On automatic review is the decision of Branch 95 of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region stationed in Quezon City, the Honorable Diosdado M. Peralta presiding, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Felipe delos Santos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape defined and penalized in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay the costs. The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the victim, Nhanette delos Santos the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.

SO ORDERED.

(p. 44, Rollo.)

The instant case was initiated by the complaint of the minor Nanette (also referred to in the record as "Nhanette") delos Santos, which states:

That on or about the 12th day of September 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously brought the undersigned complainant NHANETTE DE LOS SANTOS Y RIVERA, a minor, 13 years of age, to a vacant apartment located at General Avenue, Project 8, of this City, then forced her to lie down, undressed her, removed her panty, mashed her private parts, after which accused put himself on top of her, and thereafter have carnal knowledge with the undersigned complainant against her will and without her consent.

(p. 5, Rollo.)

Accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued, resulting in the judgment of conviction now under automatic review considering that the supreme penalty of death was imposed.

The inculpatory facts, based on the testimony of prosecution witnesses Nanette de los Santos, Dr. Owen Lebaquin, and Nelson Bartolay, are as follows:

Nanette de los Santos was born on November 15, 1980, in Iloilo. She has known only her mother Cathy, because her father left the family when she was still very young (p. 3, tsn, Feb. 8, 1995). After the birth of Nanette, Cathy left for Manila to work as a seamstress, and entrusted to her mother the care and custody of Nanette and her other sisters and brother (p. 4, ibid.).

When Nanette was eight years old, she was brought by her mother to Manila where they resided in Tandang Sora. Nanette was then introduced to herein accused-appellant Felipe de los Santos who turned out to be her, as well as her siblings’, real and natural father. Felipe, whom Nanette began to address as "Father", was then working as a jeepney driver plying the Project 8-Kalaw-Quiapo route (pp. 4-6, ibid.).

On September 12, 1994, Nanette rode with accused-appellant in plying the aforestated route. At 12 o’clock midnight, accused-appellant parked the jeepney in the garage and proceeded to eat with Nanette at a carinderia located at General Avenue, Project 8, Quezon City. Thereafter, accused-appellant told Nanette that they must be going home. However, instead of proceeding home, accused-appellant took Nanette to an isolated apartment likewise located at the above-stated address. Upon their arrival at said apartment, accused-appellant asked Nanette to buy cigarettes, soap, and coffee, which she did. After preparing accused-appellant’s coffee, Nanette was asked to go to the room upstairs, to wait there, and to undress. At first, Nanette did not follow accused-appellant’s order. When accused-appellant insisted, Nanette obeyed by removing her shirt. Afterwards, she was asked to remove her pants and she likewise obeyed, but then, she was also told to take off her panties. She refused, but as accused-appellant became angry, repeatedly telling her to remove her underwear, Nanette finally acceded for fear of maltreatment (pp. 7-9, tsn, Feb. 8, 1995).

Nanette further testified that she was then raped by accused-appellant. She was told not to tell anybody (p. 10, tsn, Feb. 8, 1995).

The next day, Nanette escaped from and fled their house and stayed with a friend whom she called "Ate Evelyn". On October 6, 1994, Evelyn, having been in the meantime told of the ravishment, accompanied Nanette and sought the assistance of Nelson Bartolay, a barangay tanod, who recorded in the barangay blotter Nanette’s complaint of rape against her known father (tsn, p. 3, March 1, 1995). Nanette was interrogated at the PNP, Women’s Desk Bureau (p. 5, ibid.) and was, upon request of said Bureau, medically examined by Dr. Owen Lebaquin who found that -

x x x Labia Majora are full, convex and coaptated with the pinkish labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same disclosed an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with deep healed lacerations at 3 and 6 o’clock. External vaginal orifice offers slight resistance to the introduction of the examining finger and the virgin-sized vaginal speculum. Vaginal canal is narrow with prominent rugosities. x x x.

(p. 27, Rollo.)

On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant himself, his wife, Cathy (also known as "Catalina"), and daughter, Rivera, as witnesses.

