Page 1 of 57

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 186441 : March 03, 2010]
SALVADOR FLORDELIZ Y ABENOJAR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
[1]

[2]

For review are the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution dated July 29, 2008 and February 16, 2009,
[3]
respectively, in CA-G.R. CR No. 30949. The assailed decision affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC's) Joint
[4]
Judgment dated March 9, 2007, convicting petitioner Salvador Flordeliz y Abenojar of nine (9) counts of Rape and one
(1) count of Acts of Lasciviousness, with a modification of the award of damages, while the assailed resolution denied
petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The case stemmed from the following facts:
Sometime in March 1995, ABC, the wife of petitioner and the mother of private complainants AAA and BBB, left for
Malaysia as an overseas worker. AAA and BBB were left under the care and custody of petitioner. They resided in a small
[5]
house in Quezon Hill, Baguio City.
In April 1995, while sleeping with BBB and AAA, who was then eleven (11) years old, petitioner woke up AAA, touched her
vagina, then played with it. AAA cried and told petitioner that it was painful. The latter stopped, but warned AAA not to tell
[6]
anyone about it; otherwise, she would be harmed. Petitioner allegedly committed the same acts against AAA repeatedly.
Petitioner and his daughters later transferred residence and lived with the former's siblings. Not long after, petitioner was
convicted of homicide and imprisoned in Muntinlupa City. Consequently, AAA and BBB lived with their grandparents in La
[7]
Trinidad, Benguet. While petitioner was incarcerated, AAA and BBB visited him and sent him two greeting cards
containing the following texts, among others: "happy valentine"; "ur the best dad in the world"; "I love you papa, love BBB,
Love BJ"; "till we meet again"; portrait of Jesus Christ with a heart, "this is for you dad"; "flordeliz, AAA P., love AAA and
[8]
Iyos."
In 2001, petitioner was released on parole. He would frequently fetch AAA and BBB from their grandparents' house during
[9]
weekends and holidays and they would stay with him in Gabriela Silang, Baguio City.
[10]

Unsatisfied with the abuses committed against AAA, petitioner allegedly started molesting BBB in May 2002. In 2003,
BBB spent New Year's Day with her father. On January 3, 2003, while they were sleeping, petitioner inserted his two (2)
[11]
fingers into BBB's vagina. BBB did not attempt to stop petitioner because of fear. Thereafter, they slept beside each
[12]
[13]
other. BBB suffered the same ordeal the following night.
On February 8, 2003, BBB visited petitioner. Again, petitioner held her vagina, played with it and inserted his fingers, which
[14]
caused her pain.
[15]

The same incident allegedly took place on August 3, 2003. On October 26, 2003, a day before AAA's birthday, while
[16]
BBB was with petitioner, the latter committed the same dastardly act. This time, it was for a longer period.
During All Saints' Day of 2003, BBB spent two nights with her father and, during those nights (November 1 and 2), she
[17]
[18]
experienced the same sexual abuse. The same thing happened on December 28, 2003.
Notwithstanding the repeated incidents of sexual abuse committed against her, BBB did not reveal her ordeal to anybody
[19]
because of fear for her life and that of her mother.
AAA and BBB had the chance to reveal their horrifying experiences when their mother ABC arrived for a vacation. AAA
immediately told ABC what petitioner did to her. When confronted by ABC, BBB likewise admitted the repeated abuses
[20]
committed by petitioner. ABC forthwith reported the incidents to the National Bureau of Investigation.
After conducting medical examinations on AAA and BBB, the attending physician remarked that there was a "disclosure of
sexual abuse and she noted the presence of hymenal notch in posterior portion of hymenal rim that may be due to
[21]
previous blunt force or penetrating trauma suggestive of abuse."
[22]

With these findings, petitioner was charged with the crimes of Acts of Lasciviousness, committed against AAA, and nine
[23]
(9) counts of Qualified Rape through Sexual Assault, committed against BBB, before the RTC. The crime of acts of
lasciviousness was allegedly committed as follows:
That sometime in the month of April 1995 up to 1996 in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this

Page 2 of 57
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and deliberate intent to cause malice and satisfy his
lascivious desire, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously touched and play the private part of the offended
party AAA, a minor 14 years of age against her will and consent which act debeased (sic), demeaned and degraded the
intrinsic worth and dignity of the minor as a human being.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

[24]

On the other hand, except for the dates of the commission of the crime, each Information for Rape reads:
th

That on or about the 8 day of February 2003, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation and taking advantage of his moral
ascendancy over the private offended party he being the biological father of said offended party, did then and there remove
the pants and underwear of said offended party and thereupon fondles her private part and forcibly inserted his finger into
the vagina of the offended party BBB, a minor, 11 years of age against her will and consent, which acts constitute Rape as
defined under Republic Act 8353 and which acts demeaned, debased and degraded the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
minor as a human being.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

[25]

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded "Not guilty" to all the charges. During trial, he interposed the defense of denial and
insisted that the charges against him were fabricated by his wife to cover up the infidelity she committed while working
[26]
abroad. Petitioner also relied on the testimonies of Florabel Flordeliz, Levy Hope Flordeliz and Roderick Flordeliz, whose
testimonies consisted mainly of the alleged infidelity of ABC; and petitioner, being a good father, was often visited by his
[27]
daughters at his residence, where the rooms they occupied were only separated by see-through curtains.
On March 9, 2007, the RTC rendered a Joint Judgment
which reads:

[28]

finding petitioner guilty as charged, the dispositive portion of

WHEREFORE, premises all duly considered[,] the court finds that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and hereby imposes upon him the following penalties:
1. In Criminal Case No. 23145-R for Acts of Lasciviousness, the Indeterminate Penalty of 6 months of Arresto Mayor as
the minimum penalty to 6 years of Prision Correccional as the maximum penalty and to indemnify the victim AAA the
amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.
The penalty shall also carry the accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage (Art. 43,
Revised Penal Code)[.]
2. In Criminal Cases Nos. 23072-R to 23080-R, the Indeterminate Penalty of twelve (12) years of Prision Mayor as the
minimum penalty to twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum penalty for each case or nine (9) counts of
sexual assault considering the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of relationship against the accused and to indemnify
BBB the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.
The penalties shall carry with them the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life and perpetual absolute
disqualification (Art. 41, Revised Penal Code).
The accused shall be credited with 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the service of his sentences.
In the service of his sentences, the same shall be served successively subject to the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised
Penal Code or the Three-Fold Rule.
SO ORDERED.

[29]

On appeal, the CA affirmed petitioner's conviction with a modification of the amount of his civil liabilities.
Petitioner now comes before us, raising the following errors:
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
The Honorable Court A Quo gravely erred in affirming the judgment of conviction of the Honorable Regional Trial Court for
the crime charged despite the fact that the guilt of the petitioner has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt with
moral certainty.
RAPES THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. The Honorable Court A Quo gravely erred in affirming the judgments of conviction of the Honorable Regional Trial Court
in Criminal Cases Nos. 23075-R (alleged rape through sexual assault sometime in May, 2002) and 23078-R (alleged rape
through sexual assault on August 3, 2003) respectively, despite the complete absence of evidence to show how the
alleged incidents of rape through sexual assault were committed by petitioner on said particular dates.
2. The Honorable Court A Quo gravely erred in affirming the judgments of conviction of the Honorable Regional Trial Court
in the other alleged counts of rape through sexual assault despite the fact that the guilt of the petitioner has not been

Page 3 of 57
[30]

proven beyond reasonable doubt with moral certainty.

Simply put, petitioner assails the factual and legal bases of his conviction, allegedly because of lack of the essential details
or circumstances of the commission of the crimes. Petitioner, in effect, questions the credibility of the witnesses for the
prosecution and insists that the charges against him were designed to conceal ABC's infidelity.
We have repeatedly held that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined
to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and
[31]
embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true.
It is not uncommon in incestuous rape for the accused to claim that the case is a mere fabrication, and that the victim was
moved by familial discord and influence, hostility, or revenge. There is nothing novel about such defense, and this Court
[32]
had the occasion to address it in the past. In People v. Ortoa, we held that:
Verily, no child would knowingly expose herself and the rest of her family to the humiliation and strain that a public trial
surely entails unless she is so moved by her desire to see to it that the person who forcibly robbed her of her cherished
innocence is penalized for his dastardly act. The imputation of ill motives to the victim of an incestuous rape [or lascivious
conduct] becomes even more unconvincing as the victim and the accused are not strangers to each other. By electing to
proceed with the filing of the complaint, the victim risks not only losing a parent, one whom, before his moral descent, she
previously adored and looked up to, but also the likelihood of losing the affection of her relatives who may not believe her
claim. Indeed, it is not uncommon for families to be torn apart by an accusation of incestuous rape. Given the serious
nature of the crime and its adverse consequences not only to her, it is highly improbable for a daughter to manufacture a
rape charge for the sole purpose of getting even with her father. Thus, the alleged ill motives have never swayed the Court
against giving credence to the testimonies of victims who remained firm and steadfast in their account of how they were
[33]
ravished by their sex offenders.
Neither can we sustain petitioner's claim that the charges against him were products of ABC's fabrication to cover up the
infidelity she committed while working abroad. No matter how enraged a mother may be, it would take nothing less than
psychological depravity for her to concoct a story too damaging to the welfare and well-being of her own daughter. Courts
are seldom, if at all, convinced that a mother would stoop so low as to expose her own daughter to physical, mental and
[34]
emotional hardship concomitant to a rape prosecution.
We now proceed to discuss the specific crimes with which petitioner was charged.
Criminal Case Nos. 23072-R, 23073-R, 23074-R, 23076-R, 23077-R, 23079-R, and 23080-R for Rape Through Sexual
Assault
The RTC, affirmed by the CA, correctly convicted petitioner of Rape in Criminal Case Nos. 23072-R, 23073-R, 23074-R,
23076-R, 23077-R, 23079-R, and 23080-R.
In her direct testimony, BBB clearly narrated that, on seven (7) separate occasions, petitioner woke her up, held her
vagina, played with it, and inserted his fingers. During trial, the prosecutor presented a small doll where BBB demonstrated
[35]
how petitioner inserted his forefinger and middle finger, making an up and down motion between the doll's legs.
The insertion of petitioner's fingers into the victim's vagina constituted the crime of Rape through sexual assault
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, or "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997," which in part provides:

[36]

under

Art. 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of
sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into
[37]
the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Aside from proving the fact that Rape was committed, the prosecution also established that petitioner is the biological
father of BBB and that the latter was less than twelve (12) years old at the time of the commission of the crimes. Under
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), rape by sexual assault, if attended by any of the aggravating
[38]
circumstances under paragraph 1 of Article 266-B, would carry the penalty of reclusion temporal, ranging from twelve
(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be that which could be
properly imposed under the RPC. Other than the aggravating/qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship (which
[39]
are already taken into account to raise the penalty from prision mayor to reclusion temporal), no other aggravating
circumstance was alleged and proven. Hence, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period, or fourteen (14) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.

Page 4 of 57
On the other hand, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree than that prescribed by the Code which is prision mayor or six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.
For each count of sexual assault, petitioner should be meted the indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years of prision mayor
as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the victim of Rape through sexual assault is entitled to recover civil indemnity in the
[40]
amount of P30,000.00 for each count. This is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of Rape. Moreover, the award of
moral damages is automatically granted without need of further proof, it being assumed that a rape victim has actually
suffered moral damages entitling her to such award. She is, thus, entitled to recover moral damages of P30,000.00 for
[41]
each count. In addition, the presence of the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship entitles her to an
award of exemplary damages. The amount of P30,000.00 for each count is appropriate under the circumstances.
Criminal Case Nos. 23075-R and 23078-R
In Criminal Case No. 23075-R, it was alleged that petitioner sexually abused BBB on August 3, 2003. Indeed, the RTC and
the CA stated in their narration of facts that on that particular date, while BBB was visiting her father, the incident
happened. A perusal of the transcript of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, however, reveals that no such incident
took place. No details were related by BBB herself as to the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident.
In Criminal Case No. 23078-R, it was also stated in the Information that, from May 2002 to December 2003, petitioner
committed the crime of Rape through sexual assault against BBB. The Court notes, however, that the RTC decision is
silent as to the sexual abuse allegedly committed in May 2002. The RTC's narration of facts started only with the incident
that occurred in January 2003. While the CA stated that, in May 2002, petitioner started sexually abusing BBB, the
statement was merely a conclusion unsupported by proof of how the crime was committed. Assuming that acts of Rape
were indeed committed in 2003 (which is within the period from May 2002 to December 2003 as stated in the Information),
those instances could very well be the same incidents covered by the other Informations discussed earlier.
Absent specific details of how and when the sexual abuses were committed, petitioner should be acquitted in Criminal
Case Nos. 23075-R and 23078-R.
Criminal Case No. 23145-R for Acts of Lasciviousness
In Criminal Case No. 23145-R, petitioner was charged with and convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness and sentenced to
suffer the penalty prescribed by Article 336 of the RPC. While we sustain petitioner's conviction of acts of lasciviousness,
we modify the assailed Decision in order to give the proper designation to the crime committed and the law violated, and
eventually to impose the proper penalty.
[42]

It is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the sexual abuse, AAA was eleven (11) years old. This calls for the
application of R.A. No. 7610 or "The Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act," which defines sexual abuse of children and prescribes the penalty therefor in its Article III, Section 5, to wit:
SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. -- Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any
other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected
to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal
Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the
[43]
victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but also with
a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit, but also where
[44]
one -- through coercion, intimidation or influence -- engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child.
However, pursuant to the foregoing provision, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious
conduct committed against a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the
[45]
RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610.
The crime of Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined in Article 336 of the RPC, has the following elements:
(1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or

Page 5 of 57
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
(3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.

[46]

In addition, the following elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 must be proven:
(1) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
(2) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
(3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

[47]

Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 defines lascivious conduct as follows:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or
the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an
intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation,
[48]
lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
Based on the foregoing definition, petitioner's act of touching AAA's vagina and playing with it obviously amounted to
lascivious conduct. Considering that the act was committed on a child less than twelve years old and through intimidation,
it is beyond cavil that petitioner is guilty under the aforesaid laws.
We are aware that the Information specifically charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, without
stating therein that it was in relation to R.A. No. 7610. However, the failure to designate the offense by statute or to
mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the
information if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The character of the crime is
not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have
[49]
been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.
In the instant case, the body of the Information contains an averment of the acts alleged to have been committed by
petitioner and unmistakably describes acts punishable under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
It is also undisputed that petitioner is the father of AAA. The RTC did not appreciate the alternative circumstance of
relationship, because it was not alleged in the Information. We do not agree.
[50]

The resolution of the investigating prosecutor, which formed the basis of the Information, a copy of which is attached
thereto, stated that petitioner is the victim's biological father. There was, therefore, substantial compliance with the
[51]
mandate that an accused be informed of the nature of the charge against him.
[52]

In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating. Considering that AAA was
less than twelve (12) years old at the time the crime was committed, petitioner should be meted the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its medium period, or fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four
(4) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner should be meted the indeterminate penalty of thirteen
(13) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months
and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal as maximum.
With respect to the lascivious conduct amounting to child abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 committed by
[53]
petitioner, we impose a fine of P15,000.00.
[54]

Civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P20,000.00 shall be awarded. Additionally, upon a finding of guilt of the
accused for acts of lasciviousness, the amount of P15,000.00 as moral damages may be awarded to the victim in the
same way that moral damages are awarded to victims of rape even without need of proof because it is assumed that they
[55]
suffered moral injury. In view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship, the amount of P15,000.00
as exemplary damages should likewise be awarded.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals' July 29, 2008 Decision and February 16, 2009 Resolution in
CA-G.R. CR No. 30949 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The Court finds petitioner Salvador Flordeliz y Abenojar:
1. GUILTY of seven (7) counts of RAPE Through Sexual Assault in Criminal Case Nos. 23072-R, 23073-R, 23074-R,
23076-R, 23077-R, 23079-R, and 23080-R. He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision
mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each count.
Petitioner is ordered to indemnify BBB P30,000.00 as civil indemnity; P30,000.00 as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages, for each count;
2. GUILTY of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS in Criminal Case No. 23145-R. He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16)
years, five (5) months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is likewise ordered to pay a fine of
P15,000.00 and to indemnify AAA P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral damages, and P15,000.00 as
exemplary damages;

Page 6 of 57
3. NOT GUILTY in Criminal Case Nos. 23075-R and 23078-R.
SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 185716 : September 29, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY, ACCUSEDAPPELLANT.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
MIGUELITO MALANA y LARDISABAY, accused-appellant, was charged with two (2) counts of qualified rape, penalized under
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 13. Accused of raping
his own 12-year-old daughter on separate instances, accused-appellant was instead convicted of simple rape by the trial court in both
criminal cases, sentencing him with the penalty of reclusion perpetua. On automatic review, the RTC Decision[1] was affirmed, with
modification, by the Court of Appeals.[2] The case is now before Us on appeal.
Factual antecedents
On 2 February 2001, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed two separate Criminal Informations against accused-appellant Miguel
Malana y Lardisabay before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 13, for two counts of qualified rape. The cases, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 452-M-01 and Criminal Case No. 453-M-01, imputed the following acts against him:
Criminal Case No. 452-M-01
That on or about June 2000, in the Municipality of Baliuag, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of threats, force and
intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of his daughter, AAA,[3] a girl 12 years of age against her will and
consent.[4]
Criminal Case No. 453-M-01
That on or about the 10th day of December 2000, in the Municipality of Baliuag, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of
threats, force and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of his daughter, AAA, [5] a girl 12 years of age against
her will and consent.[6]
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded NOT GUILTY to all the charges. [7] Considering that the
parties were the same in both cases, joint trial on the merits was conducted by the trial court.
In the ensuing trial on the merits, the prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General, presented two witnesses: private
complainant AAA and the physician who did the Medico-Legal examination on her.
A close scrutiny of the narration of facts and evidence presented in the two criminal cases as testified by private complainant AAA
reveal incriminating details.
From her testimony, it was elicited that she was 12 years old, having been born on 24 July 1989, and was a Grade V student.
Identifying herein accused as her father, private complainant had two other brothers and four sisters. At the time the alleged incidents
took place in June 2000 and 10 December 2000, private complainant's family were all living in a 6 x 6 meter rented room which
served as their place of residence and sleeping quarters. There were no divisions in the 6 x 6 meter room.
Asked to circumstantiate her accusations, private complainant testified that the first rape incident happened at around 6:00 o'clock in
the morning sometime in June 2000 in their living cum sleeping room. Private complainant, who was sleeping, was awakened by the
act of her father who was then undressing her and who went on top of her, mashed her breast, and inserted his penis inside her vagina.
It was disclosed that she was wearing her blouse, shorts, bra and underwear at that time. Accused-appellant, who was only wearing
shorts, removed his shorts when he inserted his penis inside her vagina. For two months, AAA complained of pain because her father's
penis had penetrated her vagina. The bestial act was committed by her father while her mother was not around. Accused-appellant
had threatened her not to report the matter to her mother.
The second incident happened on 10 December 2000 at around 6:00 o'clock in the morning. At the time, private complainant's mother
was at the market to buy fish ball supplies. Except for the date, the first and second incidents were perpetrated in the same manner.
On said date and time, private complainant was sleeping with her 6-year-old sister, when she was awakened when she felt something
heavy on top of her. Upon awaking, she saw her father was already on top of her. He removed her clothes, kissed her breast and

Page 7 of 57
inserted his penis inside her vagina. She cried because her father threatened her while holding held her neck, and warned her not to
report the matter to anybody.
Because of the harrowing incidents, she was ashamed to attend classes because her playmates had seen her father being arrested by the
police.
Upon medico-legal examination conducted by Dr. Ivan Richard Viray on 14 December 2000, it was found that subject is in non-virgin
state physically but with no external signs of application of any form of trauma. He testified that based on the examination he
conducted, the deep healed laceration could have been sustained more than seven days. According to him, a deep healed laceration
may be considered permanent. Once the hymen is lacerated, it is permanently lacerated. When asked what could have caused such a
laceration on the hymen, he explained that the probable cause of a laceration is the insertion of a hard object, such as a penis.
In support of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the following documentary evidence, among others, were offered in court:
(a) sworn statement of private complainant; and (b) Medico Legal Report No. MR-219-2000.
On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant Miguelito Malana y Lardisabay as its sole witness.
Accused-appellant admitted that private complainant is his daughter but denied ever raping her. At the time the incident was supposed
to have occurred in June 2000, he was busy selling fish ball, kikiam, cigarettes, and beverages along the Baliuag bus terminal. He
would start selling the same before 8:00 o'clock in the morning everyday and would arrive home at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening.
Accused-appellant was a good father in that he treated his daughter well. He admitted, however, to physically hurting his children on
several instances while he was drunk, allegedly because of their wrongdoings. Accused-appellant said private complainant is not a
hard-headed child. When asked if he knows how his daughter AAA lost her virginity, accused-appellant replied in the negative.
Neither did his wife say anything to him about it. Private complainant only filed the case against him due to her personal grudge
against him, as he hurt his family whenever he was under the influence of alcohol.
On 4 September 2006, the trial court finally rendered its Decision.[8] Weighing the evidence adduced by both sides, the trial court
accorded more credence to the evidence proffered by the prosecution, thus convicting accused-appellant of two counts of simple rape
only, and not qualified rape, viz.:
XXX
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused:
(a)
(b)

In Criminal Case No. 452-M-2001, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape punished under the provisions of
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua ; and
In Criminal Case No. 453-M-2001, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape punished under the provisions of
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The accused is likewise directed to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of P75,000.00 for each count (total amount
P150,000.00).
XXX
The penalty imposed in the two criminal cases being reclusion perpetua, the case was immediately brought to the Court of Appeals on
automatic review, in view of this Court's ruling in People v. Mateo.[9]
Insisting on his innocence, accused-appellant questioned the RTC decision before the Court of Appeals on the ground of reasonable
doubt, with the apparent inconsistencies in private complainant's testimony as well as the impossibility of committing the rape in their
small quarters where the rest of the family members were.
However, upon review and seeing no sufficient basis to overturn the findings of the lower court, the Court of Appeals rendered its
Decision[10] which affirmed the findings and conclusions of the trial court with modification pertaining to the award of moral damages
in the amount of P75,000.00, which was not initially granted by the trial court.
Adopting the factual findings of the RTC, the Court of Appeals resolved the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed September 4, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan,
Branch 13, in Crim. Case Nos. 452-M-2001 and 453-M-2001, is hereby MODIFIED in that moral damages in the amount of
P75,000.00 is hereby awarded, but the rest of the decision is hereby AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the 2000
Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004, which became effective on October 15,
2004, this judgment of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal and filed with the Clerk of
Court of the Court of Appeals.[11]
Undaunted, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal[12] with this Court within the reglementary period. The prosecution and
defense were ordered to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within thirty (30) days from notice. [13] The
prosecution opted to adopt its brief submitted before the Court of Appeals, whereas the defense proceeded with the filing of its
supplemental brief.[14]
Raising the same assignment of errors submitted in issue before the Court of Appeals, accused-appellant points out a lone assignment
of error:

Page 8 of 57
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S GUILT WAS PROVEN
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Accused-appellant impugns the findings of the court below and those of the trial court, for according more weight and credence to the
testimony of private complainant, instead of giving credence to the defense version invoking his innocence. Countering the rape
charges, accused-appellant denied committing the crime and argued that he was somewhere else at the time the incident was supposed
to have occurred. According to him, private complainant and her mother harbored a grudge toward him resulting in the trumped-up
rape charges. Attacking the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the defense posits that private complainant's testimony hardly
deserves consideration for being incredulous and full of inconsistencies. In challenging the findings of the court a quo, accusedappellant raises the impossibility of committing rape within the confines of a small enclosed 6 x 6 meters room, where private
complainant was sleeping with the rest of the family members.
After a thorough review and evaluation of the records of this case, We find no cogent reason to reverse the assailed judgment of the
trial court and the Court of Appeals convicting accused-appellant of Simple Rape in Criminal Case Nos. 452-M-2001 and 453-M2001.
At the time of commission of the crime, Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, amending Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code and classifying rape as a crime against persons, was already in effect. Thus, the Informations charged accused-appellant
with two counts of qualified rape. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes rape, enumerates the
circumstances under which rape is deemed committed:
ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. Rape is committed:
(1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
(a) Through force, threat or intimidation; x x x
The prosecution must establish the following essential elements under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
namely: (a) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) that the same was committed by using force and intimidation.
Contrary to accused-appellant's contentions, this Court finds no cogent reason to doubt the veracity of private complainant's testimony.
In reviewing rape cases we are guided by the following well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with
facility: it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic
nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength
from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. [15]
The determination of the credibility of the offended party's testimony is a most basic consideration in every prosecution for rape, for
the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction.[16] As in most rape cases, the ultimate
issue in this case is credibility. In this regard, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not
disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question as it heard the witnesses
themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. [17] The exceptions to the rule are when such
evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstance of
weight and substance which could affect the result of the case. [18] None of these circumstances are present in the case at bar to warrant
its exception from the coverage of this rule.
It is well-established that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to show that she has
indeed been raped.[19] A victim of rape would not come out in the open if her motive were anything other than to obtain justice. Her
testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the accused, [20] as in
this case where the accusations were raised by private complainant against her own father.
Testifying before the trial court, private complainant narrated in detail the harrowing events which transpired that night:
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.

Miss witness, on June 2000 at about 6:00 o'clock in the morning, do you recall of any unusual incident which has
connection with your father and has connection with this case?
Yes, sir.
What was that unusual incident that happened?
I was sleeping when all of a sudden, I found him already on top of me, sir.
After that, what happened?
After that, he undressed me, sir.
At that time, where were the rest of the family?
My mother at that time was not around while my 2 brothers were still sleeping, sir.
You said the accused undressed you. What happened after that?
After that, he inserted his penis inside my vagina, sir.
Miss witness, may we know your apparel at that time?
I was wearing blouse and short, sir.
Do you have underwear at that time?
Yes, sir.
How about bra?
Yes, sir.
How about the accused. What was he wearing at that time?

Page 9 of 57
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.

He was wearing short while nothing on his body, sir.

Miss witness, you said your father undressed you. How about him. What did he do with his clothes?
He also removed his short, sir.
You said your father inserted his penis to (sic) your vagina. May we know what was your position at that time when your
father inserted his penis to (sic) your vagina?
I was lying on my back, sir.
When you were lying on your back, how about the accused. What was his position?
He was on top of me, sir.
While he was on top of you, exactly, what did he do to you?
He mashed my breast, sir.
You said the accused inserted his penis to (sic) your vagina. How did the accused insert his penis to (sic) your vagina?
`Nakahiga po ako tapos noong nagising po ako, nakita ko na lang siya na nakapatong sa ibabaw ko, sir.'
Miss witness, you said that you were then sleeping. Why did you say that your father was on top of you?
Because I felt that as if something was on top of me which is heavy, sir.
When you felt that something was on top of you, what happened after that?
I was surprised, sir. When I was about to shout, my father held my neck, sir.
You said you were held by your neck, what happened after that?
After that, he already raped me, sir.
Miss witness, could you still recall for how long your father was on top of you?
Maybe around two (2) minutes, sir.
After that 2 minutes, what happened?
After that 2 minutes, he put on his apparel and he also instructed me to put on my dress also, sir.
Miss witness, you said your father inserted his penis to (sic) your vagina. What did you feel when your father inserted his
penis to (sic) your vagina?
I was hurt, sir.
You said you were hurt by the insertion of the penis of your father to (sic) your vagina. What did you do when you felt
that pain?
I tried to remove but I cannot because his body was so heavy, sir.
You said your father put on his clothes and you, he told you to put on also your clothes. What happened, after that?
After that, my mother arrived but I was not able to report the same because I was afraid to (sic) my father, sir.
May we know why you were afraid to (sic) your father?
Because my father warned me not to report the matter, sir.
When did your father warned (sic) you?
After the incident, sir.[21]

Private complainant testified that she was again raped by accused-appellant under the following circumstances:
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.

AAA, on December 10, 2000, do you recall of any unusual incident that happened?
Yes, sir.
Can you tell the Honorable Court what that unusual incident that happened (was)?
I was raped by my father, sir.
Who is that father of yours?
Miguelito Malana, sir.
If he is present today kindly point (to) him?
Me, sir. (Witness pointed to a man inside the chambers who, when asked, gave his name as Miguelito Malana)
Miss Witness, what time of the day did it happen, evening or morning?
It was daytime, about 6:00, sir.
On that date, was there any person present in your house?
Yes, sir.
Who were those persons present?
My other siblings, sir.
How many?
Three (3), sir.
How old is the eldest present at that time?
Seventeen (17) years old, sir.
You said that those persons present in that house were your brothers and sisters. How was your father able to rape you if
there were other persons present in that house?
We were all asleep at that time, sir.
Who was with you at the time you were sleeping?
My sister, sir.
How old is she?
Six (6) years old, sir.
Did you mean to say that you and your small sister were then sleeping separately from your other brothers?
Yes, sir.
How about your mother?
My mother used to sleep beside us but at that time she was not around, sir.
Where was she at that time?
She went to the market to buy fish ball, sir.
Am I right to say that your mother was engaged in the selling of fish balls?
It was only my mother who did the marketing but the fish balls were being sold by my father, sir.
How did your father rape you at that time?
I was then sleeping when I woke up because of his weight over me, sir. I woke up when he was already on top of me.

Page 10 of 57
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.

After that what happened?

After that he undressed me and also removed his clothes, sir.
After that what happened?
It was then that he started raping me, sir.
How did he start raping you?
He kissed my breast, sir.
After kissing your breast what happened?
After that he inserted his penis into my vagina, sir.
After inserting his penis in your vagina, what happened?
He started kissing my lips, sir.
May we know your relative positions at the time your father inserted his penis into your vagina?
I was lying down on my back, sir.
Am I right to say that your father was on top of you?
Yes, sir.
While he was on top of you what was he doing?
His body was moving, sir.
After that what happened?
I was then crying and I screamed because he held me by my neck, sir.
What did you feel when your father held your neck?
It was painful, sir.
After that what happened?
After that he warned me not to report to anybody what happened, sir.
After telling you not to report to anybody, what happened?
No more, sir. I put on my clothes, sir.[22]

While a medico-legal finding is not a requisite of rape, its evidentiary weight cannot be disregarded. As testified to by P/Sr. Insp. and
Medico-Legal Officer Ivan Richard A. Viray, the Medico-Legal Report on private complainant contained the following findings:
MEDICO-LEGAL REPORT NO. MR-219-2000
HYMEN:
Elastic fleshy type with the presence of shallow healed lacerations at 2, 6 o'clock positions & deep healed lacerations at 3 & 9 o'clock
CONCLUSION:
Subject is in non-virgin state physically
There are no external signs of application of any form of trauma. [23]
Denial and alibi are viewed by this Court with disfavor,[24] considering these are inherently weak defenses,[25] especially in light of
private complainant's positive and straightforward declarations identifying accused-appellant[26] as the one who committed the
bastardly act against her, as well as her straightforward and convincing testimony detailing the circumstances and events leading to the
rape.[27]
The Court is not persuaded by the defense claim that the series of rape incidents could not have happened without the other members
of the family being made aware of it. In a long line of cases, this Court has ruled that a small living quarter has not been considered to
be a safe refuge from a sexual assault.[28] Rape can be committed in the same room with the rapist's spouse or where other members of
the family are also sleeping,[29] in a house where there are other occupants or even in places which to many might appear unlikely and
high-risk venues for its commission.[30] Lust, it has been said before, is apparently no respecter of time and place.[31] Neither is it
necessary for the rape to be committed in an isolated place, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time in carrying out their evil
deed.[32]
Private complainant did not immediately inform her mother about the incident. However, it is not unusual for a victim immediately
following the sexual assault to conceal at least momentarily the incident, for it is not uncommon for a victim of rape to be intimidated
into silence and conceal for sometime the violation of her honor, even by the mildest threat on her life.[33] To recall, accused-appellant
had threatened her not to tell anybody about the incident.
Accused-appellant's defense that private complainant and her mother were harboring a personal grudge against him, fails in light of
the positive and straightforward testimony of private complainant identifying accused-appellant as the one who had raped and
ravished her. This is bolstered by the fact that it is unnatural for a parent to use his offspring as an engine of malice.[34] Verily, the
testimony of the rape victim against her father, in this particular case, is entitled to greater weight, since reverence and respect for
elders is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. [35] Finally, a daughter would not accuse her own
father of a serious offense like rape had she not really been aggrieved. [36]
Simple rape is punished under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code mandates that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any
of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
(1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age 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 Court of Appeals and RTC correctly disregarded the circumstances of minority and relationship. This Court has consistently

Page 11 of 57
ruled that the twin circumstances of minority and relationship are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which must be alleged in
the information and proved during trial beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise, the accused should only be held liable for the crime of
simple rape.[37] These qualifying circumstances cannot be considered in fixing the penalty because minority, though alleged in the
information was not proved. As regards relationship, the same was alleged and proved. Pursuant, to Section 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code, in order to fall within subparagraph 1 of said provision, both circumstances of minority and relationship must be alleged
in the information and proved during trial.
The twin circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur to qualify the crime of rape. In the
instant case, only relationship was duly alleged and proved.
Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure now provide that aggravating as well as qualifying
circumstances must be alleged in the information and proven during trial, otherwise they cannot be considered against the accused.
Thus, the same cannot be used to impose the higher penalty of capital punishment on accused-appellant.
Thus, accused-appellant should be convicted of simple rape only and sentenced accordingly to reclusion perpetua in each case.[38]
Jurisprudence dictates that, upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory. The Court of
Appeals erroneously awarded civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, which amount is given in qualified rape cases. This being
a case of simple rape only, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is proper. [39] In addition, moral damages in the amount of
P50,000.00 is automatically granted in addition to civil indemnity without need of further proof inasmuch as it is assumed that a
victim of rape has actually suffered moral injuries that entitles her to such an award. From the foregoing, private complainant is
entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, without need of proof, and another P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for
each count of rape, to set an example for the public good. [40]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02496 dated 21 December 2007
finding herein accused-appellant MIGUELITO MALANA y LARDISABAY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of SIMPLE RAPE,
violating Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case Nos. 452-M-01 and 453-M-01 is hereby AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATION as to the award
of damages.
Accused-appellant is ordered to pay the offended party, private complainant AAA, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, corresponding to each
count of simple rape. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

EN BANC
G.R. No. 124131. April 22, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SAMUEL BORCE, accused-appellant.
DECISION
VITUG, J.:
Samuel Borce was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Bangued, Abra, in a decision, promulgated on 23
October 1995, in the jointly-tried Criminal Case No. 1481 and Criminal Case No. 1482. The trial court there
adjudged:
"WHEREFORE:
"In Criminal Case No. 1481 for Rape, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2)
counts of the crime of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon aggravated by mutilation defined and
penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, and
sentences him to suffer two death penalties.
"In Criminal Case No. 1482 for frustrated murder, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of frustrated murder defined and penalized under the provision of Article 248 in relation to Article 50 of
the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS AND
TWENTY (20) DAYS of prision mayor as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and TWENTY
(20) DAYS of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Page 12 of 57
"The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the victim in the amount of P250,000.00 as actual, moral and
1
exemplary damages, and to pay the costs of the proceedings."
The penalty of death having been imposed on the accused by the court a quo, the records were elevated to this
Court, in accordance with Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act No.
7659, for automatic review.
Samuel Borce, the accused-appellant, had been charged in two separate informations, to wit:
In Criminal Case No. 1481 for Rape:
"That on or about April 29, 1994, at around 8:30 o'clock in the morning, at the hill of the western part of Bariquir,
Barangay San Antonio, Municipality of Bangued, Province of Abra, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and with the use of deadly weapon, did then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie upon one REGINA BAGA and succeed in having carnal knowledge
against her will and consent and this was repeated for the second time around, to the great damage and
2
prejudice of the said offended party."
In Criminal Case No. 1482 for Frustrated Murder:
"That on or about April 29, 1994, at around 8:30 o'clock in the morning, at the hill of the western part of Barangay
San Antonio, Municipality of Bangued, Province of Abra, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery, use of superior strength and evident
premeditation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously hack the face of one REGINA BAGA,
inflicting multiple hack wounds on her face, thus the accused having performed all the acts of execution which
would have produced the crime of Murder as a consequence but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of the
3
timely medical attendance rendered to said victim which prevented her death."
The accused, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of "not guilty" to the two charges.
The Solicitor General, closely paraphrasing the trial court in its decision, summed up the evidence for the
prosecution; thus:
"Complainant Regina Baga is 45 years old, married, and whose husband works abroad as an overseas contract
worker. She is thin and weighs not more than 100 pounds. She and appellant, Samuel Borce, are neighbors in
Barangay San Antonio, Bangued, Abra (TSN., August 22, 1994, p. 3).
"On April 29, 1994, at about 8:30 o'clock in the morning, Regina took her bolo and ventured alone to gather
firewood at Barikir, a forested area situated about one kilometer away from her house. (TSN, August 22, 1994, p.
4) While ascending a hilly portion of the forest, she noticed appellant behind her (p. 3). Without saying a word,
appellant approached Regina, took hold of her right arm, twisted it and wrested away her bolo (p. 3). Appellant
poked the tip of the bolo on Regina's neck and threatened to kill her (p. 10). At this point, appellant's bestial
desires were aroused. Giving vent to it, he pinned complainant on the ground and forcibly removed her 'Cullots'
and underpants. Regina unceasingly fought to resist his advances. Nonetheless, being stronger and heavier,
appellant placed himself on top of Regina and after a protracted struggle succeeded in raping her. Thereafter,
appellant dragged Regina away from the pathwalk and into the woods (p. 7). His lust not yet satiated, appellant
raped Regina for the second time. When he was through, appellant dragged Regina farther into the forest. There,
he executed his plan to kill and abandon Regina. However, Regina did not die. When she regained
consciousness after being strangled by appellant, she noticed that her face was hacked (Ibid. p. 9). Terrified, she
screamed for help but [no one] came.
"Meanwhile, Regina's son, Raymund, was worried that at a late hour his mother had not yet returned home (TSN,
Sept. 26, 1994, p. 10). Fearing that something bad may have happened, he, together with his brother and sister,
went to search for her in the woods. There, they found their mother lying on the ground and bleeding profusely
on the face. Her brain tissues were exposed. When asked what had transpired, Regina told her son that she was
4
raped and hacked by appellant. (ibid., p. 11). Immediately Raymund brought her mother to their house."
Regina was brought to the Abra Provincial Hospital where she was promptly attended to. Her treatment in the
5
hospital lasted for 16 days. The medical certificate, dated 11 May 1994, disclosing the findings of attending
physician Dr. Cynthia Cacho Viado on the injuries suffered by the victim, pertinently read:
"IE - Multiple old hymenal lacerations
Vagina admits two fingers with ease.
Cervix open 1-2 cm.
Uterus enlarged to three months size.

Page 13 of 57
Adnexae ( - )
Bleeding moderate.
"SPERM ID ( - )
PT ( - )
"x x x x x x
"NOI - Hacking
POI - San Antonio, Bangued, Abra
TOI - 8:30 A.M.
DOI - 4-29-94
"Multiple hacking wound - face (Mid) portion."

Samuel Borce denied the accusation. Presented at the witness stand by the defense were the accused himself,
his mother Lydia Borce and one Dr. Herminio Venus. Highlighting the testimony of the defense witnesses, the
Public Attorneys Office, acting as counsel for the accused, narrated its version of the case; thus:
Accused Samuel Borce testified that on April 29, 1994, he went to get the firewood that he gathered and when he
arrived in the place he saw Regina Baga gathering the firewood which he already gathered; then he prevented the
victim from gathering the firewood. She tried to hack him with her bolo so that they grappled for possession of
the bolo and while grappling, the bolo hit the head of Regina Baga afterwhich the accused left her. He denied
having raped Regina Baga. After grappling with the bolo, the accused went home and thereafter he went to see
Regina Baga when he was informed that she was already dead and this was the time he was arrested and
detained up to the present. When he was arrested by the police officers he was not informed of his human and
constitutional rights.
LYDIA BORCE testified that she is the mother of the accused. That on April 29, 1994, she said that she and her
son went to gather firewoods and after gathering firewoods they went home and that he never raped the
complainant. She admitted that she did not see Regina Baga stabbed the accused because she went home
already. She only learned Regina Baga was hurt from the people who told her. She tried to go and help her but
she was already brought to the hospital. She testified that when her son was brought to the police station he
narrated that he accidentally hacked her (Regina Baga) when the latter attempted to steal his firewood. She also
asked the accused if he raped Regina Baga and told her that he did not rape Regina Baga. Her son was detained
up to the present. She stated that she was not able to do anything for her son because they are poor and have
nothing to offer. She tried to asked the help of the Brgy. Captain but they did not pay attention to her. When
asked by the Court Regina Baga alleged that when victim prevented her son to get the firewood gathered by her
son she personally witnessed the incident in fact she tried to prevent her and not to steal the firewood, but
Regina Baga did not heed her.
DR. VENUS when asked by the court if there was rape committed against victim stated, thus: `As to my findings
there is no physical injuries. He stated that the lacerations were old ones and when rape committed within three
hours, the lacerations would have been fresh and not old. The victim was allegedly raped on April 29, 1994 so
that on the same day she was examined. The doctor also admitted if there are no lacerations there is consent to
the sexual intercourse. The doctor also admitted that moderate bleeding was due to menstrual period. When
asked if there is spermatozoa, he answered in the negative. He stated that a spermatozoa has a lifetime of within
7
24 hours or for 2 days and if the spermatozoa were inside already in the vagina it will live for 17 days.
The trial court, Hon. Benjamin A. Bogolan presiding, was not persuaded by the theory put up by the defense in
the face of the strong evidence submitted by the prosecution. The accused was convicted, as aforesaid, of the
crimes charged.
In this appeal from the judgment finding him guilty, appellant Samuel Borce assigned two related errors allegedly
committed by the court below; to wit:
1. The trial court gravely erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the witnesses of the
prosecution and in disregarding the theory of the defense.
2. The trial court gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant Samuel Borce of double rape despite the fact that
the results of the medical findings contradicted to the testimony of Regina Baga thereby showing that no rape
8
was committed.

Page 14 of 57
At the cost of being overly repetitious, the court, once again, must here echo the familiar doctrine that in the
assessment and evaluation of contradictory asseverations of witnesses, it is with the trial court where the main
responsibility, as well as its concomittant authoritativeness, really lies. The appellate court, absent cogent
justifications that can warrant otherwise, would almost certainly defer to the findings and conclusions made
thereon by the trial court. Several reasons have been advanced, nurtured by a host of jurisprudential holdings,
that are all too compelling to be ignored. The trial judge is he who gets the opportunity to directly and intimately
observe the witnesses and to determine, by their demeanor at the witness stand, the probative strength or
weakness of that which they declare. The witnesses can reveal much more than what can ordinarily be reflected
in and perceived from the transcripts that merely would contain the matter which is stated but not how it is said.
Tell-tale marks of either honesty or fabrication, truth or concoction, reality or imagination, may eventuate from a
meaningful pause or spontaneous ready reply, the angry or subdued denial, the forthright stare or the elusive
eyes, the sudden pallor or the flush of face, and all that characterizes the deportment and peculiar outward
behavior of witnesses when their response to both direct examination and cross examination is elicited. These
9
signs, although available to the trial judge, are, however, easily lost on the appellate court.
In rape cases particularly, the judge is often asked to arbitrate between the discordant and irreconcilable
declaration of the victim and the denial of the accused. In the estimation of such conflicting versions, hardly can
the appellate court assert a preponderant competence over that of the trial judge. It is true, of course, that an
accusation for rape can be managed with facility, while the defense, upon the other hand, is invariably hard put
to dispute the claim of rape. It is precisely for these reasons that a court does not merely take in stride the charge
but gives a full and concentrated attention on, as well as great caution in, the assessment and evaluation of the
victims testimony.
With all the above considerations in mind, the Court itself has gone over the testimony of Regina. Here is how
she has testified:
FISCAL FLORES:
Q Will you please state your name, age and other personal circumstances?
A Regina Baga, 45 years old, married, a housekeeper and a resident of San Antonio, Bangued, Abra.
Q Madam Witness, do you know a person by the name of Samuel Borce?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And will you tell the Court why you know Samuel Borce?
A I know him because he is my neighbor in San Antonio, Sir.
Q Where are you neighbors in one another?
A In San Antonio, Bangued, Abra, Sir.
Q If this neighbor of yours Samuel Borce is in court this morning, will you kindly point to him?
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointed to accused Samuel Borce.
FISCAL FLORES:
Q Alright, on April 29, 1994 at around 8:30 oclock in the morning, do you know where were you?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Where were you at that time?
A I was in the forest, Sir.
Q Where is that forest you are referring to located?
A In Barikir, San Antonio, Sir?
Q Will you tell the Court why you were on the forest on that particular morning of April 29, 1994?
A I went to gather firewood, Sir.

Page 15 of 57
Q Do you have any companion when you went to the forest to gather firewood at that time?
A None, Sir.
Q Madam Witness, will you tell the Court the distance where you gathered firewood from your house?
A It is less than 1 kilometer, Sir.
Q While you were at the forest or hill to gather firewood on that particular hour at 8:30 oclock in the morning,
April 29, 1994, do you know if there was anything unusual happened to you?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Will you tell the Honorable Court what was that unusual incident happened to you?
A On that particular morning when I went to gather firewood when I was ascending to the mountain I saw Samuel
Borce behind me, Sir.
Q And what happened next when you saw Samuel Borce behind your back?
A He got holding of my hand holding a bolo and twisted it, Sir.
Q And what happened when he twisted your arm and got the bolo?
A After twisting my right arm and wrested the bolo from me afterwhich he let me down and removed my clothes
and my panty and skirt, Sir.
Q After removing your skirt and panty, what did he do next?
A He raped me, Sir. He went on top of me and inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q You said that he took the bolo from you, what did he do with the bolo after taking from you . . . . I withdraw the
question, your Honor.
A You said he placed his private part into yours, what did you feel when he inserted his penis into your vagina?
Q I felt something hot inside me, Sir.
COURT:
Q What was that hot if you know?
A Maybe his semen coming from him, Sir.
FISCAL FLORES:
Q More or less how long did he stay on top of you?
A About 3 minutes, Sir.
Q How many times did he insert his penis into yours?
A (No answer)
COURT:
Q Did he rape you?
A He raped me twice, Sir.
Q What do you mean by that?
A After raping me for once he transferred me to another place then he again raped me, Sir.
Q Where did he transfer you?

Page 16 of 57
A He transferred me to a place near the place where he first raped me, but that place is farther than the path, Sir.
Q What is this path?
A The path going to the mountain, Sir.
Q And this is the path which you took in going to the mountain?
A Yes, Sir.
FISCAL FLORES:
Q Now, you said that he also took the bolo that you were holding?
COURT:
Q What happened after raping you for the second time?
A I struggled and I lost consciousness, Sir.
FISCAL FLORES:
Q After regaining your consciousness, what happened next?
A Samuel Borce was not there anymore by my face is already wounded, Sir.
Q Do you know what have caused the wound in your face?
ATTY. BARBERO:
Objection, your Honor, she said she was unconscious.
COURT:
May answer.
A Yes, Sir.
COURT:
Q What was he used in wounding your face if you know?
A He used my bolo, Sir.
FISCAL FLORES:
Q You said that the wound inflicted in your face was caused by the bolo he got from you, in what stage did he
cause the wound in your face, before the first rape or after the first rape?
A After the second rape, Sir.
Q Actually, how did he wound you on that bolo he got from you?
A He hacked me, Sir.
Q Where?
A He hacked me on my face, Sir. (Witness pointing to the scars on her face.)
Q How many times did he hack you in your face?
A He hacked me 3 times, Sir.

10

On cross-examination, the complainant repeated, in the same straightforward fashion, her direct testimony.
Continuing, she went on to respond to further searching questions of counsel; thus:

Page 17 of 57
ON CROSS-EXAMINATION:
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q You said that the accused told you that he was going to kill you, in fact, he did not do that instead according to
you he laid you down and raped you?
COURT:
It is different.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q When did he say that he will kill you?
A When he already laid me down, Sir.
Q By the way, Madam Witness, what is your educational attainment?
A First Year high school, Sir.
Q He did not kill you when he said that instead according to you he had a sexual intercourse with you, is it not?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And according to you before he had sexual intercourse with you, he took off your panty and palda?
COURT:
You need not to repeat.
ATTY. BARBERO:
That is what she said, your Honor.
A Yes, Sir.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q What first did he take off?
A He removed first my skirt, Sir.
Q What is the kind of your skirt that you were wearing at that time?
A Cullotes, Sir.
COURT:
What is this cullotes?
ATTY. BARBERO:
It is a skirt but a pants and loose in the thighs, your Honor.
Q How did he take that off, your pants when you were lying down and you said that he is already on top of you at
that time?
A He pulled it down, Sir.
COURT:
Q What was your position?
A I was already lying down, Sir.

Page 18 of 57
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q Isnt a fact, Madam Witness, that you testified before this Court when you said that when he laid you down, he
went on top of you?
A Yes, Sir, after removing my cullottes and my panty.
Q After he removed your cullottes, he then again removed your panty when you were lying down?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Naturally, in taking off your cullottes and your panty, he used his two hands, is it not?
A He used both hands, Sir.
Q And at that time that he was taking off your cullottes and panty both of his hands, you did not bother to kick
him and then run away?
A I tried to defend myself but he is stronger than me, Sir.
Q However you have all the chances to defend yourself when he was removing your cullottes and panty, why did
you not try to kick him and fight him to defend yourself?
A I tried to fight back but he is stronger than me, Sir.
Q You did not even try to bite his hands or scratch his face or his breast or whatever part of his body?
A I cannot bite him because he pushed me down, Sir. (The witness making a gesture of both hands.)
Q At the time he was pushing you down of both of his hands, he then make sexual intercourse with you, is it not?
A Yes, Sir.
Q So since you said both of his hand were being used in pushing you down, how did he able to insert his penis
into your private part? Or how was he able to insert his penis into your vagina when both of his hands were
pushing you down?
A He went on top of me and insert his penis into my vagina, Sir.
Q At the time that he went on top of you, you did not try to close your thighs but you spread it out?
A Even if I tried to close my thighs, he was so much stronger than I, Sir.
Q So that at the time that he was pushing you down according to you, both of his hands, you did not have any
other recourse than to let him go so that you have no strength?
A Yes, Sir, because he is stronger than I and I could not do anything.
Q But during the time he was pushing you down with his two hands and then he did the act of sexual intercourse
according to you?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And according to you he again transferred you to another place, is it not?
A Yes, Sir.
Q How far from the original place?
A From here up to across the street, Sir.
COURT:
Which the parties agreed to be simply 25 to 30 meters.
ATTY. BARBERO:

Page 19 of 57
30 meters, your Honor.
Q When he transferred you, you followed him?
A I followed him because he was dragging me, Sir.
COURT:
Q What was he pulling?
A My hand, Sir.
Q How about your panty and skirt?
A He was holding them, Sir.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q He was pulling only with one hand?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What hand, the right or left hand?
A My right hand, Sir.
Q And his left hand was holding your cullottes and your panty?
A Yes, Sir.
Q So that you did not try to pull away although it is only his one hand was holding you?
A I was already weak, Sir.
Q You are already weak with one sexual intercourse?
A I was already weak because I was weakened with the experience and you can see my physical built, Sir.
Q While he was pulling you to transfer to another place you did not even try to bite him or fight back while the
other hand was holding your panty and cullottes?
A Even if I am going to fight him back I am already weak and he is even stronger and bigger than me in built, Sir.
Q Isnt a fact that San Antonio is a stony land?
A Even if San Antonio is stony, at that time I was not able to pick up stone and at that time he was dragging me,
Sir.
Q And you have your left hand to pick up a stone or pick up sand in order to grapple with him?
A I was already overcome by fear, Sir.
ATTY. BARBERO:
I think the correct translation for that, your Honor, is; `I dont able to think that anymore.
COURT:
Put it on record.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q And even you did not think for shouting even that you said that the place is near the road?
A I screamed for help but nobody was there to help me, Sir.

Page 20 of 57
Q How about your husband, why did you not bring him to gather firewood?
A He was not around, Sir.
Q Where is your husband?
A He is working abroad, Sir.
Q How many years did he work there abroad?
A He went abroad in October, Sir.
Q October, what year?
A October, 1993, Sir.
COURT:
Q Is he still abroad?
A Yes, Sir.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q So that at the time of the incident, your husband is not living with you for more than 6-months?
A Yes, Sir.
Q So at that time, it was you who was holding a bolo, is it not?
FISCAL FLORES:
I think that is a vague question, your Honor.
COURT:
Witness may answer.
A Yes, Sir, because I was on my way to gather fireword.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q In fact, it was even you who tried to hack the accused but he got hold on you, is it not?
A No, Sir, he got hold of my hand right away.
Q And that the time he got hold your hand and the bolo and it was wounded your face?
A No, Sir, he pointed the bolo first on my neck.
Q But your neck was not wounded?
A Yes, Sir, he just rested the point of the bolo on my neck.
COURT:
Q So that the wound at the base of your neck it is not caused by the accused as you said later as the wound
opened by the surgeon during your operation in order for breathing?
A Yes, Sir.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q You said that you were operated for a hack in your face, there was no showing, there is no stitches?

Page 21 of 57
A You can see three long scars on my forehead, Sir.
Q That was the time when he moved the bolo on your face?
COURT:
She said she was unconscious at that time.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q You said that you are unconscious, however the accused did not do anything to you, he did not kill you and
did not stab you until you die?
FISCAL FLORES:
If she was unconscious at that time, how was she able to know, your Honor?
COURT:
Reform.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q However, you did not sustain anymore wounds when you were unconscious the accused did not take the
opportunity to kill you?
FISCAL FLORES:
She was already unconscious, your Honor.
COURT:
Sustained.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q So that according to you the accused left you when you were unconscious?
FISCAL FLORES:
Objection, your Honor, she was already unconscious.
COURT:
What is the question?
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q So that according to you the accused left you when you were unconscious, that when she regained her
consciousness, she found her face bleeding, your Honor?
COURT:
May answer.
A Yes, Sir.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q And that was all that the accused did to you, he just left you?
FISCAL FLORES:
The question is misleading, your Honor.
COURT:

Page 22 of 57
Reform.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q In your statement found on page 6 of the record, question No. 4 and answer No. 4, you did not state that you
were transferred by the accused and he again raped you, which may I request that it be marked as Exhibit l, your
Honor?
COURT:
Mark it Exhibit l, question and answer No. 4, mark the original copy.
ATTY. BARBERO:
It is found on page 5 of the record of the rape case so with the frustrated murder case, your Honor.
COURT:
Anyway it is jointly tried.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q You said that when he transferred you to another place, you have all the chances to pick up your cullotes and
your panty, however you have never have the chance to pick up a stone and throw his hand?
A There was no stone beside me, Sir.
COURT:
Q Is this place a thickly forested or sparsely?
A That is a thickly forested place, Sir.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q Isnt a fact, Madam Witness, that San Antonio there are no more forest and then that is being flooded everytime
when there was a typhoon?
A Some parts only, Sir.
Q Did you not say a while ago that the first he first raped you was along the path and then he brought you farther
along the road?
COURT:
She did not say that. She was not raped beside the road.
ATTY. BARBERO:
She said, your Honor, transferred me farther the road nearer the path.
COURT:
Yes, nearer the path. May answer.
A Yes, Sir.
COURT:
Q How far was it from the path?
A It is about from here up to there, Sir, about half a meter.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Q And along that path there are stones and sands because the path is not aspalted, is it not?

Page 23 of 57
A There are no stones because the soil there was hard, Sir.
Q You never have any conversation with him at the time, only the fact that he told you he is going to kill you,
however he did not kill you but he raped you?
A Yes, Sir.
ATTY. BARBERO:
Thats all for the witness, your Honor.

11

The testimony of Regina Baga is plain and unswerving. The Court is amply convinced that the trial court could
not have erred in giving credence to her testimony. Even an uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, if
credible, is enough to warrant conviction. If the rule were otherwise, there rarely would be convictions in rape
cases which almost invariably are committed with no eye-witnesses around to attest to their commission. Neither
can alibi, verily a mere denial and basically self serving in nature, be held to prevail over positive and affirmative
testimony. The rule is even strengthened where the complainant appears to have no nefarious motive to charge
the accused wrongly. It would be unthinkable that Regina Baga, a frail woman, weighing barely 100 pounds,
married, and 45 years of age at the time of the attack on her honor, would open herself and her family to public
scrutiny and embarassment, let alone send an innocent man possibly to the gallows, for no strong reason at all.
Already in the past, the Court has rejected the argument that the absence of sperm in the vaginal area is a good
defense in a rape case. It may not be amiss to add that the medical certificate was issued by Dr. Viado only on 11
May 1994 or several days after the commission of the offense on 29 April 1994. Medical findings indicative of
12
pressure on the genitalia, coupled with the testimony of the victim, have repeatedly been held to suffice.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 reads:
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.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.
When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
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 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.
2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities.
3. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the
third degree of consanguinity.
4. When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.
5. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.
6. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or
any law enforcement agency.

Page 24 of 57
7. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation."
In fine, relevant to the case at bar, when the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon," the
penalty prescribed is reclusion perpetua to death. The death penalty is imposed when by reason or on the
occasion of rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation. In this regard, the Court a quo stated:
It is therefore crystal clear to the mind of this Court that the two counts of rape were committed with the use of a
deadly weapon, i.e., the bolo used by the accused in hacking, with the bestiality of an enraged beast, the victim
with three strokes on her face all of which were fatal and nearly cost her life. This dastardly and heinous act was
accompanied by unusual cruelty and savagery. The victim was left for dead; that she survived is, to the Court,
the will of providence so she can identify to the strong arm of the law and to the unerring sword of justice, her
attacker.
In the advent of the reimposition of the death penalty under R.A. No. 7659, Sec. 11, this Court is mandated to
impose the death penalty, considering that the victim sustained fatal wounds which left her permanently
deformed with the three ugly scars across her face. Furthermore, the wounds were inflicted after she was
ravished so that these were therefore unnecessary for the commission of rape, thus displaying the cruelty of the
13
offender.
The imposition of the death penalty on accused-appellant by the trial court on each count of rape has been
premised on the infliction of three scars on the victims face. The phrase permanent physical mutilation has not
been defined in the law. Neither Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as so amended by Republic Act No. 7659,
nor any of the chapters in Title Eleven, entitled Crimes against Chastity, provides any further clue on the
14
meaning that should be given to the term. In Title Eight on Crimes against Persons, the Code simply states in
Article 262 thereof that Art. 262. Mutilation. - The penalty of from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any
person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential
organ for reproduction.
Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
No specific ascription having been given by the law to the word, mutilation must perforce be understood in its
15
generic sense and ordinary usage. Webster defines mutilation as cutting off or permanently destroying a limb
16
or an essential part thereof. Black defines the term, in its criminal law concept, as one that would deprive a
person of the use of any of those limbs which may be useful to him in fight, the loss of which amounts to
mayhem.
A thorough reading of the records of the case would fail to disclose that accused-appellant inflicted the wounds
on the victim deliberately to maim her. It would, in fact, appear that the victim sustained the wounds only as a
result of a clear attempt by appellant to kill her and cover-up his misdeeds. The injury thus borne by private
complainant should not be taken as a circumstance which would raise the penalty to death for the crime of rape
but should instead rightly be taken up and absorbed in the crime of frustrated murder.
Accordingly, for each count of rape, there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance alleged and
proved in the commission thereof, the penalty, conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, that
should properly be imposed on accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 1481 is reclusion perpetua.
Relative to Criminal Case No. 1482, Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
ART. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be
guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage or superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a
railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great
waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of
a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.

Page 25 of 57
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at
his person or corpse.
When the crime is frustrated the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed; hence, Article 50 of the same
Code states:
ART. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. - The penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.
The prosecution has satisfactorily shown that accused-appellant did likewise commit the crime of frustrated
murder. The wounds inflicted on the hapless victim could have resulted in her death had it not been for the timely
medical treatment administered to her. On accused-appellant's contention that he has had no intention to kill the
victim, the Court agrees with the Solicitor General in his observations that (the) claim is completely belied by the nature and number of the wounds he inflicted on his victim. The medical
examination of the victim reveals that the victims hack wounds were indeed fatal. Observedly, the hack wounds
extended to the brain matter of Regina. The court a quo dismissed appellants defense as a `naive story.
According to him, complainant tried to steal the firewood which appellant had gathered; that when appellant
caught complainant in the act, she tried to hack him with her bolo; that in the struggle for possession of the bolo,
complainant was accidentally wounded on the face. As correctly concluded by the court a quo, it befuddles the
mind how complainant could have accidentally suffered three (3) deep hack wounds on her forehead and face
when allegedly, in the course of the struggle, the sharp edge of the bolo faced the accused while its blunt edge
faced the complainant. That the wounds inflicted were deep and fatal belies appellants claim that the blows were
17
purely accidental.
On the award in lump sum of "P250,000.00 as actual, moral and exemplary damages" to the victim, the court a
quo has acted inaptly. In order to sustain any award for such damages, each must be independently justified and
substantiated which is here unfortunately wanting. For one, exemplary damages are awarded in a criminal
offense only when its commission is attended by an aggravating circumstance, a matter which has not been
18
established. Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, however, the victim is entitled to an indemnity of
P50,000.00 for each count of rape.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bangued, Abra, in Criminal Case No. 1482, finding
appellant SAMUEL BORCE guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated murder and sentencing him
accordingly, is AFFIRMED. The decision in Criminal Case No. 1481, finding the same appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two counts of rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS, however, that the penalty
imposed on accused-appellant for each count of rape is hereby reduced to reclusion perpetua, and appellant is
ordered to pay, instead of the P250,000.00 damages awarded by the court a quo, an indemnity of P50,000.00 for
each count of rape.
Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 133003. April 9, 2003]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAWRENCE MACAPANPAN y DE GUZMAN and AIROLL
ACLAN y MENDOZA, accused-appellants.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
The peculiar nature of rape is that conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely upon the word of the private
1
complainant because it is essentially committed in relative isolation or even secrecy and it is usually only the victim who
2
can testify with regard to the act of forced coitus. Thus, the long standing rule is that when an alleged victim of rape says

Page 26 of 57
she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has indeed been committed.[3 Since the
participants are usually the only witnesses in crimes of this nature and the accuseds conviction or acquittal virtually
depends on the complainants testimony,[4 it must be received with utmost caution.[5 It is then incumbent upon the trial
court to be very scrupulous in ascertaining the credibility the victims testimony. Judges must free themselves of the
natural tendency to be overprotective of every woman claiming to have been sexually abused and demanding punishment
for the abuser. While they ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation the rape victim goes through as she
demands justice, judges should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render justice according to law.[6
Pauline Pacurib was allegedly molested and raped during a blow-out she hosted for having been promoted in her job at
the local rural bank. Indicted for the felony were Lawrence Macapanpan y De Guzman and Airoll Aclan y Mendoza in an
7
Information which alleges
That sometime between 11:00 and 12:00 oclock in the evening of February 9, 1996 at Barangay Burgos, Municipality of
Pakil, Province of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above named accused with lewd design
and by the use of force, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one Pauline A. Pacurib against her will and consent and to her damage and
prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The information was docketed as Criminal Case No. S-1943. Upon arraignment, the two accused, assisted by counsel,
pleaded not guilty.[8 The case then proceeded to trial.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Siniloan, Laguna, Branch 33, found both accused guilty as charged and accordingly
rendered judgment against them, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, finding both accused LAWRENCE MACAPANPAN y
DE GUZMAN and AIROLL ACLAN y MENDOZA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE. Lawrence
Macapanpan y de Guzman is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.
Airoll Aclan y Mendoza, being a minor is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate sentence ranging from ten (10) years of
prision mayoras minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Accused are hereby ordered to pay private complainant Pauline Pacurib, as moral damages the sum of P50,000.00 and
to pay the costs.
Accused Lawrence Macapanpan y de Guzman being a detained prisoner, it is hereby ordered that he be credited with the
full length of his preventive imprisonment if he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoner[s], otherwise, he shall be credited with 4/5 of the period he had undergone preventive
imprisonment in accordance with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
SO ORDERED.

Page 27 of 57
Both accused appealed. In his Brief, accused-appellant Macapanpan raised the following errors:
I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT HASTILY ACCEPTED AS PROOF THE UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY
OF THE COMPLAINANT PAULINE PACURIB;
II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT COMPLAINANT PAULINE PACURIBS TESTIMONY IS
IMPECCABLE AND RINGS TRUE THROUGHOUT HER TESTIMONY;
III
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO HOLD THAT COMPLAINANT PAULINE PACURIBS TESTIMONY
LACKED SINCERITY AND CANDOR;
IV
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO TAKE NOTICE OF THE SERIOUS CONTRADICTIONS IN
COMPLAINANT PAULINE PACURIBS TESTIMONY;
V
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD THAT THERE WAS AN ABSENCE OF RESISTANCE ON THE
PART OF THE COMPLAINANT PAULINE PACURIB;
VI
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO HOLD THAT COMPLAINANT PAULINE PACURIBS MOTHER
EXERTED PRESSURE ON HER (PAULINE PACURIB) TO FILE THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT SUBJECT OF THIS
APPEAL;
VII
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE RESULT OF THE PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT PAULINE PACURIB;
VIII
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CORRECTLY APPRECIATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
TESTIMONY OF DRA. CARIDAD RALLOS IN OPEN COURT;
IX
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO HOLD THAT THERE WAS THE APPARENT IMPROBABILITY OF
THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED;
X
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE OR DOUBT
FAVORING THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED WHEN IT SUMMARILY DISREGARDED THE TESTIMONIES OF
THE DEFENSE WITNESSES JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE RELATED AND/OR ARE FRIENDS OF THE ACCUSED;
XI
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THERE WAS ONE (1) CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE ACCUSED
AIROLL ACLAN AND APPELLANT LAWRENCE MACAPANPAN, AND (2) THAT THERE WAS USE OF FORCE AND
INTIMIDATION AGAINST COMPLAINANT PAULINE PACURIB;
XII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ACTIONS/REACTIONS/RESPONSES OF COMPLAINANT
IS NOT NATURAL IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THINGS.
The prosecutions evidence sought to establish that complainant was molested and ravished while she was drunk during a
blow-out she hosted at the hangout of her friends. Her story, as summed up in the Peoples Brief, narrates that:

Page 28 of 57
1. After coming from work in the afternoon of February 9, 1996 complainant Pauline Pacurib of Paete, Laguna proceeded
to the house of Katrina Jingle Kaharian in Pakil, Laguna. She was there to fulfill a promise she made the day before to
give a blow-out for their friends.
2. Complainant was having dinner with Jingle when accused Airoll Aclan arrived. He informed them that their friends were
already waiting in a hut located in Burgos St., Pakil, Laguna. The hut is owned by one Arvin Mapagdalita.
3. Before leaving the house of Jingle, Dante Pendon arrived and got two bottles of gin from Jingles store. The bottles of
gin were paid for by complainant. They then proceeded to the hut.
4. Upon arriving at the hut, they saw Robert Entienza, Arvin Mapagdalita, Ise Aclan, Necy Adarlo, Jay Salem. By that
time, these men who call themselves Restback Boys had already consumed two bottles of gin. Minutes later, appellant
arrived.
5. Complainant was given a shot of gin to drink. She obliged. After a while, she was given another shot. She felt dizzy and
weak after finishing the second shot. She was given noodles to eat but she only ate two spoonfuls and then fell asleep.
6. She remembered that she was awakened when Dante Pendon held her thigh and left breast. She was hurt. She got
wild and shouted, Walanghiya ka, referring to Dante Pendon. Without knowing why she was furious, Jingle slapped her
and separated them. Pauline cried helplessly then Jay Salem placed her on the bench beside the bed. There, she fell
down. She was very weak and dizzy.
7. The next thing she remembered was Airoll Aclan touching the different parts of her body.
8. From where she was seated she was pulled by Airoll and brought to appellant. Airoll held her hands and with appellants
help, they were able to remove her pants and panty. Appellant then opened the zipper of his pants and inserted his penis
inside her vagina.
9. She felt pain. She tried to struggle, fight back, and shout, but she was not able to do so. She was very weak and dizzy.
10. During the act, Airoll told her not to be magulo and covered her mouth. Airoll also told her, that if she was still be
magulo she will be boxed, and indeed, was boxed by Lawrence at her stomach. Thereafter, she lost consciousness and
regained it at around 5:00 oclock in the early morning of February 10, 1996.
11. While all these were happening, Jingle was fast asleep while another lady friend Nesy Adarlo was heavily drunk. All
other people were out of the nipa hut.
12. She immediately stood up when she regained consciousness at around five in the morning of February 10, 1996. She
had no pants on when she woke up. She hurriedly left the place with Nesy. She passed by Jingles place and get her
belonging and went straight home.
13. When she arrived home that day, she locked herself inside her room. Late that night, her mother inquired about her
whereabouts the previous night. She narrated her harrowing experience to her mother. The next day, she went to her
friend Mercy Magsalansan who accompanied her to their Barangay Captain. Upon learning from their Barangay Captain
that the case does not fall within his jurisdiction, they proceeded to the police authorities of Pakil, Laguna. SPO1 Romeo
Criste took her statement. After her statements were taken by the authorities, she went to General Cailles Memorial
Hospital for examination.
14. The prosecution likewise presented Dra. Caridad Rallos, who identified the medical certificate containing the results of
the medical examination she conducted on the complainant on February 11, 1996. She found bluish discolorations in the
upper left arm and lower right arm of the complainant. She also found small superficial lacerations with fresh blood,
multiple abrasions in the complainants vagina.[9
The defenses version, on the other hand, is a sordid narrative of fatal attraction and unrequited love. It paints a picture of
a licentious woman obsessed, scorned and spurned, whose unreciprocated affection turned into vindictive hate which
spurred her to file the instant case out of spite.
At the outset the defense points out that while rape is usually committed in relative isolation and involves only the victim
and her abuser, this case is exceptional because there were twelve persons in the hut of Arvin Mapagdalita, including the
complainant, on the evening of February 9, 1996 when the alleged rape was perpetrated. Out of the persons who were
there, nine, including accused-appellant Macapanpan, categorically testified that the latter did not rape the victim and that
no one was raped that night. Prosecution witness Necy Adarlo, who was also present, testified similarly. The implausibility
of the commission of the felony is further underscored by the fact that the hut has a dimension of only 4.97 by 3.14 square

Page 29 of 57
meters and the room where the crime was allegedly committed measures around 3.14 by 3.14 square meters. This small
space housed all twelve persons at that time.
Accused-appellant Macapanpan claims he did not know the victim personally prior to February 8, 1996. While he used to
see complainant in church, he has never talked to her. On February 8, 1996, Pauline Pacurib went to the store of Katrina
Jingle Kaharian and informed her that she was promoted. Pauline promised to give a blow-out the following day, February
9, 1996, at Arvin Mapagdalitas hut located on Burgos Street, Pakil, Laguna, which was the favorite hang-out of Jingles
group.
As promised, Pauline arrived at Jingles house at 7:00 p.m. of February 9, 1996, ate supper, left money to buy two small
bottles of gin and proceeded to the hut with Jingle and accused-appellant Airoll Aclan. At the hut, they found Arvin
Mapagdalita, Benny Liza Ise Aclan, Necy Adarlo, Desiderio Jay Salem, Dante Pendon, Eman Macapanpan and Robert
Bobet Entienza. Accused-appellant Lawrence Oyen Macapanpan and Jojo Martinez arrived later.
The group sang, conversed and drank gin. Accused-appellant Macapanpan joined in the singing but did not drink. Arvin
Mapagdalita sang a song with Ise Aclan. Before they could finish their song, Pauline suddenly blurted out, Makakarma rin
10
kayo, makakarma ka Arvin. It appeared that she liked Arvin and was jealous because his attention was drawn to Ise.
She got hysterical, so Airoll Aclan and Jay Salem restrained her. Jingle asked her to stop struggling and, when she
refused, she slapped her on the face once or twice. Jay Salem asked her to sit on the bed. To avoid any further incident,
Arvin and Ise went outside the hut.
Accused-appellant Lawrence Macapanpan was near the door when the commotion occurred. Pauline smiled at him,
approached him and kissed him on the right cheek. Lawrence distanced himself from Pauline and went to the sink to
wash his face. Pauline reeked of liquor. Lawrence then sat on the long bench near the door. Pauline sat beside him and
told him that all the members of the Jingles group, called the Restback, were all rude while he was kind. She asked him if
he is a member of the Restback, that if he and Arvin are cousins and whether he can bring her closer to Arvin. Lawrence
replied that if Arvin does not love her, he can not do anything. Complainant returned to bed and slept together with Jingle
and Nesy. Lawrence reclined on the bench and slept for around thirty minutes. When he woke up, he saw Airoll Aclan,
Jay Salem, Jingle Kaharian and Necy Adarlo lying in bed talking to each other.
Bobet Entienza and Eman Macapanpan left at around 10:00 p.m., while Ise Aclan, Arvin Mapagdalita, Dante Pendon and
Jojo Martinez left at 1:00 a.m. Jay Salem, Necy Adarlo, Jingle Kaharian, accused-appellant Lawrence Macapanpan and
complainant Pauline Pacurib were left behind. At around 5:00 a.m., Pauline and Necy left the hut while Jay Salem and
Lawrence Macapanpan stayed behind.
Pauline Pacurib went to the house of Jingle Kaharian and slept beside her. Later she talked to the sister of Jingle. She
told her that the members of the Restbacks were all rude and only accused-appellant Lawrence Macapanpan was kind.
She denounced her love for Arvin Mapagdalita and tore up his picture. She wrote a letter to Jingle apologizing for her
behavior the night before, and handed it to her when she woke up. Pauline then left Jingles house at 7:30 a.m. together
with Jingles sister, Shana, and went home to Paete.
At around 10:00 a.m. of February 11, 1996, while accused-appellant Lawrence Macapanpan was at Burgos Street, Pakil,
Laguna, talking with Bobet Entienza and Arvin Mapagdalita, Pauline called him. She asked him where she got the
hematoma on her neck. He told her that he did not know how she got it. After the conversation, they parted.
In the afternoon of February 11, 1996, Lawrence Macapanpan celebrated his birthday at his house in Burgos Street, Pakil,
Laguna. The Restback group was there, together with Pauline. During the party, they learned that Necy Adarlo was
investigated by the police in connection with a case Pauline was intending to file against all those who were present at the
hut on February 9, 1996. Pauline confirmed this and said the complaint was not yet finished. She told them that she was
filing the case upon instructions of her mother, however, she was having second thoughts about filing the same. Later,
she was fetched by her mother and aunt.
The following morning, Lawrence and his friends went to the municipal building to find out if the case was filed by Pauline
against them. However, they were unable to talk to the police investigator. The group then went home. On February 13,
1996, the two accused were served with a warrant for their arrest and were incarcerated.
In a litany of cases,[11 we have held that in reviewing charges of rape, we are guided by the settled principles that: (a) an
accusation for rape can be made with facility; while the commission of the crime may not be easy to prove, it becomes
even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of
rape where only two persons are normally involved, the testimony of the complainant must always be scrutinized with

Page 30 of 57
great caution;[12 (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and can not be allowed to draw
13
strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense. Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainants credibility
14
becomes the single most important issue.
In the case at bar, while there were several persons present at the time of the alleged rape, the court a quo relied heavily,
if not entirely, on her testimony. A review, however, of the records of the case will show that the testimony of the
complaining witness is flawed with serious inconsistencies, contradictions and incredulous statements.
First, the narration of the manner in which accused-appellant Macapanpan allegedly ravished complainant strains
credulity. She was allegedly raped in a standing position by Macapanpan while she was being held from behind by Airoll
Aclan. She declared that at the time of the alleged rape she was very dizzy[15 from the gin she drank,[16 and
continuously sagged to the ground. It must be noted in this regard that private complainant, Lawrence Macapanpan and
Airoll Aclan are almost the same height,[17 and on account of her alleged intoxication she presented a dead weight to
Airoll Aclan who was merely a stripling of sixteen years at the time.[18
Attempting penile penetration, much less consummating the sexual act under such circumstances, would be next to
impossible considering complainants drunken state as a result of which she kept falling to the ground and had to be held
up. Indeed, the paucity of complainants claim that accused-appellant Macapanpan had carnal knowledge of her is best
demonstrated by no less than her own narrative, where she declared that both accused-appellants had difficulty in
perpetrating the act because Aclan had a hard time spreading her thighs in that position:[19
Atty. Gambel:
Q You want to impress the Court that Airoll was pushing your legs apart?
Interpreter:
Witness stand up and place herself in front of the Interpreter and demonstrated how things happened. Witness stated that
Airoll was pushing forward her buttock[s] and with Airoll Aclans legs leg trying to separate her legs.
Atty. Gambel:
Q On that point and time, where was your pants?

Page 31 of 57
A It fell down.
Q By itself?
A Yes, because the pants I was wearing was soft.
Q How about the panty, it fell down by itself despite the garter?
A I dont remember but I am sure it fell down.
Q And both your legs were being spread out by Airoll Aclan while behind pushing you?
A Actually, he was not able to do that very well because on that moment I was very weak and I was napapababa.
Q It was your leg and not your thigh that Airoll was trying to allegedly open up?
A Yes, here.
Interpreter:
Witness pointing to her thigh about 2 to 3 inches above the knee.
Atty. Gambel:
Q How wide upon (sic) was your thigh opened?
A I did not notice mam because my attention was to retaliate but I could not do so.
Q How did you retaliate or fight back?
A When I was being held by Airoll Aclan, I tried to struggle. (emphasis ours)[20
Second, complainant alleges that she got the kiss mark or hematoma on her neck from Airoll Aclan who supposedly held
her from behind. This claim is, however, belied by prosecution witness Necy Adarlo who owned up to inflicting the
hematoma because she was nanggigil at complainant:
Atty. Castillo:
Q During the last hearing, you stated that you did not see Lawrence Macapanpan raped the complainant Pauline Pacurib,
now, complainant Pauline Pacurib when she testified before this Court likewise stated that Lawrence Macapanpan kissed
her or gave her [a] kiss mark on the left side of her neck, can you tell the court if at any time you saw Lawrence
Macapanpan kissed Pauline Pacurib on the neck?
A No, maam.
Q Now, do you know who made the kiss mark on the neck of Pauline Pacurib?
A Yes, maam.
Q Who made the kiss mark on the neck of Pauline Pacurib?
A I, maam.
Q Can you tell the Court the circumstance that led to your putting the kiss mark to Pauline Pacurib?
A We were just joking, I was not aware that she was being called as Aswang and considering that at that time I
was bungi she called me Bampira.
Q What happened?
A Pinanggigilan ko po siya.

Page 32 of 57
Q And when you said pinaggigilan ko po siya, what did you do to Pauline Pacurib?
A I whispered to her and I do not know what transpired next, I just placed my lips on her neck.
Q Did Pauline Pacurib object to your kissing of your lips to her neck?
A She was surprised, maam.
Q How long did you place your lips to Paulines neck?
A For just a while, maam.
Q And at that time you do not have front teeth and you were bungi?
A Yes, maam. (emphasis ours)[21
Third, most damning of all to complainants claims of alleged rape was Adarlos assertion that Macapanpan and Airoll
Aclan never sexually assaulted complainant on that fateful night:
Q Did you see at any time during that occasion, did you see Lawrence Macapanpan sexually assaulting this
Pauline Pacurib?
A No, maam.
Q Did you ever see the two of them doing the sexual act standing up?
A No, maam.
Q Did you see Pauline Pacurib at anytime during that period with her pants down?
A No, maam.
Q Did you see Lawrence Macapanpan at anytime with his pants down?
A No, Maam.
Q During that evening of February 9, 1996 until the early morning of February 10, 1996 did you see any sexual
assault by Lawrence Macapanpan with the help of Airoll Aclan against this Pauline Pacurib?
A No, maam. (emphasis ours)[22
Fourth, while it has been held that lust is no respecter of time and place and rape can be committed in the unlikeliest of
places,[23 this rule finds no application in this case where the alleged rape occurred in a closely-confined room measuring
3.14 by 3.14 square meters occupied by twelve (12) persons, most of whom were awake. Thus, any of these persons
would have noticed anything untoward from the time private complainant arrived up to the time she left the next day.
While these occupants differ as to small details in their narration of what transpired on February 9, 1996, their testimonies
agree on the material point that no such event happened other than that incident where private complainant got hysterical
after a couple of shots of gin and had to be slapped by Jingle Kaharian to pacify her.[24

Page 33 of 57
Fifth, it has been shown that unfounded charges of rape have frequently been proffered by women actuated by sinister,
ulterior or undisclosed motives.[25 In the case at bar, it appears that private complainants failure to satisfactorily explain to
her parents the presence of the hematoma on her neck incurred the ire of her mother.[26 Hence, although she intended to
withdraw the complaint she had filed,[27 she could not do so because napasubo na sila.[28 Particularly revealing in this
regard is the testimony of Francisco Kokoy Vito:
Atty. Fortuno:
Q Mr. Witness, last February 5, where were you?
A I was in the library of the Eastern Laguna Colleges.
Q What were you doing there?
A I was talking with Pauline Pacurib.
Q What was the topic of your conversation?
Asst. Prov. Prosecutor Zayenis:
At this juncture, your Honor, may we know the materiality of the question?
Court
May answer.
A We were talking on what she wants regarding the case of Lawrence Macapanpan.
Q What did she say?
A She admitted to that somebody else gumalaw sa kanya but it was not Lawrence Macapanpan.
Q So if it was not Lawrence Macapanpan who used her or gumalaw sa kanya, why did she file the crime of rape against
Lawrence Macapanpan?
A She told me the reason why she filed a complaint against Lawrence Macapanpan is because when she woke up
in the morning, it was only Lawrence Macapanpan which (sic) she saw.
Q So it means that when you say morning, morning of that date?
A February 10, 1996.
Q So you are referring to the incident?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did she mention the name of the person who used her?
A No, according to her she does not know that man.

Page 34 of 57
Q Other than that previous conversation, were there any other else (sic) that she discussed with you?
A I inquired from her what she really wants with the case and she admitted to me that it was not Lawrence
Macapanpan and I pitied very much Lawrence Macapanpan.
Q Did she say anything to that question of yours since according to you the complainant told you that Lawrence
Macapanpan did not commit the crime of rape, did the complainant answer your question?
A She told me they were planning to withdraw the case but they overheard from somebody that a case will also
be filed against them if the charge filed by them will be dismissed.
Q Other than that were there other else (sic) as told to you by the complainant?
A She told me her conscience was bothering her. (emphasis ours)[29
Furthermore, it appears that that complainant harbored an unrequited love for Arvin Mapagdalita,[30 cousin of accusedappellant Macapanpan. She admitted as much to Necy Adarlo.[31 She even requested Macapanpan to act as bridge for
her to get Mapagdalitas attention.[32 In fact, complainant dropped not so subtle hints about her feelings to Mapagdalita in
several letters and cards[33 she sent to the latter. The most revealing of these was a Christmas Card[34 dated December
25, 1995 where, aside from an enclosed typewritten Christmas greeting,[35 was a handwritten note[36 which reads:
Arvin,
Im still here for you! Forget all the bad things but always remember all the nice things the will happened (sic) to us !
Remember this
It seems like we almost never
Have the chance to get together
But when we finally do

Page 35 of 57
I really enjoy it so much.
I guess thats what makes you such a special person.
You understand its not the quantity but the quality of time we spend together . . .
(sgd.) Pauline
Most telling of all was the unmistakable declaration[37 she scrawled at the back of the first page of the greeting card itself:
Arvin,
I LOVE YOU
ENILUAP
However, as shown by the records, Mapagdalita had eyes only for Benny Liza Ise Aclan, sister of Airoll Aclan.
Complainant apparently sought the cooperation of Mapagdalitas group, the Restbacks, to convince him to like her. She
also tried to ingratiate[38 herself to the group by hanging out with them, to no avail. Matters came to a head on that fateful
night when, upon seeing Ise Aclan and Arvin Mapagdalita singing together, she blurted out in a fit of jealous pique
Makakarma din kayo![39 Thereafter, she went into hysterics and had to be pacified.
Sixth, The conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance in establishing
the truth or falsity if the charge of rape.[40 In the case at bar, the actuations of complainant after the alleged rape is totally
uncharacteristic of one who has been raped. It is contrary to normal human behavior for complainant to willingly go with
Necy Adarlo, Jingle Kaharian and Ise Aclan to the birthday party of one of her supposed abusers two days after the
alleged sexual assault.[41
It is also worth noting that upon awakening from her supposed drunken stupor the next morning and finding her alleged
rapist still there with her and her two other friends, there was no reaction from her at all. There was neither anger nor
hysterics of the kind she displayed the night before; nor was there any recrimination for the alleged sexual attack
committed on her. Curiously, she also tarried at the locus criminis instead of hastily leaving the scene of her supposedly
harrowing experience, although she woke up earlier than accused-appellant Macapanpan.[42 Indeed, it goes against the
grain of human experience for a woman who has been robbed of her honor and chastity not to seize an opportunity to
escape from the clutches of her malefactors.[43 Moreover, it is unusual that when she left the hut, she did not immediately
seek the assistance of her friend and kumadre, Mercy Diday Manalansan, a Barangay Secretary who lived in Barangay
Burgos. This circumstance only raises even more doubts on her claim of rape more so considering that there has been no
showing that she was threatened by the group not to disclose the alleged incident.

Page 36 of 57
Seventh, by the same token, it also is out of the ordinary for accused-appellant Macapanpan to remain in the hut up to the
next day instead of immediately leaving to avoid reprisal for the rape he allegedly committed. As held in People v.
44
Licayan, the unexplained flight of the accused may as a general rule be taken as evidence of his guilt. The case at bar
involves the converse situation. Instead of fleeing, accused-appellant was the last person to leave the hut with Jay
Salem,[45 thirty minutes after complainant and Necy Adarlo left at 5:00 a.m.[46
A conviction in a criminal case must be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, which means a moral certainty that
the accused is guilty.[47 The prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of establishing with moral certainty the
truthfulness of the charge.[48
To reiterate, the testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity should not be received with precipitate credulity
for the charge can easily be concocted. Courts should be wary of giving undue credibility to a claim of rape, especially
where the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not corroborated and whose conduct during and
after the rape is open to conflicting interpretations.[49 While judges ought to be cognizant of the anguish and the
humiliation that a rape victim undergoes as she seeks justice, they should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is
to render justice based on the law.[50
The numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the private complainant have created reasonable doubt in our mind.[51
In view of the foregoing considerations, the presumption of innocence in favor of accused-appellants must be upheld
considering that the evidence at hand falls short of the quantum of proof to support a conviction.[52
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Siniloan, Laguna, Branch 33, in
Criminal Case No. S-1943, finding accused-appellants Lawrence Macapanpan y de Guzman and Airol Aclan y Mendoza
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Lawrence Macapanpan y de Guzman and Airoll
Aclan y Mendoza are ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. Their immediate release from confinement is
hereby ordered unless they are being detained for some other charge.
SO ORDERED.

Page 37 of 57

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 176348 : April 16, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. DIONISIO CABUDBOD y TUTOR and EDGAR CABUDBOD y LACROA,
Appellants.
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:

Page 38 of 57
1

This is an appeal from the Decision dated September 26, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01975
2
which had affirmed with modification the Joint Decision dated May 8, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of xxx,
Branch 109 in Criminal Cases Nos. 00-1879, 00-1880 and 00-1881. The appellate court had found appellants Dionisio T.
Cabudbod and Edgar L. Cabudbod guilty of qualified rape and simple rape through force and intimidation, respectively,
3
committed against AAA. cra
The Informations filed on October 26, 2000 charging appellants and German L. Tordecillas with rape, read as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 00-1879
That on or about the 14th day of October 2000, in xxx, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused DIONISIO CABUDBOD y TUTOR, being the guardian of AAA, a minor 11
years of age, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of force and intimidation, have carnal
knowledge of said AAA, against her will and consent.
Contrary to law.

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 00-1880

That on or about the 9th day of October 2000, in xxx, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused EDGAR CABUDBOD did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
by means of force and intimidation, have carnal knowledge of complainant AAA, a minor eleven (11) years of age, against
her will and consent.
Contrary to law.

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 00-1881

That on or about the 13th day of October 2000, in xxx, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named youth offender German Tordecillas y [Lacroa], a 16 years old minor, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of force and intimidation, have carnal knowledge of [the] complainant
AAA, a minor eleven (11) years of age, against her will and consent.
6

Contrary to law. cra

Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges. Accordingly, joint trial ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses AAA, Orpha Juan, Reynaldo R. Gubaton, Ma. Erlinda N. Aguila, SPO4 Milagros
A. Carrasco and Dr. Mariella S. Castillo. Taken together, their testimonies present the following narrative:cra:nad
7

AAA was only five years old when Fernando, appellant Dionisio T. Cabudbod's son, brought her to their house. She was
8
11 years old at the time the rape was committed, as shown in her Certificate of Live Birth. cra
9

On October 9, 2000, between 8:00 to 9:00 p.m., AAA's foster brother, appellant Edgar L. Cabudbod, entered the room in
the second floor where AAA was sleeping. Edgar removed her underwear and warned her not to shout. Edgar undressed
himself, kissed her private part and raped her. Edgar has raped AAA three times prior to October 9, 2000.
10

On October 13, 2000, at around 5:00 p.m., AAA was inside their house watching television while her foster mother BBB
was outside playing bingo. German L. Tordecillas, AAA's foster cousin, went to their house and joined her in watching
television. Suddenly, German held her hands and pointed a knife at her. He ordered her to lie down on the wooden bed in
the sala and removed her shorts and underwear. He undressed himself and raped her. German warned her not to tell
anyone about the incident otherwise he would kill her. German has molested AAA before for more than 10 times.
11

On October 14, 2000, at around 8:00 p.m., AAA's foster father, appellant Dionisio T. Cabudbod, entered the room in the
second floor where AAA was sleeping. BBB and AAA's foster brothers were then watching television downstairs. AAA was
awakened when Dionisio locked the door. He immediately covered her mouth with a piece of cloth, removed her
underwear and raped her. Dionisio warned her not to tell anyone about the incident otherwise he would kill her. Dionisio
has raped AAA before for more than 10 times.
12

During cross-examination, AAA testified that she did not tell BBB about the rape incidents because they were not close
and she was afraid of the appellants. It was only three years after the first rape that she confided to her classmate,
Melvina Tallon, about what happened to her. Melvina accompanied her to their school guidance counselor, Orpha Juan,
to whom AAA related what happened in the presence of their class adviser, Ms. Elizabeth Conwi. Thereafter, they
reported the incident to Barangay Captain Reynaldo R. Gubaton. Reynaldo referred AAA to Ma. Erlinda N. Aguila of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development, in xxx for proper assistance.

Page 39 of 57
13

Dr. Mariella S. Castillo of the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General Hospital physically examined AAA. Based
14
on the Final Medico-Legal Report she issued, AAA has healed hymenal lacerations at 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions
and a scar tissue in the fossa navicularis. Dr. Castillo concluded that there was a penetration caused by a blunt object or
an erect penis.
For their part, appellants denied the charges and claimed that AAA fabricated it to seek revenge against them.
15

Edgar testified that on October 9, 2000, between 8:00 to 9:00 p.m., he was not in their house since he was driving a
passenger jeepney from 6:00 p.m. to midnight. Thus, it was impossible for him to commit the crime charged. He added
that he treated AAA as his own sister but AAA harbored ill feelings against him since he teased her as "ampon" to which
she replied, "may araw ka rin." He averred that AAA sought revenge since Dionisio beat her for stealing the latter's
money.
16

17

German was only 16 years old at the time the rape was committed, as shown in his Certificate of Live Birth. He
testified that he was at home on October 13, 2000, at around 4:00 p.m. When he passed by the Cabudbod's house to buy
softdrinks, he noticed that the spouses Cabudbod were inside the house and a birthday party was being held in front of
their house. He could not have raped AAA since he was in the store of his ninong from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. He added that he
always quarreled with AAA since he teased her as "ampon" to which she replied, "may araw ka rin sa akin."
18

Dionisio testified that his son Fernando brought AAA to their house in 1995. She was from San Pablo, Laguna and they
did not know her biological parents. They decided to adopt her because they pitied her and they wanted to have a
daughter. However, the adoption was not legal and they merely simulated her Certificate of Live Birth by making it appear
that she was their own child born on September 3, 1989.
19

Dionisio contended that on October 14, 2000, between 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., he was with Edgar at xxx repairing their
passenger jeepney. It was already past 9:00 p.m. when they returned home. He said that he could not molest AAA
because he treated her as his own daughter. He added that it was also impossible for German to rape AAA on October
13, 2000 since he and BBB were home at that time.
20

BBB corroborated the testimonies of the appellants.

After trial, the trial court rendered a joint decision convicting Dionisio of qualified rape; Edgar of simple rape through force
and intimidation; and German of simple rape through force and intimidation and with the use of a deadly weapon. The trial
court believed AAA's testimony since it was supported by the findings of Dr. Castillo. It ruled that appellants' defense of
denial and alibi could not prevail over the categorical and positive testimony of AAA. AAA's testimony deserved full
credence especially when she has no motive to testify against appellants who are her foster family and benefactor. The
trial court also found that the spouses Cabudbod took AAA into custody when she was only five years old. Thus, it took
the qualifying circumstance of relationship against Dionisio as her guardian. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:cra:nad
WHEREFORE, in People vs. Dionisio Cabudb[o]d, Criminal Case No. 00-1879, the Court opines that the prosecution has
proven the guilt of the accused Dionisio Cabudb[o]d y Tutor, beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentence[s] him to
Death. He is likewise ordered to pay Php50,000.00 civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of Php50,000.00,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In Criminal Case No. 00-1880 entitled People vs. Edgar Cabudb[o]d, the Court opines that the prosecution has proven the
guilt of the accused Edgar Cabudb[o]d y Lacroa, beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentence[s] him to reclusion
perpetua. He is likewise ordered to pay Php50,000.00 civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of Php50,000.00,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
And in Criminal Case No. 00-1881 entitled People vs. German Tordecillas, the Court opines that the prosecution has
proven the guilt of the accused German Tordecillas y Lacroa, beyond reasonable doubt and with the privilege[d] mitigating
circumstance of minority, he is hereby sentence[d] to prision mayor of ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.
He is likewise ordered to pay Php50,000.00 civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of Php50,000.00, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED.

21

cra

Edgar, German and Dionisio appealed. German later withdrew his appeal and accepted the trial court's decision.
brief, Edgar and Dionisio raised the following as errors of the trial court:

22

In their

I.
THE PHYSICAL AS WELL AS THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE DISPROVED ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE COMMITTED BY
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, DIONISIO CABUDBOD Y TUTOR AND EDGAR CABUDBOD ON OCTOBER 9, 2000
BETWEEN 8:00 TO 9:00 P.M. AND OCTOBER 14, 2000 BETWEEN 8:00 TO 9:00 P.M., RESPECTIVELY.
II.

Page 40 of 57

MAJOR INCONSISTENCIES AND ADMISSIONS IN THE OVERALL TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINANT FAVOR THE
INNOCENCE OF HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, AND RENDER COMPLAINANT'S CREDIBILITY SUSPECT.
III.
COMPLAINANT'S CLAIM OF HER AGE AS ELEVEN (11) YEARS OLD IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE.
IV.
COMPLAINANT HAD THE MOTIVE TO CRY RAPE AGAINST ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, BROUGHT ABOUT BY
23
SEVERAL FACTORS.
On September 26, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, with the following modifications:cra:nad
WHEREFORE, the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of xxx, Branch 109, in Criminal Case Nos. 00-1879 and 001880 is hereby AFFIRMED with Modification in that the Accused-appellant Dionisio Cabudbod, who is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH, is ordered to pay the
Private Complainant P75,000.00 [as] civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
However, in view of the subsequent passage of R.A. No. 9346, approved on June 24, 2006, which repealed R.A. No.
8177 and R.A. No. 7659, the penalty imposable upon the Accused-appellant Dionisio Cabudbod is reduced from Death to
RECLUSION PERPETUA.
SO ORDERED.

24

cra

Hence, the present appeal.

Simply put, the issues are: (1) Were the physical and medical evidence sufficient to prove that appellants raped AAA? (2)
Did the inconsistencies in AAA's testimony render her credibility suspect? (3) Was AAA's minority sufficiently proven? (4)
Was AAA impelled by ill motive to accuse appellants of rape?cralaw
First. There is no gainsaying that medical evidence is merely corroborative, and is even dispensable, in proving the crime
25
of rape. A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim
26
is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. In the instant case, the medical evidence showed that AAA has healed
hymenal lacerations at 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions and a scar tissue in the fossa navicularis. Indeed, this Court has
sustained convictions for rape despite the fact that healed, and not fresh, hymenal lacerations were detected after an
27
examination conducted on the same day, the following day, or three days after the commission of the rape. Lacerations,
28
whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. Thus, the absence of fresh hymenal
29
lacerations does not prove that appellants did not rape AAA. On the contrary, the healed hymenal lacerations confirmed,
rather than belied, AAA's claim that appellants have raped her even prior to October 9, 13 and 14, 2000. In fact, Dr.
30
Castillo even testified that it is possible to have a penetration without incurring a new injury. cra
Second. We have held time and again that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim referring
31
to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the victim's credibility. To
32
every question asked, AAA gave straightforward and forthright answers which were credible and worthy of belief. The
linchpin of her testimony is that appellants raped her. On this matter, she did not waver or contradict herself. What
33
appellants make much of are trivial issues that cannot foreclose the fact that they had carnal knowledge of AAA. Thus,
34
whether she was raped in the ground floor or second floor of the house, or whether October 9, 2000 was a Saturday or a
35
36
Monday, or whether Dionisio was in xxx City or xxx Province on October 9, 2000, are trivial details. An ample margin of
error and understanding should be accorded AAA since minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting the
details of a horrifying experience. Hence, she cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate
account of every single lurid detail of her harrowing experience. Far from eroding her credibility, her lapses could instead
37
constitute signs of veracity for they show that her testimony was neither rehearsed nor contrived. cra
In contrast, appellants could only offer denial and alibi in their defense. Denial and alibi are weak defenses which must be
supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. These are negative self-serving evidence which cannot
be given greater weight than the testimony of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters. Between the positive
38
declarations of a prosecution witness and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserves more credence.
39
In addition to AAA's positive declarations, appellants' alibi placed them within the periphery of the locus criminis. In order
for the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that appellants were somewhere else when the offense was
committed; it must, likewise, be demonstrated that they were so far away that it was not possible for them to have been
40
physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. cra
41

Third. Under Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty of death shall be imposed in the crime of rape 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. Being in the nature of qualifying

Page 41 of 57

circumstances, and not ordinary aggravating circumstances which merely increase the period of the penalty, minority and
42
relationship must be specifically pleaded in the information and proved during trial with equal certainty as the crime itself.
cra
The information in Criminal Case No. 00-1879 specifically alleged that AAA was a minor at the time she was raped and
that the offender, Dionisio, is her guardian. During the trial, the prosecution proved the presence of the qualifying
43
circumstances of minority and relationship through documentary and testimonial evidence. As shown in her Certificate of
Live Birth, AAA was born on September 3, 1989. Therefore, at the time the rape was committed on October 9, 2000, she
was 11 years old. Her relationship to Dionisio was likewise proved by the testimonies of AAA, BBB and all three accused.
Dionisio's defense that he and BBB merely simulated AAA's Certificate of Live Birth should not be given credence since a
44
Certificate of Live Birth is a public document which has in its favor the presumption of regularity. Thus, he who alleges
45
forgery must prove the same by clear, positive and convincing evidence. cra
Fourth. The imputation of ill motive on the part of AAA against appellants hardly merits consideration. The alleged illfeelings harbored by AAA against her foster father and brother are too flimsy to justify the filing of charges punishable by
death or reclusion perpetua. The acts imputed against appellants are not ordinary criminal offenses that can be hurled
with facility. In relating her experiences in public, not only the victim, but her entire family as well, had to go through the
humiliation of a trial. Surely, only the genuine desire to seek justice impelled AAA to come out in the open and reveal her
46
unfortunate fate in the hands of her foster father and brother. cra
47

Finally, the Sinumpaang Salaysay (Salaysay ng Pag-urong ng Demanda) dated June 1, 2005 executed by AAA
deserves scant consideration. An affidavit of desistance is not looked upon with favor on appeal following a conviction, let
alone as being the sole consideration for the reversal of that conviction. There must be other circumstances which, when
48
coupled with retraction or desistance, create doubts on the veracity of the testimony given by witnesses during the trial.
As we have discussed earlier, the records do not here cast such doubts.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated September 26, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CRH.C. No. 01975 which affirmed with modification the Joint Decision dated May 8, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of xxx,
Branch 109 in Criminal Cases Nos. 00-1879, 00-1880 and 00-1881 is AFFIRMED. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 141724-27 : November 12, 2003]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, v. ARNULFO ORANDE y CHAVEZ, Appellant.
DECISION

Page 42 of 57

CORONA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision[1 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18, in Criminal Case Nos. 97-159184,
97-159185, 97-159186 and 97-159187, convicting appellant for two counts of simple rape, one count of statutory rape and
one count of frustrated rape, and sentencing him to suffer three counts of reclusion perpetua for the simple and statutory
rapes, and an indeterminate penalty of 8 years to 14 years and 8 months of imprisonment for the frustrated rape.
Complainant Jessica Castro charged appellant with raping her four times between January 1994 and November 1996.
The informations filed against appellant by the City Prosecutor read:
In Criminal Case No. 97-159184 That on or about January 14, 1996, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, that is, by threatening to kill said Jessica Castro, had carnal
knowledge of the latter against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
In Criminal Case No. 97-159185That on or about April 15, 1994, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, that is, by threatening JESSICA CASTRO Y DE LA CRUZ of death
should she resist or report the matter to anybody, had carnal knowledge of said Jessica C. Castro, a minor, under 12
years of age, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
In Criminal Case No. 97-159186 That on or about March 12, 1995, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, that is, by threatening Jessica Castro y de la Cruz of death
should she resist or report the matter to anybody, had carnal knowledge of said Jessica C. Castro, a minor, under 12
years of age, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
In Criminal Case No. 97-159187That on or about November 17, 1996, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, that is, by threatening to kill said Jessica Castro, had carnal
knowledge of the latter against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2
Arraigned on September 5, 1997, appellant pleaded not guilty.[3 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. However, the trial
was subsequently postponed for eight months as Jessica was suffering from psychological and emotional trauma from her
horrifying ordeal.[4 The lower court ordered the suspension of the trial to enable her to undergo psychological therapy at
the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General Hospital. Trial resumed in November 1998 with the prosecution
presenting Jessica as its first witness.
Incidentally, prior to the filing of the aforementioned cases, Jessica also filed a criminal case against her mother, Girlie de
la Cruz Castro, and the appellant for child abuse.
The evidence of the prosecution showed that appellant was the common law husband of Jessicas mother Girlie.
Appellant, a pedicab driver, started living with Girlie and her three children sometime in 1993 in a two-storey house in
Paco, Manila owned by Girlies mother. They occupied a room on the ground floor which served as their bedroom, kitchen
and living room. The adjacent room was occupied by Girlies brother and his family while the room on the second floor was
occupied by Girlies sister and her family.
Girlie gave birth to two more children by appellant. To earn a living, Girlie sold fish at the Paco Market, buying her stock
from the Navotas fish market late at night and sometimes in the early hours of the morning.
The first incident of rape, subject of Criminal Case No. 97-159185, happened sometime in April 1994 when Girlie was at
the fish market. Appellant was left in the house with Jessica, her siblings and appellants two children with Girlie. Jessica
was then watching television while her brothers and sisters were sleeping beside her. Appellant grabbed Jessicas right
hand and lasciviously jabbed her palm with his finger. He ordered her to undress which she obeyed out of fear as
appellant was armed with a knife. Appellant then removed his pants, placed himself on top of complainant and succeeded

Page 43 of 57

in partially penetrating her. Jessica felt pain in her vagina and saw it smeared with blood and semen. She tried to leave
the room but appellant locked the door and threatened to kill her if she told her mother what happened. Jessica was then
only nine years and four months old, having been born on December 19, 1983.[5
The second rape, subject of Criminal Case No. 97-159186, occurred on March 14, 1995 at around 11:00 a.m. when
Jessica was 11 years and 3 months old. Girlie was in the market while Jessica and her siblings were left in the house
watching television. Soon after, appellant arrived and sent the children, except Jessica, to play outside. Left alone with
Jessica, appellant removed his clothes, pulled out a balisong and ordered Jessica to undress. He then held her by the
shoulder and made her lie down. Then he mounted her. Appellant reached his orgasm shortly after penetrating her
slightly. He stood up with semen still dripping from his penis. Apparently still not satisfied, he knelt down, kissed and
fingered Jessicas vagina, then mashed her breasts. He only stopped what he was doing when someone knocked at the
door. Appellant and Jessica hurriedly put on their clothes and, as appellant opened the door, Jessica went to the
bathroom to wash herself.
The third rape, subject of Criminal Case No. 97-159184, occurred on January 14, 1996, when Jessica was 12 years and 6
months old. She arrived from school at around 11:00 a.m. While she was changing her clothes, appellant ordered
Jessicas brother and sister to visit their mother at the Paco Market and sent his children to play outside the house. When
appellant and Jessica were alone, he removed his pants, got his knife and ordered her to undress. Since she was afraid,
Jessica was forced to remove her clothes. Appellant then told her they would do what they did before, pulled her towards
him and made her lie down on the floor. While holding the knife, he kissed and fingered her vagina, then mashed her
breasts. Thereafter, he placed himself on top of her, partially penetrated her until he ejaculated. When Jessicas brother
and sister arrived, appellant hurriedly put on his clothes. Jessica did the same. She then went to the bathroom to wash
herself and change her bloodstained underwear.
The last rape, subject of Criminal Case No. 97-159187, occurred sometime in November 1996, at around 11:00 p.m.
Girlie was again in the public market while Jessica was at home with her siblings who were all asleep. Appellant told
Jessica that they would again do what they did before but she refused, saying that she might get pregnant. Appellant
brandished his balisong and threatened to kill her. He then covered himself and Jessica with a blanket, removed his pants
and her shorts, and placed himself on top of her. His penis slightly penetrated her vagina. He mashed her breasts,
inserted his finger into her vagina and kissed it. Jessica pushed him away and told him she wanted to sleep. Then she put
on her shorts. Appellant also put on his pants and told Jessica not to tell her mother what he did to her. He assured her
that she would not get pregnant because she was not yet menstruating.
Sometime in March 1997, a teacher of Jessica, Mrs. Adoracion Mojica, noticed the unusual treatment of Jessica by
appellant. When confronted by Mrs. Mojica, Jessica admitted that appellant had raped her several times. Mrs. Mojica
called up Jessicas aunt, Mrs. Antonina de la Cruz, and narrated to her what Jessica had confessed. Mrs. De la Cruz then
accompanied Jessica to the police station to file a complaint and to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH), Child
Protection Unit, to be examined. Dr. Bernadette J. Madrid, Director of the Child Protection Unit, examined Jessica and the
findings revealed the following:
Genital Examination:
Hymen: Estrogenized,
Attenuated from 1 oclock position to 4 o clock position
and from 6 o clock to 12 o clock position
Notch at 5 oclock
Healed hymenal tear at the 6 o clock position
Anus: Normal rectal tone, no pigmentation, no scars, normal rugae[6
For his defense, appellant advanced denial and alibi. He denied ever raping Jessica and testified that, during the alleged
second rape incident, he was driving his pedicab. His live-in partner Girlie testified that, during the purported first and
second incidents of rape, appellant was with her to buy fish in Navotas and sell them in Paco market. Appellant argued
that since Jessica disapproved of his relationship with her mother, she had the motive to falsely accuse him of raping her.
Further, he pointed out the improbability of the alleged first and fourth incidents of rape inasmuch as the make-up of the
room made it impossible for Jessicas siblings not to wake up during the commission of the crime. Appellant further
contended that Jessicas failure to cry out for help, knowing that her mothers relatives were in the same house, made her
story of rape unbelievable.
The trial court gave credence to the testimony of Jessica and convicted the appellant:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 97-159184, Accused Arnulfo Orande y Chavez is convicted of simple rape under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory
penalties provided by law.
In Criminal Case No. 97-159185, the accused is also convicted of simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law.

Page 44 of 57

In Criminal Case No. 97-159186, the accused is likewise convicted of statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law.
In Criminal Case No. 97-159187, the accused is convicted of frustrated rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 8 years of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years and 8 months of
reclusion temporal as maximum, and to pay the costs.
On the civil liability of the accused in the four cases, he is ordered to pay the victim, Jessica Castro, moral, nominal and
exemplary damages in the respective sums of P400,000.00, P200,000.00 and P100,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[7
In this appeal, appellant assigns the following errors:
I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF ONE COUNT OF STATUTORY RAPE, ONE COUNT OF FRUSTRATED RAPE AND TWO COUNTS OF
SIMPLE RAPE.
II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF FRUSTRATED RAPE
DESPITE THE FACT THAT UNDER PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE THERE IS NO SUCH CRIME.[8
The Office of the Solicitor General argues that appellants convictions should be upheld as the prosecution was able to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal is partly meritorious. This Court finds that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
appellants guilt for two counts of statutory rape and two counts of simple rape, there being no such crime as frustrated
rape in this jurisdiction.
After a thorough review of the records, we find no reason to deviate from the well-established rule that the credibility of
witnesses is a matter best assessed by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe them firsthand and to
note their demeanor, conduct and attitude.[9 In the present case, the trial court found Jessicas testimony convincing,
logical and credible. Moreover, the court a quo:
xxx discerned from her demeanor the intense mental torture, embarrassment, emotional pain and bitterness she suffered
whenever she was asked to recall and narrate the humiliating sexual ordeals she had gone through, and her ... desire for
justice and the punishment of her defiler. She was continually in tears while testifying and the proceeding was interrupted
several times to calm her down.[10
No young woman would allow an examination of her private part and subject herself to the humiliation and rigor of a public
trial if the accusations were not true, or if her motive were other than a fervent desire to seek justice.[11
We do not subscribe to appellants theory that the filing of the rape charges was motivated by Jessicas dislike for him. To
charge appellant with rape for the sole purpose of exacting revenge, as appellant implies in his brief, takes a certain kind
of psychiatric depravity which this Court does not see in Jessica. The fact that Jessica had to undergo psychological
treatment[12 after her first testimony in February 1998 belies appellants defense. The need for such counseling came
about after the defilement she suffered in the hands of appellant. In fact, it was the incidents of rape that caused her
psychological and emotional imbalance which required therapy at the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General
Hospital.
The alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities in Jessicas testimony did not discredit her nor reveal any fabrication.
Inconsistencies regarding minor details were attributable to the fact that she was recalling details of incidents that
happened three years before, not to mention the fact that these details pertained to something she had very little
knowledge of, being then only nine years and three months old when the first rape was committed. We have consistently
ruled that errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness (a very young one at that)
specially when she is recounting details of an occurrence so humiliating, so painful and, in this case, so alien as rape.[13
Appellant makes much of the fact that two incidents of rape happened inside the room where the other children were
sleeping. This Court has repeatedly held that rape can be committed in the same room where other members of the family
are also sleeping, in a house where there are other occupants or even in places which to many might appear unlikely and
high-risk venues for its commission.[14
Also, the failure of Jessica to cry out for help during the incidents in question, inspite of the physical proximity of her
relatives, or to report to them what happened, did not at all make her testimony improbable inasmuch as it is not
uncommon for a young girl of tender age to be easily intimidated into silence and conceal for sometime the violation of her
honor, even by the mildest threat to her life.[15 Besides, Girlie, Jessicas mother, had a rift with her siblings who lived in
the same house and forbade Jessica to socialize with them. It was likewise highly probable that the strained relations
between Jessicas mother, uncle and aunt prevented Jessica from confiding in them.

Page 45 of 57

In a number of cases, this Court has likewise ruled that delay, even of three years, in reporting the crime does not
necessarily detract from the witness credibility as long as it is satisfactorily explained.[16 Jessica was threatened by
appellant that he would kill her mother and relatives if she reported the rape. A young girl like Jessica can easily be
mesmerized by fear of bodily harm and, unlike a mature woman, cannot be expected to have the courage or confidence to
immediately report a sexual assault on her, specially when a death threat hangs over her head.[17
In view of the credible testimony of Jessica, appellants defenses of denial and alibi deserve no consideration. These weak
defenses cannot stand against the positive identification and categorical testimony of a rape victim.[18
The court a quo convicted appellant of one count of frustrated rape in Criminal Case No. 97-151987, the dispositive
portion of which read:
xxx xxx xxx.
In Criminal Case No. 97-159187, the accused is convicted of frustrated rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 8 years of prision mayor as minimum, and to pay the costs.
xxx xxx xxx.
SO ORDERED.[19
However, we agree with the observation of the Solicitor General that the court a quo was referring to Criminal Case No.
97-159185, and not Criminal Case No. 97-159187, in convicting appellant of frustrated rape:
The trial court convicted appellant of simple rape in Criminal Case No. 97-159185. However, the factual basis thereof in
the body of the decision reads:
With regard to Criminal Case No. 97-159185, the Court has gathered that sometime in April, 1994, at around 11:00 p.m.,
Jessica and her two siblings together with the accused were in their house, while their mother, Girlie, was in Navotas
buying fish. Jessica was watching TV in a lying position beside her two sleeping siblings, when the accused held Jessicas
right hand and jabbed her palm with his finger. Then he told her to remove her short pants, panty and T-shirt, after which
the accused removed his pants and with a balisong in his hand, he began kissing the sensitive parts of her body. Then he
placed himself on top of her and tried to have sexual intercourse with her. He succeeded in nudging her sex organ with
the tip of his penis, but was unable to accomplish penetration, due to the resistance offered by her by struggling and
kicking him. Nonetheless, the accused had orgasm and Jessicas sex organ was smeared with his semen. (emphasis
supplied, p. 2, Decision)
Such was the only rape incident where the trial court concluded there was no penetration.
On the other hand, the factual basis for the conviction in Criminal Case No. 97-159187 in the body of the trial courts
decision reads:
Anent Criminal Case No. 97-159187, the records further show that in November, 1996, at around 11:00 p.m., Jessica was
watching TV while the other siblings were asleep and her mother was away, when accused again made sexual advances
to her. She resisted and told accused she might become pregnant, but the accused persisted and threatened to kill her at
that very moment if she would not submit to his lust. As in the previous occasions, he again succeeded in having carnal
knowledge of the helpless and scared victim. After her defilement, the victim continually cried and the accused tried to
calm her down by assuring her that she would not be impregnated, because she has not yet began to have menstruation
(p. 3, Decision)
Consequently the conviction for frustrated rape should pertain to the incident in April 1994 described in Criminal Case No.
97-159185 and not Criminal Case No. 97-159187 since this case refers to the November 1996 rape incident where the
findings of the trial court was that there was carnal knowledge.[20
Moreover, the oversight of the court a quo in interchanging Criminal Case Nos. 97-159185 and 97-159187 is further
evidenced by the following paragraph found in page four of the trial court decision:
In Criminal Case 97-159185 and 97-159184, the acts of the accused in having carnal knowledge of the victim by
intimidation on two separate occasions in [the] early or middle part [of] 1996, and in November of the same year,
constitute two separate crimes of qualified rape under R.A. 7659 and the penalty prescribed therefore is death by lethal
injection.[21 (Emphasis Ours)
The rape incidents which occurred in 1996 were designated as Criminal Case Nos. 97-159184 and 97-159187, as borne
out by the informations filed by the City Prosecutor.[22 Thus, the conviction for frustrated rape should pertain to Criminal
Case No. 97-159185 and not Criminal Case No. 97-159187.

Page 46 of 57

Regarding Criminal Case No. 97-159185 (the April 1994 rape incident), the Court sustains appellants contention that
there is no such crime as frustrated rape, as we have ruled in a long line of cases.[23 Recently, in People vs.
Quinanola,[24 we again reiterated the rule:
Let it be said once again that, as the Revised Penal Code presently so stands, there is no such crime as frustrated rape.
In People vs. Orita, the Court has explicitly pronounced:
Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his
purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is
left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is
consummated. In a long line of cases (People vs. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527; People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980; People vs.
Royeras, G.R. No. L-31886, April 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 666; People vs. Amores, G.R. No. L-32996, August 21, 1974, 58
SCRA 505), We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any
penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without
rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there
is no penetration of the female organ (People vs. Tayaba, 62 Phil. 559; People vs. Rabadan, et al., 53 Phil. 694; United
States vs. Garcia, 9 Phil. 434) because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the
crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be
committed.
Of course, We are aware of our earlier pronouncement in the case of People vs. Eriia, 50 Phil. 998 [1927] where We
found the offender guilty of frustrated rape there being no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the
offended party. However, it appears that this is a stray decision inasmuch as it has not been reiterated in Our subsequent
decisions. Likewise, We are aware of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2632
(dated September 12, 1960) and Republic Act No. 4111 (dated March 29, 1965) which provides, in its penultimate
paragraph, for the penalty of death when the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on
the occasion thereof. We are of the opinion that this particular provision on frustrated rape is a dead provision. The Eriia
case, supra, might have prompted the law-making body to include the crime of frustrated rape in the amendments
introduced by said laws.
The Court is not unaware that Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, has retained the
provision penalizing with reclusion perpetua to death an accused who commits homicide by reason or on the occasion of
an attempted or frustrated rape. Until Congress sees it fit to define the term frustrated rape and thereby penalize it, the
Court will see its continued usage in the statute book as being merely a persistent lapse in language. (emphasis ours)
Thus, it was error for the trial court to convict appellant of frustrated rape. Besides, after a careful review of the records,
we find that the rape was in fact consummated. Jessica initially testified that, although appellant did not succeed in
inserting his penis in her vagina, she felt his sex organ touch hers and she saw and felt semen come out of his penis and
smear her vagina.[25 In response to the clarificatory questions asked by the prosecutor, Jessica testified that the
appellant was able to slightly penetrate her because she felt pain and her vagina bled.[26 It has been held that, to be
convicted of rape, there must be convincing and sufficient proof that the penis indeed touched the labia or slid into the
female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof.[27 Nevertheless, we have also ruled in cases where
penetration is not established that the rape is deemed consummated if the victim felt pain, or the medico-legal
examination finds discoloration in the inner lips of the vagina, or the labia minora is already gaping with redness, or the
hymenal tags are no longer visible.[28 In the present case, the victim testified that she felt pain and her vagina bled,
indisputable indications of slight penetration or, at the very least, that the penis indeed touched the labia and not merely
stroked the external surface thereof. Thus, the appellant should be found guilty of (consummated) rape and not merely
frustrated or attempted rape.
Pursuant to Section 11 of RA 7659 or the Heinous Crimes Law, the penalty of death is imposed if rape is committed when
the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. However, the
trial court was correct in not imposing the death penalty in Criminal Case Nos. 97-159184 and 97-159187 because the
qualifying circumstances of age and relationship of the victim to the appellant were not alleged in the information.[29
Thus, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code. However, in Criminal Case Nos. 97-159185 and 97-159186, the appellant can be convicted of statutory rape
also punishable by reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code inasmuch as the age of Jessica was
alleged in the information[30 and duly proven during the trial by the presentation of her birth certificate.[31
We award moral damages of P50,000 for each count of rape as moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims
without need of pleading or proof.[32 We also award civil indemnity ex delicto of P50,000 for each count of rape in the
light of the ruling that civil indemnity, which is distinct from moral damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of
rape.[33 We likewise award exemplary damages of P25,000 for each count of rape consistent with the prevailing
jurisprudence on the matter.[34
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18, in Criminal Case Nos. 97-159 184 to 87 is
AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

Page 47 of 57

1. In Criminal Case No. 97-159 184, appellant is convicted of simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
2. In Criminal Case No. 97-159 185, appellant is convicted of statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
3. In Criminal Case No. 97-159186, appellant is convicted of statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
4. In Criminal Case No. 97-159187, appellant is convicted of simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
For each count of rape, appellant is ordered to pay complainant Jessica Castro P50,000 as moral damages, P50,000 as
civil indemnity and P25,000 as exemplary damages, or a total of P500,000. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.

Page 48 of 57

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 136894-96. February 7, 2001]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ASTERIO CORDERO alias TERYO, Appellant.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Old age, by itself, is not a defense in a rape case. To overcome the prosecutions evidence, the appellant must present
convincing proof that he was physically unable to consummate carnal knowledge of the victim. He may also show that the
trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstances of substance and value, which if considered would affect the result of
the case.
The Case

Before the Court is an appeal by Asterio Cordero alias Teryo, challenging the November 26, 1998 Decision [1 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan (Branch 46), in Criminal Case Nos. U-9681, U-9682 and U9683. The decretal portion of the Decision, which found him guilty on three counts of rape, reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered in the following:
1. Under CRIM. CASE NO. U-9681, the Court sentences ASTERIO CORDERO to suffer the penalty of [r]eclusion
[p]erpetua; [o]rdering Cordero to pay Teresa Nana the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, plus P20,000.00 as
exemplary damages;
2. Under CRIM. CASE NO. U-9682, the Court sentences ASTERIO CORDERO to suffer the penalty of [r]eclusion
[p]erpetua; [o]rdering Cordero to pay Mirasol Nana the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, plus P20,000.00 as
exemplary damages;
3. Under CRIM. CASE NO. U-9683, the Court sentences ASTERIO CORDERO to suffer the penalty of [r]eclusion
[p]erpetua; [o]rdering Cordero to pay Mirasol Nana the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, plus P20,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
The Jail Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Urdaneta District Jail, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, is
hereby ordered to transmit the person of accused Asterio Cordero to the National Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City,
immediately.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to prepare the mittimus immediately.[2
Appellant was charged with three (3) separate Informations [3 for rape. The first Information (Crim. Case No. U-9681)
charged appellant as follows:
That on or about June 2, 1998 at Sitio San Antonio, Brgy. Arzadon, San Manuel, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Teresa Nana y Niduaza, a minor 13 years old[,] against her will and without
her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 and R.A. 8353.[4
The second Information (Crim. Case No. U-9682) reads:
That on or about January 22, 1998, at Sitio San Antonio, Brgy. Arzadon, San Manuel, Pangasinan and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of force and intimidation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and felon[i]ously have sexual intercourse with MIRASOL NANA y NIDUAZA, a minor 15 years old,
against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 and R.A. 8353.[5

Page 49 of 57

Lastly, the third Information (Crim. Case No. U-9683) is worded thus:
That on or about January 17, 1998, at Sitio San Antonio, Brgy. Arzadon, San Manuel, Pangasinan, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of force and intimidation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and felon[i]ously have sexual intercourse with MIRASOL NANA y NIDUAZA, a minor 15 years old,
against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 and R.A. 8353.[6
7

When arraigned on July 20, 1998, appellant pleaded [7 Assisted by Atty. Pedrito B. Labarinto.7 not guilty. [8 Joint
hearings on the three Informations were conducted in due course. Thereafter, the court a quo promulgated its assailed
Decision.
Hence, this appeal. [9
The Facts

Prosecutions Version

In its Brief, [10 the Office of the Solicitor General presents the prosecutions version of the facts in this wise:
Criminal Cases Nos. U-9682 and U-9683
The families of Antonio Nana and Asterio Cordero alyas Teryo were neighbors at Sitio Antonio, Barangay Arzadon, San
Manuel, Pangasinan. Their houses were about 200 to 250 meters apart from each other, separated by a ricefield.
Everyday, Teryo would pass by Nanas house in going to the irrigation canal. Teryo Cordero was close to the Nana family.
Antonio Nana had 6 children. The eldest, Susan, was already married and living in La Union. His other children were
Mirasol, Teresa, Loida, Antonio Jr., and Teddy.
On January 17, 1998, around 12:00 high noon, Mirasol Nana and her 10-year old sister, Loida, were cooking inside their
house. At the time, their father, Antonio, went out to fish while their mother, Teresita, was also out of the house looking for
food. Suddenly, Teryo arrived and told them, Come and get corn. Accepting Corderos invitation, Mirasol and Loida went
with him and proceeded to his cornfield, about 250 to 300 meters from their house. At the time, Teryo was bringing a bolo,
placed in a scabbard hanging from his waist.
When they arrived at the cornfield, Teryo instructed Mirasol to hold a plastic bag while he got corn about 30 meters from
where they stood. After Teryo had picked corn, he went back to Mirasol and gave them to her. However, he suddenly held
her hair and boxed her stomach twice. As a consequence, Mirasol fell down, facing up. At this juncture, Teryo began to
take off the girls short pants and panty. After undressing Mirasol, Teryo removed his bolo from the scabbard and thrust it
on the ground near Mirasol.
Thereafter, Teryo laid on top of the prostrate girl, inserted his penis into her sexual organ and then made push and pull
movements. In the process, Mirasol tried to resist him but she could not fight back because Teryo was too heavy for her.
She felt pain [i]n her private parts. After he had finished, Teryo told Mirasol that he would kill them all if she reported the
matter.
The 10 year-old Loida could only watch helplessly while her sister was violated by Teryo who threatened her not to move.
For fear that Teryo would make good his threats, Mirasol and Loida did not tell anyone about Mirasols harrowing
experience.
Five days later, or on January 22, 1998, around 10 o clock in the morning, Teryo again went to the Nana[s] house and
invited Mirasol and Loida to get young corn under the guava tree for merienda. At the time, Mirasol and Loida were
cooking. Their father was again out, fishing, but their mother, Teresita, was inside the house. After telling them about the
young corn, Teryo left. However, he returned at 11:00 oclock and repeated that they get the corn for he was going to the
irrigation canal. After Teryo left, Teresita advised Mirasol and Loida to do as Teryo had told them and get the corn under
the guava tree. Mirasol and Loida thus proceeded to the guava tree, south of their house.
Cordero was waiting for them when they reached the guava tree, but he immediately left to get a plastic bag for the corn.
Upon returning with a plastic bag, he placed the corn inside. In the meantime, Mirasol had already climbed up the tree to
pick guavas. Her younger sister, Loida, was still under the tree. Suddenly, Teryo pulled Loida towards another guava tree,
about 30 meters away and left her there. When Teryo returned to Mirasol, he told her to get down for he had something to
tell her, but she refused.

Page 50 of 57

Unable to convince Mirasol to go down, Teryo pretended to leave. Finally, Mirasol went down the tree when she saw
Teryo was gone. But, as soon as she was on the ground, Teryo suddenly re-appeared and immediately held her hands
and hair. Then, he loosened his hold on her hair and boxed her twice in the stomach; she fell down as a consequence.
Teryo immediately undressed himself by removing his short pants and briefs. Soon, he also removed Mirasols short pants
and panty. Afterwards, he laid on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made push and pull movements.
Mirasol tried to resist the sexual assault by moving her body from side to side, but to no avail.
After Teryo had satisfied his lust, he aimed his bolo at Mirasol and Loida warned them not to report the incident or he
would kill them. Then he went home. Meanwhile, Mirasol put on her panty and short pants and, together with Loida,
brought home Teryos plastic bag containing the corn.
Mirasol and Loida kept the incidents to themselves because of Teryos threat to kill them. However, Mirasol complained of
dizziness on June 4, 1998, or six months after the rape incidents. The same day, her mother and older sister, Susan
Patacsil, brought her to a hospital in Binalonan, Pangasinan; she was found pregnant.
Since she was afraid to inform her father about her pregnancy, Mirasol did not go home to San Manuel, Pangasinan but
went with Susan to Bauang, La Union. Only her mother went home. However, Antonio followed Mirasol to Bauang, La
Union and inquired from Susan why she had to be brought to La Union. Susan then informed their father about Mirasols
condition. When queried by Antonio as to who caused her pregnancy, Mirasol pointed to Asterio Cordero.
Even if he was mad at Teryo for the latters savagery [to] his daughter, Antonio resolved to bring the matter to justice. So,
the following day, Antonio sought the help of the barangay captain of Brgy. Arzadon, Eusebio Cerdea, and the latter
brought the matter to the attention of the police of San Manuel, Pangasinan. Mirasol was thereafter subjected to medical
examination by Dr. Gloria Liberato, Medico-Legal Officer III of the Asingan Medical Hospital. Dr. Liberato made the
following findings:
NOI -- Alleged Rape
DOI -- 1st Incident -- January 17, 1998 at 12:00 noontime
2nd Incident -- January 22, 1998 at 11:00 A.M.
EXTERNAL FINDINGS:
1. No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination.
INTERNAL FINDINGS:
1. Healed hymenal laceration at 7:00, 5:00 oclock positions;
2. (+) Whitish discharge non-foul smelling;
3. Vagina admits 2 fingers with slight difficulty;
4. Cervix soft, close[d] uterus enlarged to 4 months size
LMP -- February 5, 1998
AOG -- 4 months & 1 week
EDC -- November 12
Pregnancy Test (+)
Criminal Case No. U-9681
But even before Teryo could be brought to justice for his lechery on Mirasol Nana, it turned out that Mirasols younger
sister, Teresa, was also a victim of his bestiality.
On June 2, 1998, around 3 oclock in the afternoon, 13-year old Teresa and her younger brother, Antonio Nana, Jr., 9
years old, were walking home after pasturing their four (4) goats at the ricefield of Bernardino when they met Teryo. Teryo
came up to them and told Antonio, Jr. to go home ahead of his sister because he (Teryo) had something to tell her.
Antonio, Jr. went home.

Page 51 of 57

As soon as Antonio, Jr. had left, Teryo twisted the right arm of Teresa and dragged her for ten (10) meters up to the side
of the irrigation canal. After pulling Teresa, Teryo boxed her twice in the stomach. As a result, Teresa lost consciousness.
When she regained consciousness, Teresa found herself naked with Teryo on top of her; Teryo was inserting his penis
into her vagina. He stayed on top of Teresa for ten minutes, at which time, he inserted his penis into her vagina twice.
Then, after 5 minutes, Teryo again inserted his penis into her vagina the third time. Teresas struggles to resist Teryos
beastly advances were to no avail. She could only cry.
When Teryo had satisfied his lust, he moved to the side of Teresa and thereafter put on his pants. In the meantime,
Teresa looked at her vagina and saw that it was bloodied. She then put on her panty and her lower dress. However, as
she was about to go home, Teryo threatened her that he would kill all of them if the incident was reported.
Teresa kept the rape incident secret until the evening of June 7, 1998, when Teresa was eating dinner with the family and
Antonio asked her if anything happened to her. She admitted that Teryo had raped her.
Her revelation prompted Antonio to report the rape incident. He and Teresa then went to her uncle Ruben, who then
accompanied them to their Barangay Captain, Eusebio Cerdea. From Cerdeas house, they all proceeded to the police
station of San Manuel, where the rape incident was reported and blottered. Teresa Nana also executed her sworn
statement.
Teresa was thereafter subjected to physical examination by Dr. Julie Alcancia, attending physician at the Don Amadeo
Perez Sr. Memorial General Hospital. She wrote down her findings in a Medical Certificate, as follows:
This is to certify that TERESA NANA, 13 years old, of Arzadon, San Antonio, San Manuel, Pangasinan, was examined
and treated/confined in this hospital on/from June 8, 1998 to OPD with the following findings and/or diagnosis:
-- Fairly developed; fairly nourished; ambulatory.
PE: Vagina -- Healed lacerations noticed 1 oclock; 3 oclock, 6 oclock; 9 oclock.
Internal Exam: Admits 2 finger[s] with ease.
-- Uterus -- small
-- Bleeding (-).[11 (citations omitted)
Defenses Version

In his Joint Brief, [12 appellant contends that the Criminal Complaints for rape filed against him before the PNP of San
Manuel, Pangasinan, were a product of conspiracy. He claims that the Nana sisters, Mirasol and Teresa -- upon the
instigation of their father, Antonio Corpuz, and their relative Ruben Corpuz filed the Complaints to extort money from him,
as he was in charge of the collection of irrigation fees from farmers. [13
He averred that he was already 63 years old when the alleged rape incidents occurred; therefore, he could not have
committed the acts complained of. He also denied the allegation of Mirasol that he had extended an invitation to her and
her sister Loida to come and get corn. He pointed out that on January 17, 1998 and January 22, 1998, the agricultural
crops he had planted on his farm were palay and tobacco, not corn. [14
During the hearing of the joint cases against him, appellant made the following declarations:
x x x that he is married with five children. That as farmer, his farm is located at San Antonio, Arzadon, San Manuel,
Pangasinan. That in January, 1998, his farm [was] planted with palay and tobacco. That all the adjoining lands to his land
were planted with palay. He knows Mirasol Nana and her sister, Teresa Nana. He denied the testimonies of Mirasol and
Teresa that on January 17, 1998, he invited Mirasol to his farm to pick young corn. Likewise, he denied that on January
17, 1998, at 12:00 oclock noon, he ever touched or held the hands of Mirasol, much less, went on top of her nor raped
her. He denied raping Mirasol. He does not know why Mirasol filed these cases against him. Likewise, he denied raping
Mirasol on January 22, 1998, at 11:00 oclock in the morning. He declared that he is the President of the Irrigation
Association. He denied the allegation of Teresa Nana that he raped her on June 2, 1998. He declared that on June 2,
1998, he was in the yard of Doroteo dela Cruz at Cabacaraan, San Manuel, Pangasinan. That on January 17, 1998, at
12:00 oclock noon, he was in their house. Likewise, on January 22, 1998, he was in their house. He told the Court that he
was the Moderator in the seminar and supervised the participants in the seminar of the San Juan Irrigation Association.
He identified Exhibit 4-D. He denied the allegation of Teresa Nana that he spread the rumor that he raped Teresa Nana.
He further declared that he knows Rudy Racadio, his compadre, being the treasurer of their irrigation association, but he
denied the statement of Racadio that he went to his house on June 9, 1998 and told him about his problem regarding the
two children. That on June 7, 1998, he was in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, attending the death anniversary of his parents. He
went home on June 10, 1998 and slept in the house of Racadio. On June 11, 1998, he supervised the cleaning of the
irrigation canal. He went to the town of San Manuel with Racadio and Cerdea and a tricycle driver in the afternoon. They
went to the Municipal Hall. When they reached the Municipal building, he met Ruben Corpuz. Ruben Corpuz held his neck

Page 52 of 57

and hit his ears and boxed him. He lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness, he was already inside the jail.
He learned later on that complaints were filed against him by two young women. That the motives why these cases were
filed against him by Mirasol Nana and Teresa Nana [were]: (1) The Corpuzes refused to pay irrigation fees which he was
collecting from them; (2) An emissary relative of the Nanas were asking from him an amount of P500,000.00 so that they
[would] withdraw these cases filed by the two girls. He told the emissary that he [did] not have the amount since he [was]
poor.
He denied the testimony of Cerdea that he was settling the cases with the Nanas. He likewise denied the statement of
Cerdea, that he was asking forgiveness from Antonio Nana. He further told the Court that he used to see Mirasol Nana
with someone when she passe[d] by his house. He saw Mirasol Nana [pass] by their house twice a week. He further
declared that Teresa Nana was seen by him with a man passing by their house. He saw Teresa Nana passing by their
house three times a week. Teresa Nana and Mirasol Nana were entertaining several men. He further declared that the
Corpuzes were the ones who instigated the filing of these cases. Thereafter, the defense rested its case with the offer of
Exhibit 1 to 5 inclusive.[15
Trial Courts Ruling

The trial court ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt in all three
cases. It disbelieved his story and gave full faith and credence to the prosecution witness. For each of the three (3)
criminal cases, it thus sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay P50,000 in moral damages and
P20,000 in exemplary damages.
The Issues

Appellant submits that the court a quo committed the following errors:
I
The trial court gravely erred in not considering the fact that the accused was innocent of the crime charged in the three
informations;
II
The trial court gravely erred in not considering that the accused could not have raped Mirasol Nana on January 17, 1998
and January 22, 1998, as there [was] no reason for the said private complainant to go to the place where the alleged
crime of rape were committed because there [was] no corn to get or to harvest at that time;
III
The trial court gravely erred in not considering the fact that the testimonies of Mirasol Nana, Loida Nana and Teresa Nana
were not credible, not true, false, fabricated, and full of lies;
IV
The trial court gravely erred in not considering that there [was] reasonable doubt as to the truth of the rape charges.
V
The trial court gravely erred in not considering the fact that the accused could not have committed the crime of rape
against Teresa Nana on June 2, 1998, at 3:00 p.m. as he was then attending a seminar sponsored by the NIA at that time
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. of said date of June 2, 1998, and hence, there was physical impossibility for the said accused
to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was allegedly committed.[16
Basically, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence against him.
The Courts Ruling

The appeal has no merit. Consistent with current jurisprudence, the Court grants the victims indemnity ex delicto in
addition to the damages already awarded, but deletes the award of exemplary damages.
Main Issue: Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence

Appellant contends that the testimonies of Mirasol, Loida and Teresa Nana were incredible and full of lies. He insists that
there was no corn ready to be harvested in his farm in January, 1998, because the only agricultural crops he had planted
at the time were palay and tobacco. He then presented several defense witnesses to corroborate this claim.

Page 53 of 57

Appellants assertions cannot prevail over the categorical testimonies of the two rape victims, Mirasol Nana and her sister
Teresa. Assuming arguendo that he had planted only palay and tobacco in his farm at the time, the absence of corn is not
decisive. The gravamen of the case, it should be pointed out, is the positive identification of appellant as the ravisher of
the two young sisters.
We also reject appellants contention that Mirasol and Teresa, upon the instigation of their father and their uncle, had
conspired to file the rape charges, because they wanted to extort money from him.
It is inconceivable that a young rural lass will cry rape, allow an examination of her private parts, undergo the trouble and
the humiliation of a public and open trial, and put herself and her family under public scrutiny, if she were not motivated to
bring to justice the person who had dishonored and defiled her. [17
In the present case, the testimonies of the two rape victims -- young barrio girls and full-blood sisters at that -- deserve full
credence. They would not have invented such a lurid tale if it were not really true. They knew that their actions would as
they already did cause them needless humiliation and suffering and destroy the good relationship existing between their
family and that of appellant.
Verily, the trial court gave credence to the victims testimony. We find no reason to reverse this finding. Well-settled is the
rule that factual findings of the trial court deserve utmost respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it has
overlooked certain facts or circumstances of substance and value, which if considered would change the result of the
case. [18 The trial court, unlike reviewing tribunals, had a firsthand opportunity to observe the demeanor and the conduct
of the witnesses and could thus better assess their capacity to speak the truth. [19
Furthermore, deemed an admission of guilt was the disclosure of appellant to Brgy. Captains Cerdea [20 and Racadio [21
that he had a problem with two children -- who turned out to be the Nana sisters with whom he wanted to settle the matter.
[22 His own acts dispel from our minds any scintilla of doubt that he indeed raped the Nana sisters.
Appellants Advanced Age

Asserting that he was already 63 years old when the rape incidents occurred, appellant suggests that his advanced age
had made him impotent. This Court, however, had already convicted a 70-year old man for twice raping the 16-year old
complainant. [23 Recently, it also convicted a 69-year-old man, who was suffering from a coronary artery disease, for
raping a healthy 29-year-old. [24
Moreover, the presumption is in favor of potency, [25 because impotency is an abnormal condition. The Court has also
ruled that impotency as a defense in rape cases must be proven with certainty to overcome the presumption in favor of
potency. [26
Appellant is a robust farmer and an active individual in his community, he being the president of the Irrigation Association.
He is also married with five children. Other than his basic assertion, no evidence was presented to show that he had
become impotent prior to the rape incidents. There is therefore no reason to overturn the presumption in favor of potency.
Appellants Alibi

Appellant contends that he was attending a seminar at another barangay when Teresa was raped around 3:00 p.m. on
June 2, 1998.
We are not persuaded. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it can be concocted easily and is difficult to disprove.
For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed; it
must likewise be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time.
[27
In the present case, Teresa positively identified appellant as the culprit. Furthermore, the distance was too short between
Sitio San Antonio, Barangay Arzadon, where the rapes were committed; and Barangay Cabacaraan, where appellant
allegedly attended a seminar from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Thus, the possibility of appellant being at the scene of the crime,
cannot be discounted.
Aside from affirming appellants conviction, the Court also sentences him to pay indemnity ex delicto of P50,000 for each
of the three rape cases, consistent with existing jurisprudence. [28 We likewise delete the award of exemplary damages,
as no aggravating circumstances were proven. [29
WHEREFORE , the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision is MODIFIED by the additional GRANT of P50,000 as
indemnity ex delicto for each count of rape and the deletion of the award of exemplary damages. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.

Page 54 of 57

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 144082-83. April 18, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FAUSTINO DULAY @ FAUS, accused-appellant.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision [1 of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Branch 46, in Criminal Case No. U10305, convicting accused-appellant of the crime of rape, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
ordering him to pay the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Accused-appellant was originally charged with rape in Criminal Case No. U-10305, and sexual assault in Criminal Case
No. U-10306, defined in Articles 266-B, and 266-A, paragraph (2), respectively, of the Revised Penal Code as amended
by Republic Act No. 8353. He was acquitted in Criminal Case No. U-10306 for sexual assault but was convicted for simple
rape in Criminal Case No. U-10305 under an Information which reads:
That in January, 1999, or thereabout, at Poblacion, Binalonan, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, who well knew that he was afflicted with Gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted disease,
common-law husband of Cresencia Olimpo, the adoptive mother of herein complainant Princess Diana Olimpo, a minor, 9
years of age, through threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
intercourse with said complainant who was transmitted with Gonorrhea as a consequence, against her will, to her damage
and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Article 255-A, (sic) par. 1, in relation to Article 266-B, pars. 1 and 6, Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act Nos. 7659 and 8353.[2
Upon arraignment on November 11, 1999, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. [3 Trial thereafter followed.
The facts show that complainant, Princess Diana Olimpo, is the biological child of Lolita Cervesa. After her birth on
September 21, 1989, complainant was entrusted to Gloria Olimpo and her common-law spouse, accused-appellant
Faustino Dulay. Complainant was thereafter registered in the Office of the Civil Registrar of Villasis, Pangasinan, as the
child of Cresencia Olimpo and accused-appellant Faustino Dulay. In July 1998, Gloria Olimpo flew to the United States
and left the complainant with her sister-in-law, Juanita Farias. Accused-appellant, however, took custody of complainant
and brought her to Poblacion, Binalonan, Pangasinan. [4
Sometime in January 1999, when the victim was nine (9) years of age, accused-appellant fingered her anus and inserted
his penis into her vagina many times, causing her to feel pain. The victim narrated the incident to Glorias son, Donald
Olimpo, who in turn relayed the matter to her sister, Cristy Olimpo. [5 Consequently, the victim was examined and was
found to be suffering from gonorrhea. Further examination yielded the following results:
S/S: Patient is conscious, coherent, F/N, F/D well kept.
Breast: Infantile, symmetrical, non tender.
Genitalia:
Pubic hair: none
Labia majora/Labia minora: well coaptated
Hymen: (+) deep healed laceration at 9 oclock position
Vaginal Orifice: (+) erythema admits tip of 5th finger examining with resistance.[6
In his defense, accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusations against him and insinuated that it was Donald
Olimpo who molested the victim. [7 He stressed that if he indeed raped the victim, her sex organ would have been
severely injured considering the size of his penis. To bolster his claim, he requested the court to examine his sex organ.

Page 55 of 57

Upon ocular inspection, the trial court found that there were embedded therein 3 pellets; and the same measures 6 inches
in length and 2 inches in diameter when not fully erect. [8 The defense, likewise, proffered the theory that the rape charge
was a mere fabrication of Gloria Olimpos relatives who were opposed to his relationship with the latter.
On May 15, 2000, the trial court rendered the assailed decision. The dispositive portion thereof states:
WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered:
1. In CRIM. CASE NO. U-10305, CONVICTING FAUSTINO DULAY @ FAUS of the crime of Simple Rape, and the Court
sentences Faustino Dulay @ Faus to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; to indemnify Princess Olimpo the sum of
P50,000.00 as moral damages and further sum of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
2. In CRIM. CASE NO. U-103506, ACQUITTING FAUSTINO DULAY @ FAUS of the crime of Rape for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to prepare the mittimus.
The Jail Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Urdaneta District Jail, Urdaneta City, is hereby ordered to
deliver the person of Faustino Dulay @ Faus to the National Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City, immediately upon receipt of
this Decision.
SO ORDERED.[9
Accused-appellant appealed his conviction for rape in Criminal Case No. U-10305, on the following assignment of errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ACCUSED-APPELLANT
TO HAVE RAPED THE VICTIM WITHOUT CAUSING SERIOUS INJURY ON HER GENITALS.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF
THE RAPE CHARGE DESPITE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT HE WAS INFECTED WITH
GONORRHEA.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE RECORDS ARE REPLETE WITH OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES CLEARLY POINTING TO THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.[10
In resolving rape cases, the complainants credibility becomes the single most important issue. In view of the intrinsic
nature of the crime of rape where only two persons normally are involved, the testimony of the complainant must always
be scrutinized with great caution, and the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and should not
be allowed to gain validity from the lack of evidence for the defense. [11
Guided by the foregoing principles, we have carefully examined the testimony of Princess Olimpo and found no error on
the trial courts giving credence to her declarations. Complainant, who was only 10 years old when she testified, was
candid and straightforward in her version of the facts. She was not shown to have the shrewdness and callousness of a
woman who would concoct such a story and endure physical examination and public trial if her story were untrue. The
Court has consistently held that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. [12 Moreover, the records show that the complainant was
crying when she testified. In a number of cases, this has been held to be evidence of truthfulness of the rape charge with
the verity born out of human nature and experience. [13
The Court sees no reason to depart from the conclusions of the trial court whose findings of facts are accorded great
respect, being in the unique position to observe the demeanor, act, conduct, and attitude of the witnesses in court while
testifying. [14 Verily, the trial court correctly disregarded the ill motive imputed by accused-appellant on the relatives of the
complainant. It is highly improbable that they would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of complainants
private parts and submit her to public humiliation and scrutiny via an open trial, if her sordid tale was not true and their
sole motivation was not to have the culprit apprehended and punished. [15
The prosecution need not prove the element of force and intimidation in the case at bar. In rape committed by a father or
a person recognized by the victim as her father, as in the present case, the formers moral ascendancy and influence over
the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.

Page 56 of 57

In People v. Pagdayawon, [16 the Court held that ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the fathers parental
authority, which the Constitution and the laws recognize, support and enhance, as well as from the childrens duty to obey
and observe reverence and respect towards their parents. Such reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds
of Filipino children and are recognized by law. Abuse of both by a father can subjugate his daughters will, thereby forcing
her to do whatever he wants.
There is no merit in the contention of accused-appellant that the absence of severe injury on the genitalia of the
complainant disproves the fact of rape. It should be stressed that injury in the genitalia of the victim and the size of
accused-appellants penis, who had the audacity to flaunt it before the trial court, are immaterial in a charge of rape. Full
penetration is not required to sustain the conviction of rape, and it is enough that there be entrance of the male organ
within the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. In fact, penetration of the penis by the entry into the lips of the
female organ even without rupture or laceration of the hymen suffices to warrant conviction for rape. [17
The Court is likewise not convinced that the actuations of the complainant after the rape belies the commission of rape.
Her alleged good relationship with accused-appellant even after the rape will not acquit him of the rape charge. Not every
victim of a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. People may
react differently to the same situation, as what complainant did. [18 At the tender age of 9, complainant cannot be
expected to react as an adult and realize the repercussions of the wrong committed upon her by the man she considered
as her father.
We find immaterial the failure of the prosecution to prove that accused-appellant was suffering from a venereal disease or
any sexually transmissible disease. While it is true that in Criminal Case No. U-10305 the information charged him with
rape under paragraph (6), of Article 266-B, (where the offender is aware that he/she is afflicted with a sexually
transmissible disease), his conviction, however, was for rape under paragraph (1), of Article 266-B, (where the victims
minority and relationship with the offender are qualifying), for which he was also indicted in the same information. Thus,
whether or not he was afflicted with a sexually transmissible disease is immaterial in the instant appeal.
Article 266-B, paragraph (1), of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, provides that the death
penalty shall be imposed if the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age, 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. While the age of the victim was alleged in the information and proven at the trial, the qualifying circumstance
of relationship was not established by the prosecution. As stated in the information, accused-appellant was indicted for
rape as the common-law husband of Cresencia Olimpo, the adoptive mother of herein complainant. The records show
that the complainant was registered in the Civil Registrar of Villasis, Pangasinan, as the child of Cresencia Olimpo and
accused-appellant Faustino Dulay. The records likewise reflect that complainant grew up under the care of accusedappellant and his common-law spouse, Gloria Olimpo. Though there was no categorical declaration to this effect, it
appears from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and that of accused-appellant that Gloria Olimpo is the same
Cresencia Olimpo registered as the mother of the complainant. However, regardless of their identity and their relationship
with accused-appellant, the penalty imposed by the trial court will not be affected. This is because neither Gloria nor
Cresencia is the biological or the legally adoptive mother of the complainant. Consequently, accused-appellant will not fall
under common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Failing to establish the aggravating circumstance of relationship,
accused-appellant was correctly convicted of simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua. [19
As to accused-appellants civil liability, the Court further awards the complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, which, like
moral damages, is automatic upon the finding of the fact of rape. [20 The P25,000.00 exemplary damages is affirmed in
view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of minority of the complainant. [21
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Branch 46, in Criminal
Case No. U-10305, finding accused-appellant Faustino Dulay alias Faus, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in
addition to the P50,000.00 moral damages and P25,000.00 exemplary damages, accused-appellant is further ordered to
pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
SO ORDERED.

Page 57 of 57