G.R. No.

176631 February 2, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

His own daughter commenced the prosecution of Avelino Felan for qualified rape through her
complaint dated May 30, 1996.1 The information subsequently filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
in Ormoc City alleged:

That on or about the 12th day of February 1995, at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, at Brgy.
Tambulilid, Ormoc City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused AVELINO FELAN, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his very own daughter, AAA,2 a fourteen (14)
years old lass, against her will.3

The Prosecution showed that at about 10:00 p.m. on February 12, 1995, the accused roused his
daughter AAA, the complainant, then 14 years old, from sleep inside their house; that he told her not
to be afraid; that he removed her panty, spread her legs, and went on top of her; that she resisted
but he overpowered her; that he inserted his penis into her vagina and made pumping movements
until he satisfied himself; that she cried due to vaginal pain; that she left the house and stayed with
her friends, who advised her to report the rape to Mrs. Charito Aris, a social worker of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in Ormoc City; that Mrs. Aris later brought
her first to the police station for reporting of the rape, and then to Dr. Gloria Esmero Pastor, City
Health Officer of Ormoc City, for medical examination; that Dr. Pastor found that AAA’s hymen was
torn; and that Dr. Pastor concluded that the hymenal laceration could be caused by sexual
intercourse.

The accused denied the accusation, branding it as the fabrication of AAA out of anger at him for not
giving her basic needs and for admonishing her to stop using illegal drugs.

After trial, on November 26, 1997, the RTC convicted the accused of qualified rape and imposed the
death penalty. He was also ordered to pay AAA ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity.4

On July 14, 2006, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the criminal and civil liabilities of the accused
after finding him guilty of simple rape on account of AAA’s minority not being established beyond
reasonable doubt. The CA lowered the penalty to reclusion perpetua and sentenced him to pay an
amount of ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages in addition to the
civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00.5

In his appeal to this Court, the accused contends that the RTC and the CA erred in relying mainly on
AAA’s testimony, despite her not being a credible witness and although her testimony was doubtful
by reason of her having used illegal drugs and having engaged in prostitution, aside from
possessing a poor memory. He insists that he could control his sexual urge.6

The appeal lacks merit and persuasion. We affirm the conviction.

Article 335. When and how rape is committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:

1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

The State competently and sufficiently established these elements beyond reasonable doubt. AAA
rendered a complete and credible narration of her ordeal at the hands of the accused, whom she
positively identified. In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of
the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things, as in this case.8 Here, the victim’s testimony was even corroborated on
material points by the testimonies of Mrs. Aris and Dr. Pastor as well as by the documentary
evidences adduced.

It is notable that the RTC and the CA both found and considered AAA as a credible witness whose
testimony should be believed. We accord great weight to the trial judge’s assessment of the
credibility of AAA and of her testimony because the trial judge, having personally observed AAA’s
conduct and demeanor as a witness, was thereby enabled to discern if she was telling or inventing
the truth.9 The trial judge’s evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court, and it
becomes the burden of the accused to project to us facts or circumstances of weight that were
overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted which, when duly considered, would materially affect
the disposition of the case differently.10 We do not vary from this rule now, however, considering that
the accused did not make any showing that the RTC, in the first instance, and the CA, on review,
ignored, misapprehended, or misinterpreted facts or circumstances supportive of or crucial to his
defense.

The denial of the accused, being worthless, was properly disregarded. It was both self-serving and
uncorroborated. It could not, therefore, overcome the positive declarations against the accused and
1avv phi1

the positive identification of the accused by AAA,11 whose good motive to impute such a heinous act
to her own father was not disproved or refuted. We do consider to be highly inconceivable for a
daughter like AAA to impute against her own father a crime as serious and despicable as incest
rape, unless the imputation was the plain truth. In fact, as we observed before, it takes "a certain
amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own
father to jail for the rest of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself to a
lifetime of shame."12

The attempt to discredit AAA on the ground of her being a user of illegal drugs and of her having
engaged in prostitution deserved no consideration. First of all, AAA’s use of illegal drugs and
engaging in prostitution, even if true, did not destroy her credibility as a witness or negate the rape.
Indeed, the Court has ruled that the victim’s moral character was immaterial in the prosecution and
conviction of an accused for rape, there being absolutely no nexus between it and the odious deed
committed.13 Moreover, even a prostitute or a woman of loose morals could fall victim of rape, for
she could still refuse a man’s lustful advances.14

The CA correctly pronounced the accused liable for simple rape and properly punished him
with reclusion perpetua. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of
Republic Act No. 7659, supra, rape is qualified and punished by death if it is alleged and proved that
the victim was a minor during the commission of the crime and that the offender was her
parent.15 Although the information alleged that the victim was only 14 years of age at the time of the
rape, the State did not duly establish such circumstance because no birth certificate, or baptismal
certificate, or other competent document showing her age was presented. Her testimony regarding
her age without any independent proof is not sufficient.16 As a result, the penalty for simple rape was
properly reclusion perpetua.

Prevailing jurisprudence leads us to affirm the CA’s ruling that AAA was entitled to ₱50,000.00 as
civil indemnity,17 and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages,18 without need of any pleading and proof.
Similarly correct was the CA’s grant of ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages. 19 In People v. Mira,20 we
observed that "when either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted
or lacking, that which is pleaded in the information and proved by the evidence may be considered
as an aggravating circumstance." In this case, the relationship between the victim and the accused
is an aggravating circumstance because it was alleged in the information and duly proved during the
trial. Thus, conformably with Article 2230 of the Civil Code, which provides that "in criminal offenses,
exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstance," we ratify the award of exemplary damages.

WHEREFORE, the Court affirms the decision promulgated on July 14, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR. H.C.
No. 00158.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

ARTURO D. BRION MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

Footnotes

1 Records, p. 2-3.

2Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004), and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and the real names of her
immediate family members are withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent
her to protect her privacy. See also People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19,
2006, 502 SCRA 419.

3 Supra note 1.

4 Records, pp. 191-200.

5Rollo, pp. 7-14; penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon (retired), with Associate
Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring.

6 CA rollo, pp. 33-40.

7An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that
Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, and for other Purposes. (The law took effect on December
31, 1993).

8 People v. Montesa, G.R. No. 181899, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 317, 331.

9 People v. Lantano, G.R. No. 176734, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 640, 651-652.

10People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 184958, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 280, 288; Gerasta
v. People, G.R. No. 176981, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 503, 512.

11 People v. Agsaoay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 132125-26, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 450.

12 People v. Javier, G.R. No. 126096, July 26, 1999, 311 SCRA 122, 133.

13 Supra note 11, p. 466.

14 Ibid.

15 Article 335. xxx

The death penalty shall 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, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim.

xxx

16 People v. Mira, G.R. No. 175324, October 10, 2007, 535 SCRA 543, 561.

17
People v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 188106, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 807, 816.

18 People v. Gragasin, G.R. No. 186496, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 214, 233.

19 People v. Arcosiba, G.R. No. 181081, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 517, 525.

20 Supra, note 16, p. 562.