Ortega’s arguments boil down to the insufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution to support his conviction for two counts of rape, especially considering the doubtful credibility of AAA.
We reiterate the following standard in reviewing an appeal from a conviction for rape:
In reviewing rape cases, this Court had always been guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[17]
Yet, we have also held that an accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the victim’s testimony, provided that such testimony is logical, credible, consistent, and convincing. At the witness stand, AAA related her painful ordeal in 1990, to wit:
Q Now, sometime in 1990 in the house where you are staying, do you remember if there is something that happened to you and your father?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that incident?
A He placed himself on top of me and undressed me.
COURT:
Q Which comes first, his putting himself on top of you or undressing?
A The undressing.
x x x x
PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q What part of the house did this take place?
A Inside the room.
Q Were there other people other than your father and you?
A None, sir?
Q What time of the day was that?
A Morning.
Q Have you already eaten your breakfast?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, how did he do it?
A He undressed me and afterwards he put himself on top of me.
Q Now, after placing himself on top of you, what did he do?
A He made a pumping motion.
Q Now, were you completely naked?
A Yes, sir.
Q And where did you lay if any?
A In the bed.
Q Did he place you in bed or did you go there by yourself?
A He placed me there.
x x x x
PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q After lying naked on bed, what happened next?
A He abused me.
Q How did he abuse you?
x x x x
COURT:
Q What do you mean when you said you were abused by him?
A I asked for help.
x x x x
PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q When did you ask for help?
A Me.
Q Why were you asking for help?
A Because I was raped.
COURT:
Q When you said you were raped, can you tell us how did your father raped you?
A He inserted his into mine.
x x x x
PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q So his penis penetrated your vagina?
A Yes, sir.[18]
AAA also recounted the second rape incident in 1995, as follows:
Q Now, in 1995, do you remember if there was any unusual incident that happened between you and your father?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that incident about?
A I was raped.
Q Who raped you?
A My father.
Q Where?
A Still at the house.
x x x x
PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q How did he raped you?
A He undressed me, he removed my t-shirt and short pant[s].
Q In the same room where you were raped?
A Yes, sir.
Q After removing your clothings, your short pants and underwear, what happened?
A He made me lay down.
COURT:
Q Where?
A In the bed.
COURT:
Q Alright, proceed.
PROS. MADURAMENTE:
Q As you were already lying down, what happened?
A He undressed himself and rode on me.
Q When he was already on top of you, what happened next?
A He inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q Did his penis really penetrated your vagina?
A Yes, sir.
COURT:
Q What did you feel?
A It was painful.[19]
The RTC gave AAA’s testimony great weight and credibility, considering that it was clear and untainted and could only have been given by one who was subjected to such a harrowing experience. There is no compelling reason for us to disturb these RTC findings.
In People v. Velasco,[20] we declared that:
We therefore see no cogent reason to doubt the complainant's credibility. It has long been established that the testimony of a rape victim, especially a child of tender years, is given full weight and credit. A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness. Furthermore, this Court has repeatedly ruled that matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying, an opportunity denied the appellate courts which usually rely only on the cold pages of the mute records of the case.[21]
Ortega’s insistence on the lack of evidence proving that he used force and intimidation during both incidents of rape does little to change our mind. In incestuous rape of a minor, it is not necessary that actual force and intimidation be employed. The moral ascendancy of appellant over the victim, his daughter, renders it unnecessary to show physical force and intimidation. Our following observations in People v. Chua[22]are enlightening:
In Philippine society, the father is considered the head of the family, and the children are taught not to defy the father's authority even when this is abused. They are taught to respect the sanctity of marriage and to value the family above everything else. Hence, when the abuse begins, the victim sees no reason or need to question the righteousness of the father whom she had trusted right from the start. The value of respect and obedience to parents instilled among Filipino children is transferred into the very same value that exposes them to risks of exploitation by their own parents. The sexual relationship could begin so subtly that the child does not realize that it is abnormal. Physical force then becomes unnecessary. The perpetrator takes full advantage of this blood relationship. Most daughters cooperate and this is one reason why they suffer tremendous guilt later on. It is almost impossible for a daughter to reject her father's advances, for children seldom question what grown-ups tell them to do.[23]
In this case, Ortega took advantage of his overpowering moral and physical ascendancy over AAA, which was reinforced even further by the fact that having been separated from AAA’s mother, Ortega alone exercised parental authority over AAA. Indeed, in rape committed by a father, his moral ascendancy and influence over the victim substitute for the requisite force, threat, and intimidation, and strengthen the fear which compels the victim to conceal her dishonor. AAA was sufficiently cowed into silence by the physical superiority and moral influence which her father exercised over her even though he may have been unarmed when the rape incidents took place. Thus, contrary to Ortega’s argument, evidence of force and intimidation is not necessary for his conviction for two counts of rape.
The purported inconsistencies or contradictions in
AAA’s credibility is also not impaired by her unsubstantiated claim of pregnancy and miscarriage as a result of the 1995 rape and her allegation, made for the first time during cross examination, that Ortega had bathed her prior to the 1990 rape. These matters have no significant effect on AAA's testimony that Ortega had carnal knowledge of her against her will. Time and again, we have held that “a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses. Instead of weakening their testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to strengthen the witnesses’ credibility because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed.”[25]
We give scant consideration to Ortega’s assertion that AAA only charged him with rape because she was jealous of her half-siblings. Such a reason is too flimsy and insignificant for a daughter to falsely charge her father with so serious a crime and to publicly disclose that she had been raped and then undergo the concomitant humiliation, anxiety, and exposure to public trial. As we ratiocinated in People v. Ponsica[26]:
It bears emphasis that when the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial if the matter about which they testified is not true. It is instinctive for a young, unmarried woman to protect her honor and it is thus difficult to believe that she would fabricate a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, reveal her shame to the small town where she grew up, and permit herself to be subject of a public trial had she not really been ravished.[27]
We further ruled in People v. Surilla[28]:
[I]t [is] most unnatural for a fourteen (14) year old to concoct a tale of defloration against her very own father just to get back at him for having physically manhandled her. Certainly, an unmarried teenage lass would not ordinarily file a complaint for rape against anyone, much less, her own father, undergo a medical examination of her private parts, submit herself to public trial and tarnish her family’s honor and reputation, unless she was motivated by a potent desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.[29]
AAA’s testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Pasuelo, the examining physician. In his report, Dr. Pasuelo stated that although AAA’s hymen was still intact and no laceration or healed laceration was seen, her genital organ admitted a forefinger. He explained during trial that a woman’s hymen may remain intact even if the woman had already experienced several sexual intrusions because a hymen is elastic. Our following ruling in People v. Dy[30] finds application in the case at bar:
Further, lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not negate rape. As explained by Dr. Maximo Reyes, medico-legal officer of the NBI, there are hymens that may admit without necessarily producing laceration and there are hymens that may admit injuries that will produce such laceration.[31]
At any rate, “in crimes against chastity, the medical examination of the victim is not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of the crime as her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused thereof, as in this case.”[32]
As correctly held by the RTC, Ortega’s defense of alibi and denial cannot prevail over the clear, positive and convincing testimony of AAA. AAA positively identified his father Ortega as the one who raped her. “Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.”[33]
The RTC correctly imposed upon Ortega the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape.
x x x."
No comments:
Post a Comment