G.R. No. 140635. November 18, 2002
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MARIO TERRIBLE Y OÑA, APPELLANT.
CORONA, J.:
The Court is once again faced with the unpleasant task of
reviewing a judgment of conviction imposing the supreme penalty of death for
the commission of a crime so repulsive and despicable — incestuous rape.
Sometime in the afternoon of November 3, 1998, Gina Terrible was
roused from her sleep by her 6-year-old daughter’s muffled words which sounded
like “Mama si Papa yung titi niya pinasok sa bibig ko”.
Shocked and alarmed, Gina called her brother and asked him to
talk to the victim, Katherine, to ascertain the truthfulness of what the child
confided to her. To her mother’s devastation, Katherine confirmed the tragic
experience she endured in the hands of her very own father.
On December 12, 1998, appellant Mario Terrible y Oña was charged
before the Regional Trial Court with the crime of rape defined under paragraph
2 of Article 266-A and penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, in an information which reads:
“That on or about November 2, 1998, at Aquino Compound, Barangay
San Cristobal, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design
and thru force and intimidation and with intent to satisfy his lust, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously insert his penis into the mouth
of his daughter one KATHERINE TERRIBLE y CORNEJO, 6 years old, against her will
and consent.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.”[1]
Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not
guilty. Thereafter trial ensued.
The prosecution’s version of the events is based principally on
the testimony of the victim Katherine Terrible, Gina Terrible, mother of the
victim and wife of the accused, and Dr. Felimon Raymond P. Guerra III of the
Jose P. Rizal Memorial Hospital.
Katherine testified that, on November 2, 1998, at around 2:30 in
the afternoon, while she and her father, the appellant herein, were inside a
room in their house, appellant kissed her lips and made her lick his nipples.
Appellant then inserted his penis into Katherine’s mouth and a whitish
substance came out of his sex organ. He then inserted his finger into
Katherine’s vagina.[2]
Gina Terrible, mother of the victim and wife of appellant,
recounting her daughter’s revelation of appellant’s dastardly deed, testified
that, at about 2:30 in the afternoon of November 3, 1998, she was awakened by
Katherine who whispered to her “Mama si Papa ‘yung titi niya sinubo sa bibig
ko.” Gina then called her brother
Noel Pinella and asked the latter to confirm her daughter’s accusation against
appellant. When asked by her uncle, Katherine confirmed what she had just told
her mother. Gina immediately asked the assistance of her aunt and uncle in
filing a complaint.[3]
The prosecution witness, Dr. Guerra III, the doctor who conducted
the physical examination of Katherine on November 4, 1998, confirmed the claim
of the victim that she was raped. Dr.
Guerra III testified on the presence of an old genital laceration at 12:00
o’clock position which might have occurred seven or more days prior to the
examination, and redness of the labia minora. Said findings are contained in the medico-legal certificate which
was presented as evidence.[4]
Appellant denied the charge and testified that, on November 2,
1998, the time of the alleged rape, he was in his father’s house in Barrio
Bañadero, Calamba, Laguna which is three kilometers away from their house at
Barangay San Cristobal, Calamba, Laguna; that he stayed there until November 3,
1998 and did not visit his family. Appellant’s alibi was corroborated by his
siblings Glecilda and Glen Terrible. Appellant further alleged that the crime
was only imputed to him as his wife’s way of exacting revenge because of their
deteriorating relationship.
The trial court did not accord credence to the testimony of the
appellant, pointing out that the defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail
against the affirmative testimony of Katherine who was only 6 years old at the
time she was subjected to appellant’s sexual perversity. Furthermore
Katherine’s testimony was both impeccable and straightforward.
On October 20, 1999, the regional trial court rendered a decision
finding appellant guilty as charged:
“ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds accused Mario Terrible y Oña GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under
Article 266-B, Chapter III of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353,
and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH.
“Accused is further directed to indemnify the victim Katherine
Terrible the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as and for moral
damages.
“With costs against the accused.
“SO ORDERED.”[5]
Insisting on his innocence,
appellant now attributes the following errors to the trial court:
I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM,
KATHERINE TERRIBLE.
II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT MARIO TERRIBLE GUILTY OF RAPE DESPITE THE
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE THAT WOULD WARRANT A CONVICTION
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
III. THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI INTERPOSED BY THE APPELLANT,
WHICH IS MORE CREDIBLE.
