EN BANC
[ G. R. Nos. 136286-89, September 11, 2003 ]PEOPLE v. EFREN G. DE TAZA +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EFREN G. DE TAZA, APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PEOPLE v. EFREN G. DE TAZA +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EFREN G. DE TAZA, APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On automatic appeal is the October 27, 1998 Joint Decision[1] of Branch 88 of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City finding appellant Efren G. De Taza guilty of four counts of rape in Criminal Case Nos. 249-97, 250-97, 251-97 and
252-97 and imposing on him the death penalty in each.
The accusatory portions of the complaints against appellant read as follows:
Complainant Jocelyn S. Fructuoso is one of two children of former live-in partners Philippine Air Force (PAF) Sergeant Jimmy Fructuoso and Magdalena Silos.[6] When the couple parted ways, Jocelyn and her older brother Judan lived with their mother.
While Jocelyn and Judan were in grade school, they took up music lessons with appellant, a member of the airbase squadron and band instrumentalist of the PAF.[7] As music teacher, appellant became close to the children as well as to their mother. Romance in fact blossomed between appellant and Magdalena who are said to have eventually contracted marriage on August 21, 1991.[8]
Appellant and Magdalena, together with Jocelyn and Judan, resided in Mascardo St., San Antonio, Cavite City.[9]
On May 15, 1993, Jocelyn, then 13 years old, along with her best friend Norielyn Tome, attended the fiesta at Narvaez, Baylen, now General Emilio Aguinaldo, Cavite. Jocelyn returned home with Norielyn at around 6:00 p.m. of the same day[10] at which time only appellant and Judan were at home, Magdalena having gone to "Luksuhin." Infuriated as Jocelyn did not ask his permission to attend the fiesta, appellant instructed Judan to get the sisilan, a piece of wood used for washing clothes.[11] Judan did as instructed and Jocelyn repaired to her bedroom, one of three[12] in the house, the other being her brother's, and the third appellant's and her mother. Appellant followed her, bringing with him the sisilan.[13] Appellant then told Jocelyn to lie face down and to pull down her shorts and panty.[14] As Jocelyn obliged, appellant hit her several times with the sisilan,[15] drawing her to cry.[16] Appellant then went out of her room and instructed Norielyn to go home.[17]
That same night, after taking her supper, Jocelyn went to her room.[18] Soon after, Arnold, Norielyn's brother, arrived and was outside the jalousie-covered window of Jocelyn's room[19] when appellant asked him to leave.[20]
Still on the same night, while Judan was already asleep, appellant went inside Jocelyn's bedroom, locked the door and asked her why Arnold was there, to which she replied that her mother had instructed that Arnold "accompany" them.[21] This drew the ire of appellant who thought that Arnold was her boyfriend.[22]
Appellant then told Jocelyn to stand up and take off her clothes.[23] When she refused, he punched her on the abdomen.[24] She held on to the waistband of her shorts but he threw her on her bed and succeeded in removing her shorts and panty.[25] He then started kissing her vagina[26] even while she tried to keep her thighs together and pleaded him to stop.[27] He, however, forced her to spread her legs[28] and then stood up and removed his shorts.
As Jocelyn tried to stand up, appellant went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina.[29] Despite her pleas for appellant to stop, he, while holding a kitchen knife, told her to keep quiet[30] and went on to satisfy his lust with a warning against telling anyone about what transpired, otherwise he would kill her mother.[31]
Upon Magdalena's return in the afternoon of the following day or on May 16, 1993, Jocelyn told her what appellant did to her.[32] Magdalena thus confronted appellant inside Jocelyn's bedroom. When appellant came out of the bedroom, he gave Jocelyn a dagger look. On the same day, appellant left their residence.[33]
On May 27, 1993, Magdalena, along with another woman, brought Jocelyn to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila[34] where she was examined by Dr. Valentin Bernales, Medico-Legal Officer. Dr. Bernales came up with the following findings:
On May 1, 1995, Magdalena and her children transferred to another residence in Melrose St., also in San Antonio, Cavite City.[37] In July of that same year, appellant lived with them again.[38]
In late evening of August 20, 1995, while Jocelyn was sleeping in her room, she felt someone beside her.[39] She soon realized that it was appellant who told her not to make any noise and that he was going to sleep there.[40] Jocelyn covered herself with a blanket but appellant pulled it and asked her to remove her shorts.[41] She tried to shout but appellant choked her and told her not to cry because her mother, who was sleeping in their bedroom, might be awakened.[42] He then took off his shorts, forcibly took off Jocelyn's shorts and panty and went on top of her.[43] When she tried to struggle, appellant got a decorative wineglass on top of her bed and threatened to hit her with it if she made any noise,[44] leaving her no choice but to keep quiet. Appellant then inserted his penis into her vagina,[45] after which he put on his shorts and warned her not to tell anyone for, as nobody believed her the first time she complained, no one would believe her if she did the second time.[46] Appellant then left Jocelyn's bedroom.
