ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1188 July 2, 2001 - JOSE E. GURAY v. FABIAN M. BAUTISTA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1481 July 5, 2001 - RCBC v. NOEL V. QUILANTANG

  • G.R. No. 135199 July 5, 2001 - CRISOSTOMO MAGAT, ET AL. v. ALBERT M. DELIZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141285 July 5, 2001 - CEBU INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE, ET AL. v. CEBU INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE EMPLOYEES’ UNION

  • G.R. No. 141947 July 5, 2001 - ISMAEL V. SANTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144275 July 5, 2001 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 97-2-53-RTC July 6, 2001 - RE: FERDINAND J. MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 132318 July 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO F. MUERONG

  • G.R. No. 134114 July 6, 2001 - NESTLE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134779 July 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERSON FLORAGUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137608-09 July 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO TAGANNA

  • G.R. No. 143375 July 6, 2001 - RUTH D. BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131856-57 July 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM MONTINOLA

  • G.R. Nos. 85494, 85496 & 195071 July 10, 2001 - CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126166 July 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ALLAN TEJADA

  • G.R. No. 133928 July 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECESARIO HIJAPON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136267 July 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL ABRENICA CUBCUBIN, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 142801-802 July 10, 2001 - BUKLOD NG KAWANING EIIB, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1253 July 11, 2001 - KIAT REAPORT, ET AL. v. EFREN S. MARIANO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1452 July 11, 2001 - FERMA C. PORTIC v. MARIO B. LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. P-01-1479 July 11, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RUBEN B. ALBAYTAR

  • G.R. No. 104802 July 11, 2001 - AURELIA S. LLANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108301 & 132539 July 11, 2001 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108346 July 11, 2001 - MARIANO Z. VELARDE, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135210 July 11, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ISABELA CULTURAL CORP.

  • G.R. No. 137050 July 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE CORTES

  • G.R. No. 137891 July 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS PATRIARCA

  • G.R. No. 140365 July 11, 2001 - CESAR P. UY, ET AL v. VICTORINO P. EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140974 July 11, 2001 - RAMON ORO v. GERARDO D. DIAZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1349 July 12, 2001 - BERNADETTE MONDEJAR v. MARINO S. BUBAN

  • G.R. No. 101974 July 12, 2001 - VICTORIA P. CABRAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102313 July 12, 2001 - R. F. NAVARRO & CO. v. FORTUNATO A. VAILOCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102696, 102716, 108257 & 120954 July 12, 2001 - ALBERTO LOOYUKO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104223 July 12, 2001 - TIBURCIO SAMONTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104383 July 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIANO AMESTUZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112590 July 12, 2001 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131638-39 July 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO D. MEDENILLA

  • G.R. No. 138737 July 12, 2001 - FINMAN GEN. ASSURANCE CORP., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138576-77 July 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY JACOB

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1322 July 17, 2001 - RENATO H. SANCHEZ v. GEMINIANO A. EDUARDO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1484 July 17, 2001 - JOSE R. ASTORGA v. NICOLASITO S. SOLAS

  • G.R. Nos. 103550 & 103551 July 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ROMERICO PORRAS

  • G.R. No. 133814 July 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES ORTIZ

  • G.R. Nos. 134540-41 July 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. DIONISIO BATALLER

  • G.R. Nos. 109559 & 109581 July 19, 2001 - BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111535 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CAMPOS

  • G.R. Nos. 113255-56 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO S. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 125698 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO E. HAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128153-56 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. BUISON

  • G.R. No. 131216 July 19, 2001 - LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132177 July 19, 2001 - JOSE F. CAOIBES v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133190 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS LOR

  • G.R. No. 135145 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMOND G. MAXION

  • G.R. No. 137545 July 19, 2001 - TERESITA D. GAITE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139789 July 19, 2001 - POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO BILDNER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139967 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL TALAVERA

