SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 181473, November 11, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONEY GADUYON Y TAPISPISAN, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
In Criminal Case No. 6572 for Qualified Rape
That on or about the 22nd day of August 2002, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, taking advantage of his moral authority and ascendancy and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one “AAA,” a minor, 12 years of age, against her will and without her consent, the said crime having been attended by the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority, the said accused being the parent of the said victim, a 12[-]year old minor daughter of the accused thereby raising the crime to Qualified Rape which is aggravated by the circumstance of Treachery, Abuse of Superior Strength, Nighttime and Dwelling.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
In Criminal Case No. 6573 for Sexual Abuse
That on or about the 21st day of August 2002, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, taking advantage of his moral authority and ascendancy being the parent of the victim “AAA”, with lewd design x x x and intent to debase, degrade or demean said victim, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly commit lascivious conduct on the said “AAA,” a minor, 12 years of age, by then and there touching her breast and rubbing her arms, against her will and without her consent thereby constituting SEXUAL ABUSE which is prejudicial to her normal growth and development with attendant aggravating circumstance of RELATIONSHIP increasing the penalty of the offense to its maximum period.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8
In Criminal Case No. 6574 for Qualified Object Rape
That on or about the 9th day of October 2002, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, taking advantage of his moral authority and ascendancy and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously insert his finger into the genital orifice of “AAA,” a minor, 12 years of age, against her will and without her consent, the said crime having been attended by the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority, the said accused being the parent of the said victim, a 12[-]year old minor daughter of the accused thereby raising the crime to qualified object rape which is aggravated by the circumstance of Treachery, Abuse of Superior Strength, Nighttime and Dwelling.
CONTRARY TO LAW.9
WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
(a) In [C]riminal [C]ase No. 6572, for the rape committed on August 22, 2002, accused Doney Gaduyon y Tapispisan is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay the victim “AAA,” the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
(b) In [C]riminal [C]ase No. 6573, for the sexual abuse committed on August 21, 2002, accused Doney Gaduyon y Tapispisan is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of One (1) year and One (1) month of Prision Correcional as minimum to Two (2) years, Eleven (11) months of Prision Correccional in its medium period as maximum.
(c) In [C]riminal [C]ase No. 6574, for the rape committed on October 9, 2002, accused Doney Gaduyon y Tapispisan is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay the victim “AAA” the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.52
The aforesaid judgment is hereby partially modified x x x to read, as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
(a) x x x
(b) x x x
(c) In Criminal Case No. 6574, for the rape committed on October 9, 2002, accused Doney Gaduyon y Tapispisan is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum and to pay the victim “AAA”, the amount of P30,000.00, as civil indemnity, P30,000.00, as moral damages and P15,000.00, as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.”54
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.56
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACCORDING TO THE ACCUSED THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED IN CRIMINAL CASES AND FOR CONVICTING HIM OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DESPITE THE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT –
- THE CLAIM OF THE PROSECUTION THAT THE ACCUSED AND HIS DAUGHTER WERE ALONE AT THEIR SAN MATEO RESIDENCE IN THE EVENING OF 22 AUGUST 2002, THE DATE WHEN THE ALLEGED PENILE PENETRATION TOOK PLACE IS A BRAZEN LIE;
- “AAA” DID NOT MANIFEST OVERT PHYSICAL SIGNS THAT SHE WAS RAPED;
