View full case

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO BLANCAFLOR

FACTS:

The case involves appellant Francisco Blancaflor who was accused of raping his stepdaughter, Mylene B. Rueda. The incident allegedly occurred in the later part of July 1995, at Barangay Igang, Municipality of Bacacay, Province of Albay. The prosecution presented evidence showing that Mylene, a fourteen-year-old high school student, had been experiencing emotional distress and failing grades. Her class adviser, Mrs. Adelaida Corla, discovered that Mylene had been raped by her stepfather after conducting a conversation with her. Mylene narrated that on a particular early morning, her mother asked her to transfer from the floor to the bed where her brother was sleeping. At around 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning, she woke up to find appellant on top of her, with his penis already at the entrance of her vagina. Appellant threatened to kill them with a gun and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with Mylene. After the incident, Mylene did not attend school and only mustered the courage to tell her mother three weeks later. Appellant denied the allegations and claimed that Mylene fabricated the charge out of vindictiveness. Two defense witnesses testified that appellant was good-natured and had no derogatory record in the barangay. The trial court found appellant guilty of rape and sentenced him to death. In his appeal, appellant raised several errors committed by the trial court.

The main issue in this case is the credibility of the private complainant, Mylene, and her testimony. The appellant argues that there is no evidence of resistance on Mylene's part during the alleged rape, and that her delayed report of the incident and her alleged resentment towards the appellant weaken her credibility. However, the trial court found Mylene's testimony to be clear, straightforward, and consistent, and deserving of full faith and credit. The court emphasizes that the testimony of a rape victim of tender or immature age deserves full credit. The court also notes that physical resistance is not necessary to prove rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim, and the victim submits due to fear for her life and personal safety. In this case, Mylene stated that she wanted to resist but could not because the appellant threatened to kill her and her family. She estimated the incident to have lasted around 15 to 20 minutes.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the delay of fourteen months in reporting the alleged rape affects the credibility of the victim.

  2. Whether the victim's lack of physical resistance is indicative of consent.

  3. Whether the victim's fear and belief in the appellant's threat to kill her justifies her failure to offer physical resistance.

  4. Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellant guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt based on the credibility of the complainant.

  5. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalty of death on the appellant.

  6. Whether the trial court erred in the award of damages.

  7. Whether appellant is liable for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

RULING:

  1. The delay in reporting the alleged rape does not affect the credibility of the victim. The victim feared the appellant and believed that he was capable of carrying out his threat to kill them all. It took her three weeks to gather the courage to tell her mother about the incident, but her mother did not take any action to bring the appellant to justice. The victim's delay in reporting the crime has been sufficiently explained.

  2. The lack of physical resistance does not indicate consent. The victim's relationship with the appellant, as her stepfather figure with moral ascendancy, explains her failure to offer physical resistance. In cases where there is a relationship of authority, dominance, or moral ascendancy over the victim, the victim's lack of physical resistance is understood as a result of fear or intimidation.

  3. The victim's fear and belief in the appellant's threat to kill her justifies her failure to offer physical resistance. The appellant, as the victim's stepfather figure, exercised strong moral and physical ascendancy over her. The victim believed that there was nobody who could help her, especially since her own mother did not take action to vindicate her rights. Under these circumstances, the victim's lack of physical resistance is understandable and does not negate the absence of consent.

  4. The trial court did not err in finding the appellant guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt based on the credibility of the complainant. The credibility of the complainant was firmly established, and the court found her testimony to be credible and consistent throughout the direct and cross-examinations.

  5. The trial court erred in imposing the penalty of death on the appellant. The Information did not allege the qualifying circumstance of minority of the complainant and the fact that the appellant is the common-law spouse of the mother of the victim. Additionally, there was no competent evidence presented to establish the age of the victim. Therefore, the appellant could only be found guilty of simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.

  6. The trial court erroneously awarded the amount of P50,000.00 only for actual, moral, and exemplary damages. It should have separately awarded moral damages, which is distinct from civil indemnity, and awarded exemplary damages considering the commission of the crime with aggravating circumstances.

  7. Yes, appellant is liable for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding the appellant guilty of rape. The court reduced the penalty from death penalty to reclusion perpetua. Appellant was ordered to pay civil indemnity in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), and exemplary damages in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00).

PRINCIPLES:

  • The force or violence necessary in rape is a relative term that depends not only on the age, size, and strength of the persons involved but also on their relationship to each other. In cases where there is a relationship of authority, dominance, or moral ascendancy over the victim, the victim's lack of physical resistance is understood as a result of fear or intimidation. (People v. Rodriguez)

  • A child of tender years would blindly follow their "stepfather" who not only exercised strong, moral and physical ascendancy over them but who made explicit threats on their life should they make any noise. (People v. Labayne)

  • The delay in reporting a rape does not diminish the credibility of the victim. Many victims of rape choose not to immediately report or file charges due to the traumatic consequences of the incident, fear of revealing their shame, or risk of the offender's retaliation. Delay in reporting can be explained when the victim feels hopeless and believes that there is nobody who can help them. (People v. De Taza; People v. Gutierrez)

  • The testimony of a complainant for rape, especially a minor who remained steadfast in her testimony throughout direct and cross-examinations, is given full credence by the court.

  • Alleged motives such as family feuds, resentment, or revenge do not undermine the credibility of a complainant who remained steadfast in her testimony.

  • The prosecution has the burden of proving all the elements of a crime, including qualifying circumstances, especially in death penalty cases.

  • The special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship must be alleged in the Information and proved with certainty.

  • Civil indemnity is mandatory upon a conviction for rape, while moral damages are granted in recognition of the victim's injury resulting from the crime of rape.

  • Exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases as part of civil liability if the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.

  • Rape committed in the dwelling of the offended party is considered an aggravating circumstance under Article 14, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • The aggravating circumstances that were not alleged in the information cannot be used to increase the penalty, but they can be considered in awarding exemplary damages in the civil aspect of the case.