PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VERSUS JESUS MAYOLA Y PICAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
SALAZAR-FERNANDO, J.:
dated September 11, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial
Region, Branch 55, Alaminos City, Pangasinan in Criminal Case No. 4758-A
entitled “People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Jesus Mayola y
Picar, Accused.”, the decretal portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, this Court
finds accused JESUS MAYOLA y PICAR, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape as charged in the Information, and hereby sentences
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the
offended party the amount of P75,000.00; to pay moral damages to the
victim in the amount of P75,000.00 and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.SO ORDERED.”
The facts are:
An Information[2]
was filed charging accused-appellant Jesus Mayola y Picar (“Mayola” for
brevity) of Rape, the accusatory portion of which reads:
“That on or about December 30, 2004 in the evening in XXX,[*]
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused by means of force, threat and intimidation did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did (sic) lie and
succeeded (sic) in having carnal knowledge of AAA,[**] his fifteen (15) years old daughter, despite her resistance and pleas for mercy, to her damage and prejudice.”Contrary to Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as Amended.”
Upon arraignment[3],
accused-appellant Mayola, with the assistance of his counsel, Atty.
Idelwyn V. Madrid, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
During the pre-trial conference[4],
the parties stipulated on the identity of accused-appellant Mayola and
the fact that the victim is the daughter of accused-appellant Mayola.
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution presented private complainant AAA, Dr. Ma.
Teresa G. Sanchez (“Dr. Sanchez” for brevity), the sisters of AAA, BBB
and DDD, as witnesses. Private complainant AAA, assisted by her sister
BBB, testified[5] that: her
Certificate of Live Birth shows that she was sixteen (16) years of age
at the time her direct examination was being conducted and nineteen (19)
years of age during her cross examination; she was then a fourth year
high school student; she worked as a baby sitter to support herself;
accused-appellant Mayola is her father; CCC, DDD and EEE are her
siblings; she, accused-appellant Mayola, CCC, DDD and EEE lived in an
eighteen (18)-square meter single room house in XXX; her mother was
working as a house helper in Manila; accused-appellant Mayola had sexual
intercourse with her every other day since 2001 when she was just
thirteen (13) years old and a high school freshman; her mother already
knew what accused-appellant Mayola did to her, but the former could not
help her and she was afraid to report the incident to the authorities;
her mother would simply ignore and just move her body every time
accused-appellant Mayola made sexual advances to her; in the evening of
December 30, 2004, she and her brother CCC slept on a bamboo bed beside
accused-appellant Mayola while her sisters DDD and EEE slept on the
floor; accused-appellant Mayola went on top of her (sinakyan niya po
ako) and inserted his penis into her vagina (iniyot nak) when CCC, DDD
and EEE were already asleep; accused-appellant Mayola only stopped
molesting her when CCC woke up; accused-appellant Mayola went at the
back of their house, gathered the chairs, arranged them to form a
makeshift bed, and called for her; mindful of accused-appellant Mayola’s
cruelty towards them, she cried as she heeded accused-appellant
Mayola’s call and went at the back of the house where accused-appellant
Mayola was; fed up with accused-appellant Mayola’s repeated violation of
her chastity, she pleaded to him not to do it again; her sister BBB,
FFF and her uncle GGG accompanied her in reporting the incident to the
Alaminos City Police Station where she was first investigated by the
Chief of Police and later on by a policewoman; on January 3, 2005, she
went to the Western Pangasinan District Hospital for medical
examination; she loved accused-appellant Mayola but she began to hate
him, wish to see him dead or vanish in jail (mapukaw), and would not
want to forgive him for molesting her for quite a long time; and, the
recollection of what had happened to her makes her cry.
Dr. Sanchez testified[6]
that: she has been connected with Western Pangasinan District Hospital
since 1993; she was trained in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Regional
Medical Center in Dagupan City; on January 3, 2005, private complainant
AAA was accompanied by her maternal uncle GGG when the former came to
her for physical examination; private complainant AAA narrated to her
that her father had been violating her since 2001, and the last time was
on December 30, 2004; she found nonparous introitus (vaginal opening of
a woman who have not given birth), old hymenal laceration at five (5)
o’clock and seven (7) o’clock position; the vagina admitted two (2)
fingers with slight difficulty, and there was no bleeding when she
subjected private complainant AAA to internal examination; the
laceration could have taken place more than a month before private
complainant AAA was examined and it could be due to the penetration of
an erected penis; the admission of two (2) fingers with slight
difficulty into the vagina could be due to repeated sexual intercourse
and the diminution of the folder lining of the vagina mucosa causes
slight resistance; private complainant AAA’s first menstruation was when
she was thirteen (13) years of age; her last menstrual period was on
December 25 to 29, 2004 and her pre-menstrual period was on November 27,
2004; and, the gram stain of vaginal discharge tested negative for the
presence of spermatozoa.
