PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. CELIO GLODO Y BALISNO, APPELLANT.

People versus Glodo

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Celio Glodo, a father charged with raping his own daughter, Maricel. The case comes to us on automatic review of a death sentence. It matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto: first, it teaches how the Court treats the testimony of a young victim of incestuous rape who offered no physical resistance and kept silent for years; and second, it is a clean illustration of the rule that the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must be alleged and proved with independent evidence, failing which the death penalty cannot stand.

Procedural History

An Information for rape was filed against Celio Glodo before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. The trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, sentencing him to death, and ordering him to pay fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, with costs.

Because the penalty imposed was death, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review. On appeal the appellant assigned three errors: that the trial court gravely erred in finding the prosecution evidence more credible and sufficient than the defense; that it gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite the lack of material evidence for the prosecution; and that it gravely erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstance of the victim's minority.

Facts

At around eleven in the evening of November 10, 1997, Maricel Glodo, then fifteen years old, was sleeping on the top bunk of a double deck bed in their house in Baliuag, Bulacan. Her father, the appellant, awakened her and forced her to transfer to the lower deck by squeezing her arms when she refused. Once she was below, he told her to lie down, caressed her body, undressed her, laid on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain and kept crying.

She later told her boyfriend, Raymundo Galvez, and it was Raymundo and his mother who accompanied her to the barangay officials. On November 13, 1997, she executed a handwritten complaint for rape. Summoned before the barangay officials, the appellant first denied the charge but, upon repeated questioning, admitted the act in a sworn statement dated November 14, 1997. Maricel then gave a sworn complaint to the police. The medico-legal officer, Dr. Manuel Aves, testified that she was in a non-virgin state with practically no hymen left, and that she had told him she had been sexually abused by her father since 1993, the first time in June of that year when she was about eleven or twelve.

The appellant's defense was alibi: he claimed he was in Manila on November 10, 1997 having his goods listed, then went to Biñan, Laguna for the interment of the father of his live-in partner, arriving home only on November 11. He also claimed the charge was born of resentment over the beatings he gave Maricel when she eloped. On cross-examination, he admitted that after the case was filed he sent his sister to talk to Maricel and convince her to settle the matter, but Maricel refused.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of the private complainant over that of the appellant.
• Whether or not the failure of the victim to offer physical resistance and to report the earlier rapes destroys her credibility.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were sufficiently proved to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353, 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.

This is the provision under which the appellant's act of carnal knowledge through force and intimidation is punished.

Article 266-B of the same Code provides:

Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

This fixes the penalty for simple rape, which the Court ultimately applied.

The same article provides the qualifying circumstance relied upon below:

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) 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 is the circumstance the trial court used to justify death, and which the Court found was not proved with the required independent evidence.

Section 27 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

This bears on the appellant's attempt to have his sister settle the case, which the Court treated as an implied admission of guilt.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court sustained the trial court. The testimony of a rape victim of tender or immature age deserves full credit, and Maricel's testimony was clear, straightforward, and free of material inconsistencies. Findings of the trial court on credibility carry great weight and will be sustained absent a showing that it overlooked or misapplied facts of weight and substance. The Court found none.

On the second issue, the Court held that the absence of resistance and the long silence did not impair her credibility. Physical resistance need not be proved where intimidation is exercised and the victim submits out of fear for her life and personal safety. Here the appellant had subjected her to sexual abuse for four years, beginning when she was a young child, and his parental authority and moral ascendancy substituted for violence and intimidation. As the Court put it, the force or violence necessary in rape is a relative term that depends not only on the age, size, and strength of the persons involved but also on their relationship to each other. Her failure to report the earlier assaults was likewise explained: as a child she hardly knew how to report, and her relatives were her father's siblings. The Court also rejected the claim of resentment, observing that it is inconceivable for a girl of tender years to concoct such a story and expose herself to humiliation. The alibi was uncorroborated and therefore weak, and the offer of compromise stood as an implied admission of guilt.

On the third issue, the Court ruled for the appellant. Although the Information alleged that Maricel was fifteen years old and the appellant's daughter, the prosecution presented only her oral testimony and sworn statement, without independent evidence of her age and their relationship. The Court held that minority and relationship, which constitute only one special qualifying circumstance, must be alleged in the Information and proved with certainty, with independent evidence other than the testimony of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. For that failure, the trial court erred in imposing death; the appellant should be guilty only of simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua under Article 266-A.

Doctrine

First, the testimony of a rape victim of tender or immature age deserves full credit, and the trial court's assessment of credibility is sustained on appeal absent grave misapprehension of facts.

Second, physical resistance need not be shown where intimidation is exercised; in incestuous rape, the father's parental authority and moral ascendancy substitute for violence and intimidation, and the force required is a relative term measured by the age, size, strength, and relationship of the parties.

Third, delay in reporting rape does not by itself destroy credibility, especially where the victim is young and the offender is her father.

Fourth, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship under Article 266-B must be alleged in the Information and proved with independent evidence beyond the victim's testimony; failing that proof, the accused is liable only for simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, finding the appellant guilty only of simple rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the damages adjusted accordingly.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: minority and relationship must be alleged and proved with independent evidence, or the death penalty cannot be imposed. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of proof of qualifying circumstances in rape and the rule that moral ascendancy substitutes for force and intimidation in incestuous rape.