Appellant questions the veracity of the victim’s testimony and
describes it as incredible. He cites the following circumstances as indicative
of the lack of credibility. First, at the time of the alleged rape, the victim
remained silent. According to appellant, Katherine should have cried aloud or
shouted to catch the attention of her grandmother who was then at their house,
stressing that neither was he armed nor did he threaten the victim. Second,
Katherine’s explanation of her failure to report the alleged rape to her mother
for fear of her parents separating was unbelievable. To appellant, if that was
really the case Katherine should have kept mum about what appellant did to her
but the child eventually told her mother just the same. Appellant insists that
the crime was only imputed to him as a revenge initiated by his wife, the
victim’s mother, whom appellant describes as an extremely jealous woman who
would go to the extent of using her own child to exact revenge.[6]
In the prosecution for rape, the credibility of the complainant’s
testimony is the single most important issue. In the case at bar, appellant
denies the rape and essentially raises the issue of credibility of witnesses.
Well entrenched is the rule that the finding of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent
reasons necessitate its reexamination, the reason being that the trial court is
in a better position to hear firsthand and observe the deportment, conduct and
attitude of the witnesses.[7]
In the present case, the trial court declared the victim’s testimony to be
credible, stating that “despite her age, she testified in a categorical, frank
and firm manner that, on the whole, the court found her story impeccable and
unblemished.” Thus we take a second look at Katherine’s testimony:
“FISCAL
“Q. Do you believe in God?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Do you know how to pray?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Do you believe and do you
know that telling a lie is a sin?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. So, you know that you are
here because you are required to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Attached to the record is
a Certificate of Live Birth of Katherine Terrible already marked as Exhibit ‘F’
showing that she was born on?
“A. November 3, 1992, sir.
“Q. You said that you are
already 6 years old, can you write your name?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. I am now showing to you a
signature in the Complaint marked as Exhibit ‘A’ over the typewritten name Katherine
Terrible, is that your signature?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. The accused here is your
father?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Is he in Court now?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Now, will you kindly
point to him?
“A. There, sir.
“INTERPRETER:
Witness pointed to the accused.
“FISCAL:
“Q. Now, there is here a
statement attached to the record showing that you gave a statement to the
police when you were investigated at around 3:20 in the afternoon of November
4, 1998, again there is a signature over the typewritten name Katherine
Terrible at the bottom of the statement, is that your signature also?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Now, you were asked this
question: ‘Ilang taon ka na?’ ‘Anim na po.’ Is that you answer.
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. You were also asked this
question: ‘Ano ang pangalan ng Papa mo?’ ‘Mario Terrible po.’ Is that your answer?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Now, you were also asked
this question: ‘Ano ang ginawa sa iyo ng Papa mo?’
“A. He inserted his private
part into mine, sir.
“Q. What else did he do to
you?
”A. Something white came out
from his private part and then he inserted
his finger into my private part and then he kissed my private part and he also have me licked his breast.
“Q. And then you were asked
this question: ‘Kailan ito ginawa ng iyong Papa?’
“A. November 2.
“Q. Why do you remember that
date?
“A. It was my brother’s
birthday.
“Q. What is the name of your
brother?
“A. Kuya Richard.
“Q. You were also asked this
question: ‘Ilang beses na bang ginagawa ito ng papa mo?’
“A. ‘Marami na po.’
“Q. Then you were also asked
this question: ‘Saan ba ito ginagawa ng Papa mo?’
“A. In our room.
“Q. In your own house?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. At Aquino Compound, San
Cristobal?
“A. That is correct?
“Q. Now, can you tell the
Court where your mother is at that time when these things were done to you by
your father?
“A. She attended the
birthday party of my brother.
“Q. Where did your Kuya
Richard celebrate his birthday?
“A. In their house.
“Q. How old is your Kuya
Richard?
“A. I do not know.
“Q. Is he married already?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Is he working?
“A. No, sir he is studying.
“Q. And where is your Kuya
Richard living at the time these things were done to you by your father?
“A. In their house at
Makati.
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q. You were also asked this
question: ‘Totoo bang lahat ang sinasabi mo at hindi ka nagsisinungaling?’
“A. No, sir.
“Q. When you said ‘no sir,’
are you saying that you are telling the truth?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Why did you not go with
your mother into your Kuya Richard’s birthday?
“A. Because I was told that
I cannot go with her because according to my mother no one will be left for my
brothers and no one will cook our rice.
“Q. What did you feel when
your father inserted his finger into your private part?
“A. ‘Para po akong
nanginginig.’
“Q. How about when your
father inserted his organ into your mouth?
“A. Nakakadiri po.
“Q. Did you ask your father
why he was doing these things to you at that time?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Why were you not able to
ask him?
“A. Because I was afraid,
sir.
