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. Napoleon Bensurto, Jr. y Bolohabo
G.R. No. 216061. December 7, 2016

The victim, AAA, was born on July 10, 1991, and sometime in February 1999, when she was only 9 years old, she was left alone by her adoptive mother, BBB, in their house, together with appellant, her father (as indicated in the birth certificate presented before the court). While she was sleeping in her room, appellant entered thereat with a rope in his hand. AAA was awakened by the presence of her father who proceeded to tie her feet. Appellant then pulled AAA's underwear to her feet and immediately laid on top of her. Thereafter, appellant undressed himself and then forced his penis into AAA's vagina. After appellant satisfied his carnal desires, he threatened AAA not to tell anyone about the incident or else he would kill her and her mother. Fearing for her life, as well as her mother, AAA never told anyone about the incident. The said incident, however, was repeated sometime in June 2000. After appellant ordered their househelper to go home, he instructed AAA to sleep in his room. Left alone with only her father as companion, she was forced to accede to her father's demand. While in the appellant's room, the latter pulled down AAA's underwear and again sexually abused her despite her pleas not to. Appellant again told her not to tell anyone under the threat of death upon her and her mother. AAA was only able to relate the incident to her mother in November 2000. Subsequently, AAA and her mother went to Edna Romano, the Rural Health Midwife of Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate to seek assistance. Romano, thereafter, accompanied BBB and AAA to the Mandaon Medicare Community Hospital where AAA was examined by Dr. Napoleon Villasis. Based on the examination, AAA was found to have hymenal tears at 10 o'clock position.

Appellant insists that the prosecution was not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

1.    The appellant claims that the medical evidence, with respect to the lacerations on the hymen of AAA, failed to convincingly corroborate the crime of rape as the cause of the same was not determined with possibility, as the lacerations were already healed.

The healed lacerations on the victim's hymen do not disprove that accused­ appellant raped the victim and cannot serve to acquit him. Proof of hymenal laceration is not even an element of rape, so long as there is enough proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ.

2.    Appellant contends that the testimony of AAA is full of inconsistencies and, hence, should not be given credence. Assuming that the discrepancies refers to minor details and collateral matters, rule on the contention.

Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of a witness' declarations, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. Furthermore, it is an accepted doctrine in rape cases that in the absence of evidence of improper motive on the part of the victim to falsely testify against the accused, her testimony deserves credence.

3.    The victim retracted its testimony. Rule on the retraction.

When a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and marked with consistency despite gruelling examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded. If such testimony is clear, consistent and credible to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may be based on it, notwithstanding its subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate her original testimony. As a rule, recantation is viewed with disfavor firstly because the recantation of her testimony by a vital witness of the State like AAA is exceedingly unreliable, and secondly, because there is always the possibility that such recantation may later be repudiated. Indeed, to disregard testimony solemnly given in court simply because the witness recants it ignores the possibility that intimidation or monetary considerations may have caused the recantation. Court proceedings, in which testimony upon oath or affirmation is required to be truthful under all circumstances, are trivialized by the recantation. The trial in which the recanted testimony was given is made a mockery, and the investigation is placed at the mercy of an unscrupulous witness. Before allowing the recantation, therefore, the court must not be too willing to accept it, but must test its value in a public trial with sufficient opportunity given to the party adversely affected to cross-examine the recanting witness both upon the substance of the recantation and the motivations for it. The recantation, like any other testimony, is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances, including the demeanor of the recanting witness on the stand.

4.    Accused argued that AAA did not resisted when the alleged rape happened? Rule on the contention.

Lack of resistance does not negate rape.

Resistance or the absence thereof does not carry any weight in proving the crime of rape. In any case, resistance is not an element of the crime of rape. It need not be shown by the prosecution. Neither is it necessary to convict an accused. The main element of rape is "lack of consent."

"Consent," "resistance," and "absence of resistance" are different things. Consent implies agreement and voluntariness. It implies willfulness. Similarly, resistance is an act of will. However, it implies the opposite of consent. It implies disagreement.

Meanwhile, absence of resistance only implies passivity. It may be a product of one's will. It may imply consent. However, it may also be the product of force, intimidation, manipulation, and other external forces.

Thus, when a person resists another's sexual advances, it would not be presumptuous to say that that person does not consent to any sexual activity with the other. That resistance may establish lack of consent. Sexual congress with a person who expressed her resistance by words or deeds constitutes force either physically or psychologically through threat or intimidation. It is rape.

Lack of resistance may sometimes imply consent. However, that is not always the case. While it may imply consent, there are circumstances that may render a person unable to express her resistance to another's sexual advances. Thus, when a person has carnal knowledge with another person who does not show any resistance, it does not always mean that that person consented to such act. Lack of resistance does not negate rape.

Moreover, Resistance is not necessary to establish rape, especially when the victim is unconscious, deprived of reason, manipulated, demented, or young either in chronological age or mental age.

5.    Appellant contented that AAA's delay in reporting the crime indicates that the accusations against him are false.

The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims.

6.    Accused invoked defense of denial and alibi. Rule on the defense.

Anent 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 other hand, 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.

7.    Is NAPOLEON guilty of rape?

Yes. The elements of rape are present in this case.

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. However, 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 who was also a minor at the time of the commission of the offenses, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.

8.    What is the proper penalty for the accused in this case?

The penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of death by virtue of R.A. No. 9346 shall be imposed, as the rape is qualified by private complainant AAA's minority and appellant's paternity. Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of R.A. No. 9346, the amounts of damages shall be as follows: Civil Indemnity - P100,000; Moral Damages - P100,000; Exemplary Damages - P100,000.