BBB testified[7]
that: she is already married to FFF and she was no longer living with
her parents and siblings in 2004; in January 2005, she learned about her
sisters AAA and DDD’s harrowing experience in accused-appellant
Mayola’s hands when she and FFF went to XXX for a vacation; it took her,
private complainant AAA and DDD three (3) days before they reported the
matter to the police authorities because she sought their uncle GGG’s
help in accompanying them to the police station to report the incident
for fear that accused-appellant Mayola would make good his threat to
kill them should they report the rape incident to anyone; GGG and two
(2) police officers accompanied them to the hospital for the medical
examinations of private complainant AAA and DDD; and, she and her
siblings already held grudges toward accused-appellant Mayola even
before the occurrence of the rape incident because he threatened them
with a bolo and inflicted physical violence upon them.
DDD testified that: she saw accused-appellant Mayola rape her
sister, AAA, four (4) times in 20047; and, accused-appellant Mayola
inserted his finger and played with her vagina for fifteen (15) minutes
in April 2004 and on December 31, 2004 while she was asleep at home.
In his defense, accused-appellant Mayola testified[8]
that: he drove a tricycle for a living; on December 30, 2004, he was
left alone at his twelve (12)-square meter bamboo house in XXX when his
son-in-law FFF took his children CCC, DDD and EEE to Boton to baby sit
therein while private complainant AAA went to Sandoy to visit and spend
the holidays with her mother who worked there as a house helper; AAA,
CCC, DDD, and EEE only returned home after the police arrested him; he
was arrested because his tricycle allegedly hit a child while it was
being driven by FFF; he was already detained when he learned from the
police that his children lodged criminal complaints against him; he did
not sexually molest AAA and DDD; his children’s hard feelings towards
him for severely punishing them when they were at fault motivated them,
particularly AAA, to charge him criminally; and, his wife visited him in
jail to secure his signature on the deed of sale of his tricycle, but
he refused.
On September 11, 2009, the lower court rendered
the assailed decision convicting accused-appellant Mayola of the crime
charged.
Hence, this appeal with this lone assignment of error:
“THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”
Accused-appellant Mayola contends that the behavior exhibited by
private complainant AAA is not in accordance with the behavior of a
victim of sexual abuse. She would not have slept beside him had it been
true that he violated her womanhood since she was thirteen (13) years of
age. She could have either slept with her siblings or refused to stay
with him at all. She did not immediately report any of the incidents of
rape to her sister.
Accused-appellant Mayola further contends
that private complainant AAA and her siblings BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE
were motivated by the ill-feelings that they harbored towards him in
charging him with rape which casts doubt on the veracity of the
allegations against him.
On the other hand, the prosecution
contends that the lower court correctly gave credence to the testimonies
of prosecution witnesses. As a trier of fact, the lower court has the
best opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies because it has the unique opportunity to observe the witness
firsthand, and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under
examination.
Private complainant AAA positively identified
accused-appellant Mayola as her abuser. She did not waver on the
material points of her testimony and maintained the same even on
cross-examination.
Moreover, private complainant AAA’s
testimony is corroborated by the result of her medical examination which
showed the presence of “old hymenal laceration at five (5) o’clock and
seven (7) o’clock position” in her private part. This finding is
consistent with her declaration that accused-appellant Mayola had been
raping her since she was thirteen (13) years old.
It is also
worthy to note that when private complainant AAA relived her ordeal at
the witness stand, she broke down in tears several times. This only
bolsters her credibility. Her emotional anguish is consistent with the
ruling of the Supreme Court that the crying of a victim during her
testimony is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display
of such emotion indicates the trauma she suffered while under the evil
control of her tormentor.
In the face of the serious accusation
leveled against him, accused-appellant Mayola interposed the
ineffectively supported defense of denial. He claimed that he was alone
in his house at the time the rape incident was allegedly committed in
the evening of December 30, 2004 while private complainant AAA was in
Sandoy.
