THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FAUSTINO GABON Y CUMPA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Gabon

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Faustino Gabon y Cumpa, a criminal case for rape decided by the Supreme Court on automatic review of a death sentence. The complainant is Michelle Gabon, the accused's own daughter, who was fifteen years old when she says her father raped her in the room they shared with her siblings. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a credibility case: the word of a young complainant against the flat denial of the accused, and the Court explains how an appellate court must treat the trial court's findings on credibility. Second, it is a case about the death penalty and about medical evidence, because the accused built his whole defense on the medico-legal report, and the Court had to decide whether the absence of fresh lacerations defeats a charge of rape.

Procedural History

Michelle Gabon filed a sworn complaint accusing her father of rape. The accused was arraigned before the trial court and entered a plea of not guilty. After trial, the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, aggravated by the fact that the accused is the father of the complainant, sentenced him to death under Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659, and ordered him to pay fifty thousand pesos as moral damages and fifty thousand pesos as exemplary damages, plus the accessory penalties and the costs. Because the penalty imposed was death, the trial court ordered the entire records forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review. In his appeal, the accused assigned a single error: that the trial court erred in believing the story of Michelle and her sister instead of his own, because the medico-legal report supposedly disproves Michelle's claim that her father raped her on October 17, 1994.

Facts

Michelle Gabon was sleeping in a room she shared with her father and her siblings. At about one thirty in the morning of October 17, 1994, she woke to find her father on top of her, naked except for his briefs. She pushed him away, but he kept on. He removed her shorts and her panty, forced open her thighs and legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She kept her arms on her chest so she could push him, and she said "ayoko, ayoko," but he answered, "sandali lang ito." She bled in pain. She was then only fifteen years old, born on December 27, 1978.

Michelle went to the police with Peewee, her half-sister, to lodge a complaint. She revealed that the incident of October 17 was not the first. The sexual abuses had occurred regularly, almost twice a week, from March 1994 to October 17, 1994. She told no one except her other half-sister, Jocelyn Mercado, because she was afraid. On October 18, 1994, Michelle went to Jocelyn's house in Las Piñas and confided that since March 1994 she had been subjected to abuse by the accused about twice a week, and that she had kept silent out of fear. Dr. Ma. Cristina Freyra examined Michelle on October 19, 1994. She found the labia minora slightly congested and abraded, an abraded posterior fourchette, and an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with deep healed lacerations at three and nine o'clock. Her conclusion was that the subject is in a non-virgin state physically, and that there are no external signs of recent application of any form of trauma.

The defense was denial. Faustino Gabon denied the rape and even denied his paternity of Michelle, recounting that he had met her mother, Gloria Banez, at a sauna bath in 1978, that Gloria told him she was pregnant but did not know who the father was, and that he took pity on her and lived with her. He pointed to a boyfriend of Michelle, a certain Marlon, as the likely culprit, and claimed the charge was a product of Jocelyn's desire for revenge and of Michelle's resentment over being scolded for poor grades. He stressed that Michelle's claim of bleeding was inconsistent with the medical findings of healed, not fresh, lacerations. His brother Jose Gabon corroborated him only on the relationship between Faustino and Michelle.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in believing the testimony of the complainant over the denial of the accused.
• Whether or not the absence of fresh lacerations and the finding that the complainant was in a non-virgin state negate the commission of rape.
• Whether or not the penalty of death was properly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659 is the provision under which the trial court imposed the death penalty, and the Court reviews whether that extreme penalty was properly decreed:

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659, provides that 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 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

This provision bears on the case because the complainant was fifteen years old and the offender was her legitimate father, which is precisely the circumstance that qualifies the rape and authorizes the death penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the trial court did not err. In almost all rape cases, it is the word of the complainant pitted against that of the accused, and the issue is one of credibility. An appellate court is justified in placing great reliance on the evaluation made by the trial court, before whom the declarants are seen, heard, and observed during oral testimony. The Court reviewed Michelle's testimony and found that, in an unflinching manner, she gave a detailed account of what had befallen her, from waking to find her father on top of her, to pushing him, to his removing her shorts and panty, to the pain and the bleeding. Her positive and unwavering identification of her defiler cannot prevail over the latter's flimsy, self-serving, and uncorroborated denial. The Court also rejected the motive suggested by the defense, holding that it would be inconceivable for a young lass to complain of rape, undergo examination of her private parts, and endure the trauma and scandal of a public trial for no compelling reason.

On the second issue, the Court held that the commission of rape cannot be negated simply because of the absence of fresh lacerations or because the complainant was found to be in a non-virgin state at the time of examination. A doctor's certificate is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable requirement in proving rape. Lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of a forcible defloration. The Court noted that the medico-legal testimony actually supported the prosecution: the healed lacerations meant the injury was inflicted more than seven days before the examination, and the fresh abrasions could have been inflicted a day before, while the blood Michelle noticed could have been the last flow of menstrual blood or blood from the abrasion. Michelle's own narration that the October 17 incident was not the first abuse aptly explained the healed lacerations.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the death penalty. The complainant was under eighteen years of age and the offender was her parent, which is the attendant circumstance that qualifies the rape under the provision quoted above. The Court emphasized that a death sentence is not imposed with indifference, but only after all the legally pertinent facts and circumstances are firmly established and fully assessed, and here they were.

Doctrine

First, on credibility: where the issue is the veracity of conflicting testimony, the appellate court will place great reliance on the trial court's evaluation, because the trial judge saw, heard, and observed the witnesses. A positive and categorical identification by the complainant prevails over the accused's bare, self-serving, and uncorroborated denial.

Second, on medical evidence: a medical certificate is merely corroborative and is not indispensable in proving rape. The absence of fresh lacerations, or a finding that the victim is in a non-virgin state, does not negate rape, because lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration, and healed lacerations are consistent with a history of repeated abuse.

Third, on the penalty: the death penalty is imposed when the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent, as provided in the qualifying circumstance quoted above, but it is decreed only after all the legally pertinent facts and circumstances are firmly established and fully assessed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Faustino Gabon y Cumpa for rape and the death penalty imposed on him, together with the award of moral and exemplary damages, and the case was remanded for the appropriate action on the judgment.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that a medical certificate is merely corroborative, and the absence of fresh lacerations does not negate rape, because lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. Examiners use this case on credibility of the complainant against the accused's denial, on the weight of medico-legal evidence in rape, and on the qualifying circumstance of minority and parental relationship that carries the death penalty.