The story of accused-appellant is that he is in truth and in fact the natural father of Nanette who was 14 years old when the complaint was filed; that he and Cathy were legally married and had seven children, two of whom died at a young age, leaving only Rivera, Pretzel, Nanette, Felipe, Jr., and Prince; that when Nanette was 7 years of age, she was brought to Manila by accused-appellant and Cathy where she attended school until July, 1994.

However, when Nanette reached sixth grade at Banlat Elementary School, she stopped schooling due to some problems with her studies, as reported to accused-appellant by her teacher and because she preferred to go with her friends or "barkada". Because of this, accused-appellant got mad and beat Nanette five times during the month of July, 1994, resulting in the strained relationship between them.

On August 4, 1994, Nanette was said to have left the family home without any apparent reason. Since he was concerned about Nanette’s sudden disappearance, accused-appellant asked Cathy and his other children to help him locate Nanette. They later learned that Nanette was living with Evelyn, allegedly a prostitute, in Upper Banlat, Tandang Sora, Quezon City; and that Rivera, a sister of Nanette, having met Nanette one time and thereupon entreating her to come home, she was instead mauled by Nanette and her "barkada". Accused-appellant also exerted efforts to bring back Nanette to the family home but to no avail (pp. 5-6, Decision).

Since Nanette continued to stay away, accused-appellant, sought on September 30, 1994 the assistance of the barangay tanods at the barangay hall of Upper Banlat, Tandang Sora, Quezon City, to locate Nanette. On October 6, 1994, accused-appellant returned to the barangay hall to verify the status of the request. He was, however, thereupon apprehended by the barangay tanods based on a complaint for rape filed by Nanette against him (p. 6, Decision).

Accused-appellant denied the rape charge. He asserted that he could not have raped Nanette on several occasions since 1989 because he had been working as a stay-in driver/mechanic at a service center near the Philippine Village Hotel in Parañaque, Metro Manila, and that he was home only during weekends and at times even less oftener, that is, once or twice a month. On the date of the alleged rape, September 12, 1994, he did not go home from work. He maintained that the complaint filed by Nanette was purely motivated by the latter’s anger which she nurtured against him because he had been maltreating her especially when he found out that Nanette had stopped schooling and preferred to go with her "barkada" (id.).

The trial court did not accord credence to the version of the defense. It found Nanette’s testimony credible, categorical, logical, and straightforward, notwithstanding the rigorous and extensive cross-examination by the defense. The ocular inspection conducted by the trial court motu proprio bolstered Nanette’s testimony of the place of the crime. The address furnished by accused-appellant in the blotter of the barangay, that is, No. 85 General Avenue, Project 8, Quezon City, was found to be the Office of the United Drivers Association of Project 8 (UNIDA), which also doubled as a canteen. Opposite the place was No. 84-A, a 2-storey, 2-door apartment where Nanette said she was sexually abused by accused-appellant at the second floor thereof. The description of the crime scene by Nanette was found to be consistent with the actual place that was seen by the trial court.

Further, defense witness Cathy de los Santos, accused-appellant’s wife, contradicted accused-appellant’s claim that he was a stay-in driver/mechanic at the Philippine Village Hotel.

The trial court noted that it took accused-appellant almost 2 months before he sought help from the barangay tanods in allegedly trying to locate Nanette. It further opined that accused-appellant purposely made it appear that as early as August 4, 1994, Nanette unceremoniously left their house and that she and her friend Evelyn, who was allegedly a prostitute, orchestrated the filing of the complaint in retaliation for the alleged maltreatment Nanette received at the hands of accused-appellant.

The trial court held that if that were the case, the rape charge could have been filed as early as August, 1994 when Nanette left home, and not belatedly on October 6, 1994, since the gap of two months was too long a time for Nanette and Evelyn to concoct a story of sexual molestation which could easily be fabricated. Further, if accused-appellant’s position were to be given credit, this would lead to the question why Nanette would file a serious charge of rape against her own father just for the purpose of retaliation when she could have easily fabricated a lesser charge.

