Criminal Case No. 585:
That sometime in 1995, in the residence of the accused and complainant, at Barangay [xxx], Municipality of Polomolok, Province of South Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and succeed in having carnal knowledge of [AAA], a sixteen (16)[-]year[-]old girl and daughter of said accused Daniel Ortega.4
Criminal Case No. 586:
That sometime in 1990, in the residence of the accused and complainant, at Barangay [xxx], Municipality of Polomolok, Province of South Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and succeed in having carnal knowledge of [AAA], an eleven[-]year[-]old girl and daughter of said accused Daniel Ortega.5
Private-complainant [AAA] is the daughter of accused-appellant. [AAA] lived with accused-appellant and her step-mother in x x x.
In 1990, then 11 year old [AAA] was at home, when accused-appellant suddenly dragged her from the kitchen to her bedroom. [AAA], with all her strength, resisted and cried. She then tried to cling on a wooden wall but it did not help her in any way. When inside the room, accused-appellant forcibly undressed [AAA]. [AAA] tried to cover her body but her effort proved futile. Accused-appellant succeeded in overpowering her and laid her down on the bed. Accused-appellant, thereafter, mounted and inserted his penis to [AAA]'s vagina, and made pumping motions. [AAA] cried for help but to no avail. After raping his daughter, accused-appellant threatened [AAA] not to tell the incident to anyone.
In 1995, [AAA] who was then 16-years old, would again suffer the same harrowing ordeal in the hands of her own father.
It happened when accused-appellant and [AAA] were at home. Accused-appellant removed her shorts, shirt and underwear and laid her down on the bed. Accused-appellant then undressed himself, mounted and inserted his penis into [AAA]'s vagina. During the sexual act, [AAA] felt pain in her vagina.
As a result of the incident, [AAA] got pregnant but had a miscarriage thereafter. Later on, she ran away from home and reported the incidents to the police.
On May 9, 2006, Dr. Porfirio Pasuelo, Jr., the Municipal Health Office of Polomolok, South Cotabato, conducted a medical examination on [AAA]. The medical examination revealed that [AAA] has a loose vaginal opening as it easily admitted a forefinger, an indication that there was already a prior intrusion in [AAA]'s genitalia. Dr. Pasuelo did not find lacerations on [AAA]'s vagina.6
Appellant admitted that he had maltreated the complainant in trying to discipline her, but he vehemently denied that he raped her in both incidents. He testified that he never stayed at Polomolok in 1990. He, who was a sergeant, was assigned at Lebak, Sultan Kudarat, and only his son Roldan lived with him in the camp. In December 1990, his wife lived with him at Alabel, Sarangani Province, where he was "held up" by his battalion for having lost a firearm.
Appellant stated that complainant had run away from home many times when he was still attending military operations. He admitted that he was never close to the complainant and that latter was jealous of his children from his second wife. He surmised that because of this jealousy, the complainant fabricated these rape charges against him. His friend Nonoy Somito intimated to him that complainant was sexually molested thrice by the latter's admirer in 1995.7
WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of the accused DANIEL ORTEGA, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of TWO (2) COUNTS OF RAPE, defined and penalized under Article 335, of the Revised Penal Code, the other defined and penalized under Article 335, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
The Court hereby sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape and he shall pay private complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for every rape committed, P50,000.00 as moral damages and the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the cost.
Upon finality of Decision, the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to forward the complete records of this case to the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City for its intermediate review pursuant to the OCA Circular No. 57-2005 dated 12 May 2005 and Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 20-2005 dated 19 May 2005.8
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.16
In reviewing rape cases, this Court had always been guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great 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.17
Q Now, sometime in 1990 in the house where you are staying, do you remember if there is something that happened to you and your father?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that incident?
A He placed himself on top of me and undressed me.
COURT:
Q Which comes first, his putting himself on top of you or undressing?
A The undressing.
x x x x
PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q What part of the house did this take place?
A Inside the room.
Q Were there other people other than your father and you?
A None, sir?
Q What time of the day was that?
A Morning.
Q Have you already eaten your breakfast?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, how did he do it?
A He undressed me and afterwards he put himself on top of me.
Q Now, after placing himself on top of you, what did he do?
A He made a pumping motion.
Q Now, were you completely naked?
A Yes, sir.
Q And where did you lay if any?
A In the bed.
Q Did he place you in bed or did you go there by yourself?
A He placed me there.
x x x x
PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q After lying naked on bed, what happened next?
A He abused me.
Q How did he abuse you?
x x x x
COURT:
Q What do you mean when you said you were abused by him?
A I asked for help.
x x x x
PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q When did you ask for help?
A Me.
Q Why were you asking for help?
A Because I was raped.
COURT:
Q When you said you were raped, can you tell us how did your father raped you?
A He inserted his into mine.
x x x x
PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q So his penis penetrated your vagina?
A Yes, sir.18
AAA also recounted the second rape incident in 1995, as follows:
Q Now, in 1995, do you remember if there was any unusual incident that happened between you and your father?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that incident about?
A I was raped.
Q Who raped you?
A My father.
Q Where?
A Still at the house.
x x x x
PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q How did he raped you?
A He undressed me, he removed my t-shirt and short pant[s].
Q In the same room where you were raped?
A Yes, sir.
Q After removing your clothings, your short pants and underwear, what happened?
A He made me lay down.
COURT:
Q Where?
A In the bed.
COURT:
Q Alright, proceed.
PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q As you were already lying down, what happened?
A He undressed himself and rode on me.
Q When he was already on top of you, what happened next?
A He inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q Did his penis really penetrated your vagina?
A Yes, sir.
COURT:
Q What did you feel?
