425 Phil. 877
PANGANIBAN, J.:
“WHEREFORE, finding accused Emmanuel Quezada y Gadugdug GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE in both Criminal Case Nos. 3575 and 3576, committed with the attendant circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a relative by affinity within the third civil degree, and pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH in each case. Accused is further ordered to pay complainant Emily D. Orillaneda the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity in each case or a total of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), in addition to moral damages of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos in each case or a total of one hundred thousand (P100,000.00) pesos; and to pay the costs.Provincial Prosecutor Pretextato A. Montenegro filed on July 29, 1996 two Informations[3] against appellant docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 3575 and 3576. Except for the dates of the commission of the offenses, both Informations were similarly worded as follows:
“Accused being detained, he is credited in the service of his sentence with the full term of his preventive imprisonment, if he agree[s] in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed on convicted prisoners, otherwise four-fifths (4/5) thereof.
“Let the entire records of these cases, together with all the exhibits and transcripts of stenographic notes of the proceedings, be elevated to the Honorable Supreme Court for automatic review.”[2]
“That sometime in the month of December 1995, at about 8:30 o’clock in the evening, more or less, at Poblacion Cagwait, Province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law, Emily Orillaneda, a 13 year-old girl, against the will of the latter, to the damage and prejudice of said Emily Orillaneda in the amount of P50,000.00.Almost identically worded as the first, the second Information[5] indicted appellant for rape albeit on a different date, “sometime in the month of February 1996.” On two separate dates -- February 11, 1997[6] and March 20, 1997[7] -- he was arraigned for each charge. With the assistance of counsel,[8] he pleaded not guilty to both of these charges. After trial in due course, the RTC -- as earlier stated -- convicted him.
“CONTRARY TO LAW. (In violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code)”[4]
“Complainant Emily Orillaneda had lived with appellant Emmanuel Quezada and his wife Eloida Orillaneda Quezada, complainant’s elder sister at the couple’s residence in Cagwait, Surigao del Sur since she was eight (8) years old. She lived with them since she was in Grade II up to first year high school. They took her in because they wanted to support her education. While staying in the couple’s house, complainant slept in one of the rooms adjacent to the room of the couple and which was separated only by a cabinet (aparador).
“Sometime in December of 1995, at around 8:45 in the evening, while complainant was sleeping in her room, she was awakened by appellant who [lay] on top of her. Appellant was ‘pumping’ on her. Complainant struggled to free herself but could not do anything because appellant was pointing a small bolo at her. She lost consciousness because of fear. When she regained her consciousness and woke up the following day, she was completely naked. She felt pain when she urinated. Complainant did not tell anyone about the incident as appellant threatened to kill all of them if she should tell anyone what happened. At the time of the incident, complainant’s sister who was a teacher was in Tandag, Surigao del Sur. The couple’s children, the eldest of whom was barely six (6) years old, were in the couple’s room sleeping. Complainant was only thirteen years old then and was in first year high school.
“Later, or sometime in February 1996, at around 8:30 in the evening, complainant was awakened when appellant lifted her from her bed towards the sala. She struggled but appellant slapped her. She lost consciousness. When she woke up at around dawn, she noticed that she was completely naked. She found her t-shirt, skirt and panty beside her and she was covered with a blanket. She was weak and felt pain when she urinated. Complainant cried and dressed up. She wanted to relate what happened to her sister but because of appellant’s threats, she just kept it to herself.
“At the closing of the school year, complainant’s brother Elmer Orillaneda came to fetch her and brought her to their home in Cantilan, Surigao del Sur. As she was acting abnormally, her mother and brother asked her what happened to her. She narrated to them that appellant raped her. They had her examined by Dr. Welhelmina[10] Ang who issued a medical certificate. Subsequently, separate complaints for rape were filed against appellant.”[11] (Citations omitted)
“The accused employed the defense of general denial. He presented Mercy Gascon, a 12 year-old roommate of the private complainant, his wife Eloida Orillaneda and himself [o]n the witness stand. Mercy Gascon testified and told the court that she stayed in the residence of the accused as early as December 3, 1995. That in that house she used to sleep together with the private complainant in the other room, said house of the accused having only two bedrooms. She also told the court that the private complainant and [she] frequently watched bold beta shows shown in the house of one Jack Lamigo, their neighbor. And that everytime they watched such bold shows, she experienced that the private complainant used to insert her fingers including her big toe into her private part while they slept together in that room of the accused’s house. That these incidents were repeated several nights by the private complainant until she went home to Cantilan, Surigao del Sur after the classes ended.
