458 Phil. 461
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
That on October 11, 1997 at about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, more or less, at Barangay Fidel Surtida, Municipality of Sto. Domingo, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste design, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his stepdaughter, 13 year old AAA, against the latter's will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. Whereupon, trial on the merits ensued.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
Internal Examination:Thereafter, AAA's statement accusing appellant of the crime of rape was taken at the police station which led to the filing of this case.[7]External Genitalia:(-) pubic hair
Vulva – labia majora and manora are in close contact covering the external os.
Vagina – no bleeding, with clear whitish discharge noted.
Hymen – superficial, multiple, incomplete healed laceration at 3, 9, 11 o'clock positions, no bleeding
Vaginal Canal – on inserting the small finger of examining hand admits with resistance.[6]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, decision is hereby rendered finding the accused Martin Alejo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape of her stepdaughter AAA who was then thirteen and a half years old (13½) and hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of death and to pay AAA the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as indemnity and to pay the costs.Hence, this automatic review.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Appellant denied raping his stepdaughter. Rather, he alleged that the charge was concocted by Onesima Balderama, his mother-in-law, who disapproved of his marriage to her daughter, Lutgarda. Moreover, credence should have been accorded to his testimony, it being corroborated by no less than the offended party, who twice recanted the allegations that she was raped on October 11, 1997 by the appellant.I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED ON THE BASIS OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF PRIVATE OFFENDED PARTY GIVEN BEFORE THE POLICE OF STO. DOMINGO, ALBAY WHERE MORE OF THE ANSWERS WAS SUPPLIED BY ONESIMA BALDERAMA;II
THAT COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE PRIVATE OFFENDED PARTY'S DENIAL OF THE RAPE INCIDENT COMPLAINED OF BY ONESIMA BALDERAMA; ANDIII
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED BY IMPOSING THE CAPITAL PUNSIHMENT OF DEATH TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED ON THE BASIS OF UNSUPPORTED EVIDENCE OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO THE MOTHER OF PRIVATE OFFENDED PARTY.[10]
Later, on February 12, 2001, the defense presented AAA as its hostile witness. She reaffirmed her denial that she was raped by appellant.
ASST. PROS. DE MESA: Q. On that particular date October 11, 1997, do you recall of any incident that happened to you at Fidel Surtida, Sto. Domingo, Albay in your house?A. None, sir.x x x x x x x x x Q. You said you were playing in front of the house of your grandmother. After playing, where did you go?A. I did not go.Q. You did not go to your house?A. I went home, sir.Q. What did you do in your house?A. I drank a glass of water and returned to play.Q. What time?A. I don't know.Q. Did you play until the evening?A. When my mother arrived I stopped playing.Q. What time?A. Four o'clock.Q. In the afternoon?A. Yes, sir.x x x x x x x x x Q. Now, when you father arrived, what did you do?A. I did nothing.Q. You mean to say you did not greet him?x x x x x x x x x A. I greeted him.Q. How did you greet your father?A. I kissed him on the hand.Q. You kissed him on the hand or on the cheek?A. On his hand, sir.x x x x x x x x x Q. Miss witness, what happened after kissing the hand of your stepfather?A. Nothing, sirQ. What do you mean by that answer, nothing?A. Because at that time when I kissed the hand of my stepfather I left and returned playing.Q. Now, you returned playing. Until when did you stop playing?A. (No Answer)x x x x x x x x x Q. When did you return to your house?A. After my mother arrived.Q. What time did your mother arrive?A. Four o'clock in the afternoon, sir.Q. Now, after your mother arrived, what happened?A. I just met my mother.Q. You did not enter the house?A. Yes, sir.Q. And how about your mother. Did she enter the house?A. Yes, sir.Q. When you and your mother entered the house, what did you do?A. We fed the pigs.Q. When you said "we" to whom are you referring?A. My sister and I, sir.Q. And after feeding the pigs, what did you do?A. We fetched water.Q. And then?A. Nothing more, sir.Q. You did not eat?A. Yes, sir. We ate what our mother brought to us from the wedding celebration.Q. After eating, what happened next?A. Nothing more, sir.[11]
The trial court found AAA's testimony given on March 31, 1998 to be credible. We agree.
PROS. DE MESA Q. Do you remember the date when this happened?A. Yes madam.Q. Could you tell us the date if you remember?A. October 11, 1997.COURT Q. About what time?A. At 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.PROS. DE MESA Q. Where this happened?A. In my house, madam.Q. Where is it situated?A. At Fidel Surtida, Sto. Domingo, Albay your honor please.x x x x x x x x x Q. After playing when did you go up the house?A. Two o'clock madam.Q. When your stepfather arrived?A. Yes madam.Q. When your father arrive, what did you do?A. I kissed him on the cheek.Q. After kissing him on the cheek, what did your stepfather do?A. He kissed me on my lips.Q. He kissed you on the lips, now after kissing you on the lips, what happened next, if any?A. He removed my panty.Q. On what part of your house, did he remove your panty?A. In the room, madam.Q. Whose room?A. Ours madam.Q. After removing your panty what happened next?A. He also removed his underwear.Q. And then after removing his underwear, what did he do to you?A. He raped me.Q. When you said raped, you mean he inserted his penis into your vagina?A. Yes madam.Q. And what did you feel when the penis of Martin Alejo was already inserted into your vagina?A. I felt it was painful madam.Q. Was it painful, was he moving?A. Yes Madam.[12]
Mere retraction by a witness or by complainant of his or her testimony does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony or statement, if credible. The general rule is that courts look with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. x x x. The reason is because affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability that they will later be repudiated and there would never be an end to criminal litigation. It would also be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before courts of justice simply because the witnesses who had given them later on changed their minds for one reason or another. This would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of the truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.Courts, therefore, should devise all the necessary means to ascertain which of the contradictory testimonies represents the truth. This includes not only noting the demeanor of the witness on the stand but also the demeanors of those persons present in court.
(As to the accused)In view of the above observations, the trial court was convinced that there was an effort on the part of AAA's mother to suppress her testimony against the appellant. In explaining the contradictory testimonies of the victim, the trial court attributed it to the fact that when the recantations were made on March 24, 1998 and February 12, 2001, the victim was under the custody of her mother. They were tainted testimonies due to pressure from the mother who wanted the appellant exculpated.[17]
COURT:
That's all.
Now, the court has noticed that there is an effort on the part of the accused to prohibit the testimony of the victim, and the court is constrained under the rules, to order her detention or to order her custody to another person if you will not present your witness now.[15]
(As to the mother)
THE COURT:
Don't suggest to the court what question to ask the witness. Let her explain when your time comes but not now. The Court is caught in dilemma. Did you not notice the dagger look of the mother at her? I was looking at her mother and her child cannot answer.[16]
In the case at bar, no birth certificate or any similar authentic document was presented and offered in evidence to prove AAA's age. Moreover, there is no evidence that said certificate of birth was lost or destroyed or was unavailable without the fault of the prosecution. The testimony of AAA as to her age, even if corroborated by her mother, is not sufficient proof of minority.[25]
- The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.
- In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.
- If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:
- If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
- If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
- If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
- In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
- It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.
- The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.