SECOND
DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. 118332
March 26, 1997
-versus-
IRENEO
PEREZ Y RICAFRENTE,
Accused-Appellant.
D
E C I S I O N
ROMERO, J.:
There is
nothing more abhorrent and shocking
to one's sensibilities than the desecration of a woman's chastity by
her
own father. The abomination is made even worse by the fact that the
victim
concerned is a mere wisp of a girl, only eleven years old. This Court
is
once again called upon to decide a case at once odious and revolting -
the rape of one's own daughter.
Accused-appellant,
Ireneo R. Perez, appeals to
this Court from a judgment[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Macabebe, Pampanga, Branch 54,[2]
in Criminal Case No. 93-1110 (M), convicting him of the rape of his
eleven-year
old daughter. He was charged with the commission of the offense
in
an information[3]
which reads:
That on or about the 9th day of December
1991,
in the municipality of Macabebe, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
Ireneo Perez y Ricafrente, by means of force, threat and
intimidation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
with his own daughter Racquel M. Perez, a minor below 12 years of age
while
she was asleep inside their house against her will and consent.
The
prosecution's evidence shows clearly the following
facts:
On the night of
December 9, 1991, Racquel Perez
was sleeping beside her seven-year old sister Irene inside the only
bedroom
of their family home in Telacsan, Macabebe, Pampanga. Her deep slumber
was interrupted when she felt something heavy on top of her which
turned
out to be her own father who proceeded to remove her panty and inserted
his sex organ into hers. He held her hands and covered her mouth but
she
struggled and managed to shout for help to attract her brother who was
sleeping in the kitchen six meters away from the room. Instead, it was
Irene who woke up and tried futilely to leave the room to seek their
brother's
help, but their father prevented her from doing so by holding on to her
feet while threatening to spank her. Hence, the cowed sister just
turned
her back on them. Accused-appellant then perpetrated the vile act
without
further disturbance except for the struggles of his own child who was
greatly
overpowered by his strength. The defilement left her bleeding and in
pain.cralaw:red
Accused-appellant
threatened to hurt her if she
ever reported the incident to anyone. The next morning, she moved to
her
maternal grandparent's house where she has stayed to date. Her father
was
constantly in her grandparent's house, however, and interaction was
inevitable.
She was repeatedly threatened to keep her silence whenever her
grandparents
and aunt were not around. On November 13, 1992, or almost one year
after
the incident, she summoned enough courage to confide the incident to
her
maternal aunt, Francisca Maniacop who, together with her uncle, brought
her to Dr. Jocelyn Go for internal examination. She was found to have
healed
hymenal lacerations at 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock positions. The matter
was
immediately reported to the Barangay Captain, then to the police at the
Municipal Hall of Macabebe, which eventually led to the arrest of
accused-appellant.cralaw:red
Upon arraignment,
accused-appellant pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged. He claimed that he went home to Telacsan,
Macabebe, Pampanga on the evening of December 9, 1991 to find his three
children namely Ronald, Erick and Irene, already asleep. Racquel had
allegedly
been living with her grandparents at Colgante, Apalit, Pampanga since
November
1991 and, therefore, was not home that day. He swore that no unusual
incident
transpired on that fateful night.cralaw:red
On October 19,
1994, the trial court found accused-appellant
guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. It also ordered him to
indemnify Racquel Perez P50,000 as moral damages and to pay the costs
of
the suit.cralaw:red
In this appeal,
accused-appellant contends that:
I.chanrobles virtual law library
The trial court erred in giving full
weight
and credence to the contradicting and inconsistent testimonies of the
prosecution's
witness, Racquel Perez.chanrobles virtual law libraryII.chanrobles virtual law library
The trial court erred in finding the
accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite insufficiency of evidence to
prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[4]
The appeal is bereft of merit.
