CRIMINAL CASE NO. U-11273
That on or about January 13, 2001 at [XXX] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the father of [AAA], a minor, 11 years old, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353 and R.A. 7659. 4 (Emphases ours.)
CRIMINAL CASE NO. U-11274
That at about dawn of January 14, 2001 at [XXX] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the father of [AAA], a minor, 11 years old, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353 and R.A. 7659. 5 (Emphases ours.)
CRIMINAL CASE NO. U-11275
That sometime in November 1999 at [XXX] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the father of [AAA], a minor, 10 years old, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and without her consent to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353 and R.A. 7659. 6 (Emphases ours.)
- The identity of the accused in [the] three cases;
- The identity of the private complainant [AAA] in [the] three cases;
- That the accused is the father of the private complainant; and
- That the private complainant is a minor having been born on February 28, 1989.8
Seeking exculpation from the crime, [accused-appellant] claimed that he could not have possibly raped his daughter in November of 1999 and 14 January 2001 because he was working as a baggage carrier in the market of Asingan, Pangasinan. As such, he would leave so early in the morning and would return home in the evening or at times, close to midday. He also said that it was impossible to rape her on the night of 13 January 2001 because all of them sleep side by side; their sleeping arrangement was not even the same all the time.
[Accused-appellant's] alibi and denial deserves scant consideration. On the contrary, [AAA's] straightforward and unwavering testimony deserves the badge of credence. She could not have spoken in such simple and forthright manner if the accusations were not true. It is improbable for guileless girls such as [AAA] to impute a crime so serious as rape to any man, let alone her father, if it were not true. The Court finds no motive for [AAA] to testify falsely against her father or implicate him in the commission of the same. The charges for rape could not have likewise been filed because [AAA] regarded [accused-appellant] as a cruel father as the defense would want the Court to believe. [AAA] has clearly identified her father as the perpetrator of the sexual molestation she suffered. She could not have done so if she had only been prompted to free herself from a strict and overweening parent meaning to enforce discipline. Moreover, ill motive is never an essential element of a crime. It becomes inconsequential more so when there are affirmative and categorical declarations towards the accused's accountability for the crime.
Amidst the firm bedrock of evidence, [accused-appellant]'s general denial pales in comparison. Like alibi, denial is inherently weak and must fail in the light of the positive declaration of the victim that the accused authored the abuses. [Accused-appellant's] bare assertions denying his culpability cannot overcome [AAA's] categorical testimony narrating her father's libidinous proclivities.
Her testimony is readily corroborated by the medical findings of her non-virgin state and the hymenal lacerations she suffered. Juxtaposed against such telling evidence of the prosecution, the bare denial and alibi of [accused-appellant] cannot prevail. Absent strong evidence to buttress such denial, [AAA's] positive testimony deserves far greater weight.
Furthermore, [accused-appellant] was persevering in his denial, so much so that he even questioned the medical findings of Dr. Taganas. He requested that [AAA] would undergo another medical examination, which request was granted by the Court. After examination, Dr. Taganas testified that her findings were all the same.
Little did [accused-appellant] know that by questioning the findings of the doctor, he just dug a hole for his grave and drove the final nail to his coffin. By questioning the medical findings, to the mind of the Court, [accused-appellant] admitted his crime. He admitted that there was indeed penetration but only that the same was not complete; thus, explaining that the laceration in [AAA's] hymen was only half way. It is very elementary that in rape cases, full penetration is not required. The mere touching of the penis of the lips of the vagina would already constitute rape.
From the plethora of evidence presented, the Court finds beyond the whisper of a doubt that [accused-appellant] committed the three counts of rape against his daughter [AAA], as alleged in the informations filed in Court. The complainant's age when the crimes were committed and the blood relationship between her and the accused have not been questioned. Hence, under R.A. 8353, the penalty of death awaits a parent who commits the crime of rape against his or her child less than eighteen (18) years of age. Consistent with law and prevailing jurisprudence, he likewise incurs pecuniary obligations arising from his criminal liability. 23
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds and hereby pronounces the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape against his own daughter in each of these three (3) cases. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death in each of these cases pursuant to R.A. 7659, otherwise known as the Heinous Crime Law, and is hereby ordered to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of Php50,000.00 for each count of rape as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 for each count of rape as moral damages and Php25,000.00 for each count of rape as exemplary damages.