- “AAA” GAVE FOUR CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS ON HOW SHE WAS RAPED;
- “AAA” GAVE THREE CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS ON HOW SHE WAS “FINGERED” BY HER FATHER IN THE EVENING OF 9 OCTOBER 2002;
- X X X THE MOTHER OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM, CONCOCTED THE 9 OCTOBER 2002 INCIDENT;
- THERE IS NO SPONTANEOUS DISCLOSURE. “AAA” WAS PRESSURED TO ACCUSE HER FATHER;
- “AAA” IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO PRESSURE AND MANIPULATION;
- “AAA” BESTOWED [ON] HER FATHER A WARM SMILE WHEN SHE IDENTIFIED HIM IN COURT, WHICH IS UNEXPECTED IF SHE HAD IN FACT BEEN RAPED AND MOLESTED BY HER OWN FATHER;
- THE DEMEANOR OF “AAA” X X X IN THE COURSE OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS IS FAR FROM INSPIRING;
- “AAA” [GAVE] FOUR CONFLICTING VERSIONS OF WHAT TRANSPIRED AFTER THE ALLEGED RAPE;
- “AAA” IS CONSISTENT IN GIVING INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS;
- THE STATEMENT OF “AAA” THAT HER FATHER DID BAD THINGS TO HER TWICE CONTRADICTS HER CLAIM THAT SHE WAS SEXUALLY MOLESTED THRICE;
- “AAA” GAVE CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS ON HOW SHE FINALLY DISCLOSED HER ORDEAL;
- THE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION GAVE CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS OF HOW “AAA” MADE THE DISCLOSURE;
- X X X THE CLASS ADVISER OF “AAA” AND A WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, COULD NOT BE BELIEVED WITH SAFETY;
- THE CLAIM THAT THE ACCUSED “FINGERED” HIS DAUGHTER IN THE EVENING OF 9 OCTOBER 2002 IS INCREDIBLE;
- FROM HER TESTIMONY, IT APPEARS THAT “AAA” IS [SUBCONSCIOUSLY] SENDING SUBTLE HINTS TO THE COURT TO RECEIVE HER TESTIMONY WITH CAUTION;
- THE PARENTS OF “AAA” ARE NOT GETTING ALONG WELL;
- THE CLINICAL FINDING OF THE PSYCHIATRIST IS FAULTY AND INCONCLUSIVE; AND
- THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE IS NOT CONCLUSIVE OF RAPE.57
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;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 the genital or anal orifice of another person.
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination 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;
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:
x x x
(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 victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; x x x. (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
Q: Last August 21, 2002, at around 9:00 o’clock in the evening where were you? A: I was in our house, sir. x x x Q: At such time, place and date do you recall any unusual incident that happened? A: There was, sir. Q: What was that? A: I saw my daddy fondling my breasts and holding my arms, sir. Q: And where were you in the house when your father did that to you? A: I was in the room, sir. Q: Where in the room? x x x A: [In] the bed, sir. ATTY. SAN JOAQUIN: Q: What were you doing in bed? A: I was lying, sir. Q: And you said that your father, while you were [in] bed in the room, touched your breasts, would you please demonstrate to the court how your father touched your breasts? A: Like this, sir. ATTY. SAN JOAQUIN: Witness [cupping] with her two (2) palms her breasts x x x. x x x ATTY. SAN JOAQUIN: Q: You also said that your father touched your arms, would you please demonstrate to the court how your father touched your arms? A: Like this, sir. ATTY. SAN JOAQUIN Witness demonstrating with her right palm placed on her left shoulder and the left palm placed on her right shoulder and then moving them downwards. Q: When your father did that to you, what did you do? A: I was crying, sir. Q: And did you say anything to your father? A: None, sir. Q: Did your father say anything to you? A: Yes, sir. Q: What was that? A: He told me not to tell anything to my mother because in case I would tell something to my mother, something will happen to her, sir. ATTY. SAN JOAQUIN: May we manifest, your Honor, that the witness, while saying the words she had just said, had teary eyes and [was] wiping her tears with her handkerchief. Q: When that was done to you by your father, who were in the house? A: Only the two (2) of us, sir. Q: Where was your mother? A: She was in the wake of my aunt, sir. Q: Where was your sister “CCC”? A: Also at the wake, sir. Q: How about your sister “DDD”? A: Also at the wake of my aunt, sir. Q: What time was that again? A: 9:00 o’clock, sir. Q: Daytime or nighttime? A: Evening, sir. x x x Q: “AAA,” while you are testifying now, what do you feel? A: I am afraid (natatakot po), sir. ATTY. SAN JOAQUIN: May we manifest that while the witness answers “natatakot po” she is crying and wiping her eyes with her handkerchief. Q: At about 11 o’clock in the evening after August 22, 2002, where were you? A: I was in the house, sir. Q: What house? A: The house of my grandmother, sir. Q: Where is that? A: “YYY,” San Mateo, Rizal, sir. Q: At that time, date and place, do you recall an unusual incident that happened? A: There was, sir. Q: What was that? A: While I was sleeping I was suddenly awakened, sir. Q: Why were you suddenly awakened from sleep? A: Because my dad was lowering my shorts, sir. Q: How did you know that your daddy was lowering your shorts? A: I saw it, sir. Q: Was your daddy able to lower your shorts? A: Yes, sir. Q: What else did he do after lowering your shorts? A: He lowered my panty, sir. Q: Was your daddy able to lower your panty? A: Yes, sir. Q: What were you doing when your daddy was lowering your shorts and then panty, what were you doing? A: I was crying, sir. Q: After your daddy has lowered your shorts and panty what happened next? A: He separated my legs (ibinuka niya po ang hita ko), sir. Q: After your daddy separated your legs, what happened next? A: He inserted his penis into my vagina, sir. Q: You said he inserted his penis into your vagina, was he able to insert his penis into your vagina? A: Yes, sir. Q: When your daddy inserted his penis into your vagina, what did you feel? A: It was painful, sir. x x x Q: When the penis of [your] father was already inserted into your vagina, what happened next? A: He pulled it out and then inserted it again (hinugot niya tapos ay ipinasok niya uli), sir. Q: How many times did that happen that your daddy pulled out his penis from you and then inserted it, how many times? A: Two (2) times, sir. Q: Then afterwards what happened? A: He pulled it out again then he returned my panty, sir. Q: What else? A: He also returned my shorts, sir. Q: Did you say anything to your daddy when he did that to you? A: No, sir. Q: How about your daddy, did he tell you anything? A: Yes, sir. Q: What was that? A: Not to tell anything to my mother because something will happen to her if I tell anything to her, sir. Q: Who [were] in the house when your father did that to you? A: Only the two (2) of us, sir. Q: Where was your mother? A: She was still in the wake of my aunt, sir. Q: How about your sister “CCC”? A: She was also in the wake, sir. x x x Q: What time was that when it happened? A: At 11:00 o’clock, sir. Q: Daytime or nighttime? A: Nighttime, sir. x x x Q: “AAA,” I am asking you this question, at about 10:30 o’clock in the evening of October 9, 2002, where were you? A: I was in the house, sir. Q: What house? A: “YYY,” San Mateo, Rizal, sir. Q: At such time, date and place, do you recall any unusual incident that happened? A: There was, sir. Q: What was that? A: When I saw my shorts under my feet and my dad was already lying beside me, sir. Q: How do you know that your daddy was beside you? A: I saw him, sir. Q: Where were you at that time, what place in the house? A: In the room, sir. Q: Where in the room? A: x x x my bed, sir. Q: What are you doing [in] bed? A: I was sleeping, sir. Q: Now, you said that you found out that your shorts was no longer being worn by you, what happened next? A: My daddy inserted his finger in my vagina, sir. Q: Which finger of your daddy was inserted at that time into your vagina? A: The index finger, sir. x x x Q: “AAA,” when your father inserted his finger into your vagina, what did you feel? A: It was painful, sir. Q: What did you do when your father inserted his finger into your vagina? A: I just cried, sir. Q: Did you tell your father anything? A: None, sir. Q: How about your father, did he tell you anything? A: Yes, there was, sir. Q: What was that? A: Not to tell anything to my mother, sir. Q: Now, who were in the house when that happened? A: My sisters “CCC” and “DDD” and also my mother, sir. Q: Where was your mother when your father was inserting his finger into your vagina, where was your mother? A: I do not know, sir. Q: How about your sister “CCC”? A: At the lower portion of the double-deck, sir. Q: What was “CCC” doing there at the lower portion of your double-deck bed? A: She was sleeping, sir. Q: How about “DDD”? A: She was on the mattress, sir. Q: What time was that in the evening? A: At about 10:30, sir.68
