PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. ELEUTERIO TORRES ALIAS “BOY”, ACCUSED.

Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, finding Eleuterio Torres
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against his
11-year old daughter Elria Torres, and sentencing him
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify the victim in the amount of P12,000.00 and
to pay the costs.

Appellant assails the credibility of his wife, Gloria
Castro-Torres and his daughter, Elria Torres, whose
testimonies he would charac­terize as “extremely improbable”.

The composite testimonies of Gloria and Elria
established the following facts: At about 3:00
in the morning of June 25, 1975,
Elria was suddenly awakened when she noticed that
someone was on top of her. It was her father who was naked from the waist down.
When her father in­serted his penis into her private part, she felt intense
pain. She asked him, “Father, what are you doing to me?”

At that moment, Gloria, who was sleeping nearby, was likewise
awakened. She saw the appellant on top of Elria whose
panty was down to her knees. Gloria immediately kicked the appellant, then asked “Why did you do this to our child?” To
this query, appellant remained silent. The girl, crying aloud, stood up, and
was embraced by her mother. Whereupon she told her mother that appellant had
placed himself on top of her and raped her. When the
appellant put off the lamp, Gloria and Elria ran to
the house of Anastacio Castro, Gloria’s father, located about 15 meters away, to seek his help. Upon
being informed of the crime committed against his grandchild, Anastacio went to the appellant’s house, but the latter was
no longer there.

That same morning, mother and daughter reported the crime to the
police authorities of Urdaneta and executed their
respective sworn statements.^[1]
In the afternoon, Elria was brought to the Urdaneta General Hospital
where she was physically examined by
Dr. Rodolfo Parayno. The doctor’s findings are set
forth in the medical certificate he issued:^[2]

“P.E. – No external
injury

I.E.    – Contusion vaginal
orifice at 11:00 1’clock

Vaginal
smear – negative for sperm cells.”

The doctor testified that the contusion at the vaginal orifice
could have been caused by a blunt object or instrument such as the “penis
of a man.”^[3]

On the following day, June
26, 1975, Gloria Castro filed a criminal complaint against her hus­band
in the Municipal Court of Urdaneta; and on September 4, 1975, Assistant Fiscal
Juan Sicam, after conducting a preliminary
investigation, filed the corresponding information for rape.

Dominador Torres, father of the
appellant, took the stand to
corroborate his son’s assertion that nothing untoward happened in the night in
question.

Since the only issue raised herein hinges on the credibility of
witnesses, We advert to the settled rule that the
factual findings of the trial court are entitled to great weight and res­pect,
in view of its opportunity to observe the demeanor
of the witnesses on the stand. In the case at bar, the trial court found the
testimonies of the victim and her mother to be reliable, sincere and
straightforward. We have carefully scrutinized the records, and We find no cogent reason to disturb the said findings.
Neither had the trial court overlooked any circumstance of weight and
importance that could have materially affected the conclusion reached.

Indeed, it is extremely difficult to believe that the offended party, who was still
in the awkward age of puberty, would perjure herself by imputing to her own
father the commission of a crime against her honor.

Appellant denied having abused his daughter. He claimed that his
wife had despised him for being “a poor provider,” an “estambay,” and a “drunkard”, and that
because of her desire to separate from him, she had instigated this rape charge
for the purpose of getting rid of him. The trial judge correctly brushed aside
“this claim as a product of the appel­lant’s imagination x x x not buttressed
by actual facts.”^[4]
Thus ?

“The accused claims that this rape charge against him has been
motivated by the fact that Gloria, his wife, wanted to separate from him, that
they were always quarelling, citing two instances,
sometime after the first child was born and the second time in 1972. But upon
questioning by Fiscal Fer­nandez, the accused declared that from 1972 up to the
time this incident happened, he and Gloria were living peacefully; that they
had no more quarrels. At any rate, this alleged motive mentioned by the accused
is only a product of his fertile imagi­nation and is not buttressed by actual
facts. Consequently, the Court cannot
give any credence at all.”

And even assuming that Gloria Castro had wanted to discontinue
her marital life with appel­lant, this alleged motive
was not sufficient to impel her to fabricate a rape charge against her own
husband, knowing fully well that
it would cer­tainly bring ignominy, humiliation and dishonor to her daughter.

We agree with the lower court that Elria
Castro was the victim of a “condemnable, beastly act” perpetrated by
her own father.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Guerrero, Abad Santos, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., on sick leave.

^[1]
Exhibits C and D.

^[2]
Exhibit B.

^[3]
TSN, pp. 3, 4, August 3,
1976.

^[4]
p. 13, lower court’s
decision.