After the second incident, as Jocelyn pondered that her mother would not believe her anyway, she did not bother to tell her about it.[47] She instead left their house and proceeded to the house of her aunt Roda Doctor in Sangley Point.[48] Jocelyn, however, did not reveal to her aunt what appellant did to her.[49]
Magdalena later fetched Jocelyn, telling her that appellant no longer lived with them.[50] Two weeks after Jocelyn went back home, however, appellant lived with them again.[51]
On March 20, 1996, appellant got mad at Jocelyn because she came home late. As punishment, he locked her inside her room.[52] The following morning, or on March 21, 1996, she begged that she be allowed to go out of the room, but to no avail.[53] At that time, both her mother and brother had left.[54]
When Jocelyn sensed that appellant was about to leave for work, she went up her dresser and jumped over to the room of her brother with the intention of escaping.[55] As she was about to go out of her brother's room, appellant, telling her that she could not leave,[56] pulled her to his and her mother's room.[57] While she tried to free herself from him, he pushed her towards the bed.[58] She then warned him that if he would sexually assault her again, she would report him to police authorities.[59] He countered, however, that before she could report, he would kill her.[60] He then removed his pants and told Jocelyn to remove her shorts and panty.[61] While she was crying, she obliged, albeit[62] she tried to push him but felt something pointed at the side of her neck.[63] Appellant then inserted his penis into her vagina[64] after which, he asked her if she would still have the courage to report to the police because if she had, he would kill her. She told him that she would not report to the police as all she wanted was to go to school.[65] Jocelyn then took a bath and put on her school uniform.[66] He thereafter brought her to school. Afraid of him and thinking that no one would believe her anyway, she did not report the incident to anyone.[67]
On April 28, 1996, around noon, Jocelyn asked permission from her mother to attend a fiesta. Magdalena, however, told her to ask permission from appellant which she did.[68] Appellant consented. In the meantime, as Magdalena was having a siesta on the sofa, appellant asked Jocelyn to go to her bedroom so that she could massage him. When she refused, appellant told him that she could not leave for the fiesta.[69] And indeed she was not able to.[70]
Around 6:00 p.m. of that same day of April 28, 1996, while Jocelyn was inside her bedroom, appellant went inside, locked the door,[71] and asked her to lie down but she refused. Appellant thus removed her short pants[72] after which he pushed her towards the bed, warning her not to make any noise. He then took off his shorts, removed Jocelyn's panty, and went on top of her as he inserted his penis into her vagina.[73] Jocelyn could only cry "silently" as his hands were on her throat and he did not want her mother to hear her crying.[74] While appellant was on top of her, Magdalena knocked on the door and called Jocelyn's name. Appellant ordered her not to respond. He, however, told Magdalena to wait as they were just talking.[75] Appellant then put on his shorts and warned her not to tell her mother what transpired.[76]
The following morning, Jocelyn reported the incident the day before (the fourth) to her mother who did not believe her, however. Jocelyn then asked her to make a choice whether she (Jocelyn) would leave or ask appellant to leave. Magdalena chose the first.[77]
Jocelyn thus went to her best friend Norielyn's house and stayed there until around 8:00 p.m. of April 29, 1996 when her aunt Roda fetched her and brought her to her aunt Sylvia Lagula's house at Padre Pio St., Cavite City[78] where she stayed until May 10, 1996. On May 11, 1996, she was sent to her grandfather's house in Asingan, Pangasinan, where she stayed for a year.[79]
On April 2, 1997, Jocelyn was examined by Dr. Gloria A. Liberato, Medical Officer III of the Medicare Community Hospital of Asingan. The results of her examination, which were incorporated in a Medico-Legal Certification,[80] revealed the following:
Appellant denied the charges against him,[82] he surmising that the filing of the cases against him could have been spawned by the beatings and humiliations Jocelyn received from him.
Claiming that he lived in a boarding house in Quezon City from April 1995 to November 1995, it was impossible for him to have raped Jocelyn in Cavite in August 1995 (subject of the second information).[83]
He proffered, however, that he had a close relationship with Jocelyn, more than that of a stepfather with his stepdaughter "it's like having a mutual understanding x x x and that [they] care for each other,"[84] to a point that they had sexual relationship,[85] in support of which he showed before the court a photocopy of Jocelyn's photograph[86] which he claims she gave to him.[87]
Finding for the prosecution, the trial court, which noted Jocelyn to be crying while testifying,[88] as did the prosecution,[89] rendered the joint decision on review, the dispositive portion of which reads:
As did the trial court, this Court finds the following accounts of Jocelyn of the four rape incidents, which accounts were punctuated by her crying, candid, straightforward and persuasive:
In another vein, appellant posits that given the traumatic consequences of rape incidents, it is inconceivable for Jocelyn not to report or confide to anybody what she claims she went through,[105] despite the fact that she was already far from his reach and was already within the secure confines of her other relatives.[106]
Many victims of rape, however, never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender's ire and drive him to carry out his threats.[107]
In Jocelyn's case, as reflected above, she did reveal the first rape incident. She chose not to reveal the second rape incident, however, because, to her, her mother would not believe it anyway as she did not with respect to the first. Jocelyn, however, thereafter left their residence to live with her aunt but was later fetched by her mother after she advised her that appellant had gone.
