567 Phil. 387
CARPIO, J.:
Q What about x x x the genital examination, Dra., what was the result?Montinola was charged with six counts of rape. He pleaded not guilty to all of them.[17] He claimed that AAA made up the accusations against him because he often beat her. Moreover, he claimed that, if it were true that he raped her, (1) he would have been caught by people outside the house, if there were any; and (2) she would have sustained injuries in her vagina because his penis has pellets embedded in it.[18] AAA’s mother, two brothers, and sister corroborated Montinola’s claim that he did not rape AAA.[19]
x x x x
A x x x I was able to note the presence of hymenal laceration which was already healed at the 6 o’clock position of the hymen. The edges are already rounded and non-coaptable.
x x x x
Q In layman’s language, Dra., could you explain to us the result of the genital examination?
A This means that [AAA] has had injuries before around probably more than two (2) weeks before the examination was done because the laceration has already showed signs of healing. That means that it does not bleed anymore. The edges of the laceration are already rounded. Meaning, bleeding has already taken place.
Q And what was your conclusion regarding these cases of [AAA]?
A x x x It would fall under conclusive evidence of injury secondary to intravaginal penetration by a blunt object.
x x x x
Q Could you say with certainty that [AAA] is a victim of sexual abuse?
x x x x
A Yes.[16]
WHEREFORE, premises considered:The trial court held that (1) AAA’s testimony was categorical, straightforward, and consistent; (2) her failure to immediately report the incidents to her relatives or to the proper authorities did not affect her credibility; and (3) rape can be committed even in places where there are other people.[21]
- In Criminal Case No. 02-720, and finding the accused JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, defined and punished under Article 266(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353 in relation to RA 7610, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the accessories of law.
The accused is further ordered to pay the offended party, [AAA], the amount of P75,000.00 as indemnity for the loss of her honor plus moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages of P50,000.00. With cost against the accused.
- In Criminal Case No. 02-721, and finding accused JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Rape and not as consummated rape as charge [sic], said accused is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum plus P10,000.00 as moral damages, with all the accessories of law. With cost against the accused.
- In Criminal Case No. 02-722, and finding accused JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA not to be [sic] guilty of the crime of Rape on the ground of reasonable doubt, he is hereby ACQUITTED.
- With respect to Criminal Case No. 02-723, and finding accused JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Rape, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum plus P10,000.00 as moral damages to be paid to [AAA]. With cost against the accused.
- With respect to Criminal Case No. 02-724, and finding accused JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Rape, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum, and to pay [AAA] the sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages. With cost against the accused.
- And finally, in Criminal Case No. 02-725, and finding the accused JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Acts of Lasciviousness resulting to Child Abuse of a Minor, who is over 12 years of age, as defined and punished under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7610, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum, with all the accessories of law.[20]
[M]inor lapses should be expected when a person is made to recall minor details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape. After all, the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her testimony. Moreover, testimonies of child victims are given full faith and credit.[27]Indeed, a minor inconsistency, instead of suggesting prevarication, indicates spontaneity. It is expected from a witness of tender age who is unaccustomed to court proceedings.[28] In People v. Bejic,[29] the Court held that:
Rape victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated. Thus, errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape. In addition, rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.In the instant case, a minor inconsistency is expected especially because (1) AAA was a child witness, (2) she was made to testify on painful and humiliating incidents, (3) she was sexually abused several times, and (4) she was made to recount details and events that happened several years before she testified.
It could not be over-emphasized x x x that the testimony of [AAA] was not even totally in accord with human experience and thus inspired disbelief.The Court believes AAA. This is a very futile attempt to discredit AAA’s testimony. Allowing young children to go outside the house while the rain is pouring is not unbelievable, especially when one is overcome by lust.