The argument that “AAA” did not manifest overt physical signs of having been raped since she acted and walked normally the following day cannot justify the reversal of appellant’s conviction. How a person goes about the day after the happening of a horrid event is not a tell-tale sign of the truth or [falsity] of an allegation. The workings of the human mind placed under a great deal [of] emotional and psychological stress are unpredictable and different people react differently. Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, overt physical manifestations cannot be expected since “AAA” did not put up any form of resistance. The threat of harm to be inflicted on her mother was sufficient intimidation for her to succumb to her father’s lust out of fear. The pattern of instilling fear, utilized by the perpetrator in incestuous rape to intimidate his victim into submission, is evident in virtually all cases. It is through this fear that the perpetrator hopes to create a climate of extreme psychological terror which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and force her to submit to repeated acts of rape over a period of time. The relationship of the victim to the perpetrator magnifies this terror, because the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim.
Appellant would also want to impress upon this Court that the accusation of his daughter was concocted by his wife because of their marital problems. This contention is preposterous. It is unnatural for a mother to sacrifice her own daughter, a child of tender years, and subject her to the rigors and humiliation of a public trial for rape if she was not driven by an honest desire to have her daughter’s transgressor punished accordingly.
Neither can it be said that there was no spontaneous disclosure by “AAA” of the incident. Appellant threatened “AAA.” The humiliation caused by the rape by her own father in addition to the burden of being responsible should her mother be harmed are sufficient to prevent any child from freely disclosing her ordeal. We must be reminded that the crime of rape by itself attaches much humiliation and more so if the loss is caused by her father. Delay and the initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is neither unknown [nor] uncommon. That there was no spontaneous disclosure does not mean that appellant is innocent of the crimes. “AAA” was apparently a terrified young child who was completely at the mercy of her shameless father. Thus, “AAA’s” hesitation may be attributed to her age, the moral ascendancy of the accused over her, and his threats against her.
On the other hand, neither should the smile of “AAA” while identifying her father in court be given any malicious significance. While appellant puts much importance to said smile, which could be a way of concealing her nervousness, he ignored the fact that “AAA” cried while testifying on the details of the incidents. In fact, during her testimony, she categorically stated that she was afraid and ashamed. The candid and straightforward narration of how she was abused and the tears that accompanied her story are earmarks of credibility and must be given full faith and credit.
With respect to appellant’s contention that the clinical finding of Dr. Joven Ignacio, the psychiatrist, [is] faulty and not conclusive because she appeared to be biased, it is noteworthy that even without said psychiatric test, the finding of the trial court would still be affirmed considering that the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient basis for conviction in rape, which is a crime usually committed in seclusion.
Indeed, We are convinced that “AAA” had no reason to falsely incriminate her own father in view of the fact that the accusation would surely deny her mother the companionship of a husband and the protection of a father [for] her younger sisters. It has been consistently held that the testimony of a rape victim as to who abused her is credible where she has no motive to testify against the accused.76
Endnotes:
1 CA rollo, pp. 213-227; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Ricardo R. Rosario.
2 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 315-331; penned by Judge Josephine Zarate Fernandez.
3 Under Art. 266-A, par. 1(a), in relation to Art. 266-B, par. 5(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
4 Under Art. 266-A, par. 2, in relation to Art. 266-B, par. 10 and par. 5(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
5 Violation of Sec. 5(b), 1st phrase of Republic Act No. 7610 [or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act] in relation to Sec. 31(c) of the same Act and in further relation to Sec. 5, par. j of Republic Act No. 8369 [Family Courts Act of 1997].
