JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO, RESPONDENTS.

People of the Philippines Vs. Jesus Mayola y Picar
G.R. No. 214470. December 7, 2016

Appellant is the father of AAA, the private complainant. The appellant, AAA, and her 3 siblings, CCC, DDD and EEE, lived in an 18-square-meter single room house in Brgy. Telbang, Alaminos City, Pangasinan. Her mother was then working as a househelper in Manila. According to AAA, appellant had sexual intercourse with her every other day since 2001 when she was just 13 years old. Her mother knew what the appellant did to her, but the former could not help her and the latter was afraid to report the incident to the authorities. In the evening of December 30, 2004, AAA and her brother CCC slept on a bamboo bed beside appellant while her sisters DDD and EEE slept on the floor. Appellant went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina when her siblings were already asleep. Appellant only stopped what he was doing when CCC woke up. Appellant then went at the back of their house, gathered the chairs, arranged them to form a makeshift bed, and called for her. AAA cried as she heeded appellant's call. AAA eventually was fed up with appellant's repeated violation of her chastity and told him not to do it again. AAA's sister, BBB, FFF and her uncle GGG accompanied her in reporting the incident to the Alaminos City Police Station where she was first investigated by the Chief of Police and later on by a policewoman. On January 2, 2005, she went to the Western Pangasinan District Hospital for medical examination. Based on medical findings, AAA was found to have nonporous introitus, old hymenal laceration at five o'clock and 7 o'clock positions. The vagina also admitted 2 fingers with slight difficulty and there was no bleeding when AAA was subjected to internal examination. Hence, an Information was filed against appellant, which reads as follows:

That on or about December 30, 2004 in the evening in Barangay Telbang, Alaminos City, Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of force, threat and intimidation did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously did (sic) lie and succeeded (sic) in having carnal knowledge of AAA, his fifteen (15) year-old daughter, despite her resistance and pleas for mercy, to her damage and prejudice.

Contrary to Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as Amended

1.       What are the elements of rape?

Under paragraph 1 (a) of Article 266-A of the RPC, the elements of rape are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.

2.       Was Jesus Mayola y Picar guilty of the crime charged?

Yes. In this case, all the elements of the crime charged in the Information are present.

First, Private complainant AAA positively identified appellant as the perpetrator. Her testimony, corroborated by the medical findings show beyond reasonable doubt that AAA was already in a non-virginal state after she was raped. When the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.

Anent the second element, the appellant is the father of private complainant. When the offender is the victim's father, as in this case, there need not be actual force, threat or intimidation because when a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.

3.       Was there a uniformity or consistency of behavior to be expected of a rape victim?

No.

The Supreme Court has recognized the fact that no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has been raped. There has never been any uniformity or consistency of behavior to be expected from those who had the misfortune of being sexually molested. The Supreme Court has pointed out that some of them have found the courage early on to publicly denounce the abuses they experienced, but still there were others who have opted to initially keep their harrowing ordeals to themselves and to just move on with their lives as if nothing had happened, until the limits of their tolerance were reached. Also, the immature and inexperienced could not be expected to measure up to the same standard of conduct and reaction that would be expected from adults whose maturity in age and experience could have brought them to stand up more quickly to their interest. Lastly, long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape to the proper authorities have not always been considered as an indication of a false accusation.

4.       Does the following negate rape: failure of the victim to shout or seek; lack of resistance; delay in reporting the incident?

It is a settled rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help does not negate rape. Even lack of resistance will not imply that the victim has consented to the sexual act, especially when that person was intimidated into submission by the accused. In cases where the rape is committed by a relative such as a father, stepfather, uncle, or common-law spouse, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence.

The delay in reporting the incident is also not a factor in diminishing the value of private complainant’s testimony.

5.       Do motives such as resentment, hatred or revenge affect credence of the testimony of a minor rape victim?

No.

In People v. Manuel, the Suprement Court rules that:

Evidently, no woman, least of all 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 truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her being. It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, since when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. It must be remembered that as to appellant's defense of denial and alibi, bare assertions thereof cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. On the otherhand, for alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for appellant to be present at the place where the crime was committed at the time of commission.