“Accused and his wife Eloida testified in court that the rape charges against him [were] a frameup. They told the court that ever since they got married, and even before that, accused[‘s] in-laws were hesitant to accept him as the husband of Eloida, the accused being jobless and moreover, he is a seventh day Adventist. That during their union as husband and wife, the accused’s in-laws had x x x several times attempted to separate them and orchestrated some dirty strategies to separate them as a couple. But because of their love and devotion to each other, they survived and were able to preserve their marriage until these times whe[n] accused Emmanuel Quezada was prosecuted for the instant rape cases at the expense of [his] sister in-law Emily Orillaneda whom the accused and his wife sen[t] to school since she was yet a Grade II pupil at the age of eight (8) until that unfortun[at]e time the said complainant was already first year high school at the age of thirteen (13). Accordingly, accused’s in-laws had already manifested their intent to drop the cases at bar if they [would comply with] their conditions that they should burn their house in Cagwait, Surigao del Sur, and the accused must convert his faith from a [S]eventh [D]ay Adventist to a [R]oman [C]atholic. For failure to comply [with] their conditions, accused[’s] in-laws proce[e]ded with the cases at bar and prosecuted the accused. Unfortunately, the accused was convicted of the two charges of rape and was sentenced to double death penalties.”[13] (Citations omitted)
“1. The lower court erred in holding that the identity of the accused-appellant was positively established despite the fact that there was no courtroom identification ever made o[f] the person of the accused.“2. The lower court erred in holding that the evidence of the prosecution ha[d] sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt despite it[s] being inherently weak and contrary to common experience and natural occurrence.”3. The lower court erred in holding that the medical certificate (Exh. ‘A’) was corroborative [of] the private complainant’s testimony, the same being pure hearsay.”[17]
“From the time the prosecution presented the complainant as first witness, until the defense presented its evidence and rested, and up to the time the prosecution introduced rebuttal evidence, the reference had always been on herein accused Emmanuel Quezada as complainant’s sexual attacker. The prosecutors and even the defense counsel invariably and consistently adverted and alluded to accused Emmanuel Quezada as the one complainant had been accusing of having raped her. The defense never at any point objected to such reference and mention of the identity of accused Emmanuel Quezada.”[19]Indeed, during her testimony, complainant positively and categorically identified appellant, husband of her sister Loida, as the offender. This categorical and positive identification leaves no doubt as to the identity of Appellant Quezada as the rapist.
“x x x. Although it is routine procedure for witnesses to point out the accused in open court by way of identification, the fact that the witness x x x did not do so in this case was because the public prosecutor failed to ask her to point out appellant, hence such omission does not in any way affect or diminish the truth or weight of her testimony.”[20]In-court identification of the offender is essential only when there is a question or doubt on whether the one alleged to have committed the crime is the same person who is charged in the information and subject of the trial. This is especially true in cases wherein the identity of the accused, who is a stranger to the prosecution witnesses, is dubitable. In the present case, however, there is no doubt at all that the rapist is the same individual mentioned in the Informations and described by the victim during the trial.
Well-settled is the rule that testimonies of young victims deserve full credence[22] and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication.[23] No woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter permit herself to be subjected to a public trial, unless she is motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished. Considering that the young victim had not been exposed to the ways of the world, it is most improbable that she would impute a crime so serious as rape to any man, if the charge were not true.[24] Complainant did not ascribe the crime just to any man, but to her very own brother-in-law who was in fact feeding her, attending to her basic needs and spending for her schooling.