A It was painful.19
We therefore see no cogent reason to doubt the complainant's credibility. It has long been established that the testimony of a rape victim, especially a child of tender years, is given full weight and credit. A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness. Furthermore, this Court has repeatedly ruled that matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying, an opportunity denied the appellate courts which usually rely only on the cold pages of the mute records of the case.21
In Philippine society, the father is considered the head of the family, and the children are taught not to defy the father's authority even when this is abused. They are taught to respect the sanctity of marriage andtovaluethe family above everything else. Hence, when the abuse begins, the victim sees no reason or need to question the righteousness of the father whom she had trusted right from the start. The value of respect and obedience to parents instilled among Filipino children is transferred into the very same value that exposes them to risks of exploitation by their own parents. The sexual relationship could begin so subtly that the child does not realize that it is abnormal. Physical force then becomes unnecessary. The perpetrator takes full advantage of this blood relationship. Most daughters cooperate and this is one reason why they suffer tremendous guilt later on. It is almost impossible for a daughter to reject her father's advances, for children seldom question what grown-ups tell them to do.23
It bears emphasis that when the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial if the matter about which they testified is not true. It is instinctive for a young, unmarried woman to protect her honor and it is thus difficult to believe that she would fabricate a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, reveal her shame to the small town where she grew up, and permit herself to be subject of a public trial had she not really been ravished.27
[I]t [is] most unnatural for a fourteen (14) year old to concoct a tale of defloration against her very own father just to get back at him for having physically manhandled her. Certainly, an unmarried teenage lass would not ordinarily file a complaint for rape against anyone, much less, her own father, undergo a medical examination of her private parts, submit herself to public trial and tarnish her family's honor and reputation, unless she was motivated by a potent desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.29
Further, lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not negate rape. As explained by Dr. Maximo Reyes, medico-legal officer of the NBI, there are hymens that may admit without necessarily producing laceration and there are hymens that may admit injuries that will produce such laceration.31
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
- By using force or intimidation.
- When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
- When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
x x x x
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.
We agree, however, that accused-appellant should not have been meted the death penalty on the ground that the age of complainant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The information alleged that, on July 26, 1997, the date of the rape, Arlene was 14 years old. In her testimony, Arlene stated that she was 14 years old at the time of the incident. Accused-appellant confirmed this during the presentation of the defense evidence, but Lonelisa Alvarado, complainant's mother, testified that Arlene was born on November 23, 1983, which would mean she was only 13 years old on the date of the commission of the crime. No other evidence was ever presented, such as her certificate of live birth or any other document, to prove Arlene's exact age at the time of the crime. As minority is a qualifying circumstance, it must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. There must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by accused-appellant. Since there is doubt as to Arlene's exact age, accused-appellant must be held guilty of simple rape only and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.38
In the case at bar, no birth certificate or similar authentic document was offered by the prosecution to prove Wenna's minority. Neither was it shown that they were lost, destroyed or unavailable at the time of the trial. The testimony of the mother or the victim relative to the latter's age cannot be accepted as adequate proof thereof. In addition, we note that the prosecution failed to adduce independent proof to establish appellant's relationship with the victim. Although Wenna's filiation to appellant and minority was neither refuted nor contested by the defense, proof thereof is critical considering the penalty of death imposed for qualified rape. Thus, the prosecution's failure to sufficiently establish Wenna's minority and relationship to appellant bars the latter's conviction for qualified rape and the imposition of the extreme penalty of death.40
Court decisions on the rape of minors invariably state that, in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty, there must be independent evidence showing the age of the victim. Testimonies on the victim's age given by the prosecution witnesses or the lack of denial of the accused or even his admission thereof on the witness stand is not sufficient. This Court has held that, to justify the imposition of the death penalty for rape committed against a child below 7, the minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself. The failure to sufficiently establish the victim's age with factual certainty and beyond reasonable doubt is fatal and consequently bars conviction for rape in its qualified form.42
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 4-23; penned by Associate Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores with Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 31-45; penned by Judge Eddie R. Rojas.
3 The real name of the victim is withheld to protect her identity and privacy pursuant to Section 29 of Republic Act No. 7610, Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC. See our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
4 Records, p. 1.
5 Id. at 3.
6 CA rollo, pp. 58-60.
7 Id. at 20-21.
8 Id. at 45.
9 Id. at 15-30.
10 Id. at 51-81.
11 Id. at 109.
12 Rollo, pp. 29-30.
13 Id. at 31-34.
14 Id. at 35-37.
15 Id. at 40.
16 CA rollo, p. 17.
17 People v. Rapisora, G.R. No. 147855, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 237, 248-249.
18 TSN, November 18, 1997, pp. 7-11.
19 Id. at 14-15.
20 405 Phil. 588 (2001).
21 Id. at 604.
22 418 Phil. 565 (2001).
23 Id. at 582.
24 People v. Cabigting, 397 Phil. 944, 951 (2000).
25 People v. Pascua, 462 Phil. 245, 254 (2003).
26 People v. Ponsica, 433 Phil. 365 (2002).
27 Id. at 378.
28 391 Phil. 257 (2000).
29 Id. at 267.
30 425 Phil. 608 (2002).
31 Id. at 638.
32 People v. San Juan, 337 Phil. 375, 389-390 (1997).
33 People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 124833, July 20, 1998, 292 SCRA 656, 661.
34 Records, p. 5.
35 TSN, June 9, 1998, p. 38.
36 TSN, November 23, 2000, p. 121.
37 429 Phil. 208 (2002).
38 Id. at 224.
39 447 Phil. 395 (2003).
40 Id. at 406-407.
41 445 Phil. 323 (2003).
42 Id. at 341-342.
43 People v. Manjarez, G.R. No. 185844, November 23, 2011.