6 “The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence And Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And Discrimination, 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; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children, effective November 5, 2004.” People v. Dumadag, G.R. No.176740, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 535, 538-539.
7 Records, Vol. I, p. 1.
8 Records of Criminal Case No. 6573 (attached at the back of the records, Vol. I), pp. 1-2.
9 Records of Criminal Case No. 6574 (attached at the back of the records, Vol. I), pp. 1-2.
10 TSN, March 5, 2003, pp. 6-7.
11 Id. at 7.
12 Id. at 8-9.
13 Id. at 9.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 10.
16 Id. at 12.
17 Id. at 12 and 14.
18 TSN, September 11, 2003, p. 7.
19 Id. at 11.
20 Id. at 10-12.
21 TSN, March 5, 2003, p. 15; TSN, July 7, 2005, pp. 3-4.
22 TSN, July 7, 2005, pp. 4-5.
23 TSN, March 5, 2003, p. 16.
24 Id.
25 Id. at 17.
26 Id.
27 Id.; TSN, October 1, 2003, p. 5
28 Id. at 6.
29 Exhibits “N,” Records, Vol. II, p. 377.
30 Records, Vol. I, pp. 121- 124.
31 TSN, April 4, 2005, p. 5.
32 Id. at 6.
33 Id. at 4.
34 Id. at 11.
35 Id. at 12-13.
36 Id. at 13.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 14.
41 Id. at 16.
42 Id. at 19.
43 TSN, August 31, 2005, p. 5.
44 Id.
45 Id. at 7.
46 TSN, March 3, 2005, p. 4.
47 Id. at 4-7.
48 Id. at 8.
49 TSN, May 19, 2004, pp. 5-6.
50 Id.
51 Supra note 2.
52 Id. at 330-331.
53 See Partial Modification of Judgment, id. at 352D-352E.
54 Id. at 352E. Emphasis in the original.
55 Supra note 1.
56 Id. at 227.
57 Id. at 45-47.
58 Id. at 56-127.
59 Id. at 127-132.
60People v. Abulon, G.R. No. 174473, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA 675, 701-702.
61People v. Brioso, G.R. No. 182517, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 485, 493.
62People v. Abulon, supra note 62 at 702.
63People v. Brioso, supra note 63 at 495.
64People v. Abulon, supra note 62 at 702.
65People v. Sumingwa, G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009, 603 SCRA 638, 654-655, citing Section 2(g) and (h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases promulgated to implement the provisions of Republic Act No. 7610.
66 Malto v. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 643, 656-657.
67 Id. at 657-658.
68 TSN, March 5, 2003, pp. 5-15.
69People v. Nachor, G.R. No. 177779, December 14, 2010, 638 SCRA 317, 330-331.
70 Records, Vol. I, p. 11 and Vol. II, p. 377.
71 People v. Alcazar, G.R. No. 186494, September 15, 2010, 630 SCRA 622, 634.
72People v. Cachapero, G.R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 744, 757.
73People v. Escoton, G.R. No. 183577, February 1, 2010, 611 SCRA 233, 246.
74 Id.
75 Id. at 246-247.
76 CA rollo, pp. 224-226.
77 Records, Vol. 1, p. 26.
78People v. Padilla, G.R. No. 167955, September 30, 2009, 601 SCRA 385, 397.
79 Id. at 397-398.
80 People v. Nachor, supra note 71 at 334.
81People v. Sumingwa, supra note 67 at 655.
82 Id. at 655-656.
83 Art. 266 B, par. 10 of the RPC.
84People v. Masagca, G.R. No. 184922, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 278, 286.
85Garingarao v. People, G.R. No. 192760, 654 SCRA 243, 255.
86People v. Alfonso, G.R. No. 182094, August 18, 2010, 628 SCRA 431, 452.
87People v. Flores, G.R. No. 177355, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 631, 643.