Lastly, as regards the issue of whether or not carnal knowledge was against the will of Nanette and was attended by force or intimidation, the trial court stressed that such circumstances were fully established considering that accused-appellant exerted moral ascendancy and influence over Nanette.

Accused-appellant assigns two errors -

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE IMPROBABLE, UNCONVINCING AND UNRELIABLE TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT NANETTE DE LOS SANTOS.

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE.

(pp. 75-76, Rollo.)

which he jointly discussed, raising the following points :

1. If one were to believe that Nanette was previously ravished twice by accused-appellant, one would also have to assume that such traumatic experience would cause Nanette to be fearful of her father. It is thus improbable or preposterous for Nanette to still go for a joyride with accused-appellant in the latter’s passenger jeepney plying the route of Project, 8, Kalaw, and Quiapo, and back, until midnight. Nanette’s conduct is said to be against human experience and "against the dictates of human instinct on self-preservation."

2. Nanette had all the chances to run and create a commotion when she was asked to go inside the uninhabited apartment. She could also have fled when accused-appellant asked her to buy soap, cigarettes, and coffee. Nanette should have suspected what accused-appellant was up to considering that she had been previously sexually abused by accused-appellant.

3. Nanette’s hostility toward accused-appellant, bolstered by the support of her "barkada" and friend Evelyn, could have motivated Nanette to retaliate. The fact that Evelyn was not called to the witness stand militates against the prosecution since this casts some doubt in regard to its evidence.

We are not persuaded. A close and detailed examination of the entire record of the case at bar impels us to affirm.

Let us start by saying that the crime of rape is not a simple physical violation. It actually debases a woman’s dignity, leaving a stigma on her honor and scarring her psyche for life (People vs. Vargas, 257 SCRA 603 [1996]).

Clearly, the prosecution’s case hinges on the credibility of the testimony of the victim, Nanette de los Santos, quoted in relevant part by the trial court as follows:

PROSECUTION:	(to the witness)
Q -	Alright, Madam witness, on September 12, 1994, do you remember where were you?
A -	Yes, sir.
Q -	Could you kindly tell this Court where were you at that time?
A -	I was with my father riding in the passenger jeepney.
Q -	What time was that, Madam Witness?
A -	When I go with my father, it was in the noon time.
Q -	And when you said your father, whom are you referring to, Madam witness?
A -	The accused Felipe delos Santos.
	x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Q -	Let us go back to September 12. Do you know what route did the accused Felipe delos Santos plying on September 12, 1994?
A -	Project 8, Kalaw, Quiapo, sir.
Q -	And how long did the accused ply that route on September 12, 1994?
A -	Around one hour, sir.
Q -	Were you always with him while he was plying that route on September 12, 1994?
A -	Yes, sir.
Q -	Up to what time were you with the accused in plying said route by his jeepney?
A -	Up to the time that he finish plying his route.
Q -	And do you know, Madam witness, what time did he finish plying his route on September 12, 1994?
A -	Yes, 12:00 midnight, sir.
Q -	After plying his route on said date, Madam witness, what happened next after that?
A -	After the jeepney was parked in the garage, we proceeded to the Carinderia of Manang and then, he brought me to an apartment, sir.
Q -	And what happened when you went to the carinderia of Manang?
A -	We ate, sir.
Q -	And where is that carinderia located, Madam witness?
A -	It is in the General Avenue, Project 8, Q.C., Sir.
Q -	Where is that Project 8 located?
A -	Quezon City, sir.
Q -	After eating at the Carinderia, where did you proceed, if any?
A -	After we have eaten, Felipe delos Santos told me that we must be going home but instead, he brought me to an apartment.
Q -	Where is that apartment you are referring to located?
A -	Also in General Avenue, Project 8, Quezon City, sir.
Q -	Were you able to reach that apartment on said time and date?
A -	Yes, sir.
Q -	When you arrived on said apartment, what happened there, if any?
A -	We came in to that apartment and asked me to run errand buying cigarettes, soap and coffee, sir.
Q -	Did you actually run errand for him buying those cigarettes, soap and prepared for his coffee on that time, Madam witness?
A -	Yes, sir.
Q -	After complying with all his orders, what happened next, if any?
A -	I was asked by him to get upstairs to the room.
Q -	By the way, Madam witness, in reference to this apartment, were these occupants at that time Mr. Felipe delos Santos brought you to said place?
A -	No more, sir.
Q -	Why was there no people inside that apartment?
A -	Because at that time the occupants left the apartment and his vehicle, his jeepney, was the one being used in hauling the belongings of the occupants.
Q -	After you were ordered to go upstairs of said apartment, what happened next, if any?
A -	He asked me to go upstairs and asked me to wait there.
Q -	Did you follow, Madam witness, the order of the accused to upstairs?
A -	Yes, sir.
Q -	After you went upstairs, what happened next, if any?
A -	I was told to undress in the room upstairs, sir.
Q -	Did you follow his order for you to undress upstairs?
A -	Not yet, but when he came out then, he told me to undress and then I followed.
Q -	After you undressed yourself, what happened then?
A -	He also said that I will undress my pants because he was waiting.
Q -	Did you removed your pants as ordered by the accused Felipe delos Santos?
A -	Yes, sir.
Q -	After removing your pants, what happened next, Madam witness?
A -	I was also asked to remove my panty but I did not obey him.
Q -	What was the reaction of the accused when you did not accede to his order for you to remove your panty?
A -	He said "I told you to remove your underwear."
Q -	Could you kindly describe to this Honorable Court how he said to you "I told you to remove your panty", did he tell you in angry manner or mild manner?
A -	He was angry, sir.
Q -	So, what did you do then when the accused got angry at you for refusing to remove your panty?
A -	I still did not obey him, sir.
Q -	So, after refusing for the second time to heed the order of the accused, what was the reaction of the accused, if any?
A -	I was forced to obey him because whenever he asked us to do something and we do not follow, we were subjected to maltreatment, sir.
	x x x x x x x x x
PROSECUTION:	(to witness)
Q -	So, after you removed your panty, what happened next, if any?
A -	He used me and raped me, sir.
Q -	Madam witness, what else did the accused do to you, if any?
A -	After he used me, he told me that I should not tell anybody, "magsusumbong".
Q -	Can you tell to this Court how you were raped by the accused here?
A -	He inserted his organ to my organ, sir.
COURT:	(to the witness)
Q -	Now, when he inserted his organ to your organ, what else did he do after his organ was inserted to your organ?
COURT:
	Place in the record that when asked by the Court what the accused did to her, the private complainant demonstrated, when the private organ was inserted to the private organ of the complaining witness, by making a forward and backward motion.
PROSECUTION:	(to the witness)
Q -	How long, Madam witness, did the accused use you on that occasion?
A -	Only four minutes, sir.
Q -	So, aside from backward and forward move, what other acts did he do, if any?
A -	He mashed my breast, sir.
Q -	And, Madam witness, when this accused inserted his organ into your organ, what did you feel, if any?
A -	It was painful, sir.
Q -	Madam witness, could you kindly tell this Court if at the time that you were raped by the accused Felipe delos Santos whether that was the first time a male organ was inserted into your private parts or not?
A -	No, sir.
Q -	And could you kindly tell this Court when for the first time did you experience a male organ being inserted to your organ?
A -	When I was thirteen years old he was using me already.
	x x x x x x
	--Pages 5 to 11, Nhanette delos Santos, T.S.N., February 8, 1995.--
	(pp. 105-109, Rollo.)

Ultimately, 14-year old Nanette summoned enough courage to come out publicly and divulge a dark and sinister secret that she was forced to conceal out of fear of maltreatment from her father, herein accused-appellant.

In response to Nanette’s clamor for justice, her father asserts that the entire incident was a mere fabrication orchestrated by Nanette and her friend Evelyn, whom he tagged a prostitute.

Accused-appellant likewise argues that Nanette should not have gone with him in a joyride if it were true that he had previously sexually abused Nanette. Significantly, Nanette’s actuations can be understood in the light of jurisprudence on incestuous rape.