With respect to the third incident, Jocelyn was again, as reflected above, overcome by appellant's threats and nursed the idea that no one would believe her.
To this Court, Jocelyn's delay in charging appellant does not infirm her credibility.
Appellant likewise posits that complainant was acting normally even in his company after the alleged rape incidents.[108] He cites the instances when he brought Jocelyn to school, when they celebrated his birthday in Banog's Nest, and when he taught her how to drive,[109] all of which run counter to the customary reaction of a victim of such offenses, more so of a minor.[110]
It is a settled doctrine in rape cases, however, that no standard form of behavior is expected, for the workings of a human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable.[111]
Finally, appellant submits that the motivation to expose him apparently did not come from Jocelyn but from her mother who had a falling out with him.[112]
This Court has consistently ruled that it would be too high a price for parents to pay in exposing their daughter to public ridicule and indignity, coupled with the rigors of a public trial, just to vent ire on the accused.[113]
In fine, appellant's conviction is well-taken.
In imposing the death penalty, the trial court appreciated the following circumstances provided for in Republic Act 7659 (Death Penalty Law) which took effect on December 31, 1993:
For the above-stated first circumstance to render appellant liable for rape in its qualified form, however, it is necessary that minority and relationship be established. In the case at bar, Jocelyn's minority was duly established since a certified copy of her birth certificate shows that she was born on May 8, 1980.[114] Appellant's relationship to her as stepfather, however, was not sufficiently proved. The prosecution failed to offer any marriage contract of appellant and Magdalena to establish that indeed Jocelyn is appellant's stepdaughter.[115] Thus, the first circumstance cannot be appreciated against appellant.
As to the above-stated sixth circumstance, it is undisputed that appellant was a member of the AFP, he being a member of the PAF during the rape incidents. With the enactment of the Republic Act 8353 (Anti-Rape Law), however, which took effect on October 22, 1997, said qualifying circumstance was amended as follows:
As to the civil aspect of the case, the award by the trial court of civil indemnity of P50,000.00[116] and moral damages of P50,000.00[117] is maintained, appellant being liable for only simple rape.
Since it was established, albeit not alleged in the information, that during the May 15, 1993 rape, appellant used a kitchen knife, such use of a deadly weapon, an aggravating circumstance,[118] entitles Jocelyn to the award of exemplary damages.[119]
WHEREFORE, the Joint Decision dated October 27, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, finding appellant Efren G. de Taza guilty of four counts of rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellant is hereby found guilty of simple rape on four counts and sentenced in each to 1) suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and 2) to pay complainant Jocelyn S. Fructuoso the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Appellant is further sentenced to pay Jocelyn S. Fructuoso in Criminal Case No. 249-97 P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Puno, and Azcuna, JJ., on official leave.
[1] Penned by Judge Christopher O. Lock (now Deputy Court Administrator).
[2] Exhibit "A."
[3] Exhibit "B."
[4] Exhibit "C."
[5] Exhibit "D."
[6] Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), January 26, 1998 at 8; TSN, April 17, 1998 at 4-5.
[7] TSN, January 26, 1998 at 11; TSN, June 2, 1998 at 6-7; TSN, July 15, 1998 at 5.
[8] TSN, January 26, 1998 at 11; TSN, July 15, 1998 at 4.
[9] TSN, January 26, 1998 at 14.
[10] Id. at 16.
[11] Id. at 19.
[12] Id. at 30.
[13] Id. at 20.
[14] Id. at 21.
[15] Id. at 23.
[16] Id. at 24.
[17] Id. at 27.
[18] Id. at 17.
[19] Id. at 31.
[20] Id. at 32.
[21] Id. at 35.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Id. at 36.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Id. at 37-39.
[26] Id. at 40.
[27] Id. at 40-42.
[28] Id. at 42.
[29] TSN, March 18, 1998 at 6-8.
[30] Id. at 8-9.
[31] Id. at 14.
[32] Id. at 17-18.
[33] Id. at 18-19.
[34] Id. at 19-20.
[35] Exhibit "G."
[36] TSN, March 18, 1998 at 22-23.
[37] Id. at 23.
[38] Id. at 24.
[39] Id. at 26.
[40] Id. at 27.
[41] Id. at 29.
[42] Id. at 31.
[43] Id. at 32-34.
[44] Id. at 34-35.
[45] Id. at 35.
[46] Id. at 37.
[47] Id. at 38.
[48] Id. at 38-39.
[49] Id. at 40.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Id. at 41.
[52] Id. at 42.