“Q. Do you know who is this
Gina Cornejo Terrible?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Who is she?
“A. My mother, sir.
“Q. Did you tell your mother
of (sic) what your father did to you sometime on November 2, 1998 at around
2:30 in the afternoon?
“A. I told my mother.
“Q. And what did your mother
do?
“A. He called for my Uncle
Junjun and daddy.
“Q. And do you know what your
uncle and Junjun did after your mother told them?
“A. My uncle Junjun took a
bolo and was holding the bolo.
“Q. What did he do with the
bolo?
“A. Nothing, sir.[8]
Even on cross-examination, her statements reveal nothing but
candidness, thus:
“Q. Do you know already how
to cook rice?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. How long?
“A. From the time my mother
taught me how to cook.
“Q. How about your mother, is
she working?
“A. No, sir, she is staying
in the house.
“Q. But she was allowing you
to cook rice?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. On November 2, 1998 when
the alleged rape happened, where is Kevin at that time?
“A. He was in the living room.
“Q. How about Sugar?
“A. Also in the living room,
sir.
“Q. And Kem is also in the
living room?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. You said that this is not
the first time your father did this to you, before this transpired, have you
not told this to anybody specially to your mother?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. You did not tell that
even to your mother?
“A. I told her, sir.
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q. Before, you said that
your father inserted his organ to your mouth. Before that, what did he do to
you?
“A. He first held his private
part.
xxx xxx xxx”[9]
Katherine’s testimony shows that she unhesitatingly pointed to
her father as the person who sexually violated her and she graphically
described the nauseating manner in which the crime was perpetrated against her.
Her testimony was simple and straightforward, consistent and unwavering. When
the victim’s testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physician’s
findings of penetration, then there is sufficient foundation to conclude the
existence of carnal knowledge.[10]
Appellant attempts to make an issue out of the victim’s failure
to shout for help inasmuch as her grandmother was at home at the time of the
rape. As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General, however, the victim of
appellant’s bestiality is her own daughter who was barely 6 years old when the
crime was committed. Confused and
horrified as she was while being subjected to her father’s deviant sexual
behavior, her tender age prevented her from resisting the sexual intrusion of
her father. She just trembled in terror.[11]
The workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable and
there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking
incident. More so, if one is a victim of a misfortune which in the victim’s
young mind, is beyond comprehension.[12]
Appellant also makes much capital of Katherine’s failure to
immediately divulge the rape committed against her to her mother. She has
satisfactorily explained her hesitation, however:
“Q. You were also asked this
question: ’Ilang beses na bang ginagawa ito ng Papa mo?’
“A. ‘Marami na po.’
“Q. Then you were also asked
this question: ‘Saan ba ito ginagawa ng Papa mo?’
“A. In our room.
“Q. In your own house?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. At Aquino Compound, San
Cristobal?
“A. That is correct.
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q. You were also asked this
question? ‘Bakit hindi mo isinusumbong sa Mama mo?’
“A. Because I was afraid
that they might separate from each other and because I am afraid that my mother
might leave the house.”[13]
Corollarily, her sworn statement dated November 4, 1998
pertinently reads:
“6. T: Ilang beses na bang
ginagawa ito sa iyo ng PAPA mo?
S: Maraming beses na po.
“7. T: Saan ba ito ginagawa ng PAPA mo?
S: Sa loob ng kuwarto
namin.
“8. T: Bakit hindi mo isinumbong sa MAMA mo?
S: Huwag daw po akong
magsusumbong at baka daw po sila maghiwalay.”[14]
The foregoing testimony reveals that the reason why she failed to
disclose the repeated sexual molestation against her was because appellant had
threatened that her parents would separate and her mother would leave their
home. To a child, nothing can be more frightening than the thought of losing a
mother, specially when her own father is putting her through hell. The Court
has ruled that delay in making a criminal accusation does not impair the
credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[15]
Fortunately for Katherine, she was able to muster enough courage to tell her
mother the sexual assaults she had been enduring at the hands of appellant.
Apparently the victim could no longer stand her father’s revolting perversity
which she described as nakakadiri.
Appellant also claims that his wife was merely impelled by
revenge in filing of the rape case because of the latter’s extreme jealousy.
