PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILFREDO BUTAD Y LAMOSTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
HERNANDO, J:
The Antecedents:
An Information for Rape was filed against the accused-appellant allegedly committed as follows:[2]
That on or about the 31st day of May 2008 at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning, at District 29, Brgy. Nadongholan, Ormoc City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, WILFREDO BUTAD y LAMOSTE, step-father of the victim AAA[3], a minor being only 8 years old, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of said victim, without her consent, against her will and to the prejudice of her well-being as a child.
In violation of Article 266-A, in relation to 266-B, par. 6(1), RPC as amended by RA 8353
When the accused-appellant was arraigned, he registered a negative plea of guilt.
The facts of the case according to the prosecution are summarized as follows:
On May 31, 2008, at around six o’clock in the evening, AAA’s mother noticed that her daughter was not feeling well. Thus, she asked AAA what was wrong. AAA replied that she felt pain in her vagina every time she urinates. AAA then revealed to her mother that her stepfather, the accused-appellant, inserted his penis inside her vagina several times but it was only on that day that she felt severe pain. Shocked by what she heard, AAA’s mother confronted accused-appellant who denied the accusation.
On June 2, 2008, AAA’s mother reported the incident to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). She was advised to report the matter to the police station and have AAA undergo a medical examination. At the City Health Office of Ormoc City, AAA was physically and medically examined by Dr. Edmund Kierulf. In his medical report,[4] Dr. Kierulf observed that AAA had abrasions on her left vaginal wall at 3 o’clock to 5 o’clock, abrasions at the right vaginal wall at 7 o’clock to 9 o’clock and a healed laceration at 11 o’clock. Furthermore, Dr. Kierulf noted that AAA’s introitus admits one finger and there was no presence of spermatozoa.
After AAA’s examination, she and her mother proceeded to the police station to report the crime committed by accused-appellant. At the police station, AAA recounted her harrowing experience to the police officer. AAA averred that on May 31, 2008, at around ten o’clock in the morning, AAA and her half-bother were left at home. Thereafter, accused-appellant unexpectedly came home and ordered AAA to go inside the room while her half-brother was told to remain playing at the living room. Accused-appellant then followed AAA to the room. He told her to undress and lay on the bed. He then positioned on top of AAA and inserted his organ into AAA’s womanhood. AAA felt extreme pain inside her vagina. After satisfying his bestial desires, accused-appellant threatened AAA not to tell her mother otherwise he will kill her. Thus, AAA never told anyone of the tragic incident that happened to her in the hands of her stepfather. However, she could no longer endure the severe pain in her vagina so she was compelled to tell her mother.
On the other hand, accused-appellant interposed denial and alibi as his defenses, alleging that on the date and time of the incident, he was busy driving his tricycle. He plied the Ormoc City proper to Brgy. Linao and Naungan route. He also intimated that AAA’s unfounded rape charges against him were instigated by his wife whom he suspected of having an affair with another man.
After trial, the court a quo found AAA’s testimony credible and worthy of belief since it was sufficiently corroborated by her mother and the medical findings of Dr. Kierulf. Hence, AAA’s positive identification of her stepfather as her rapist prevailed over his unsubstantiated denial. Moreover, the trial court found accused-appellant’s alibi weak as he was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis when the rape incident occurred. Furthermore, the trial court found the accused-appellant’s imputation of ill motive on the part of AAA’s mother for initiating the instant case unconvincing and preposterous. Thus, the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged in its assailed Judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:[5]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding WILFREDO BUTAD y Lamoste guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape and is sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA. 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, ALL with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment. No costs.
If the accused is a prisoner, the period of his detention shall be credited if he abides with the rules and regulations covering detained prisoners if not for only four-fifths (4/5) thereof.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, the current appeal before Us.