[53] Id. at 42-43.
[54] Id. at 43.
[55] Id. at 43-44.
[56] Id. at 44.
[57] Id. at 44-45.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Id. at 45.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Id. at 46-47.
[62] Id. at 47.
[63] Id. at 49-50.
[64] Id. at 50.
[65] Id. at 51.
[66] Id. at 51-52.
[67] Id. at 52.
[68] TSN, April 3, 1998 at 6.
[69] Id. at 6-7.
[70] Id. at 8.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Id. at 8-9.
[73] Id. at 9-11.
[74] Id. at 11.
[75] Id. at 12.
[76] Id. at 14.
[77] Id. at 15.
[78] Id. at 15-16.
[79] Id. at 16-17.
[80] Exhibit "F."
[81] TSN, May 18, 1998 at 13.
[82] TSN, July 15, 1998 at 5.
[83] Id. at 7-8.
[84] TSN, July 20, 1998 at 11.
[85] Id. at 13.
[86] Exhibit "1."
[87] TSN, July 20, 1998 at 3.
[88] TSN, Jan. 26, 1988 at 25.
[89] TSN, April 3, 1998 at 13-14.
[90] Rollo at 49.
[91] Rollo at 45-a - 47.
[92] Id. at 229.
[93] Id. at 230.
[94] Ibid.
[95] TSN, April 30, 1998 at 25.
[96] Rollo at 230.
[97] TSN, January 26, 1998 at 16, 34-45.
[98] TSN, March 18, 1998 at 6-12.
[99] Id. at 24-36.
[100] Id. at 42-50.
[101] TSN, April 3, 1998 at 5-11.
[102] People v. Villadares, 354 SCRA 86 (2001).
[103] 353 SCRA 194 (2001).
[104] People v. Libo-on, 358 SCRA 152 (2001).
[105] Ibid.
[106] Ibid.
[107] People v. Barrias, 360 SCRA 150 (2001).
[108] Rollo at 232.
[109] Id. at 232-233.
[110] Id. at 232.
[111] People v. Burgos, 370 SCRA 325 (2001).
[112] Rollo at 233.
[113] People v. Mirafuentes, 349 SCRA 204 (2001).
[114] Exhibits "E" and "E-1."
[115] People v. Alcoreza, 366 SCRA 655 (2001).
[116] People v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 139695, August 26, 2002.
[117] People v. Sitao, G.R. No. 146790, August 22, 2002.
[118] The first rape was committed at the time when the imposition of the death penalty was prohibited and all death penalties imposed were reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article III Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution.
[119] People v. Catubig, 363 SCRA 621 (2001).
The accusatory portions of the complaints against appellant read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 249-97From the evidence for the prosecution, the following are established:
That on or about May 15, 1993, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, then being the stepfather of the undersigned complainant, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did, then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the latter, a minor, 13 years of age, without consent and against her will.[2]
Criminal Case No. 250-97
That on or about August 20, 1995, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, then being the stepfather of the undersigned complainant, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did, then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the latter, a minor, 15 years of age, without consent and against her will.[3]
Criminal Case No. 251-97
That on or about May 21, 1996, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, then being the stepfather of the undersigned complainant, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did, then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the latter, a minor, 16 years of age, without consent and against her will.[4]
Criminal Case No. 252-97
That on or about April 28, 1996, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, then being the stepfather of the undersigned complainant, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did, then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the latter, a minor, 17 years of age, without consent and against her will.[5]
Complainant Jocelyn S. Fructuoso is one of two children of former live-in partners Philippine Air Force (PAF) Sergeant Jimmy Fructuoso and Magdalena Silos.[6] When the couple parted ways, Jocelyn and her older brother Judan lived with their mother.
While Jocelyn and Judan were in grade school, they took up music lessons with appellant, a member of the airbase squadron and band instrumentalist of the PAF.[7] As music teacher, appellant became close to the children as well as to their mother. Romance in fact blossomed between appellant and Magdalena who are said to have eventually contracted marriage on August 21, 1991.[8]
Appellant and Magdalena, together with Jocelyn and Judan, resided in Mascardo St., San Antonio, Cavite City.[9]
On May 15, 1993, Jocelyn, then 13 years old, along with her best friend Norielyn Tome, attended the fiesta at Narvaez, Baylen, now General Emilio Aguinaldo, Cavite. Jocelyn returned home with Norielyn at around 6:00 p.m. of the same day[10] at which time only appellant and Judan were at home, Magdalena having gone to "Luksuhin." Infuriated as Jocelyn did not ask his permission to attend the fiesta, appellant instructed Judan to get the sisilan, a piece of wood used for washing clothes.[11] Judan did as instructed and Jocelyn repaired to her bedroom, one of three[12] in the house, the other being her brother's, and the third appellant's and her mother. Appellant followed her, bringing with him the sisilan.[13] Appellant then told Jocelyn to lie face down and to pull down her shorts and panty.[14] As Jocelyn obliged, appellant hit her several times with the sisilan,[15] drawing her to cry.[16] Appellant then went out of her room and instructed Norielyn to go home.[17]
That same night, after taking her supper, Jocelyn went to her room.[18] Soon after, Arnold, Norielyn's brother, arrived and was outside the jalousie-covered window of Jocelyn's room[19] when appellant asked him to leave.[20]
Still on the same night, while Judan was already asleep, appellant went inside Jocelyn's bedroom, locked the door and asked her why Arnold was there, to which she replied that her mother had instructed that Arnold "accompany" them.[21] This drew the ire of appellant who thought that Arnold was her boyfriend.[22]
Appellant then told Jocelyn to stand up and take off her clothes.[23] When she refused, he punched her on the abdomen.[24] She held on to the waistband of her shorts but he threw her on her bed and succeeded in removing her shorts and panty.[25] He then started kissing her vagina[26] even while she tried to keep her thighs together and pleaded him to stop.[27] He, however, forced her to spread her legs[28] and then stood up and removed his shorts.