Not a few accused in rape cases, in fact, have attributed similar charges
against them to family feuds, resentment or revenge. These supposed motives
have never swayed the Court against lending credence to the testimony of
complainants who remain firm and steadfast in their account of how they are
ravished by sex offenders. Courts are seldom if at all convinced that a mother
would stoop so low as to subject her daughter to physical, mental and emotional
hardship concomitant to a rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt
feelings.[16]
No mother in her right mind would subject her child to the humiliation,
disgrace and trauma attendant to a prosecution for rape, if she were not
motivated solely by the desire to incarcerate the person responsible for her
child’s defilement.[17]
Appellant’s defense of alibi was properly rejected by the trial
court. He insisted that, at the time the rape happened, he was in his father’s
house in Barrio Bañadero, Calamba, Laguna. However, considering that the place
where he supposedly was is merely 3 kilometers away from their house, a
distance which could be easily reached by readily available means of
transportation, this defense cannot prevail over Katherine’s positive
identification of appellant.[18]
Courts have always looked on the defense of alibi with suspicion
and have invariably received it with caution not only because it is inherently
weak and unreliable but also because it is easily fabricated. For alibi to serve as basis for acquittal,
it must be established with clear and convincing evidence. The requisites of time and place must be
strictly met.[19]
Where the accused fails to convincingly demonstrate that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission, as in this case, the defense of alibi must be rejected.[20]
The guilt of appellant having been established beyond reasonable
doubt, we discuss now the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659 and
further amended by RA 8353, was renumbered to Articles 266-A and 266-B of the
Revised Penal Code, the pertinent portions of which provide:
“Art. 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 years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
“2.) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in
paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his
penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object,
into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
“Art. 266-B. Penalties.- Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
“xxx xxx xxx
“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;
“xxx xxx xxx
“Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding Article shall be
punished by prision mayor.
“xxx xxx xxx
“Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed
with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this
article.”
In the case at hand, while it was alleged in the information that
appellant is the father of the victim who is under 18 years of age, the supreme
penalty of death cannot be properly imposed. Had appellant been prosecuted
under the paragraph 1 of Article 266-A, the stated circumstances would call for
the imposition of death penalty. However, appellant was charged with rape under
paragraph 2 of Article 266-A. Under Article 266-B, when rape defined under
paragraph 2 of Article 266-A is committed with any of the ten
aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in the same Article 266-B, only
the penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed.
It would be a denial of appellant’s constitutional right to be
informed of the charges against him and, consequently, a denial of due process
if he is charged with rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A and be convicted
of the qualified form under paragraph 1 which is punishable with death although
the same was not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.[21]
It is most unfortunate and definitely a sad reflection on the
thoroughness of the prosecutor who prepared and filed the information that
while the prosecution was able to prove the commission of the crime committed
under the paragraph 1 of Article 266-A the Information itself did not contain
the allegations necessary for appellant’s conviction under said provision.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court is constrained
to reduce the penalty to reclusion temporal. There being no mitigating
or aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period
in accordance with Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying said
provision, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period or 17
years and 4 months, should be imposed on appellant. Under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, said penalty constitutes the maximum term, while the minimum
shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the
Revised Penal Code for the offense which is 10 years of prision mayor.
Finally, appellant is ordered to pay an additional amount of P50,000
as civil indemnity on top of the P50,000 moral damages awarded by the
trial court.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 34, of Calamba, Laguna in Criminal Case No. 6234-98-C is hereby MODIFIED.
Appellant Mario Terrible y Oña is found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of rape as defined under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 10
years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion
temporal as maximum. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, appellant is
further ordered to pay the victim Katherine Terrible the amounts of P50,000
as moral damages and an additional amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and
Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J., on leave.
[1]
Rollo, p. 7.
[2]
TSN, January 12, 1999, pp. 4-5.
[3]
TSN, February 24, 1999, pp. 3-4.
[4]
Records, p. 3.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[6]
Appellant’ s Brief, pp. 5-8.
[7]
People vs. Sacapaño, 313 SCRA
650 [1999].
[8]
TSN, February 12, 1999, pp. 3-7.
[9]
Ibid., pp. 8-10.
[10]
People vs. Bation, 305 SCRA
253 [1999].
[11]
TSN, February 12,1999, pp.6-7.
[12]
People vs. Ybañez, G.R.
No.136257, February 14, 2001
[13]
TSN, Feb. 12, 1999, pp. 5-6.
[14]
Records, p.4.
[15]
People vs. Tanail, 323 SCRA
667 [2000].
[16]
People vs. Marcelo, 305 SCRA
105 [1999].
[17]
People vs. Silvano, 309 SCRA
362 [1999].
[18]
People vs. Parrazo, 272 SCRA 512 [1997].
[19]
People vs. Cañada, 253 SCRA 277 [1996].
[20]
People vs. Javier, 311 SCRA
122 [1999].
[21]
People vs. Sandoval, 348 SCRA 476, [2000].