In People vs. Melivo (253 SCRA 347 [1996]), we explained the pattern of instilling a climate of fear and terror which is used by the perpetrator in incestuous rape to intimidate his victim into submission, as follows:

. . . the rapist perverts whatever moral ascendancy and influence he has over his victim in order to intimidate and force the latter to submit to repeated acts of rape over a period of time. In many instances, he succeeds and the crime is forever kept on a lid. In a few cases, the victim suddenly finds the will to summon unknown sources of courage to cry out for help and bring her depraved malefactor to justice.

(357.)

The above-described climate of terror explains Nanette’s initial hesitancy in reporting the crime, notwithstanding, or perhaps precisely because of the fact that she had been twice sexually abused by accused-appellant prior to the incident reported in her complaint (tsn, February 24, 1995, p. 19).

Silence is not an odd behavior of a rape victim (People vs. Dones, 254 SCRA 696 [1996]). It does not contradict the natural course of things. Delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim, whose actions are usually overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. This fear which springs from the initial rape is utilized by the perpetrator to build a climate of extreme psychological terror which numbs his victim into silence and submissiveness. Incestuous rape magnifies this terror because the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim. Moreover, access to the victim is guaranteed by the blood relationship and proximity between the perpetrator and the victim. These factors amplify the victim’s sense of helplessness and degree of fear (People vs. Melivo, supra).

The circumstances that Nanette, without resistance, agreed to ride with accused-appellant in the Project 8-Kalaw-Quiapo route and back, that she submitted to and obeyed accused-appellant’s instructions when they reached the uninhabited apartment, even ran an errand for accused-appellant, and agreed to be naked in front of her father, only indicate the degree of terror and fear in Nanette’s young mind. Accused-appellant did not even have to exert physical force. Intimidation was enough. This likewise explains why Nanette did not attempt to escape even if she had the chance.

Accused-appellant indisputably had moral dominance or ascendancy over Nanette. Accused-appellant himself admitted that he maltreated the child, as follows: 

Q	Now, you mentioned awhile ago that when you told Nanette to go back to school, Nanette got angry, what did you do?
A	I hurt her, sir.
Q	Why did you hurt her?
A	Because she likes barkada more than her going to school, sir.
Q	Now, you mentioned that the teacher of Nanette summoned you because of Nanette failing to go to school, was there an occasion that the teacher again summoned you for failing to go to school, was there an occasion that the teacher again summoned you for failing to go to school?
A	Yes, it was the fifth time when her teacher called me up, sir.
Q	And what was the reason of your being called up?
A	Because Nanette does not want to go to school anymore, sir.
Q	What do you mean when you say Nanette does not want to go to school anymore?
A	She always goes out with her barkada and her group friends.
Q	The second time that you were called up by the teacher, summoned by the teacher of Nanette, what if any did you do?
A	I hurted her "sinaktan ko siya", sir.
COURT:	(to the witness)
Q	Why did you have to hurt her or "sinaktan mo siya"?
A	Because she was not anymore schooling, your honor.
Q	Is that the way you discipline all your children when they do not want to study, you have to hurt them?
A	During the first time, I did not do this but the last time, I have to do that because she did not go anymore to school, your honor.
Q	How did you beat her?
A	I whipped her with my belt, in fact, three belts were already destroyed because of my whipping.
	(tsn, pp. 5-6, April 19, 1995.)

Such maltreatment gave accused-appellant power over the child who was subjected to feelings of intimidation and fear. In People vs. Varga (259 SCRA 91 [1996]), we held that intimidation is addressed to the minds of the victims. It is thus subjective and its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the crime. We explained that the workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable. People react differently in such situations: some may shout, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome their intrusion.