During the alleged October 29, 1999 rape x x x, which according to [AAA] was perpetrated when [Montinola] ordered his other children to go out of the house, it must be considered that [AAA] herself revealed that it was raining at that time. Despite that, we are still being made to believe that her other siblings, three (3) of whom were below nine years old x x x at that time, were driven out of the house by [Montinola] so that the latter could perpetuate his bestial desire?[30]
[D]elay in making a criminal accusation [does not] impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. In People v. Coloma, x x x the Court adverted to the father’s moral and physical control over the young complainant in explaining the delay of eight years before the complaint against her father was made. In this case, [complainant] must have been overwhelmed by fear and confusion, and shocked that her own father had defiled her. x x x She also testified that she was afraid to tell her mother because the latter might be angered x x x. Indeed, a survey conducted by the University of the Philippines Center for Women’s Studies showed that victims of rape committed by their fathers took much longer in reporting the incidents to the authorities than did other victims. Many factors account for this difference: the fact that the father lives with the victim and constantly exerts moral authority over her, the threat he might make against her, the victim’s fear of her mother and other relatives. (Emphasis ours)The Court is not impressed with Montinola’s claim that he could not have raped AAA because there were other people in the house when the incidents took place. There is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[32] AAA’s siblings were sleeping when the incidents took place. In Bugarin,[33] the Court held that, “Suffice it to state that lust is no respecter of time and place. Our cases record instances of rape committed inside family dwellings when other occupants are asleep.” In People v. Alarcon,[34] the Court held that:
[The accused’s] argument that rape could not have been committed due to the presence of AAA’s siblings by her side is x x x bereft of merit. Rape is not a respecter of place or time. It is not necessary that the place where the rape is committed be isolated. There have been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side. Rape is not rendered impossible simply because the siblings of the victim who were with her in that small room were not awakened during its commission. (Emphasis ours)The Court is not impressed with Montinola’s claim that AAA did not adduce evidence “sufficient to pass the test of moral certainty.” In rape cases, the credibility of the complainant’s testimony is almost always the single most important issue. When the complainant’s testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused’s conviction.[35]
The x x x testimony of the complainant reveals that the same was marked by spontaneity, honesty and sincerity. It is a cardinal rule that when the testimony of the victim is simple and straightforward, the same must be given full faith and credit. We reiterate the rule that the accused could be convicted solely on the basis of the victim’s testimony if credible. Contrary to appellant’s submission that the testimony of complainant is not credible and reasonable in itself, We see no reason to deviate from the trial court’s determination as to the credibility of complainant’s testimony.[37] (Emphasis ours)The evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility is a matter best left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial. Thus, the Court accords great respect to the trial court’s findings, unless it overlooked or misconstrued substantial facts which could have affected the outcome of the case.[38] In People v. Abellano,[39] the Court held that:
The trial court’s evaluation of a witness’ credibility is accorded the highest respect because it had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture, and tone of voice of a witness while testifying. The trial court has the strategic position to determine whether a witness is telling the truth and its findings thereon are accorded finality, unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated and, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case. (Emphasis ours)The Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. The trial court did not overlook or misconstrue any substantial fact which could have affected the outcome of the case. Montinola’s claims involve minor or trifling matters that do not affect the outcome of the case. AAA’s testimony was clear, positive, convincing, and consistent:
Q Do you remember what unusual incident that [sic] happened to you last October 29, 1999?AAA revealed that her own father raped her, allowed the examination of her vagina, and willingly underwent a public trial where she divulged in detail her painful experiences. She wanted Montinola imprisoned. She wanted to kill him.[41] In Bejic,[42] the Court held that:
A ‘Yon po ang unang panggagahasa sa akin ng Papa ko noong October 29 ng hapon. Umuulan pa po noon mga bandang alas tres hanggang alas kuwatro ng hapon. Bigla po siyang lumabas doon sa kuwarto x x x tapos naka-underwear lang po siya. Pinipilit po niyang ipahubad sa akin ‘yong damit ko po at saka ‘yong short [sic] ko po. Tapos ‘yon, wala na po akong magawa kasi sinasakal na po niya ako at saka pinipilipit niya po ang paa ko para hindi ako makagalaw.
x x x x
Q And according to you you were raped by the accused here. Did you not resist?
A x x x Pumapalag po ako sa kanya pero sinasakal na po niya ako tapos pinipilipit po ‘yong paa ko eh.
Q And after he did that to you, what happened next, if any?