Cost against the accused. 24
The [testimony] of Private Complainant was clear, definite, and convincing. Her narration contains the details, which only a real victim could remember and reveal. In fact, even during the grueling cross-examination, the Private Complainant's testimony was unequivocal. It bears the hallmarks of truth as she remained consistent on material points[.] x x x.
x x x x
In contrast, the Accused-Appellant's claim that he was at the market of Asingan, Pangasinan on all the three (3) occasions of rape, is flimsy. We agree with the trial court that his defense of denial is intrinsically weak and must necessarily fail. Not to mention that the said defense is negative and a self-serving assertion, it has no weight in law if unsubstantiated by clear, strong, and convincing evidence of non-culpability. Also, the Accused-Appellant failed to buttress his denial by the required quantum of proof. Verily, it did not overcome the Private Complainant's affirmative, categorical, spontaneous, and convincing testimony.
The physical evidence likewise reinforced the Private Complainant's testimony. The Medico-Legal Report of Dr. Noemie Taganas, who physically examined her on January 14, 2001, shows that her genital has healed laceration at 12, 3, 6, and 9:00 o'clock positions, and that her hymen orifice admits 1-2 fingers with slight difficulty. Consequently, the lacerations and pain that the Private Complainant suffered in her genital could be only the result of penile penetration forced upon her by the Accused-Appellant.25
The foregoing considered, We affirm the trial court's finding that the Accused-Appellant is guilty of three (3) counts of rape. The age of the Private Complainant at the time of the rape incidents, as well as her relationship with the Accused-Appellant, were sufficiently established by the prosecution and admitted by the Accused-Appellant. Thus, the trial court correctly meted out the penalty of death on all counts. However, Republic Act No. 9346, entitled, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, signed into law on June 24, 2006, prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. The Accused-Appellant, thus, shall suffer only the penalty of reclusion perpetua, on three (3) counts.
While We sustain the awards of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as civil indemnity and exemplary damages, respectively, for each count of rape, the award of moral damages, must, however, be increased from Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) for each count in line with prevailing jurisprudence.26 (Emphases ours.)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The Accused-Appellant Benjamin Padilla is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. He is also hereby ORDERED to pay the Private Complainant Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages, for each count of rape. As modified, the Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) awarded below as moral damages is hereby INCREASED to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), for each count of rape. Costs against the Accused-Appellant. 27
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 is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority;
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.
In a prosecution for rape, the victim's credibility becomes the single most important issue. For when a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed; thus, if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.
The rule is settled that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses and of their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of any clear showing that the court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case. This is because the trial court, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves, and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, is in a better position to decide the question of credibility. 34
[PROSECUTOR SILVESTRE RIDAO] Q: The first incident, Madam Witness, is November 1999. Where were you when the incident happened? [AAA] A: I was in our house, sir. Q: What were you doing in your house? A: I was changing my clothes, sir. Q: For what? A: I was going to school that time, sir. Q: What time was that? A: Seven o'clock, sir. Q: Where was your brother [CCC] at that time? A: He was at the market, sir. x x x x Q: How about the two, [DDD] and [EEE], where were they? x x x x A: They were outside the house, sir. Q: What happened while you were changing your clothes? A: My father came, sir. Q: By the way, what part of the house were you in? A: I was upstairs, sir. x x x x Q: What did your father do when he went to the second floor? A: He held me, sir. Q: With what hand did he hold you? A: His left hand, sir. x x x x Q: You said he held you with his left hand. How about his right hand, what was his right hand doing? A: His right hand was holding a bolo, sir. x x x x Q: What happened next after he held you? A: He pushed me, sir. Q: What happened to you when he pushed you? A: I fell down in a lying