“COURT: From the Court. Q. How is accused related to your Ate Loida?
A. Her husband, sir.Q. When you said Uncle Emmanuel, you were referring to the accused?
A. Yes, sir.Q. This Loida is your elder sister?
A. Yes, sir.Q. Why do you call the accused Uncle instead of Kuya?
A. I became used to it since I was still very young.Q. How old were you when you first stayed in the house of the accused?A. Eight (8) years old.”[21]
“The testimony of the complainant, obviously unrehearsed and uncoached, perhaps even without the benefit of any briefing before [being called] to the witness stand, appears to the Court to be unaffected, straightforward and candid. She gave guileless answers to the questions, unmindful of the consequences.”[29]It should also be noted that complainant could not control her emotion during the trial of the case. Her poignant cry while testifying on her harrowing experience is a testament to the truth. This is a matter of judicial cognizance, its verity borne out by human nature and experience.[30]
“Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation; (b) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (c) when the woman is under twelve (12) years old or is demented. The Informations allege the first circumstance, namely, that accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant, who is his sister-in-law, ‘by means of force and intimidation’. Prosecution’s evidence sufficiently established this circumstance. x x x.Appellant also contends that the behavior of complainant after the rape incidents is “contrary to common experience and natural occurrence”[35] He questions how she could have slept the whole night despite having been sexually abused and mentally tormented.
“Complainant might not have put up a determined fight or resistance when she was sexually attacked, such as boxing, kicking or scratching the accused, but this does not mean that she consented to the sexual assault. x x x.
“On the contrary, she could be, as she was, easily subdued or cowed into submission to the sexual assault on her, more so, because accused poked a small bolo [at] her, causing her to lose consciousness due to extreme fear.”[34]
“The foregoing circumstances belie the defense’s claim that accused’s in-laws disliked him to the point of fabricating the instant rape cases. Were they really against him, they would not allow herein complainant to stay with him for years (and he would have no occasion to rape her), would not allow his wife to marry him in the first place, and would not be so solicitous about his and his family’s problems in Cagwait, to the extent of providing him and his wife with jobs or additional sources of income. x x x. The Court finds it difficult to believe that a mother would sacrifice her own daughter and allow her to be the subject of a humiliating public trial if she had not been motivated by a sincere desire to have her daughter’s attacker, who ruined her life, punished. It is unnatural for a mother to use her own daughter to realize her desire to separate her elder daughter from the latter’s husband (whose marriage she herself facilitated) and, in the process, subject her daughter to unnecessary embarrassment and lasting stigma, just as it is unbelievable for herein complainant, a young girl at that, to admit in public that she was deflowered by her brother-in-law, unless she was telling the truth for, in doing so, she would be compromising her own future.”[45]In a desperate attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of complainant, appellant paints her as sexually promiscuous. This was easily dismissed by the trial court in this wise:
“Complainant, who was yet in her early adolescence living in a rural area, was required strictly to act with circumspection and prudence and avoid indulging in anything immodest, much [less], in sexual perversity, which would surely blemish her reputation and ruin her honor. The Court finds Mercy Gascon’s story too fantastic to be true, [n]ay, it belongs to the realm of the inscrutable and is thus beyond judicial cognizance.”[46]Besides, assuming Gascon’s story to be true, still, the rape victim’s character in this crime is immaterial.[47] Even a prostitute can be a victim of rape.[48]
While the relationship of complainant and appellant was alleged in the Informations and established through both the prosecution and the defense witnesses’ testimonies, the former’s minority though similarly alleged, was not satisfactorily proven, however. Except for her bare, passing testimony that she was still a minor when the offenses charged were committed, no other evidence was adduced to support her statement. No birth record or even baptismal certificate was offered. It is evident that the prosecution did not discharge the burden of proving with certainty the fact that she was under 18 years of age when the rape was committed. Thus, the imposition of the death penalty under the above-cited provision was not justified.[52]“xxx x x x 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.”
1. By using force or intimidation;[32] Ibid.
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; andx x x x x x x x x”