A x x x [P]inasok na po niya ‘yong ari niya sa akin, sa ari ko rin po.
Q Okay, after he inserted his penis in your vagina, what did you feel?
A Nasaktan po.
Q And after that, what did he do, if there was any?
A x x x [S]inabi na lang niya sa akin na huwag daw akong magsusumbong. Pag nagsumbong daw ako, x x x papatayin daw po niya ‘yong mga kapatid ko x x x — gigilitan daw po niya ng leeg kami ng mga kapatid ko.
x x x x
Q Did you believe the threat of your father that he will kill these sisters and brothers of yours if you report the incident to your mother?
A x x x [S]a mga kapatid ko pong maliliit x x x hindi po ako naniniwala na magagawa po niya sa [kanila] pero sa amin po ng mga kuya ko, naniniwala po ako kasi grabe po siya kung manggulpi sa amin eh. Halos patayin na po niya kami.[40]
[N]o young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration at the hands of her own father, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to her own father a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is [sic] not true. This is more true in our society since reverence and respect for the elders is deeply rooted in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. Thus, it is against human nature for a x x x girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of shame, especially when her charge could mean the death or lifetime imprisonment of her own father. (Emphasis ours)In Criminal Case No. 02-723, Montinola was charged of raping AAA in March 2000. The Court notes that Montinola attempted to rape AAA twice in March 2000 — once on 28 March 2000 and again on 29 March 2000.[43] The trial court and the Court of Appeals held Montinola liable for the offense committed on 28 March 2000 only. The Court agrees. Since only one information[44] was filed for the period of March 2000, he cannot be held liable for both offenses.
SEC. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child’s Development.—The Court sustains Montinola’s conviction for acts of lasciviousness. However, he should be punished under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. Section 5(b) covers acts of lasciviousness while Section 10(a) covers other acts of abuse. Section 5(b) provides:
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
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.In Navarrete v. People,[45] the Court held that sexual abuse under Section 5(b) has three elements: (1) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years old.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
x 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. (Emphasis ours)
[I]ntimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. It is sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party. This is especially true in the case of young, innocent and immature girls who could [sic] not be expected to act with equanimity of disposition and with nerves of steel. Young girls cannot be expected to act like adults under the same circumstances or to have the courage and intelligence to disregard the threat.All three elements are present in the instant case: (1) Montinola caressed AAA’s right thigh, slipped his hand under her shorts, and touched her vagina; (2) AAA indulged in lascivious conduct under Montinola’s coercion; and (3) AAA was below 18 years old.
Q x x x [D]o you know [AAA]?Accordingly, the Court modifies the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 02-725. Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Since there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period — reclusion perpetua. Also, the Court orders Montinola to indemnify AAA P15,000 as moral damages and pay a fine of P15,000.[55]
A Opo.
Q Why do you know her?
A She is my daughter.[54]
(1) GUILTY of RAPE in Criminal Case No. 02-720. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.SO ORDERED.
(2) GUILTY of ATTEMPTED RAPE in Criminal Case No. 02-721. He is sentenced to suffer the minimum penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to the maximum penalty of 10 years of prision mayor and ordered to pay AAA P30,000 as civil indemnity, P25,000 as moral damages, and P10,000 as exemplary damages.
(3) NOT GUILTY in Criminal Case No. 02-722.
(4) GUILTY of ATTEMPTED RAPE in Criminal Case No. 02-723. He is sentenced to suffer the minimum penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to the maximum penalty of 10 years of prision mayor and ordered to pay AAA P30,000 as civil indemnity, P25,000 as moral damages, and P10,000 as exemplary damages.
(5) GUILTY of ATTEMPTED RAPE in Criminal Case No. 02-724. He is sentenced to suffer the minimum penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to the maximum penalty of 10 years of prision mayor and ordered to pay AAA P30,000 as civil indemnity, P25,000 as moral damages, and P10,000 as exemplary damages.
(6) GUILTY of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS in Criminal Case No. 02-725, with relationship as an aggravating circumstance. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA P15,000 as moral damages and a fine of P15,000.