position, sir. x x x x Q: What did your father tell you, if any, Madam Witness? A: He told me not to shout because he will kill me, sir. x x x x Q: After you were pushed on the floor, what happened next? A: He removed my short pants and my panty, sir. Q: What did you do while he was removing your shorts and panty? A: I was crying, sir. Q: What did he do next, Madam Witness? A: He removed his shorts and brief, sir. x x x x Q: What did your father do when he removed his shorts and brief? A: He spread my legs sir. x x x x Q: What happened next after he spread your legs? A: He went on top of me, sir. x x x x Q: What happened next after he went on top of you? A: He inserted his penis inside my vagina, sir. Q: What did you feel when he inserted his penis to your vagina? A: It was painful, sir. x x x x PROS. RIDAO: May we just put on record, Your Honor, that the witness is crying. COURT: Put that on record. x x x x Q: After he inserted his penis into your vagina, what did he do next? A: He did the push and pull movement, sir. Q: What happened next after he did the push and pull movement? A: He removed his penis and stood up, sir. x x x x Q: Do you recall where you were, Madam Witness, on January 13, 2001 in the evening? x x x x A: I was in our house, sir. Q: In what particular place in your house? A: Upstairs, sir. Q: What were you doing upstairs? A: I was changing my clothes, sir. x x x x Q: Where was your older brother, [CCC], at that time? A: He was already asleep, sir. Q: How about [DDD] and [EEE]? A: They were already asleep, sir. Q: Where were they sleeping? A: Downstairs, sir. Q: While changing your clothes, Madam Witness, what happened? A: My father came again, sir. Q: What did you do when he came near you? A: He held me again, sir. Q: How did he hold you? x x x x A: His left hand, sir. Q: About [his] right hand, what was his right hand doing? A: His right hand was holding a bolo, sir. x x x x Q: What did he do next after he held your arm? A: He again pushed me, sir. Q: What happened to you when he pushed you? A: I fell down, sir. x x x x Q: What did your father do next after you fell on the floor? A: He removed my shorts and panty, sir. x x x x Q: What did your father do next? A: He spread my [legs], sir. x x x x Q: What did he do next after spreading your legs? A: He went on top of me, sir. x x x x Q: What did your father do next? A: He inserted his penis in my vagina, sir. x x x x Q: What did your father do next after inserting his penis into your vagina? A: He did the push and pull movement, sir. Q: While doing the push and pull movement, what did you feel? A: I felt pain, sir. Q: After he did the push and pull movement, what did you feel? A: I felt something hot, sir. Q: Coming from what? A: Coming from his penis, sir. Q: Where did you feel that something hot? A: My vagina, sir. Q: What did your father do next after you felt something hot in your vagina? A: He removed his penis from my vagina, sir. Q: And then what did he do? A: He put on his brief and shorts, sir. Q: And then? A: Then he left, sir. x x x x Q: On January 14, 2001, at dawn, Madam Witness, do you recall where you were? x x x x A: I was in our house, sir. Q: In what particular place in your house? A: Downstairs, sir. Q: What were you doing downstairs? A: I was sleeping, sir. Q: About your brother [CCC], where was he? A: He was in the market, sir. Q: About your brother [DDD], where was he? A: He was still sleeping, sir. Q: About your sister [EEE], where was she? A: She was still sleeping at that time, sir. Q: Where were they sleeping? A: On the ground floor, sir. x x x x Q: What time were you awakened at dawn? A: I cannot remember but it was early dawn, sir. Q: Why were you awakened? A: My father woke me up, sir. Q: How did he woke you up? A: He shook me, sir. x x x x Q: After you were awakened, what did your father do next? A: He threatened me, sir. Q: How did he threaten you? What did he tell you? A: He said to me: "Don't shout or else I will kill you". Q: How did he tell that to you? A: He whispered it to me, sir. Q: After making that threat, what did he do next[?] A: He removed my shorts and panty, sir. x x x x Q: After removing your shorts and panty, what did he do next? A: He also removed his shorts and brief, sir. x x x x Q: What did your father do next? A: He spread my legs again, sir. x x x x Q: What did your father do next? A: He went on top of me, sir. Q: And then what did he do next? A: He inserted his penis inside my vagina, sir. x x x x Q: What did you do after he inserted his penis inside your vagina? A: He did the push and pull [movement], sir. x x x x Q: After your father did the push and pull movement, what did you feel? A: I felt something hot, sir. Q: And after you felt something hot, what did your father do? A: He removed his penis from my vagina, sir. 35
Art. 266-B. Penalties. - x x x
The death penalty shall also 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, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 2-22; penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 40-50; penned by Presiding Judge Rodrigo G. Nabor.