In reviewing rape
cases, this Court has always
been guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can
be made with facility; it is difficult to prove, but more difficult for
the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the
intrinsic
nature of the crime where only two persons are usually involved, the
testimony
of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c)
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.[5]
This Court is
well aware of the fine line it is
treading when deciding rape cases where conviction invariably hinges
upon
the credibility of the offended woman who is almost always the sole
witness
of the actual occurrence.[6]
It is, therefore, with meticulous care that the testimony of the
complainant
is scrutinized. This Court once again finds occasion to reiterate the
established
rule that the findings of fact of a trial court carry great weight and
are entitled to respect from the appellate courts absent any strong and
cogent reason therefor since the trial court is in a better position to
decide the question of credibility.[7]
"This policy is predicated upon the circumstance that the trial court
has
had an opportunity, denied to the appellate court, to observe the
behavior
of the witnesses during the hearing, gauging their bias and veracity."[8]
As observed by the trial court, the complainant testified in a clear,
straightforward
and convincing manner.cralaw:red
Accused-appellant,
however, points out that the
credibility of the offended party was tainted by the following
inconsistencies:
(1) Complainant's statement that when she
shouted
for help, nobody was awakened; and her later statement that her sister
was actually awakened by the incident.
(2) Her conflicting statements on
whether or
not
her brothers were sleeping outside her room.
(3) Her conflicting statements as to
whether
she
actually saw her father's penis or not.[9]
We note that
these alleged inconsistencies refer,
at best, only to trivial, minor, and insignificant details.[10]
They bear no materiality to the commission of the crime of rape of
which
accused-appellant was convicted.[11]
As pointed out by the Solicitor General in the Appellee's Brief,[12]
the seeming inconsistencies were brought about by confusion and merely
represent minor lapses during the rape victim's direct examination and
cannot possibly affect her credibility. Minor lapses are to be expected
when a person is recounting details of a traumatic experience too
painful
to recall. The rape victim was testifying in open court, in the
presence
of strangers, on an extremely intimate matter, which, more often than
not,
is talked about in hushed tones. Under such circumstances, it is not
surprising
that her narration was less than letter-perfect.[13]
"Moreover, the inconsistency may be attributed to the well-known fact
that
a courtroom atmosphere can affect the accuracy of testimony and the
manner
in which a witness answers questions."[14]
What is important
is the victim's testimony that
the accused sexually abused her. When a victim says that she has been
raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been
committed
and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be
convicted on the basis thereof.[15]
Accused-appellant would have Us believe that the alleged rape was
merely
an illusion concocted by his in-laws, to get rid of another mouth being
fed by his wife who works in Saudi Arabia.[16]
Such contention
is preposterous. Even in these
trying times of poverty and greed, it is difficult to believe that the
aunt, uncle and grandparents of an eleven-year old child would allow
her
to be subjected to the ordeal and embarrassment of a public trial and
to
expose her private parts to examination just to relieve them of the
burden
of feeding her father, knowing fully well that such an experience would
damage her psyche and mar her for life, unless the charge was true.[17]
Accused-appellant
likewise contends that the trial
court misappreciated the facts by holding that the delay in reporting
the
offense was due to threats he made, when prosecution witness Francisca
Maniacop stated that she did not notice any animosity between father
and
daughter.[18]
"A little insight into human nature is of utmost value in judging
matters
of this kind."[19]
Fear may manifest itself, not only through insolence or impertinence,
but
also through timidity or diffidence. The latter behavior would be
expected
of an eleven-year old daughter toward her father, especially in the
context
of traditional Philippine culture where family members are servile
towards
their elders. Accused-appellant must have acted normally when everyone
was present at his in-laws' house. This is the reason why Francisca did
not notice anything unusual between him and her niece. The victim,
however,
testified that she was threatened repeatedly whenever her aunt and
grandparents
were not home.[20]
The presence of her father in her grandmother's house almost daily at
different
hours must have caused her unbounded anxiety and paranoia making it
more
difficult for her to decide on what action to take. It is immaterial
that
the delay was due to threats or some other reason, for the failure of
the
victim to immediately report a rape is not an indication of a
fabricated
charge.[21]
Moreover, an eleven-year old girl such as the herein victim can hardly
be expected to act as an adult or as a mature and experienced woman
would
and have the courage and intelligence to disregard a threat to her life
and complain immediately that she had been sexually assaulted.[22]
What we have here
is a case of an ingenue
a naive and guileless barrio girl, a mere teenager who was not animated
by any mercenary or dishonest motive in imputing rape to her own father.[23]
Family relations are not so easily imperilled, with the father at risk
of being imprisoned for banal and flimsy reasons, such as that alleged
by accused-appellant. We hold that the complainant went to court to
bring
to justice the satyr whose beastliness was the cause of her loss of
virginity
at a tender age.[24]
As borne out by
the records and transcript of
stenographic notes, this Court agrees with the court a quo that the
victim
testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and consistent
manner. She is, therefore, considered a credible witness and her
testimony
is worthy of judicial acceptance.[25]
The rule is that "an affirmative testimony is far stronger than a
negative
testimony, especially so when it comes from the mouth of a credible
witness."[26]
Undoubtedly, the
trial court acted correctly in
upholding the case for the People and rejecting the arguments of
accused-appellant
which consisted principally of a denial. It correctly awarded moral
damages
to the victim as mandated by Article 2219[27]
in relation to Article 2217[28]
of the Civil Code, but it should have appreciated against
accused-appellant
the alternative circumstance of relationship provided for in Article 15
of the Revised Penal Code considering that the offended party was his
descendant.
