569 Phil. 658
YNARES-SATIAGO, J.:
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges, after which joint trial of the cases ensued.CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2002-0154-D
That on or about December 9, 2001 in the evening of Brgy. “G”, Mapandan, Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, father of herein victim with force, violence, and intimidation, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with her [sic] daughter (AAA), a 14-year old minor, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to Art. 266-A, par. 1 in relation to Art. 266-B, 6th par. as amended by R.A. 8353.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2002-0155-D
That on or about December 8, 2001 in the evening of Brgy. “G”, Mapandan, Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, father of herein victim with force, violence, and intimidation, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with her [sic] daughter (AAA), a 14-year old minor, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to Art. 266-A, par. 1 in relation to Art. 266-B, 6th par. as amended by R.A. 8353.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2002-0156-D
That on or about December 7, 2001 in the evening of Brgy. “G”, Mapandan, Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, father of herein victim with force, violence, and intimidation, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with her [sic] daughter (AAA), a 14-year old minor, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to Art. 266-A, par. 1 in relation to Art. 266-B, 6th par. as amended by R.A. 8353.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2002-0157-D
That on or about December 6, 2001 in the evening of Brgy. “G”, Mapandan, Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, father of herein victim with force, violence, and intimidation, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with her [sic] daughter (AAA), a 14-year old minor, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to Art. 266-A, par. 1 in relation to Art. 266-B, 6th par. as amended by R.A. 8353.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2002-0158-D
That on or about December 5, 2001 in the evening of Brgy. “G”, Mapandan, Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, father of herein victim with force, violence, and intimidation, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with her [sic] daughter (AAA), a 14-year old minor, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to Art. 266-A, par. 1 in relation to Art. 266-B, 6th par. as amended by R.A. 8353.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds EMILIO D. CAMPOS guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the felony of QUALIFIED RAPE and in conformity with law, he is sentenced to suffer the capital penalty of DEATH in each of the above cases.Appellant appealed before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court in its May 30, 2006 Decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
The accused is further ordered to pay the victim the following amounts, to wit:The BJMP-Dagupan City is ordered to commit the person of the accused to the National Bilibid Prison immediately without necessary delay.
- P75,000.00 as indemnity
- P50,000.00 as moral damages
- P40,000.00 as exemplary damages
- And costs.
SO ORDERED.[6]
WHEREFORE, the assailed November 26, 2004 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 43, in Criminal Case Nos. 2002-0154-D up to 2002-0158-D, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.Appellant’s motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this petition.
SO ORDERED.[7]
She also wept uncontrollably and narrated in an unequivocal manner the four other instances of sexual abuse committed on December 6, 7, 8 and 9, 2001.[11] Time and again, we have held that the crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[12]
Q So, when you went to your bedroom, in order to sleep on December 5, 2001, do you recall if there was any unusual incident that happened to you, Madam Witness? A Yes, sir. Q What was that? A I was raped by my Dad, sir. Q When you said, you were raped by your Dad, you are referring to Emilio Campos, the accused in this case? A Yes, sir. x x x x Q How did your Dad rape you? A At first my Dad mashed my breast and he touched my vagina after that he removed my lower clothing, sir.
Q When your Dad did that mashing of your breast and touching your vagina, were you already lying down on your bed? A I was already lying down, sir. x x x x Q You said that you were asleep when your father entered the room and while inside he mashed your breast, touched your vagina and removed your lower clothing. When you sensed the presence of your father doing these lascivious acts, what was he actually doing? A He was inserting his penis into my vagina, sir. x x x x Q Madam Witness, x x x, When you woke up and sense that your father was touching your breast and vagina and pulling down your panty, did you say something to your father? What if any did you say to your father?
A I did not tell him anything because I was frightened, sir.
x x x x Q When your father was inserting his penis into your vagina, where was he at that time in relation to yourself as lying on the bed? A He was behind me, sir. Q How did your father insert his penis into your vagina? A
He moved one of my legs and he held his penis and then inserted it into my vagina, sir.Q Your father was lying beside you at that time he was inserting his penis inside your vagina, is it not? A Yes, sir. Q How did he insert his penis into your vagina? A He held his penis and then he inserted it into my vagina, sir. x x x x Q After your father inserted his hard penis by the use of his hand into your vagina, what did he do next? A He sucked my breast, sir.
x x x x Q After your father engaged you in sexual intercourse by doing the push and pull movement, what else did your father do? A He licked my organ, sir.[10]
Alibi is one of the weakest defenses. It is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish with clear and convincing evidence not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Appellant failed to conclusively show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. [20]Appellant failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. He failed to establish the distance from his house to where he played a card game on the night of December 5, 2001. On December 6, 7 and 8, 2001, he allegedly stayed in Maribel’s house which is only six meters away from his house.[21] Meanwhile, the bahay kubo where he allegedly slept on December 9, 2001, is located just behind his house. Considering the short distances from the scene of the crime, it is clear that appellant’s defense of alibi is unavailing.
Established is the rule that the testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims, are given full weight and credit. It bears emphasis that the victim was barely thirteen when she was raped. In a litany of cases, this Court has applied the well-settled rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed, for as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility. No young girl, indeed, would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of a close kin, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than an earnest desire to seek justice. This holds true especially where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence.[29]The facts and evidence conclusively show that appellant is guilty of the charges against him. Thus, we find no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.Thus, appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[30] instead of death.
SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed.(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; orSEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.