The Issue:
The sole issue in this appeal is whether or not the accused-appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Concededly, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[6] Here, the testimony of AAA concerning her traumatic experience in the hands of her stepfather certainly deserves full credence. As aptly pointed out by the trial court:[7]
It is to be noted that the victim here is a minor, who was only 8 years old at the time of the rape incident, yet, she was consistent, candid and genuine in her testimony that she was molested by accused many times. It would also be unnatural for a mother to subject her daughter to humiliation and shame had the same be not true. This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if she claims is not true.
It is oft repeated that factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstance of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case.[8] Evidently, no misapprehension or misapplication was committed by the court a quo owing to the positive identification of appellant and the faithful account made by AAA herself.
In People v. Efren Maglente,[9] the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that:
When the offended party is a young and immature girl testifying against a parent, courts are inclined to lend credence to her version of what transpired. Youth and immaturity are given full weight and credit. Incestuous rape is not an ordinary crime that can be easily invented because of its heavy psychological toll. It is unlikely that a young woman of tender years would be willing to concoct a story which would subject her to a lifetime of gossip and scandal among neighbors and friends and even condemn her father to death.
Hence, AAA’s categorical, straightforward and positive identification certainly prevails over the appellant’s unsubstantiated denial.[10] Thus, We are not convinced by appellant’s assertion that AAA’s testimony was fabricated because it had alleged inconsistencies. Indubitably, these inconsistencies are merely trivial and in no way taint AAA’s credibility. In People v. Antonio[11], the Supreme Court held:
The alleged inconsistencies are inconsequential considering that they refer to trivial matters which have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of rape, that is carnal knowledge through force or intimidation. Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair her credibility. If at all, they serve as proof that the witness is not coached or rehearsed.
Therefore, AAA’s truthful account, which was unmotivated by any plausible purpose to falsely charge her own stepfather, is utterly convincing and worthy of belief. The fact that she reported the transgressions of her stepfather only years after it first happened is insignificant since delay in reporting a rape is not per se a sufficient basis to disbelieve an allegation of rape.[12] Here, there is a justifiable explanation for AAA’s prolonged silence. It bears stressing that appellant threatened to harm or kill AAA if she told her mother. The only reason AAA finally divulged her stepfather’s bestiality was because of the intense pain she felt in her vagina. Had AAA not experienced this excruciating pain, her stepfather’s bestiality might have remained unabated and his crimes left unpunished.
Corollarily, appellant contends that the rape charge against him was merely fabricated by AAA’s mother in order to get back at him. This line of argument is obviously implausible. The trial court was correct in brushing aside accused-appellant’s contention, to wit:[13]
x x x The defense of the accused that he was falsely imputed of the crime because of jealousy is a flimsy excuse. He claimed that his wife has another man and they had a quarrel which resulted to hitting his wife at the back of her head, from then on, he and his wife were no longer in good terms. His theory that his wife accused him of the crime so that his wife and the other man will be free and would perhaps live together as husband and wife is also not tenable. If indeed what he said about his wife having an affair with another is true, it appears that it was the accused who is aggrieved and not his wife so, the wife has no motive to accuse him. Accused also did not present evidence to support his assertions that his wife has ill motives but merely denied the accusations. x x x
A fastidious perusal of the records would yield no scintilla of evidence proving that the wife of appellant was indeed unfaithful. Thus, appellant’s barefaced imputation of infidelity definitely deserves scant consideration. Nevertheless, in People v. Rogelio Ombreso,[14] it was held that it would be contrary to human nature for a mother to expose her daughter to the rigors of a trial for rape which may leave her stigmatized for life just so she could exact her pound of flesh against her husband.
Along the same vein, We also find appellant’s alibi wanting. In People v. Florentino Bracamonte, et. al.,[15] the Supreme Court was emphatic:
Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. But, to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused’s presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.
