402 Phil. 899
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
The informations indicting accused-appellant state:Upon arraignment on September 11, 1996, with the assistance of counsel de officio, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.[4] Thereafter, the cases were consolidated and tried jointly, with the prosecution presenting Dra. Ida P. Daniel, Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez, and private complainants Winnie C. Merioles and Rachelle C. Francisco as witnesses.
In Criminal Case No. 248-96:
That on or about the 23rd day of July, 1996, at Barangay Wawa III, Municipality of Rosario, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, taking advantage of superior strength and moral ascendancy over her person being his own stepdaughter who is only 17 (sic) years of age, and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with her (Wennie C. Merioles) against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
In Criminal Case No. 249-96:
That on or about the 19th day of July, 1996, at Barangay Wawa III, Municipality of Rosario, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, taking advantage of superior strength and moral ascendancy over her person being his own daughter who is only 13 years of age, and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with her (Rachelle Francisco y Calitis) against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Facts Common to Criminal Case Nos. 248-96 and 249-96Accused-appellant on the other hand, testified that he is married to Nicomedes C. Francisco, mother of private complainants. Asked if he contracted any other marriage prior to that with Nicomedes, he said that he had a "first wife" by the name of Pacita, who is now living in the province.[9]
Private complainants Wennie Merioles (Criminal Case No. 248-96) and Rachelle Francisco (Criminal Case No. 249-96) are stepsisters. Their mother, Nicomedes Francisco, is married to appellant Gonyeto Francisco (p. 12, tsn, September 18, 1997) who is the father of Rachelle. They live in a two-storey house situated in Wawa II (sic), Little Baguio, Rosario, Cavite. Appellant was employed as driver with the Cities Corporation at the Export Processing Zone, Rosario, Cavite.Criminal Case No. 248-96
On July 23, 1996, Wennie Merioles did not attend school because of flood (p. 16, tsn, October 20, 1996). Wennie was then 16 years old and in high school. Appellant, Wennie's stepfather, also stayed home because he was suffering from rheumatism (p.18, tsn, ibid.) Nicomedes Francisco, who alternatively worked as a laundry woman if not engaged in selling fish, had gone out of their house by 8:00 A.M. (pp. 13-14, tsn, ibid)
At around 9:00 A.M., appellant summoned Wennie to the room downstairs (pp. 17-20, tsn, ibid.). When she got there, appellant told her that he wanted to have sex with her (p. 22, tsn, ibid.) At first, Wennie refused but when appellant threatened to kill her and warned her, "sige, pag hindi ka pumayag, makakatikim ka sa akin," she acceded to his request. Appellant then proceeded to ravish her. (pp. 4-5, 27-28, tsn, ibid.)
What happened on July 23, 1996 was but the last of the countless sexual molestations endured by Wennie. The first occurred when she was only 11 years old. (p. 34., tsn, ibid.)Criminal Case No. 249-96
On July 19, 1996, Rachelle Francisco, thirteen (13) years old, was instructed by her mother to stay home to attend to her younger brother and sister aged 3 1/2 and 5 years old (p.9, tsn, November 27, 1996). Sometime in the afternoon (p.11, tsn, ibid), when Rachelle's mother was no longer around, appellant told her younger brother and sister to get out of the house. Thereafter, he summoned Rachelle upstairs and ordered her to undress. When Rachelle refused, he told her, "maghuhubad ka o hindi." Still, Rachelle chose not to undress. Appellant reacted by saying, "hanggang mamaya tatamaan ka sa akin". Rachelle succumbed to the intimidation and acceded by removing her clothes (upper). Thereafter, appellant started to kiss her and fondle her breast. Appellant caused her to lie down. Rachelle removed her skirt and panty. When she was naked, appellant undressed himself and inserted his penis into her vagina but only penetrated her a little as she told him, "nasasaktan ako." Rachelle bore the ordeal for five (5) minutes. (pp. 39-40, tsn, ibid.)
Just like her stepsister Wennie, Rachelle was regularly abused sexually by appellant. She could not remember the first time appellant molested her. (p.37, tsn, ibid.).[5]
On July 29, 1996, private complainants mustered enough courage to reveal their traumatic experience to their mother[6] who lost no time in accompanying them to the National Bureau of Investigation for medical examination. The medico-legal findings of Dr. Rolando B. Mendez on private complainant Wennie C. Merioles yielded the following results:GENITAL EXAMINATION:
Pubic hair, fully grown moderate. Labia majora and Labia minora, gaping. Fourchette, lax. Vestibule pinkish, smooth. Hymen original annular, moderately tall, moderately thick, with old healed, superficial lacerations at 7 and 8 o'clock positions corresponding to the face of a watch, edges of which are rounded and non coaptable. Hymenal orifice, admits a tube 2.5 cm in diameter. Vaginal walls, light, Rugosities (sic), prominent.CONCLUSIONS:
1. No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination.
2. Old healed superficial hymenal lacerations, present.[7]
As to private complainant Rachelle C. Francisco, the result of the examination by Dra. Ida P. Daniel indicates that:GENITAL EXAMINATION:
Pubic hair, fine, short, scanty. Labia majora, coaptated. Labia minora, gaping. Fourchette, lax. Vestibular mucosa, pinkish. Hymen, admits a tube 2.5 cms., in diameter with moderate resistance. Vaginal walls, lax. Rugosities, shallow.CONCLUSIONS:
1. No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination.
2. Hymen, intact, distensible and its orifice wide (2.5 cms in diameter) to allow complete penetration by an average sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing genital injury.[8]
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Gonyeto Francisco y Capellan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal, the Court hereby imposes upon him:SO ORDERED.[12]
1. For the crime of rape, in Criminal Case No. 248-96, committed by him against his stepdaughter Wennie Merioles, which relationship he never disclaimed, the absolute penalty of DEATH by lethal injection, and to indemnify her the sums of P50,000.00 and P20,000.00, as moral and exemplary damages;2. For the crime of rape, in Criminal Case No. 249-96, committed by him against his daughter, Rachelle Francisco, the absolute penalty of DEATH by lethal injection, and to indemnify her the sums of P50,000.00 and P20,000.00, as moral and exemplary damages.
Costs against the accused.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S ALIBI NOTWITHSTANDING THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF.In an appeal from a judgment of conviction in rape cases, the issue boils down, almost invariably, to the credibility of the victim and, just as often, the Court is constrained to rely on the observations given by the trial court, with its vantage, not equally enjoyed by the appellate court, during the reception of testimony. It has thus since become doctrinal that the evaluation of testimonial evidence by the trial court is accorded great respect precisely for its chance to observe first hand the demeanor on the stand of the witness, a matter which is important in determining whether what has been said should be taken to be the truth or falsehood[14]II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.III
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN METING OUT THE DEATH PENALTY NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND THE ACCUSED.[13]
x x x During their respective testimonies both of them were terse and direct in the answers, even on cross-examination and clarificatory questioning, which would not be the case if their testimonies were conjured or rehearsed, for then such would be adorned by flowery details. The Court takes the conciseness of their answer and the straightforward manner in which they were given as mirrors of the gruesome experience they have suffered in the hands of accused, the memories of which, provoked by direct and often provocative questioning, they excised to brevity in an attempt to obscure it from their young minds. Their narrations of their respective harrowing experience were too rich and vivid in details, that they could not be easily set aside and branded as mere fabrications.Verily, the trial court is in a better position to determine if the victim is telling the truth or merely narrating a concocted tale, and to weigh conflicting testimonies because the trial court, heard the witnesses themselves, observed their deportment and manner of testifying, and had full access to vital aids: e.g., the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of the oath, the carriage and mien.[16]
It has not also escaped the Court's attention that when both complainants were asked to identify the person of the accused, both boldly confronted the accused and pointed to him as their defiler. In the case of Wennie, she looked directly at accused, pointed to him and resonantly said, "siya ho", as if daring him to deny her claim as he bowed his head in silence. While Rachelle may not have been as emphatic, she was equally firm and forthright in identifying him.
The manner by which Wennie and Rachelle have given evidence against the accused has left the Court with no reason to doubt the truth and candor of their testimonies.[15]
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;
x x x However, while the offended party averred that she was fourteen years old at the time, she presented no birth certificate to substantiate the averment. It has been held -Finally, the qualifying circumstance of relationship as to private complainant, Wennie Merioles in Criminal Case No. 248-96, was similarly not established beyond any scintilla of doubt. The testimony of accused-appellant that he is married to Nicomedes Francisco, mother of Wennie is not sufficient, considering that accused-appellant also testified that before Nicomedes, he had a "first wife" by the name of Pacita, who now lives in the province. The doubt could have been easily resolved by the presentation of a marriage certificate. However, the prosecution failed to so present a marriage certificate to prove the fact of marriage between accused-appellant and Nicomedes Francisco. Hence, the relationship of accused-appellant to private complainant Wennie Merioles as her step-father, which presupposes a valid marriage[28] between accused-appellant and private complainant's mother, was not proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Accordingly, the qualifying circumstance of relationship in Criminal Case No. 248-96 could likewise not raise the penalty of rape to death.
"At all events, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with certainty the fact that the victim was below 18 when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. The record of the case is bereft of any independent evidence, such as the victim's duly certified Certificate of Live Birth, accurately showing private complainant's age. The fact that accused-appellant Manuel has not denied the allegation in the complaint that Maricel was 16 years old when the crime was committed cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden in this regard. Because of this lapse, as well as the corresponding failure of the trial court to make a categorical finding as to the minority of the victim, we hold that the qualifying circumstance of minority under Republic Act No. 7659 cannot be appreciated in this case, and accordingly the death penalty cannot be imposed."