  • G.R. Nos. 141011 & 141028 July 19, 2001 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORP. v. ISAGANI C. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 144179 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMSHAND C. THAMSEY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1350 July 20, 2001 - LORENZO PASCUAL, ET AL. v. CESAR M. DUMLAO

  • G.R. No. 110263 July 20, 2001 - ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117187 July 20, 2001 - UNION MOTOR CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120176 July 20, 2001 - MA. VALENTINA SANTANA-CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124442 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO S. COMPACION

  • G.R. No. 132926 July 20, 2001 - ELVIRA AGULLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133580 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO GENEBLAZO

  • G.R. Nos. 135030-33 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MERCY LOGAN

  • G.R. No. 135666 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 135865 July 20, 2001 - NAGKAKAISANG KAPISANAN KAPITBAHAYAN SA COMMONWEALTH AVE. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138501 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. LAXA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139150 July 20, 2001 - PABLO DELA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142024 July 20, 2001 - GUILLERMO SARABIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 145838 July 20, 2001 - NICASIO I. ALCANTARA v. COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146079 July 20, 2001 - KANEMITSU YAMAOKA v. PESCARICH MANUFACTURING CORP., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1564 July 26, 2001 - MARISSA M. GORDON, ET AL. v. FRISCO T. LILAGAN

  • G.R. Nos. 132325-26 July 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO ESPINA

  • G.R. No. 133225 July 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN CONCEPCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113176 & 113342 July 30, 2001 - HANIL DEVELOPMENT CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. Nos. P-00-1381 & A.M. No. P-00-1382 July 31, 2001 - EFREN B. MALLARE v. RONALD ALLAN A. FERRY

  • G.R. No. 105647 July 31, 2001 - ERNESTO BIONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121298 & 122123 July 31, 2001 - GENARO RUIZ, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129329 July 31, 2001 - ESTER M. ASUNCION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130707 July 31, 2001 - VERONICA ROBLE, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR ARBASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134634 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAZARO CLARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134831-32 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON N. LOGMAO

  • G.R. Nos. 136827 & 136799 July 31, 2001 - SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ET AL. v. TROPICAL HOMES

  • G.R. No. 136847 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODULFO P. VILLARIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138289 July 31, 2001 - GRACIANO PALELE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139180 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 139529 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO BRACERO

  • G.R. No. 139622 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO PERRERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142616 July 31, 2001 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. RITRATTO GROUP INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143687 July 31, 2001 - RAMON ESTANISLAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144702 July 31, 2001 - U.I.C. ET AL. v. U.I.C. TEACHING AND NON-TEACHING PERSONNEL AND EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145389 July 31, 2001 - ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL. v. RONNIE C. SILVESTRE

  •  





     
     

    G.R. Nos. 128153-56   July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. BUISON

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. Nos. 128153-56. July 19, 2001.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE BUISON Y PUNSALAN, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    BELLOSILLO, J.:


    VICENTE BUISON Y PUNSALAN was charged before the trial court with four (4) counts of rape committed against his own daughter, ADELINA T. BUISON, and found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each rape and ordered to indemnify the offended party P50,000.00 for moral damages and to pay the costs. 1

    Adelina was still a toddler when her mother was abandoned by her father, the accused Vicente Buison, for another woman. Adelina’s longing for fatherly affection was quenched when her long lost father finally visited her after an absence of more than ten (10) years. He promised to send her to school if she would go with him to General Santos City. In her excitement, she forgot to ask permission from her mother and grandfather with whom she was then staying in Talisay, Negros Occidental.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    On 15 August 1991 at around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, three (3) months after the father-and-daughter reunion, something which Adelina never expected happened. She was sleeping on the floor of her father’s shanty together with her two (2) minor stepsisters when she was awakened by the crushing weight of a person on top of her. When she opened her eyes she found herself naked with her father on top of her frantically trying to insert his penis into her vagina. Sensing his evil intention she repeatedly boxed him but her puny efforts failed to overcome his masculine strength. Forthwith he made a pumping movement while covering her mouth to prevent her from screaming. The sexual assault was consummated in about three (3) minutes. She remonstrated, "Why did (sic) you do this to me? I am your daughter." He simply shrugged and then released a devilish laugh as he remarked, "You are still a virgin." Adelina was so devastated she could only drown her sorrows in her own tears.