In crimes against chastity such as rape, relationship is aggravating.[29]
However, it would not affect the penalty herein of reclusion perpetua
because
it is an indivisible penalty which must, under Article 63 of the
Revised
Penal Code, be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances
that may have attended the commission of the crime.[30]
WHEREFORE, the
appeal is dismissed and the decision
of the trial court finding accused-appellant Ireneo Perez y Ricafrente
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against
his
own daughter Racquel Perez is hereby affirmed. Costs against
accused-appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Puno,
Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, pp. 15-20.
[2]
Judge Sesinando B. Villon, Presiding.
[3]
Original Records, p. 2.
[4]
Rollo, p. 34.
[5]
People v. Ramirez, G. R. No. 97920, January 20, 1997; People v. Guamos,
241 SCRA 528 [1995]; citing People v. Casinillo, 213 SCRA 777 [1992];
People
v. Pizarro, 211 SCRA 325 [1992]; People v. Dela Cruz, 207 SCRA 449
[1992];
People v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613 [1992].
[6]
People v. Domingo, 226 SCRA 156 [1993].
[7]
People v. Catoltol, Sr., G. R. No. 122359, November 28, 1996; People v.
Balisnomo, G.R. No. 118990, November 28, 1996; People v. Vallena, 244
SCRA
685 [1995]; People v. Gerones, 193 SCRA 263 [1991].
[8]
Delos Santos v. Republic, 96 Phil. 577 [1955].
[9]
Rollo, p. 67.
[10]
People v. Olivar, 215 SCRA 765 [1992].
[11]
People v. Sagaral, G.R. No. 112714-15, February 7, 1997.
[12]
Rollo, p. 68.
[13]
People v. Magalona, 205 SCRA 266 [1992]; cited in People v. Abuyan, 211
SCRA 662 [1992].
[14]
People v. Como, 202 SCRA 200 [1991]; People v. Serdan, 213 SCRA 329
[1992].
[15]
People v. Mabunga, 215 SCRA 694 [1992]; People v. Catoltol, G. R. No.
122359,
November 28, 1996; citing People v. Soterol, 140 SCRA 400 [1985];
People
v. Rosare, G. R. No. 118823, November 19, 1996; People v. Repollo, 237
SCRA 476 [1994]; People v. Sanchez, 250 SCRA 14 [1995], citing U.S. v.
Ramos, 1 Phil. 81 [1901].
[16]
Rollo, p. 41.
[17]
People v. Mabunga, supra.
[18]
TSN, August 11, 1993, pp. 17-18.
[19]
People v. Fausto, 51 Phil. 852.
[20]
TSN, April 29, 1993, p. 17.
[21]
People vs. Catoltol, supra; People vs. Casil, 241 SCRA 285 [1995];
People
v. Pamor, 237 SCRA 462 [1994].
[22]
People v. Tampos, 88 SCRA 217 [1979]; cited in People v. Olivar, 215
SCRA
765 [1992].
[23]
Ibid.
[24]
Id.
[25]
People v. Rosare, supra.
[26]
People v. Ramirez, supra, citing People v. Digno, 250 SCRA 237 [1995].
[27]
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and
analogous
cases:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) A criminal offense
resulting
in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts
causing
physical
injuries;
(3) Seduction,
abduction,
rape,
or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or
concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary
detention
or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or
any
other
form of defamation;
(8) Malicious
prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in
Article
309;
(10) Acts and actions
referred
to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, and 35.
The parents of the
female
seduced,
abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may
also
recover moral damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brother
and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in
the order named.
[28]
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary
computation,
moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act for omission.
[29]
People v. Porres, 58 Phil. 578 [1993]; People v. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316
[1990].
[30]
People v. Matrimonio, supra, citing People v. Porres, supra; People v.
Lucas, supra. |