As Jocelyn tried to stand up, appellant went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina.[29] Despite her pleas for appellant to stop, he, while holding a kitchen knife, told her to keep quiet[30] and went on to satisfy his lust with a warning against telling anyone about what transpired, otherwise he would kill her mother.[31]
Upon Magdalena's return in the afternoon of the following day or on May 16, 1993, Jocelyn told her what appellant did to her.[32] Magdalena thus confronted appellant inside Jocelyn's bedroom. When appellant came out of the bedroom, he gave Jocelyn a dagger look. On the same day, appellant left their residence.[33]
On May 27, 1993, Magdalena, along with another woman, brought Jocelyn to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila[34] where she was examined by Dr. Valentin Bernales, Medico-Legal Officer. Dr. Bernales came up with the following findings:
By Jocelyn's account, no case was filed against appellant, Magdalena having concluded that "[w]ala naman palang nangyari."[36]
- No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted on the subject at the time of the examination.
- Hymen, intact and its orifice small (1.5 cm. in diameter) as to preclude complete penetration by an average-sized, adult, Filipino male organ in full erection without producing genital injury.[35] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
On May 1, 1995, Magdalena and her children transferred to another residence in Melrose St., also in San Antonio, Cavite City.[37] In July of that same year, appellant lived with them again.[38]
In late evening of August 20, 1995, while Jocelyn was sleeping in her room, she felt someone beside her.[39] She soon realized that it was appellant who told her not to make any noise and that he was going to sleep there.[40] Jocelyn covered herself with a blanket but appellant pulled it and asked her to remove her shorts.[41] She tried to shout but appellant choked her and told her not to cry because her mother, who was sleeping in their bedroom, might be awakened.[42] He then took off his shorts, forcibly took off Jocelyn's shorts and panty and went on top of her.[43] When she tried to struggle, appellant got a decorative wineglass on top of her bed and threatened to hit her with it if she made any noise,[44] leaving her no choice but to keep quiet. Appellant then inserted his penis into her vagina,[45] after which he put on his shorts and warned her not to tell anyone for, as nobody believed her the first time she complained, no one would believe her if she did the second time.[46] Appellant then left Jocelyn's bedroom.
After the second incident, as Jocelyn pondered that her mother would not believe her anyway, she did not bother to tell her about it.[47] She instead left their house and proceeded to the house of her aunt Roda Doctor in Sangley Point.[48] Jocelyn, however, did not reveal to her aunt what appellant did to her.[49]
Magdalena later fetched Jocelyn, telling her that appellant no longer lived with them.[50] Two weeks after Jocelyn went back home, however, appellant lived with them again.[51]
On March 20, 1996, appellant got mad at Jocelyn because she came home late. As punishment, he locked her inside her room.[52] The following morning, or on March 21, 1996, she begged that she be allowed to go out of the room, but to no avail.[53] At that time, both her mother and brother had left.[54]
When Jocelyn sensed that appellant was about to leave for work, she went up her dresser and jumped over to the room of her brother with the intention of escaping.[55] As she was about to go out of her brother's room, appellant, telling her that she could not leave,[56] pulled her to his and her mother's room.[57] While she tried to free herself from him, he pushed her towards the bed.[58] She then warned him that if he would sexually assault her again, she would report him to police authorities.[59] He countered, however, that before she could report, he would kill her.[60] He then removed his pants and told Jocelyn to remove her shorts and panty.[61] While she was crying, she obliged, albeit[62] she tried to push him but felt something pointed at the side of her neck.[63] Appellant then inserted his penis into her vagina[64] after which, he asked her if she would still have the courage to report to the police because if she had, he would kill her. She told him that she would not report to the police as all she wanted was to go to school.[65] Jocelyn then took a bath and put on her school uniform.[66] He thereafter brought her to school. Afraid of him and thinking that no one would believe her anyway, she did not report the incident to anyone.[67]
On April 28, 1996, around noon, Jocelyn asked permission from her mother to attend a fiesta. Magdalena, however, told her to ask permission from appellant which she did.[68] Appellant consented. In the meantime, as Magdalena was having a siesta on the sofa, appellant asked Jocelyn to go to her bedroom so that she could massage him. When she refused, appellant told him that she could not leave for the fiesta.[69] And indeed she was not able to.[70]
Around 6:00 p.m. of that same day of April 28, 1996, while Jocelyn was inside her bedroom, appellant went inside, locked the door,[71] and asked her to lie down but she refused. Appellant thus removed her short pants[72] after which he pushed her towards the bed, warning her not to make any noise. He then took off his shorts, removed Jocelyn's panty, and went on top of her as he inserted his penis into her vagina.[73] Jocelyn could only cry "silently" as his hands were on her throat and he did not want her mother to hear her crying.[74] While appellant was on top of her, Magdalena knocked on the door and called Jocelyn's name. Appellant ordered her not to respond. He, however, told Magdalena to wait as they were just talking.[75] Appellant then put on his shorts and warned her not to tell her mother what transpired.[76]
The following morning, Jocelyn reported the incident the day before (the fourth) to her mother who did not believe her, however. Jocelyn then asked her to make a choice whether she (Jocelyn) would leave or ask appellant to leave. Magdalena chose the first.[77]
Jocelyn thus went to her best friend Norielyn's house and stayed there until around 8:00 p.m. of April 29, 1996 when her aunt Roda fetched her and brought her to her aunt Sylvia Lagula's house at Padre Pio St., Cavite City[78] where she stayed until May 10, 1996. On May 11, 1996, she was sent to her grandfather's house in Asingan, Pangasinan, where she stayed for a year.[79]
On April 2, 1997, Jocelyn was examined by Dr. Gloria A. Liberato, Medical Officer III of the Medicare Community Hospital of Asingan. The results of her examination, which were incorporated in a Medico-Legal Certification,[80] revealed the following:
By Dr. Liberato's account, the "ages" of the hymenal lacerations in Jocelyn are consistent with the dates of the alleged sexual assaults on her.[81]
- Healed hymenal laceration at 9:00, 3:00, 7:00 and 5:00 o'clock (sic) position.
- Hymenal orifice admits 2 fingers with slight difficulty. (Emphasis supplied)
Appellant denied the charges against him,[82] he surmising that the filing of the cases against him could have been spawned by the beatings and humiliations Jocelyn received from him.
Claiming that he lived in a boarding house in Quezon City from April 1995 to November 1995, it was impossible for him to have raped Jocelyn in Cavite in August 1995 (subject of the second information).[83]
He proffered, however, that he had a close relationship with Jocelyn, more than that of a stepfather with his stepdaughter "it's like having a mutual understanding x x x and that [they] care for each other,"[84] to a point that they had sexual relationship,[85] in support of which he showed before the court a photocopy of Jocelyn's photograph[86] which he claims she gave to him.[87]
Finding for the prosecution, the trial court, which noted Jocelyn to be crying while testifying,[88] as did the prosecution,[89] rendered the joint decision on review, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, we find the accused Efren G. de Taza guilty of raping his own stepdaughter on four separate occasions, accordingly hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of death in each of the four (4) cases, and is hereby ordered to pay the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in each case; P50,000.00 as moral damages in each case; and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages in each case; or a total of P600,000.00.In brushing aside appellant's defense, the trial court held:
SO ORDERED.[90]
In his Brief, appellant assigns to the trial court the following errors:x x x
We find the said motive imputed against the complainant to be grossly implausible and insufficient to make her concoct a false charge against her stepfather. It is highly inconceivable that she would claim having been raped just because her stepfather spanks or berates whenever she commits mistakes. Mere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino family invent a charge that would only bring shame and humiliation upon her and her family and make her the object of gossip among her classmates and friends. It is unbelievable that Jocelyn would fabricate a serious criminal charge just to get even with her stepfather, if it were not true. It has been repeatedly held that no young Filipina of decent repute would falsely and publicly admit that she had been ravished and abused considering the social stigma thereof.
x x x
Similarly, the accused's claim that he was staying in a boarding house in Quezon City when he was studying at the UST at the time the second rape incident took place, cannot be taken seriously. The distance and travel time between his boarding house in Kamuning and Cavite City did not foreclose the commission of the felony. It is a cardinal rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. So too, alibi cannot prevail over positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness.
x x x
Except for a single photograph of the complainant which the latter allegedly gave him before her departure to Asingan, accused was never able to present any credible evidence to show that he and complainant were indeed sweethearts. This sweetheart theory is but a mere concoction of the accused as a last ditch effort in order to exculpate himself from criminal liability.
x x x[91]
In his Brief, appellant draws attention to matters testified on by Jocelyn which to him create doubts on the credibility of her testimony.[93] He particularly cites her account of the May 15, 1993 incident (subject of the first information) that appellant was able to insert his penis into her vagina, to wit:[94]I.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ACCORDING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT.
II.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED.[92]
which is belied by the medico-legal report conducted on her following such incident indicating that there was no evident sign of extra-genital injuries and that her hymen was still intact.[96]x x x
[ATTY. LA TORRE:] Q: A: Q: A:
x x x,[95]
As did the trial court, this Court finds the following accounts of Jocelyn of the four rape incidents, which accounts were punctuated by her crying, candid, straightforward and persuasive:
It is well settled that for a conviction of rape, medical findings of injuries in the victim's genitalia are not essential.[102] People v. Vidal[103] holds that absence of such injuries in the complainant's private part does not negate rape as proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. Even if there were no hymenal laceration found when she was first examined, this does not necessarily negate rape.[104] What counts is that there was a penetration, however slight, of the labia minora. The above-quoted findings of Dr. Bernales on his examination of Jocelyn on May 17, 1993, two days after the May 5, 1993 incident - subject of the first information, merely rule out complete penetration.
x x x [PROS. LU:] Q: A: x x x Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: COURT: PROS. LU: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: x x x Q: A: Q: COURT: INTERPRETER: PROS. LU: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: x x x Q: A: x x x[97] Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: PROS. LU: COURT: A: PROS. LU: Q: A: x x x Q: A: x x x Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: x x x[98] Q: A: x x x Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: x x x Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: x x x Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: x x x Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: x x x[99] Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: x x x[100] Q: A: Q: A: x x x Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: x x x[101] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).
In another vein, appellant posits that given the traumatic consequences of rape incidents, it is inconceivable for Jocelyn not to report or confide to anybody what she claims she went through,[105] despite the fact that she was already far from his reach and was already within the secure confines of her other relatives.[106]
Many victims of rape, however, never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender's ire and drive him to carry out his threats.[107]
In Jocelyn's case, as reflected above, she did reveal the first rape incident. She chose not to reveal the second rape incident, however, because, to her, her mother would not believe it anyway as she did not with respect to the first. Jocelyn, however, thereafter left their residence to live with her aunt but was later fetched by her mother after she advised her that appellant had gone.
With respect to the third incident, Jocelyn was again, as reflected above, overcome by appellant's threats and nursed the idea that no one would believe her.
To this Court, Jocelyn's delay in charging appellant does not infirm her credibility.
Appellant likewise posits that complainant was acting normally even in his company after the alleged rape incidents.[108] He cites the instances when he brought Jocelyn to school, when they celebrated his birthday in Banog's Nest, and when he taught her how to drive,[109] all of which run counter to the customary reaction of a victim of such offenses, more so of a minor.[110]
It is a settled doctrine in rape cases, however, that no standard form of behavior is expected, for the workings of a human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable.[111]
Finally, appellant submits that the motivation to expose him apparently did not come from Jocelyn but from her mother who had a falling out with him.[112]
This Court has consistently ruled that it would be too high a price for parents to pay in exposing their daughter to public ridicule and indignity, coupled with the rigors of a public trial, just to vent ire on the accused.[113]
In fine, appellant's conviction is well-taken.
In imposing the death penalty, the trial court appreciated the following circumstances provided for in Republic Act 7659 (Death Penalty Law) which took effect on December 31, 1993:
It should be recalled that the first incident occurred on May 15, 1993 before the effectivity of the Death Penalty Law. Consequently, appellant cannot be sentenced to death for it. As to the three other rape incidents which took place in 1996, the abovequoted provisions of the Death Penalty Law apply.x x x
- 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
- when committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency.
x x x (Emphasis supplied)
For the above-stated first circumstance to render appellant liable for rape in its qualified form, however, it is necessary that minority and relationship be established. In the case at bar, Jocelyn's minority was duly established since a certified copy of her birth certificate shows that she was born on May 8, 1980.[114] Appellant's relationship to her as stepfather, however, was not sufficiently proved. The prosecution failed to offer any marriage contract of appellant and Magdalena to establish that indeed Jocelyn is appellant's stepdaughter.[115] Thus, the first circumstance cannot be appreciated against appellant.
As to the above-stated sixth circumstance, it is undisputed that appellant was a member of the AFP, he being a member of the PAF during the rape incidents. With the enactment of the Republic Act 8353 (Anti-Rape Law), however, which took effect on October 22, 1997, said qualifying circumstance was amended as follows:
R.A. 8353 thus further requires that the offender should take advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the offense. The presence of such element is, however, absent in the case at bar. Since said law is favorable to the offender and, therefore, should be given retroactive application, appellant cannot be convicted of rape in its qualified form.
- When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied).
As to the civil aspect of the case, the award by the trial court of civil indemnity of P50,000.00[116] and moral damages of P50,000.00[117] is maintained, appellant being liable for only simple rape.
Since it was established, albeit not alleged in the information, that during the May 15, 1993 rape, appellant used a kitchen knife, such use of a deadly weapon, an aggravating circumstance,[118] entitles Jocelyn to the award of exemplary damages.[119]
WHEREFORE, the Joint Decision dated October 27, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, finding appellant Efren G. de Taza guilty of four counts of rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellant is hereby found guilty of simple rape on four counts and sentenced in each to 1) suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and 2) to pay complainant Jocelyn S. Fructuoso the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Appellant is further sentenced to pay Jocelyn S. Fructuoso in Criminal Case No. 249-97 P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Puno, and Azcuna, JJ., on official leave.
[1] Penned by Judge Christopher O. Lock (now Deputy Court Administrator).
[2] Exhibit "A."
[3] Exhibit "B."
[4] Exhibit "C."
[5] Exhibit "D."
[6] Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), January 26, 1998 at 8; TSN, April 17, 1998 at 4-5.
[7] TSN, January 26, 1998 at 11; TSN, June 2, 1998 at 6-7; TSN, July 15, 1998 at 5.
[8] TSN, January 26, 1998 at 11; TSN, July 15, 1998 at 4.
[9] TSN, January 26, 1998 at 14.
[10] Id. at 16.
[11] Id. at 19.
[12] Id. at 30.
[13] Id. at 20.
[14] Id. at 21.
[15] Id. at 23.
[16] Id. at 24.
[17] Id. at 27.
[18] Id. at 17.
[19] Id. at 31.
[20] Id. at 32.
[21] Id. at 35.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Id. at 36.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Id. at 37-39.
[26] Id. at 40.
[27] Id. at 40-42.
[28] Id. at 42.
[29] TSN, March 18, 1998 at 6-8.
[30] Id. at 8-9.
[31] Id. at 14.
[32] Id. at 17-18.
[33] Id. at 18-19.
[34] Id. at 19-20.
[35] Exhibit "G."
[36] TSN, March 18, 1998 at 22-23.
[37] Id. at 23.
[38] Id. at 24.
[39] Id. at 26.
[40] Id. at 27.
[41] Id. at 29.
[42] Id. at 31.
[43] Id. at 32-34.
[44] Id. at 34-35.
[45] Id. at 35.
[46] Id. at 37.
[47] Id. at 38.
[48] Id. at 38-39.
[49] Id. at 40.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Id. at 41.
[52] Id. at 42.
[53] Id. at 42-43.
[54] Id. at 43.
[55] Id. at 43-44.
[56] Id. at 44.
[57] Id. at 44-45.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Id. at 45.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Id. at 46-47.
[62] Id. at 47.
[63] Id. at 49-50.
[64] Id. at 50.
[65] Id. at 51.
[66] Id. at 51-52.
[67] Id. at 52.
[68] TSN, April 3, 1998 at 6.
[69] Id. at 6-7.
[70] Id. at 8.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Id. at 8-9.
[73] Id. at 9-11.
[74] Id. at 11.
[75] Id. at 12.
[76] Id. at 14.
[77] Id. at 15.
[78] Id. at 15-16.
[79] Id. at 16-17.
[80] Exhibit "F."
[81] TSN, May 18, 1998 at 13.
[82] TSN, July 15, 1998 at 5.
[83] Id. at 7-8.
[84] TSN, July 20, 1998 at 11.
[85] Id. at 13.
[86] Exhibit "1."
[87] TSN, July 20, 1998 at 3.
[88] TSN, Jan. 26, 1988 at 25.
[89] TSN, April 3, 1998 at 13-14.
[90] Rollo at 49.
[91] Rollo at 45-a - 47.
[92] Id. at 229.
[93] Id. at 230.
[94] Ibid.
[95] TSN, April 30, 1998 at 25.
[96] Rollo at 230.
[97] TSN, January 26, 1998 at 16, 34-45.
[98] TSN, March 18, 1998 at 6-12.
[99] Id. at 24-36.
[100] Id. at 42-50.
[101] TSN, April 3, 1998 at 5-11.
[102] People v. Villadares, 354 SCRA 86 (2001).
[103] 353 SCRA 194 (2001).
[104] People v. Libo-on, 358 SCRA 152 (2001).
[105] Ibid.
[106] Ibid.
[107] People v. Barrias, 360 SCRA 150 (2001).
[108] Rollo at 232.
[109] Id. at 232-233.
[110] Id. at 232.
[111] People v. Burgos, 370 SCRA 325 (2001).
[112] Rollo at 233.
[113] People v. Mirafuentes, 349 SCRA 204 (2001).
[114] Exhibits "E" and "E-1."
[115] People v. Alcoreza, 366 SCRA 655 (2001).
[116] People v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 139695, August 26, 2002.
[117] People v. Sitao, G.R. No. 146790, August 22, 2002.
[118] The first rape was committed at the time when the imposition of the death penalty was prohibited and all death penalties imposed were reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article III Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution.
[119] People v. Catubig, 363 SCRA 621 (2001).