3 The real name or any other information tending to establish the identity of the private complainant and those of her immediate family or household members shall be withheld in accordance with Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; Sec. 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children" effective November 15, 2004; and People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
Thus, the private offended party shall be referred to as AAA. BBB shall refer to her mother. CCC shall stand for the name of her older brother, whereas DDD and EEE shall indicate the names of her younger brother and younger sister, respectively. FFF shall pertain to the sister of the private offended party's mother, while GGG shall designate the maternal grandmother of the private offended party. XXX shall denote the place where the crime was allegedly committed.
4 Records (Criminal Case No. U-11273), p. 1.
5 CA rollo, p. 8.
6 Records (Criminal Case No. U-11275), p. 1.
7 Records (Criminal Case No. U-11273), p. 28.
8 Id. at 37.
9 TSN, August 22, 2001, pp. 2-9.
10 Id. at 9-17.
11 TSN, June 11, 2001, pp. 3-4.
12 Id. at 5.
13 TSN, June 19, 2001, pp. 2-6.
14 Records (Criminal Case No. U-11273), p. 93.
15 Id. at 2.
16 TSN, August 7, 2001, pp. 7-8.
17 Id. at 9-10.
18 The findings of Dr. Taganas were set forth in the Medico-Legal Certification, which recites:
MEDICO-LEGAL CERTIFICATION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that [AAA], 12 years old, female and a resident of [XXX] came to this hospital for consultation and examination on January 14, 2001 with the following findings:
A. External Findings:
- Swelling of both nipples
- Swelling of the labia majora, labia minora and clitoris
B. Internal Findings:
- Hymen showing incomplete and old healed laceration about 12:00, 3:00, 6:00 and 9:00 o'clock position.
- Hymen orifice admits 1-2 fingers with slight difficulty.
DIAGNOSIS: Physical Virginity, Lost
(Signed)
NOEMIE M. TAGANAS, M.D.
Chief of Hospital (Records [Criminal Case No. U-11273], p. 94.)
19 TSN, December 4, 2001, pp. 4-6.
20 TSN, February 4, 2002, pp. 5-10.
21 TSN, June 10, 2002, pp. 6-11.
22 TSN, September 27, 2002, pp. 2-5.
23 CA rollo, pp. 48-50.
24 Id. at 50.
25 Rollo, pp. 18-20.
26 Id. at 20-21.
27 Id. at 21-22.
28 Id. at 23-25.
29 Id. at 26.
30 Id. at 28.
31 Id. at 29-34.
32 CA rollo, p. 89.
33 People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 172372, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 307, 314-315.
34 People v. Paculba, G.R. No. 183453, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 755, 763-764.
35 TSN, August 22, 2001, pp. 4-15.
36 471 Phil. 638 (2004).
37 Id. at 667.
38 G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 168.
39 Id. at 187.
40 People v. Bang-ayan, G.R. No. 172870, September 22, 2006, 502 SCRA 658, 670.
41 People v. Matunhay, G.R. No. 178274, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 307, 317.
42 TSN, June 11, 2002, p. 4.
43 TSN, February 4, 2002, p. 10.
44 People v. Dimanawa, G.R. No. 184600, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 770, 783.
45 People v. Documento, G.R. No. 188706, March 17, 2010, 615 SCRA 610, 614-618; People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 177740, April 5, 2010, 617 SCRA 318, 335.