Nanette chose to succumb to the abuse. She had no choice. She was a prisoner of her father’s moral influence and ascendancy over her. She was trapped in her fear of physical pain because she knew the consequences of her disobedience. Her fear of her father’s beatings and maltreatment imprisoned and paralyzed her psychologically. On cross-examination, she testified -

COURT:	(to the witness)
Q	That evening of September 12, when according to you, your father the accused in this case was able to satisfy himself, did you not shout?
A	No, your honor.
Q	Did you not try to fight back your father when he tried to sexually abuse you?
A	No, your honor.
Q	Even when his private organ was already inside your private organ, you did not try to shout or prevent him?
A	No, your honor.
Q	Why did you not shout or prevent him?
A	Because he was too strong, I cannot move because of his weight, your honor.
Q	What you are saying is that, he was on top of you, and you cannot shout?
A	Yes, your honor.
Q	Did you not tell him on what he was doing to you is bad?
A	No, your honor.
Q	Why?
A	I said to myself, "this is the last time you can do that to me and I will inform the matter to Ate Evelyn afterwards.
Q	After the sexual abuse of your father, did you not tell him that what he did was wrong?
A	No, your honor.
Q	Why did you not tell him?
A	To my mind, I said, I was cursing him "Putang Ina mo lagi ka na lang ganyan".
Q	Now, right after the sexual abuse of your father, what did he tell you if there was any?
A	He said that I should not allow myself to used by others he should only him who will use me.
Q	What did you understand to that statement that was given to you by your father?
A	What he told me that, he should only be the one who should use me, because if he will come to know that somebody will use me, then he will beat me, your honor.
Q	And when your father told you that, what did you tell him, if there was any?
A	I said yes, your honor.
Q	Why did you answer him yes?
A	Because I was following him, I was obeying him, your honor.
Q	Why did you have to obey, because he was your father?
A	Yes, your honor.
Q	But what your father doing is wrong, why did you tell to obey him?
A	Because I and my sister are afraid of him.
	(tsn, February 24, 1995, pp. 15-16.)

However, as earlier mentioned, Nanette decided to put an end to her silent calvary by daringly coming out in the open. Again, we recall the words of Mr. Justice Kapunan in People vs. Melivo (supra):

. . . an unmarried teenage lass would not ordinarily file a complaint for rape against anyone if it were not true. No matter how courageous the act of filing a complaint might appear to be, rape exacts a heavy psychological and social toll on the victim who is usually twice victimized: by the rapist during the act of rape and by a society which devalues the victim’s worth by characterizing the crime primarily as an insult to the victim’s chastity. With all the attendant social consequences, such a classification brings, many cases of rape go naturally unreported, and those cases which manage to reach the authorities are routinely treated in a manner so demeaning to the victim’s dignity that the psychological ordeal and injury is repeated again and again in the hands of inexperienced, untrained and oftentimes callous investigators and courtroom participants. If a woman would have second thoughts about filing an ordinary rape case, all the more would it be difficult and painful for a child to complain against her own father.

(358-359.)

Accused-appellant contends that Nanette, influenced by her friend Evelyn, concocted the rape charge in retaliation for all the occasions of maltreatment done to her by her supposed father. Sadly for accused-appellant, one can easily perceive the hidden agenda behind his open admission that he maltreated his child, even breaking three belts in his lashings. To his mind, this would justify his position that Nanette’s hatred caused her to fabricate the rape charge.

In People vs. Gagto (253 SCRA 455 [1996]), we held that not a few accused in rape cases have attributed the charges brought against them to family feud, resentment, or revenge. However, such alleged motives have never swayed the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of the complainant. The Court cannot simply believe that a lass of tender age would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience, not to mention the trauma, of a public trial, unless she was in fact raped. Moreover, no young decent Filipina would publicly admit that she was ravished and her honor tainted unless such was true, for it would be instinctive for her to protect her honor.

On the credibility of Nanette’s testimony, the trial court, having observed her demeanor and the manner of testifying, ruled that despite the rigorous and extensive cross-examination, Nanette stuck to her story that accused-appellant was successful in indulging in carnal knowledge with her on the night of September 12, 1994.

Assessing the credibility of the witnesses is a function that is best discharged by trial courts (People vs. Cabaluna, 264 SCRA 596 [1996]). Factual findings of trial courts are accorded the highest respect unless it is shown that certain facts of value have been plainly overlooked which if considered could affect the result of the case (People vs. Villanueva, 254 SCRA 202 [1996]).

In the case at bar, we find no valid reason to alter the prevailing rule that would accord due respect to the findings of trial courts on the issue of reliability of testimony made before it. Further, accused-appellant has not presented any substantial evidence which would somehow justify us to disturb the conclusions of the trial court.

