429 Phil. 114
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
"That in or about the month of November, 1997, in the Municipality of Baliuag, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of his stepdaugther, Jewelyn Abat y Franco, a seven-year old girl, against her will and without her consent.Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereupon, trial ensued.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Emphasis supplied)
"WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court finds accused Bienvenido Valindo y Pilande GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under the provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay private complainant Jewelyn F. Abat the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages. With costs.Hence, this appeal.
“SO ORDERED.”
We meticulously reviewed the evidence of both the prosecution and the defense and found that appellant, by force and intimidation, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Jewelyn. She was telling the truth, as observed by the trial court. We have consistently held that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great respect and weight on appeal as it is in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying.[12] The trial court's disquisition on this matter is as follows:"I
IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE;“II
IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY; and“III
IN ORDERING ACCUSED-APPELANT TO PAY VICTIM THE AMOUNT OF P75,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES."[11]
“Sufficiently established by the prosecution is not only the fact that complainant Jewelyn Abat was seven (7) years old at the time of the commission of the crime but, more emphatically, the sexual congress between the accused and the complainant was accomplished by the employment of intimidation by the former.The positive, convincing and credible testimony of Jewelyn cannot certainly be overthrown by appellant's self-serving defense of denial and alibi. Well-settled is the rule that alibi is accepted only upon the clearest proof that appellant was not and could not have been at the crime scene when it was committed.[15] Such defense is worthless in the face of the positive identification by a credible witness that the appellant perpetrated the crime.[16] As correctly found by the trial court:
“The candid, straightforward and categorical narration by the complainant bears the earmarks of truth and credibility.
“Such candid and straightforward narration of the sexual assault unmistakably deserves credence. No woman, especially a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in fact, been a victim of rape and impassioned to seek justice for the wrong done to her being (People vs. Gregorio Bersabe, G.R. No. 122768, April 27, 1998).
“That it is only the complainant who testified on the details of the accused’s execrable deed is of no moment. For, so long as the testimony of the offended party meets the test of credibility, as in the instant case, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof (People vs. Fernando Tumala, Jr., G.R. No. 12210, January 20, 1998).
“Moreover, the complainant’s testimony is adequately supported by the medico-legal report of Dr. Manuel Aves (Exh. B) indicating the presence of multiple healing lacerations at 3, 5, 9 and 12 o’clock positions with abrasion and congestion with discharge.
“Equally immaterial, on the basis of Sec. 11, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court,[13] is the prosecution’s failure to give the exact date of the commission of rape.
“The failure of the complainant to state the exact date and time of the commission of rape is a minor matter and can be expected when the witness is recounting the details of a humiliating experience which are painful and difficult to recall in open court and in the presence of other people. Moreover, the date of the commission of the rape is not a essential element of the crime (People vs. Rodolfo Bernaldez, G.R. No. 109780, Aug. 17, 1998).”[14]
“Constituting the accused's alibi is his allegation of having been working in the farm in Talacsan, San Rafael, Bulacan at the precise date and time of commission of the crime in Little Baguio, Baliuag, Bulacan.In evaluating the correctness of the imposition of the death penalty on appellant, pertinent is Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659 which took effect on December 31, 1993, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 which took effect on October 22, 1997. Section 11 of R.A. 7659, as amended, provides:x x x
“Noteworthy to the Court is the obviously wavering testimony of the accused. His declarations are riddled with unexplained inconsistencies characteristic of falsehood and concoction. The Court, at one point, even explicitly found him evasive to squarely respond to the questions propounded on him.
“Further, the farm in Talacsan, San Rafael where the accused claims to be at on the date of the incident is just 30 minutes jeepney-ride away from Little Baguio, Baliuag, Bulacan. This, added to the fact that the complainant's residence where the rape incident took place is likewise the residence of the accused. There thus exists no impossibility for the accused to have been in his Little Baguio residence on the date of the incident.
“For the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must strictly meet. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene or the time the crime was committed (People vs. Bernaldez, supra)."[17]
“Section 11. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:The minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender are special qualifying circumstances that elevate the penalty to death. To be properly appreciated, these twin circumstances must be both alleged in the Information and proven with certainty.[18]
“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.x x x”
"x x x, although a common-law husband is subject to punishment by death in case he commits rape against his wife's daughter, nevertheless, the death penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant because the relationship alleged in the information in Criminal Case No. 4730-0 against him is different from that actually proven. Accordingly, accused-appellant must be sentenced to the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua."As regards appellant's civil liability, the victim is entitled to an award of moral damages, but not in the amount of P75,000.00 as ordered by the trial court. Likewise, she should have been awarded civil indemnity. Consistent with current jurisprudence, the award to her of P50,000.00 as moral damages and another P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto are in order. [24]