    Early dawn of 16 August 1991 Adelina was sound asleep when again the accused removed her panty, bra and duster and mounted her once more. He mercilessly abused her against her will. At this juncture, she asked her father, "Why did (sic) you do this to me? I am your daughter." Having satiated his lust he simply ignored her entreaty. Now overcome by physical and emotional strain, she slept without putting back her clothes. But all these she kept to herself in the meanwhile for fear that the accused would carry out his threat to kill her if she revealed his sexual abuse to anybody.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The third rape incident happened at around 9:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day, 16 August 1991 when the accused undressed inside the room in front of his daughter who saw her father’s penis dangling. She was so stunned she did not know what to do. He ravished her again, kissing her on the lips and on other parts of her body, finally culminating in the insertion of his penis into her organ. The fear, distrust and despair that pervaded her whole being that she would not dare report the outrage to anybody, not even to her mother or grandfather in Bacolod, since her father would pry into her letters. Neither could she seek refuge in her stepmother Mila for she too could not be trusted, nor from her neighbors, nor the police for fear that the accused would learn about her betrayal and then harm her.

    One day a glimmer of hope presented itself when she was asked by her father to accompany him to Davao City. She readily acceded as she planned to disclose to her uncle Rodrigo who was residing there what her father had been doing to her. On 25 October 1991, together with a truck helper, the accused and daughter Adelina left General Santos City in a cargo truck in a three (3)-vehicle convoy of Brian Freight Trucking where the accused was also employed as a driver. Some ten (10) to twenty (20) minutes after leaving the city, the accused pretended that he could not drive fast enough and suggested to the truck helper to transfer to another vehicle in the convoy. Apparently, this was a ploy to carry out his diabolical scheme. As soon as the truck helper left, the accused poked a knife at his hapless daughter and, as before, sexually abused her right inside the truck. After three (3) minutes of sexual assault the accused muttered, with some false air of regret, "You are no longer a virgin." He then told her that they would proceed to the house of his brother Rodrigo in Davao City but, strangely, they headed back instead to General Santos City.chanrob1es virtual law library

    When she could no longer bear the agony and the pangs of humiliation, she ran away from home and found solace in Fely Bartiana whom the accused had introduced to her earlier as his godmother in his wedding. Three (3) days after Adelina narrated her harrowing experience with her father to Fely, the latter brought her to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) which helped her file the present cases.

    Dr. Virginia Ramirez, the medico-legal officer who examined Adelina, testified at the trial that while no semen was found in the complainant’s vagina there were scars at 8:00 o’clock and 5:00 o’clock positions which could have been caused by a male organ. 2

    Accused-appellant testified in his defense that he first met his daughter Adelina, after a long while, on 17 May 1991 when she was only fifteen (15) years old. He was then visiting his relatives in Victorias, Negros Occidental, when his mother met Adelina by chance and informed her of his presence in the area. In no time, Adelina went to his house and tearfully embraced him when they met. In the course of their reunion, Adelina learned that he was returning to Mindanao in a week’s time and insisted in going with him. He suggested instead that she stayed with her uncle Rodrigo in Davao City because he was better off financially, but Adelina was persistent. In June 1991 he brought her with him to General Santos City.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Accused-appellant countered that the rape incidents that occurred at 9:00 o’clock in the evening of 15 August 1991 and dawn of the following day could not have possibly happened because on said dates he was on a trip to Davao City and returned to General Santos City at around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of 16 August 1991.

    Although he was already at home in the evening of 16 August 1991, the time when the third rape was reportedly committed, he maintained that nothing unusual happened because his wife, three (3) children, and Adelina were all in the house with him.