The two witnesses presented by accused-appellant, his wife, Cathy, and eldest daughter, Rivera, were naturally biased in favor of accused-appellant. A witness is considered biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his statements, or to suppress or to pervert the truth, or to state what is false. Corroborative evidence in defense of an accused, if tainted with bias, weakens his defense (People vs. Dones, supra).

Cathy, mother of the victim, gave testimony the implications of which are quite revolting. No mother would go against her natural maternal instincts unless she is forced to turn her back from the truth. This fact makes Cathy’s testimony strange and peculiar, which reads in relevant part as follows:

Q	Are you aware being a third year college that the charge your daughter Nanette filed against her own father is very serious?
A	Yes, your Honor.
Q	Why are you crying?
A	I pity my daughter, your Honor.
Q	Why do you pity your daughter when after all, you claimed that she left your house?
A	She has been leaving the house and eventually stopped schooling, your Honor.
Q	Why do you not also pity your husband as you pity your daughter, when your husband is in prison?
A	I pity also my husband but I pity more my daughter, your Honor.
Q	Why do you pity your daughter, she is not in jail?
A	Because she is not anymore going to school, your Honor.
Q	Are you aware that your daughter underwent a medical examination or a genital examination?
A	Yes, your Honor.
Q	Are you also aware that based on examination of your daughter Nanette, is no longer a virgin?
A	No more because she has been always going with barkada who are boys, your Honor.
	(Tsn, pp. 10-11, May 22, 1995.)

Cathy was noticeably ambivalent in her emotions on cross-examination. She cried and we believe that she did so for Nanette not because she merely stopped going to school, but because of the latter’s pathetic and serious predicament. However, in Cathy’s desperation to redeem her husband from conviction, she had to blindly swallow and tolerate the defense’s theory"that Nanette’s sexual debasement was imputable to her "barkada who are boys", and not to the ruthlessness of her own father.

Lastly, accused-appellant takes it against the prosecution that Nanette’s friend, Evelyn, was not presented as a witness. Verily, the non-presentation of certain witnesses by the prosecution is not a plausible defense and the matter of whom to present as witnesses for the prosecution lies in the sound discretion of the prosecutor handling the case (People vs. Pabalan, 262 SCRA 574 [1996]). Hence, the non-presentation of Evelyn as a witness does not diminish the credibility of Nanette’s testimony. In fact, the straightforward and positive testimony of Nanette is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. There was no suppression of evidence, which is, of course, to be condemned.

Four members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People vs. Echegaray (267 SCRA 682 [1997]), that Republic Act No. 7659, insofar as it prescribed the death penalty is unconstitutional, nevertheless submit to the ruling of the Court, by a majority vote, that the law is constitutional, and that, the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.

The trial court failed to order accused-appellant to indemnify private complainant although it did award the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages. Thus, and in line with the pronouncement in People vs. Victor (G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998), wherein we said:

One other point of concern has to be addressed. Indictments for rape continue unabated and the legislative response has been in the form of higher penalties. The Court believes that, on like considerations, the jurisprudential path on the civil aspect should follow the same direction. Hence, starting with the case at bar, if the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the present amended law, the indemnity for the victim shall be in the increased amount of not less than P75,000.00. This is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity.

accused-appellant should be made to pay P75,000.00 as indemnification.

The award of P50,000.00 granted by the trial court as and for moral damages is sustained following and adhering to the recent ruling in People vs. Prades (G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998), that moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in rape cases, in such amount as the court deems just, without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.

WHEREFORE, finding the conviction of accused-appellant justified by the evidence on record, the Court hereby AFFIRMS said judgment, with the modification that aside from the payment of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral damages to the victim, accused-appellant is further ordered to indemnify private complainant in the amount of SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as compensatory damages.

Upon finality of this decision, let certified true copies thereof, as well as the records of this case, be forwarded without delay to the Office of the President for possible exercise of executive clemency pursuant to Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of R.A. 7659.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing, and Purisima, JJ., concur.