Certainly, a strong possibility exists that appellant was at the locus criminis when the crime was committed since the route he plies daily on his tricycle is but a short distance away from their house at Nadongholan, Ormoc City. Thus, the trial court was correct in finding that it was not physically impossible for him to be actually at the crime scene, viz:[16]
Accused was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Aside from the fact that the accused here is a tricycle driver which makes it easy for him to traverse the distance between his route and the crime scene, the distance from his route Brgy. Linao and Naungan to Brgy. Nadongholan is short thus, ruling out his claim that it would not be possible for him to be at the place where the rape was committed. His claim that he would usually eat his lunch at an eatery in Brgy. Puntam did not in any way disprove the fact that he was not at the crime scene at the time of the alleged rape incident.
All told, the presumption of appellant’s innocence had clearly been overcome by the prosecution. This holds true in view of the fact that all the elements of rape were duly established in this case. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. – Rape Is Committed –
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
All the foregoing were indisputably proven.
First, AAA’s testimony that carnal knowledge took place between her and appellant was buttressed by the medico-legal report[17] of Dr. Edmund Kierulf, which indicated that AAA had abrasions on her left vaginal wall at 3 o’clock to 5 o’clock, abrasions at the right vaginal wall at 7 o’clock to 9 o’clock and a healed laceration at 11 o’clock. Dr. Kierulf testified that this might have been caused by the insertion of a man’s organ in her vagina.[18] Therefore, since the victim’s testimony was corroborated by the physician’s findings of penetration, then there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.[19] Concomitantly, the absence of spermatozoa in AAA’s vagina does not negate the fact of rape. In People v. Reynaldo Freta,[20] the Supreme Court held:
The absence of spermatozoa is not a negation of rape. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes the crime of rape. Besides, the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina could be due to a number of factors, such as the vertical drainage of the semen from the vagina, the acidity of the vagina, or the washing of the vagina immediately after sexual intercourse.
Thus, AAA’s testimony of carnal knowledge between her and appellant stands unscathed.
Second, carnal knowledge was committed by appellant with threat and intimidation. In several cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the element of force or intimidation is not essential in cases of rape committed by a father against his own daughter, as the father’s moral ascendancy or influence substitutes for violence and intimidation.[21] In any event, since it was established and not contested that AAA was only 8 years old at the time that the rape was committed, the circumstances above mentioned in Section 1 no longer finds application.
Assayed from the foregoing disquisitions, it was altogether appropriate for the trial court to convict appellant of rape in view of the overwhelming evidence against his innocence.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated December 18, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, of Ormoc City finding accused-appellant Wilfredo Butad y Lamoste guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape in Criminal Case No. R-ORM 08-00153-HC is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Quijano-Padilla, and Azcarraga-Jacob, JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Hon. Rogelio R. Joboco, Rollo, pp. 38-52.
[2] Original Records, p. 2.
[3] The Court shall withhold the real name of the victim-survivor and shall use fictitious initials instead to represent her. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the victims-survivors or any other information tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed. (People v. Cabalquinto, GR No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 425-426, citing Section 40, Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children; Section 63, Rule XI, Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.”)
[4] Original Records, p. 12.
[5] Rollo, p. 52.
[6] People v. Glivano, G.R. No. 177565, January 28, 2008.
[7] Original Records, p. 156.
[8] People v. Andrew Pacina, G.R. No. 123150, August 16, 2000.
[9] G.R. No. 179712, June 27, 2008.
[10] People v. Suarez, G.R. Nos. 153573-76, 15 April 2005.
[11] G.R. No. 122473, June 8, 2000.
[12] People v. Catalino Mingming, G.R. No. 174195, December 10, 2008.
[13] Rollo, pp. 47-48.
[14] G.R. No. 142861, December 19, 2001.
[15] G.R. No. 95939, June 17, 1996.
[16] Rollo, p. 49.
[17] Original Records, p. 12.
[18] TSN, February 9, 2009, pp. 12-13.
[19] People v. Vedra, G.R. No. 108615, October 9, 2000.
[20] G.R. Nos. 134451-52, March 14, 2001.
[21] People v. Buban, G.R. No. 166895, January 24, 2007.