    As for the fourth rape that allegedly happened on 25 October 1991, he insisted that while it was true that he was on a midnight trip to Davao City, Adelina was left behind at home with his wife and three (3) children.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

    He posited that the filing of the rape charges was impelled by some ill feeling that the complainant harbored against him and his family. He recalled that at one time, when Adelina was being scolded for coming home late from school, she grumbled and told his wife: "You try to discipline me (when) you did not even provide a can of milk for me . . . My grandfather who reared me up did not even discipline me, how much (sic) from (sic) you, I came here when I’m already grown up." 3

    Mila Buison, wife of the accused, testified that Adelina was welcomed in their home as a member of the family. In fact, she and her husband provided her everything that their children should have, including food and education. She likewise corroborated the testimony of the accused that in the evening of 15 August 1991 she was in their house with Adelina and the three (3) children, thereby contradicting the claim of the complainant that she (her stepmother) was in the hospital at that time with her youngest son. She also asserted that she was with her children and the complainant herself inside the house at the time when her husband allegedly abused the complainant on 16 August 1991 and 25 October 1991. Although she did not know what motivated Adelina to make these imputations to her husband, she could only surmise that the complainant resented their attempts at instilling discipline in her as was natural of parents. Often, Adelina would brusquely reject any form of paternal correction saying that they (she and the accused) did not have the right to discipline her because they did not bring her up.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In support of the defense, Bonnie Bantacalo, the truck helper of the accused, claimed that he was travelling with the accused on the night of 15 August 1991 on their way to Davao City. At 8:00 o’clock in the morning of the next day, they unloaded their cement cargo after which they left Davao City and headed back to General Santos City, arriving there at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon. On 25 October 1991 the same thing happened as he and the accused delivered their cargo of cement, after which they left Davao City for General Santos City and reached their destination at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon.

    In convicting accused-appellant Vicente Buison, the trial court gave full credence to the testimony of the private complainant and rejected the defense of alibi — 4

    Careful scrutiny of the evidence for the prosecution yielded the conclusion that the complainant recounted what exactly happened. She was ravished by her own father barely three months after she started living with him and her stepmother . . .

    The defense of alibi and denial cannot prevail over the very positive and veracious declarations of the complainant. In fact, the father of the accused, his wife and elder brother attempted to modify the complainant by either offering to pay a certain amount, or appeal to her sense of filiation to save the accused from the clutches of the law. There is no basis for the court to doubt the truthfulness of the facts narrated by the complainant. There is no reason also to entertain the theory of the accused that the charges against him were motivated by revenge. What was ironic in these cases is that the accused who was supposed to be the foremost protector of the chastity and dignity of his own daughter became its blatant and despicable violator.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Accused-appellant now comes to us on appeal assigning as lone error the finding by the trial court that his guilt had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

    Accused-appellant argues in his Brief that private complainant’s deep-seated resentment against him stems from his failure to extend financial and moral support to her. In short, the filing of the complaint against him was but a mere fabrication conjured by private complainant to seek revenge against him for the pain and agony of having been abandoned when she was still a child.

    At the surface, Accused-appellant’s argument seems plausible, but a more thorough review of the testimonies of the contending parties will reveal some serious, albeit unnoticeable, flaws in his line of defense. As shown by the following exchange, private complainant expressed a sincere desire to meet her father and renew their father-daughter relationship, thus: 5

    Fiscal Oco:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    When you met him (referring to accused-appellant) and learned that he was your father how did you feel?

    A: I was so very happy because I saw my father after ten years but when I arrived here in General Santos "Gipahimuslan lang niya ako." (He took advantage of me)

    And then again on cross examination 6 —

    Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    By the way, where was it that you were fetched by your father, Vicente Buison, was it in Bacolod or Talisay, Negros Occidental?

