 *ears old, havin4 been born on )ul* (+, '+-,.2 !o3plainant testified that on )ul* ', '++6, at about .:,, a.3., she #as sleepin4 in their house #hen she #as a#a=ened b* so3ebod* touchin4 her breast and other private parts of her bod*. She #as startled to see her father, accused/appellant, and she covered her breast #ith a pillo#. !o3plainant stru44led #ith accused/appellant as he persisted in 3ashin4 her breast. She could not shout as fear overca3e her #hen she sa# an4er fro3 accused/appellant5s face. $ccused/appellant #as forced to stop onl* #hen co3plainantLs 3other arrived fro3 the store. !o3plainant did not tell her 3other about the incident for fear of accused/ appellant. The follo#in4 da*, )ul* (, '++6, at about the sa3e ti3e, co3plainant #as a4ain 8olted fro3 her sleep b* accused/appellant #ho #as touchin4 her breast. She covered herself #ith a blan=et and #ith her hands. She fou4ht accused/appellant #hen he tried to re3ove her hands. $4ain, accused/appellant desisted onl* #hen co3plainantLs 3other arrived fro3 the store. !o3plainant ran to the bathroo3 #here she shed tears. The neBt da*, )ul* 1, '++6, co3plainant #as once 3ore roused fro3 her sleep b* accused/appellant 3ashin4 her breast. She started to cr* and as=ed accused/appellant #h* he #as abusin4 her. $ccused/appellant si3pl* continued touchin4 her. $4ain, he stopped onl* #hen his #ife arrived fro3 the store. !o3plainant #as a4ain a#a=ened in the earl* 3ornin4 of )ul* 6, '++6 b* accused/appellant touchin4 her breast. This ti3e, accused/appellant straddled her, inserted his hand inside her shorts and touched her private part. !o3plainant resisted and re3oved accused/appellant5s hand. She reached out for the blan=et of her brother, )onathan, #ho #as sleepin4 beside her in a bid

to #a=e hi3 up. Ahen accused/appellant sa# that )onathan #as about to turn, he stopped. Ho#ever, he #arned co3plainant not to tell her 3other about the incident. On )ul* (., '++6, co3plainant #as brou4ht b* accused/appellant to the house of her stepsister in 9as PiMas. Nobod* #as in the house and stran4el*, accused/appellant started to sharpen his sic=le. He ordered co3plainant to #rite a letter to her 3other and revealed that he #as plannin4 to =ill hi3self and co3plainant. Ahen co3plainant refused, accused/appellant forced her inside the bedroo3 #here he threatened co3plainant to choose #hether he #ould =ill her or rape her. $ccused/appellant started =issin4 co3plainant but the latter #as able to run a#a* fro3 hi3. !o3plainant reached their house and sa# her 3other. !r*in4 and loo=in4 ver* pale, she narrated to her 3other her ordeal. She li=e#ise disclosed the past abuses of accused/appellant. !o3plainant and her 3other then proceeded to the baran4a* office #here the* 3ade a report. On the stren4th of their co3plaint, accused/appellant #as arrested. !o3plainant further testified that on Dece3ber ., '++6, accused/appellant #rote her a letter fro3 his detention cell as=in4 for for4iveness. $ccused/appellant proffered the defense of denial and alibi. He denies havin4 co33itted acts of lasciviousness a4ainst co3plainant. He testified that on the dates of the alle4ed incidents, he #o=e up bet#een 6:,, to 6:1, a.3.? that co3plainant and her 3other #ere alread* preparin4 brea=fast? and after eatin4 brea=fast, he #ould leave for #or=. He also testified on the reason #h* the char4es at bar #ere filed a4ainst hi3. $lle4edl*, on )ul* (., '++6, he as=ed co3plainant #hat #as happenin4 to their lives as his children #ere aloof #ith hi3. !o3plainant threatened to end her life because she felt she #as to be bla3ed for their proble3s. $ccused/appellant also declared he #as too strict #ith his children, and even inflicts ph*sical har3 on the3 #hen the* disobe* hi3. In the present appeal, accused/appellant asserts that the court a @uo erred in findin4 the prosecutionLs version 3ore credible and in convictin4 hi3 despite the i3plied pardon 4iven b* co3plainant. $ccused/appellant li=e#ise contends that there eBists no factual basis for the trial court to consider his plea of for4iveness in his letter to co3plainant as an i3plied ad3ission of 4uilt. The appeal is not i3pressed #ith 3erit. $ccused/appellant stands char4ed #ith violation of Republic $ct No. 6.', or The Special Protection of !hildren $4ainst !hild $buse, Bploitation and Discri3ination $ct, specificall* $rticle III, Section ; %b& thereof #hich reads: CS !. ;. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. $ !hildren, #hether 3ale or fe3ale, #ho for 3one*, profit, or an* other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of an* adult, s*ndicate or 4roup, indul4e in seBual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are dee3ed to be children eBploited in prostitution and other seBual abuse. The penalt* of reclusion temporal in its 3ediu3 period to reclusion perpetua shall be i3posed upon the follo#in4: BBB BBB BBB

%b& Those #ho co33it the act of seBual intercourse or lascivious conduct #ith a child eBploited in prostitution or sub8ected to other seBual abuse? B B B.C The ele3ents of the cri3e of acts of lasciviousness are: %'& that the offender co33its an* act of lasciviousness or le#dness? %(& that it is done %a& b* usin4 force or inti3idation or %b& #hen the offended part* is deprived of reason or other#ise unconscious, or %c& #hen the offended part* is under '( *ears of a4e? and %1& that the offended part* is another person of either seB.; The testi3on* of co3plainant that accused/appellant touched and 3ashed her breasts and other private parts of her bod* a4ainst her #ill, and that she could not shout or fi4ht bac= because she #as afraid of accused/appellant, sufficientl* constitute acts of lasciviousness under the fore4oin4 provision. $lthou4h accused/appellant #as not ar3ed nor did he threaten co3plainant, his 3oral ascendanc* over her is a sufficient substitute for the use of force or inti3idation.. $ccused/appellant faults the trial court in 4ivin4 credence to the testi3on* of co3plainant. He contends that it is difficult to co3prehend #h* co3plainant did not shout or do an*thin4 to as= help fro3 her brother #ho #as sleepin4 beside her. He also clai3s that if the char4es #ere true, it is inconceivable #h* co3plainant did not i33ediatel* tell her 3other. The ar4u3ent is specious. The !ourt has probed into the records to assess co3plainantLs credibilit* and #e find that her testi3on* deserves full faith and credit. !o3plainantLs testi3on* #as strai4htfor#ard and free fro3 contradiction as to an* 3aterial point. Ae also accord 4reat #ei4ht to the findin4s of the trial court havin4 heard the #itnesses and observed their deport3ent and 3anner of testif*in4 durin4 trial.6

!o3plainantLs failure to disclose about her 3isfortune to her 3other does not destro* her credibilit*. !o3plainant eBplained that she did not tell her 3other about her ordeal because she #as afraid of accused/appellant. $ccused/appellant ad3itted that his children #ere afraid of hi3 because he #as ver* strict #ith the3, and that there #ere occasions #hen he #ould hit the3 #ith an*thin4 that he could 4et hold of or inflict ph*sical punish3ent #henever the* disobe*ed hi3.- This is enou4h reason for co3plainant to be co#ed into silence. It is of no 3o3ent that co3plainant failed to shout for help #hile she #as bein4 3olested #ith her brother sleepin4 beside her in the sa3e roo3. $ccused/appellant #as co3plainant5s o#n father, #ho eBercised 3oral ascendanc* over her.+ Indeed, it is no# hoar* 8urisprudence that lust is no respecter of ti3e and place for rape has been co33itted in places #here people con4re4ate, even in the sa3e roo3 #here other 3e3bers of the fa3il* are sleepin4.', Moreover, #e have also ruled that no standard for3 of behavior has been observed #hen a person is confronted b* a shoc=in4 or a harro#in4 and uneBpected incident, for the #or=in4s of the hu3an 3ind, #hen placed under e3otional stress, are unpredictable. So3e people 3a* cr* out, so3e 3a* faint, so3e 3a* be shoc=ed into insensibilit*, #hile others 3a* *et appear to *ield to the intrusion.'' On the other hand, accused/appellantLs si3ple denial of the cri3e char4ed is inherentl* #ea=. It is ne4ative evidence #hich cannot overco3e the positive testi3onies of credible #itnesses. "or accused/appellant5s denial to prevail, it 3ust be buttressed b* stron4 evidence of non/culpabilit* and there is none.'( $ccused/appellant further contends that there is no factual basis for the trial court to conclude that the plea for for4iveness contained in his letter is to be dee3ed as an i3plied ad3ission of 4uilt. Ae do not a4ree. $ cursor* readin4 of the relevant parts of the letter #ill readil* sho# that accused/appellant #as indeed see=in4 pardon for his 3isdeeds. So3e of the pertinent portions read as follo#s: C% made this letter to as& #our '(or"iveness.) x x x Alam mo ban" sobra$ sobra na an" pa"sisisi &o sa "inawa &on" i#on. x x x Paran" awa mo na *e hirap na hirap na a&o at an" lahat a# buon" puso &o n" pina"sisisihan. Patawarin mo na a&o ana&. x x x.+ There is no iota of doubt that accused/appellant #as as=in4 for4iveness for havin4 co33itted the acts #ith #hich he no# stands char4ed. Settled is the rule that in cri3inal cases, eBcept those involvin4 @uasi/ offenses or those allo#ed b* la# to be settled throu4h 3utual concessions, an offer of co3pro3ise b* the accused 3a* be received in evidence as an i3plied ad3ission of 4uilt.'1 videntl*, no one #ould as= for for4iveness unless he had co33itted so3e #ron4 and a plea for for4iveness 3a* be considered as analo4ous to an atte3pt to co3pro3ise.'2 Dnder the circu3stances, accused/ appellant5s plea of for4iveness should be received as an i3plied ad3ission of 4uilt. $ccused/appellant li=e#ise contends that he #as i3pliedl* pardoned b* the co3plainant. He deduced the purported i3plied pardon fro3 co3plainant5s testi3on* that she did not disclose to her 3other the dastardl* acts co33itted b* accused/appellant on )ul* ', (, 1 and 6, '++6 and that she had not intended to file char4es a4ainst hi3. He alle4ed that the present char4es #ere filed a4ainst hi3 onl* after the 9as PiMas incident #hich happened on )ul* (., '++6. $ccused/appellant posits the thesis that the failure of co3plainant to report the first four acts of lasciviousness is tanta3ount to an i3plied pardon. He relies on $rticle 122 of the Revised Penal !ode #hich provides: C$RT. 122. Prosecution o( the crimes o( adulter#, concubina"e, seduction, abduction, rape and acts o( lasciviousness. BBB BBB BBB

The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted eBcept upon a co3plaint filed b* the offended part* or her parents, 4randparents, or 4uardian, nor, in an* case, if the offender has been eBpressl* pardoned b* the above na3ed persons, as the case 3a* be. B B B.C The ar4u3ent #ill not hold. "irst, the supposed pardon cannot be i3plied fro3 the fact that the co3plainant did not i33ediatel* reveal to her 3other her defloration. $s earlier stated, it #as her fear of accused/appellant #hich restrained co3plainant fro3 reportin4 the incidents to her 3other. Second, $rticle 122 of the RP! and Section ;, Rule '', of the Revised Rules of !ri3inal Procedure provide that the pardon 3ust be eBpress and cannot be based on ha7* deduction.'; The i3posable penalt* prescribed under Section ;, $rticle II of Republic $ct No. 6.', is reclusion temporal in its 3ediu3 period to reclusion perpetua. Section 1' %c&, $rticle III thereof provides that the penalt* in its 3aBi3u3 period shall be i3posed #hen the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent, 4uardian, stepparent or collateral relative #ithin the second de4ree of consan4uinit* or affinit*. In the cases at bar, the relationship of co3plainant and accused/appellant is established b* the birth certificate of co3plainant #hich sho#s that accused/appellant is her father. This relationship is further supported b* the testi3onies of co3plainant and her 3other, as #ell as that of accused/appellant. Hence, the trial court did not err in appreciatin4 the 4eneric a44ravatin4 circu3stance of relationship and in i3posin4 the penalt* of reclusion perpetua for each count of lascivious conduct co33itted b* accused/appellant a4ainst his dau4hter.
1wphi1.n t

It #ill be noted that Section ;, $rticle II of Republic $ct No. 6.', provides for the penalt* of i3prison3ent. Nevertheless, Section 1' %f&, $rticle III %!o33on Penal Provisions& thereof allo#s the i3position of a fine sub8ect to the discretion of the court, provided that the sa3e is to be ad3inistered as a cash fund b* the Depart3ent of Social Aelfare and Develop3ent and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victi3, or an* i33ediate 3e3ber of his fa3il* if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense. This provision

is in accord #ith $rticle 1+ of the !onvention on the Ri4hts of the !hild, to #hich the Philippines beca3e a part* on $u4ust (', '++,, #hich stresses the dut* of states parties to ensure the ph*sical and ps*cholo4ical recover* and social reinte4ration of abused and eBploited children in an environ3ent #hich fosters their self/respect and hu3an di4nit*. In the case of P.o/(. 0+. $a12. Ca3a4 $12.5.6'. #here a 3inor victi3 #as seBuall* 3olested b* her o#n father, the accused #as ordered to pa* a fine of P(,,,,,.,, as cash fund for the rehabilitation of the victi3 and 3oral da3a4es in the a3ount of P;,,,,,.,, for each count of lascivious act co33itted b* the accused. Hence, in the cases at bar, the trial court correctl* i3posed a fine of P1,,,,,.,, for each count of lascivious conduct co33itted b* accused/appellant. In addition, 3oral da3a4es should be a#arded in the a3ount of P;,,,,,.,, for each count. $s a final note, #e dee3 it relevant to stress the escalatin4 a#areness and concern for the protection of the ri4hts of children. The need of children for special protection #as 4iven reco4nition b* the nations of the #orld as earl* as '+(2 #hen the asse3bl* of the 9ea4ue of Nations endorsed the Declaration of the Ri4hts of the !hild %co33onl* =no#n as The Declaration of 0eneva& #hich focused on childrenLs #elfare, specificall* their econo3ic, ps*cholo4ical and social needs. Reaffir3in4 the fact that children need special care and protection because of their vulnerabilit*, and the vital role of international cooperation in securin4 childrenLs ri4hts, the 0eneral $sse3bl* of the Dnited Nations adopted on Nove3ber (,, '+-+ the !onvention on the Ri4hts of the !hild %!R!&, #hich incorporates the full ran4e of hu3an ri4hts / civil, political, econo3ic, social and cultural / of children. The !onvention stresses the dut* of the state to ta=e all the necessar* steps to protect children fro3 bein4 seBuall* abused %as in rape, 3olestation and incest& or eBploited %forced or induced into prostitution, porno4raphic perfor3ances and others&. '6 It is reassurin4 to note that #e are not la44in4 far behind on the do3estic front. Over the past *ears, !on4ress has enacted a nu3ber of la#s relatin4 to the protection of childrenLs #elfare and ri4hts,'- #hile the eBecutive depart3ent has issued various eBecutive orders and procla3ations in order to 4ive teeth to the i3ple3entation and enforce3ent of these la#s. '+ These international instru3ents and national le4islation e3phasi7e that the pri3odial consideration in decidin4 issues and cases involvin4 children is the #elfare and best interests of the child.(, "or its part, the Supre3e !ourt has issued $d3inistrative !ircular No. (1/+; en8oinin4 trial courts to act #ith dispatch on all cases involvin4 children, includin4 but not li3ited to pedophilia, child labor and child abuse cases. To date, procedural rules applicable specificall* to cases involvin4 children have alread* been approved b* the !ourt such as the Rules on Ba3ination of a !hild Aitness, on !o33it3ent of !hildren, and on )uveniles in !onflict #ith the 9a#. Our dut* does not end here thou4h. $s the hi4hest court of the land, it is incu3bent upon us to 4ive life to all these covenants, a4ree3ents, and statutes b* enrichin4 and enhancin4 our 8urisprudence on child abuse cases, bearin4 in 3ind al#a*s the #elfare and protection of children. 7%EREFORE, the decision of the Re4ional Trial !ourt of San Pedro, 9a4una, <ranch +1, in !ri3inal !ase Nos. ,.;-/SP9 to ,..,/ SP9, findin4 accused/appellant )OS $<$DI S 4uilt* be*ond reasonable doubt of four counts of violation of Republic $ct No. 6.',, and sentencin4 hi3 to suffer the penalt* of reclusion perpetua and to pa* a fine ofP1,,,,,.,,, for each count, is hereb* AFF RMED #ith the MOD F CAT ON that accused/appellant is hereb* ordered to pa* 3oral da3a4es in the a3ount of P;,,,,,.,, for each count. No costs. SO ORDERED.