Denial, just like alibi, cannot prevail over the
complainant’s positive and categorical testimony and identification of
an accused. Mere denial, without any strong and convincing evidence to
support it, can scarcely overcome the victim’s positive declaration on
the involvement of the appellant in the crime attributed to him.
For alibi to prosper, it is insufficient that the accused was somewhere
else when the crime was committed. It is imperative upon him to
demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at
the scene of the crime at that time. This, accused-appellant Mayola
failed to do.
The threats which accused-appellant Mayola made on
private complainant AAA; the control which accused-appellant Mayola has
over the whole family especially his wife; the physical separation of
private complainant AAA’s sister, BBB, from her immediately family
members on account of her (BBB) marriage – all of these plausibly
explain her submissive behavior towards her father which also resulted
in the delay in reporting this heinous crime to the proper authorities.
There has never been any uniformity or consistency of behavior to be
expected from those who had the misfortune of being sexually molested.
The Supreme Court has pointed out that some of them have found the
courage early on to publicly denounce the abuses they experienced, but
still there were others who have opted to initially keep their harrowing
ordeals to themselves and to just move on with their lives as if
nothing had happened, until the limits of their tolerance were reached.
Also, the immature and inexperienced could not be expected to measure
up to the same standard of conduct and reaction that would be expected
from adults whose maturity in age and experience could have brought them
to stand up more quickly to their interest. Lastly, long silence and
delay in reporting the crime of rape to the proper authorities have not
always been considered as an indication of a false accusation.[9]
Private complainant’s failure to immediately report the rape does not
in any way diminish her credibility. Her failure to immediately
disclose such misfortune to the proper authorities does not render her
charge against the accused-appellant baseless and fabricated. It is
common for young girls to conceal for some time the assault on their
virtues primarily because of the rapist’s threat on their lives, more so
when the offender is someone whom they know and who were living with
them. The delay in this case was sufficiently explained and, hence, did
not destroy private complainant’s credibility.[10]
As regards private complainant AAA’s alleged harboring of ill-feeling
towards accused-appellant Mayola, suffice it to state that, that family
resentment, revenge or feud have never swayed the Supreme Court from
giving full credence to the testimony of a complainant for rape,
especially a minor who remained steadfast in her testimony that she was
sexually abused, throughout the direct and cross-examinations.
The Supreme Court does not believe that just to vex her
father, a girl would willingly go through the traumatic experience of
narrating the sordid details of a rape, to be grilled and discredited
during cross-examination in court. It is truly inconceivable for a girl
of such tender years to be able to concoct a story, provide details of a
rape and ascribe such wickedness to her very own father just because
she resents being disciplined by him, since by thus charging him, she
would also expose herself to extreme humiliation, even stigma.[11]
As the rape was qualified by the circumstances of private
complainant AAA’s minority and accused-appellant Mayola’s paternity, the
proper penalty to be imposed upon accused-appellant Mayola is reclusion
perpetua, without eligibility for parole.[12]
While this Court sustains the award of civil indemnity and moral
damages, each in the amount of P75,000.00, the award of exemplary
damages should be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00, and the
indemnity and damages awarded should be further subjected to interest at
the rate of six percent per annum from the date of finality of this
judgment until fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[13]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision dated September 11, 2009 of the RTC,
Branch 55, Alaminos City, Pangasinan in Criminal Case No. 4758-A is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant JESUS MAYOLA y PICAR is found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape, and sentenced
to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is ordered to
pay the victim AAA Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil
indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages,
and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this
judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Bruselas, Jr., and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, pp. 136-141
[2] Records, p. 1
[*] The identity of the victim is withheld pursuant to People vs. Cabalquinto,
G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 425-426, citing Sec.
40, Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children; Sec. 63 Rule XI,
Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise
known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2002.
[**] Id.
[3] Records, pp. 35-38
[4] Records, pp. 48-49
[5] TSN dated June 2, 2005 and November 20, 2007
[6] TSN dated July 14, 2005
[7] TSN dated August 3, 2005
[8] TSN dated June 26, 2007, p. 5
[9] TSN dated April 21, 2009
[10] People vs. Laurian, G.R. No. 199868, December 11, 2013 citing People vs. Buado, Jr.
[11] People vs. Glodo, G.R. No. 136085, July 7, 2004 citing People vs. Gutierrez
[12] Ibid.
[13] People vs. Zafra, G.R. No. 197363, June 26, 2013
[14] Ibid.