    A: It was in Victorias that I met Vicente. I was happy to meet him as my father and I agreed to go with him. During my vacation that I met Vicente I was happy.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    These declarations by private complainant clearly manifest that upon meeting her father she did not exhibit any hatred or resentment against the man who had forsaken her. In fact, she declared during trial that she embraced accused-appellant upon seeing him which fact was affirmed by accused-appellant himself. Adelina was so eager to go with him to General Santos City that she forgot to ask permission from her mother and grandfather. Her actuation simply disprove the claim by accused-appellant that the filing of the instant charges was but the realization of complainant’s burning desire to destroy him and his family for allegedly abandoning her. The testimony of Mila that she and her husband treated Adelina as one of their children, and that they always endeavored to provide her with all her necessities despite their humble means, effectively weakened the veracity of accused-appellant’s imputation. For, the truth of the matter is that private complainant’s seething anger only sprung from her having been defiled by the very man who shattered her dreams of enjoying for life the warmth of his paternal love.

    Even conceding that she indeed resented accused-appellant and his family, this alone would not exculpate him. Whatever her prejudices and biases against her father would not obliterate the presence of the elements of the crime as long as they have been sufficiently established. In People v. Gagto 7 we held that "not a few accused in rape cases have attributed the charges brought against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. But such alleged motives have never swayed the court from lending full credence to the testimony of the complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross examinations, especially a minor in this case." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Accused-appellant states that the testimony of the complainant is replete with scenarios that are contrary to human experience. For him it is improbable that the complainant would still go to Davao City with him after he had supposedly raped her thrice in the past.

    We are not convinced. Adelina satisfactorily explained her seeming rashness in exposing herself to further abuse when she went with her father to Davao City. She revealed in open court that she agreed to go with accused-appellant after having been assured that there would be other passengers in the truck. In going to Davao City, she saw a chance for escape because she intended to see her uncle Rodrigo whom she thought would save her. Unfortunately for Adelina, the mind of her assailant was far more devious and cunning than her naivete and innocence, for accused-appellant did not give her the opportunity to contact her uncle Rodrigo.

    Accused-appellant cannot also comprehend why Adelina did not leave the house after the alleged commission of the three (3) counts of rape. This simply shows the extent of accused-appellant’s moral ascendancy over his victim. He was her only blood relation in the area such that complainant had to summon every ounce of courage to defy her father’s authority. The victim, a minor of fifteen (15) summers and unfamiliar with the community, was totally at the mercy of the man whom she called "father." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    These and other instances that seemingly defy human experience are way too insignificant and inconsequential which, far from detracting from the veracity of Adelina’s testimony, in fact even tended to bolster it.

    With respect to the testimonies of the wife, the brother and the friend of accused-appellant, these were all expectedly biased in his favor. Owing to their relationship to him, their natural tendency was to testify for him and extricate him from the tightening noose of complainant’s damning testimony. Moreover, their statements cannot prevail over the positive identification and categorical accusation made by the complainant.

    We find accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of rape and the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count as imposed by the trial court is proper, considering that the crimes were committed before the aegis of RA 7659. 8 However, in addition to the moral damages of P50,000.00 for each count, Adelina T. Buison must be awarded an additional amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the lower court convicting accused-appellant VICENTE BUISON Y PUNSALAN of four (4) counts of rape and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in addition to the moral damages of P50,000.00 for each count, Accused-appellant is further ordered to pay complainant ADELINA BUISON Y TRIBACO P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count. Costs against Accused-Appellant.

    SO ORDERED.

    Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Quisumbing, J., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Decision penned by Judge Abednego O. Adre, RTC-Br. 11, General Santos City.

    2. TSN, 22 February 1993, p. 10.

    3. TSN, 20 February 1995, pp. 188-192, 196 and 199-200.

    4. Rollo, p. 34.

    5. TSN, 23 February 1993, p. 36.

    6. TSN, 24 February 1993, p. 19.

    7. G.R. No. 113345, 9 February 1996, 253 SCRA 455.

    8. RA 7659 took effect on 30 December 1993. See People v. Lutao, G.R. No. 107798, 16 November 1995, 250 SCRA 45.

    G.R. Nos. 128153-56   July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. BUISON


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED