457 Phil. 411
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
"ACCORDINGLY, accused MAURICIO WATIWAT is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the heinous crime of RAPE, defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, and hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH.The accusatory portion of the Amended Information against appellant Mauricio Watiwat reads:
"Additionally, accused is ordered to indemnify the victim AAA, the amount of P50,000.00.
"Let the complete record of this case together wit the transcript of stenographic notes be forwarded to the Honorable Supreme Court, for automatic review pursuant to Sec. 10, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court.
"SO ORDERED."[2]
"That on or about the month of March, 1996 and subsequent thereto in barangay Bato, municipality of Bansud, province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste design, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lay with and have carnal knowledge of one AAA, his 10-year-old niece living in his own house and therefore a guardian and relative within the third civil degree, against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the Offended Party.Upon being arraigned, with the assistance of his counsel, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, trial ensued.
"CONTRARY TO ART. 335 OF THE RPC, AS AMENDED BY R.A. 7659."[3]
Thereafter, Hilaria reported the matter to the police.
"1. Breasts not developed. 2. Perineum – No pubic hair – Labia majora not developed – skin in labial area congested. 3. Hymen – complete old healed lacerations at 6 o'clock, 9 o'clock, 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock. – Incomplete old healed laceration at 5 o'clock and 3 o'clock REMARKS: Physical virginity lost"
"While there is delay in reporting the incident in question, the story AAA presented is credible and consistent. Her testimony withstood the test of cross-examination and there is no cogent reason why she should not be believed as the defense had not even shown any reason at all why a ten (10) year old AAA would fabricate a story of rape upon herself and impute it to a person whom she looks up to as her very own father if her story were not true.In his brief, appellant ascribes to the trial court the following errors:
"When there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witness to testify falsely against an accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit (People vs. Tabao, G.R. No. 111290, Jan. 30, 1995, 240 SCRA 758).
"There is an explanation why there was such a delay. There is no one close to her and no shoulder to lean on so to speak, except the accused himself. AAA had no family to cling to. Besides, accused and AAA are not strangers to each other, the former being the guardian, while the latter the ward, living under he same roof. Had it not been for a mere coincidence that she was taken by her Nanay Laling to live with her in her house, there could have no chance for AAA to divulge her painful and horrifying ordeal. She could have kept for herself forever the humiliating secret. Thus, it would not be proper to apply the norms of behavior expected under the circumstances from mature women.
"A ten-year old girl, like AAA, unlike a mature woman, cannot be expected to have the courage and intelligence to immediately report a sexual assault committed against her especially when the offender is one she looks up to as her very own father.
"AAA should be looked upon despite her minority considering her courage and determination to seek justice and plea for redress for a crime of such a nature that is otherwise better left forgotten. She could have chosen to keep numb and silent and forget the whole incident, but she did not. It is a clear manifestation of her intent to pursue her morbid cry for the injustice committed against her, at the opportune time (People vs. Guererro, 242 SCRA 606).
"Where accused was positively identified by the victim of the rape herself who harbored no ill motive against the accused, the defense of alibi must fail. (People vs. Canada, 253 SCRA 256)
"Bare alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. (People vs. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658) (People vs. Nazareno, 260 SCRA 256)" (Emphasis supplied)
Appellant contends that AAA' failure to report the matter immediately to the authorities casts doubt on her credibility. Moreover, when the incident took place in March 1996, she was no longer living with his family in Bato, Bansud. As early as 1992, her grandfather brought her to Batangas. He, on the other hand, transferred residence to Barangay Salcedo. And even assuming that he is guilty of rape, the imposition of the death penalty upon him is erroneous since the qualifying circumstance of relationship was not proved. Neither can he be considered her guardian. Thus, he should not be convicted of qualified rape and that the penalty that should have been imposed against him should be reclusion perpetua."I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME, AS DEFINED AND PUNISHED UNDER ARTICLE 335 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY R.A. 7659."II
ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY AS CHARGED, THE TRIAL COURT STILL ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH."[11]
"SEC. 11. Article 335 of the same [Revised Penal] Code is hereby amended to read as follows:The trial court held that AAA was telling the truth when she testified that she was sexually abused by appellant. We see no reason to differ from such finding.`Article 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
`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.X X X'" (Emphasis supplied)
"In the resolution of the factual issues, the Court relies heavily on the trial court for its evaluation of the witnesses and their credibility. Having the opportunity to observe them on the stand, the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict."[14]For another, complainant never wavered in her assertion that appellant raped her. Her testimony is clear, positive, and convincing. Indeed, the fact of rape and the identity of appellant as the malefactor were sufficiently and convincingly established by the prosecution through her straightforward narration, thus:
Indeed, complainant's testimony, stamped with consistency and accuracy, must be given full faith and credit.[16] When a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect, all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, for as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility.[17]
"Q. Why did you file the case against your Kakang Muling or Mauricio Watiwat?A. Because I was raped, sir.Q. Do you still remember the date and month when you were raped by this Kakang Muling or Mauricio Watiwat?A. It was in March, 1996, sir.Q. In that particular month of March, 1996, how old were you if you still remember?A. I was less than 10 years old, sir.Q. Tell us how you were raped by your Kakang Muling or Mauricio Watiwat?A. I was then living in his house and while I was sleeping beside with other children, I was carried by the accused to the other room, sir.Q. After you were lifted and carried to the other room, what else was done by your Ka Muling?A. He took off my shorts and panty, sir.Q. After your shorts and panty were removed by the accused, what else did he do if any?A. He undressed himself and put himself on top of me, sir. (Naghubo po siya at pagkatapos ay pumatong sa akin.)FISCAL (Continuing): Q. After he placed himself on top of you, what else did he do?A. He insisted in inserting his penis inside me. (Pilit po niyang ipinasok ang kanyang ari sa akin.)Q. When he forcibly tried to insert his penis to your body, what did you feel?A. I was hurt, sir.Q. And because you were hurt, what, if any, did you plea or say to your uncle?A. I told him, huwag, but he continued to insert his penis in my private part, sir.Q. Will you please tell the Court if your uncle Muling was successful in completely inserting his penis towards your sexual organ?A. Yes, sir.Q. What else did your uncle Muling do after he was able to insert his penis to your sexual organ?A. (No answer)Note: After a few seconds... she answered: `Siya po ay nagkakayod.' (He made a pumping motion.)"[15]
"In the law on rape, the role of a guardian is provided for in Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, specifically as one who, aside from the offended party, her parents or grandparents, is authorized to file the sworn written complaint to commence the prosecution for that crime. In People vs. De la Cruz (59 Phil. 531 [1934]), it was held that the guardian referred to in the law is either a legal or judicial guardian as understood in the rules on civil procedure.A guardian is a person lawfully invested with the power and charged with the duty of taking care of the person and managing the property and rights of another person who, for defect of age, understanding, or self-control, is considered incapable of administering his own affairs.[27]x x x
"It would not be logical to say that the word `guardian' in the third paragraph of Article 344 which is mentioned together with parents and grandparents of the offended party would have a concept different from the `guardian' in the recent amendments of Article 335 where he is also mentioned in the company of parents and ascendants of the victim. In Article 344, the inclusion of the guardian is only to invest him with the power to sign a sworn written complaint to initiate the prosecution of four crimes against chastity, while his inclusion in the enumeration of the offenders in Article 335 is to authorize the imposition of the death penalty on him. With much more reason, therefore, should the restrictive concept announced in De la Cruz, that is, that he be a legal or judicial guardian, be required in the latter article.
"The Court notes from the transcripts of the proceedings in Congress on this particular point that the formulators were not definitive on the concept of `guardian' as it now appears in the attendant circumstances added to the original provisions of Article 335 of the Code. They took note of the status of a guardian as contemplated in the law on rape but, apparently on pragmatic considerations to be determined by the courts on an ad hoc basis, they agreed to just state `guardian' without the qualification that he should be a legal or judicial guardian. It was assumed, however, that he should at the very least be a de facto guardian. Indeed, they must have been aware of jurisprudence that the guardian envisaged in Article 335 of the Code, even after its amendment by Republic Act No. 4111, would either be a natural guardian, sometimes referred to as a legal or statutory guardian, or a judicial guardian appointed by the court over the person of the ward.x x x
"The law requires a legal or judicial guardian since it is the consanguineous relation or the solemnity of judicial appointment which impresses upon the guardian the lofty purpose of his office and normally deters him from violating its objectives. Such considerations do not obtain in appellant's case or, for that matter, any person similarly circumstanced as a mere custodian of a ward or another's property. The fiduciary powers granted to a real guardian warrant the exacting sanctions should he betray the trust." (Emphasis supplied)