PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALBERTO CRUZ, SR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of
General Santos City,
Branch XXIII, finding appellant Alberto Cruz, Sr. guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.

The information filed against the appellant alleged:

“That last July 1983, September 1983 and last October 4, 1983, in Lagao, General Santos City, particularly in their home and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, said accused Alberto Cruz, Sr., by means of
violence, force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of the complainant Rosemi Cruz, for six (6) times, against her will.” (Original Record,
p. 1).

The prosecution evidence upon which the lower court based its
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is narrated by the said court as
follows:

“Complainant Rosemi Cruz, 16 years old, testified that her mother died
on March 15, 1979 and has been residing with her father, accused Alberto Cruz,
together with her four brothers and sisters
at San Isidro, Lagao, General Santos City
namely:  Alberto – 12 years old; Imelda –
10 years old; Armando – 9 years old and Mary Jane – 8 years old.

“Rosemi testified that in the month
of July 1983, she was raped by her father twice at midnight but she cannot
remember the exact dates when she was raped; that the first time she was raped
was when her father; accused herein, arrived in the house drunk and he entered
her mosquito net, kissed her, touched her body and removed her clothes; that
at that time complainant’s companions sleeping under that mosquito net were the
above-named brothers and sisters; that at the time her father arrived she was asleep and was awakened only when he was already kissing her and
removing her clothes; that she struggled by pushing and boxing accused; that she was warned by the accused
not to report the incident or he will kill
her and then accused slapped her and continued to touch her breast and all
parts of her body and kissed her.

“Complainant further testified that she did not shout because
accused warned her that he will kill them all if she will shout;
that at that time complainant was wearing
a dress and had panty which accused
was able to remove and then he inserted his private part on her vagina; that accused was fully
naked when he was on top of her; that some of her brothers and sisters were
awakened at that time but they did not help
her for fear that their father will spank them if
they make a noise; that accused was able to consummate
his
desire on her; that after putting on his pants and T-shirt, accused
warned complainant that if she will report the incident to her aunt, he will
kill her; that she cried after the act,
pleaded and asked accused why he raped her but accused instead did not
listen, slapped her and threatened to kill her and her brothers and sisters if
she will report the incident.

“The second time she was raped by her father, complainant
cannot also recall the time but it happened also at midnight, his (sic) father
was again drunk, went inside her mosquito net, kissed her, touched her body,
removed her clothes and inserted his penis on her vagina despite her pleas and
accused told her again not to report the incident or else he will kill
her.  Complainant asked her father why he
did this to her when she is his daughter but he did not mind her; that she did
not shout because her mouth was covered; she was slapped and her head was
pushed against the floor; that she was not able to fight back be­cause if she
will move her hands accused will box her. 
Complainant was also sleep­ing with her brothers and sisters at that
time and they were again awakened but
could not do anything because their father would spank them.

“In September, 1983, complainant claimed that accused raped
her three times under the same situation – that it
happened at midnight in their house;
accused was drunk, he entered the mosquito net and had sexual intercourse with
her.

“In the month of October, 1983, the same thing happened –
accused was drunk and had sexual intercourse with complainant; that the
complainant in all these occasions offered resistance but was not able to
prevent him even once because everytime the accused
was raping her, he boxed her while
removing her clothes and at the same time removed his pants and T-shirt, kissed
her and placed his private organ inside her vagina and had sexual intercourse
with her.

“Complainant averred that the first time she was raped in
July, 1983 was her first experience and accused her father, was the first man
to have taken her and she felt pain.

“The last time she was raped by the accused in October, 1983,
complainant was able to escape from her house and reported the incident to her
aunt, Maria Hortal on October 5, 1983; that this was
the first opportunity for complainant to report what accused did to her because
in the months of July to October 4, she was afraid that accused might kill all of them as he threatened to do; that she
never had the opportunity likewise to do so because whenever she goes market­ing,
accused will let her brother accompany her to the market and give her the time
to come back home so she cannot report.

“When complainant reported to her aunt that her father was
raping her, she told her in answer to her question that accused raped her twice
in July, thrice in September and once
in October, 1983; that the matter was reported to the Police Department and she
was made to see a doctor first; that Dr. Seromines
examined her after which a medical certificate (Exhibit “A”),
was issued.  Thereafter she went
back to the police station as instructed for investigation.  There­after, a complaint for rape dated
October 8, 1983 (Exhibit “B”) was filed against Alberto Cruz, Sr., her father.  Complainant pointed to the accused as
the man who raped her six (6) times and alleged that she wants her father
placed in jail; that she filed the case because she can no longer bear what her
father did to her; that during the lifetime of her mother, accused boxed her,
he always come home drunk and will not
even look for work and they were always hungry and did not have anything to eat.”
(Original Record, pp. 56-58).

xxx                            xxx                               xxx

“The second witness for the prose­cution, Mary Jane Cruz, a
9-year old sister of complainant testified that she and Rosemi
are now staying in the house of her
aunt, Francisca Laho; that before they lived together
with her other brothers and sisters in their house in Second Barrio, Lagao; that her father is now in jail because he did
something wrong on her Ate Rosemi when he rode on top
of Rosemi in their house at San Isidro, Lagao; that her father did this many times to Rosemi during midnight; that she could see her father on
top of Rosemi even if it was nighttime because they
had a small lamp placed in the altar about one meter away; that she saw her
father on top of Rosemi several times already completely naked and her Ate Rosemi was also undressed; that her Ate Rosemi
cries when her father was on top of her but she could not help her for fear
that her father might spank her.  Witness
further testified that they were running after each other outside the mosquito
net and standing.” (Original Record, p. 61).

xxx                            xxx                               xxx

“xxx The
medical certificate marked as Exhibit “A”, showed that the internal exam­ination
findings was ‘vagina admits one (1) finger with ease with healed vaginal
laceration at 7:00 o’clock and 4:00 o’clock positions’.” (Original Record, p. 65).

Appellant Cruz, Sr. raised a lone assignment of error in this
appeal:

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING
THE CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED THAT THE FILING OF CASE WAS MOTIVATED PURELY BY
ILL-WILL ON THE PART OF THE COMPLAINANT AND
HIS
IN-LAWS WHOM HIS COMPLAINANT DAUGHTER IS LIVING.” (Rollo, p. 56).

The appellant contends that his daughter Rosemi
imputed the charge of rape against him out of her hatred for him, borne even
during the lifetime of her mother.

The appellant stressed the fact that Rosemi
testified that she did not love her father because he was a cruel man who
spanked her and her brothers and sisters and slapped her mother (T.S.N. June
18, 1984, pp. 17-18).  The appellant then
alleged that Rosemi was also jealous because all of
her brothers and sisters were going to school in 1983 except for her.

It is also contended that it was not only Rosemi
who harbored ill-feelings toward the accused but also the accused’s
in-laws, particularly Maria Hortal, the aunt to whom Rosemi reported the alleged rape.  It is alleged that the complaint was filed at
the instance of Hortal who wanted to sell the
property upon which stands the house of the accused’s
family.

These contentions are without merit.  The alleged motives set-up by the appellant are not enough to compel the complainant and her relatives
to charge the complainant’s father of the heinous crime of rape and on six
counts at that.

As held in the case of People v. Alcantara
(126 SCRA 425, 436):

“xxx It is unthinkable that an unmarried
teenager would endure the embarrassment and humiliation of a public disclosure
that she had been ravished, allow an examination
of her private parts and undergo the ordeal and expense of a court proceed­ing,
if such indeed were not true xxx.” (See also People v. Ibal, G.R. No. 66010-­12, July 31, 1986; People v. Garcines; 57 SCRA 653; People v. Cawili,
65 SCRA 24).

From the records, we find that the complain­ant has no motive other
than to bring to justice the culprit who had grievously wronged her, it being
harder on her part to do so because it was her very own father who violated her
honor.

It has long been held that no young Filipina of decent repute
would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished unless
that is the truth.  It is her natural
instinct to protect her honor.  (People
v. Ramilo, G.R. No. 52230, December 15, 1986; People
v. Alcantara, supra; People v. Gamez, 124 SCRA 260; People v. Ilano,
109 Phil. 912; and People v. Gan, 46 SCRA 667).  There is nothing in the record to indicate
that this rule does not apply to Rosemi.

Furthermore, it is a well-settled rule that appellate courts will
generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court considering that
it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses
themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testify­ing during the
trial, unless the court has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and
value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case (People v. Alcid, 135 SCRA 280; People v. Macayan,
126 SCRA 322; People v. Santos, 121 SCRA 832; People v. Gamez,
supra; People v. Cielo, 133 SCRA 117; People
v. Marzan, 128 SCRA 203; People v. Centeno, 130 SCRA 198; People v. Royeras,
130 SCRA 259; People v. Itura, 129 SCRA 127; People
v. Bado, 128 SCRA 38; People v. Atanacio,
128 SCRA 22; People v. Amoncio, 122 SCRA 686; and
People v. Ibal supra).

We have carefully reviewed the records of the case and we also
find no reason to depart from this established rule.

The trial court evaluated the credibility of the complainant Rosemi Cruz as follows:

“At the time of the commission of Rape, Rosemi
was only fifteen years old and full of innocence.  When she testified in Court, she talked
freely, voluntarily and straight-forward in recalling how she was abused by her
own flesh and blood – her father.  Her sincerity and candor proved the
commission of Rape.  She was consistent
in her answers and at one time shed tears and was ashamed of what had happened
to her.  The ordeal was too much for
her.” (Rollo, p. 18).

Rosemi’s testimony was corroborated by her 8-year old sister, Mary Jane.

As the trial court stated:

“xxx She
testified she saw her father on top of Ate Rosemi
several times fully naked and that Rosemi was crying when father was on her top and she could
not help because she was afraid that her father might spank her.  She testified on redirect examination that
they were running after each other outside the mosquito net.  She testified in a straightforward manner of
testimony, sincere and full of candor. 
This likewise proved the commission of the crime of rape.  She testified on cross-examination that
despite the fact that all were awakened, her father rode on her sister Rosemi and that her brothers and sisters watched.  That she saw her father on top of Rosemi and at the same time hit her sister in the abdomen
and chest.  A girl only eight (8) years
old will not tell a lie.  When the Court asked her questions,
she immediately answered and gave examples to meanings asked of her.  She was full of innocence and when answering
questions she was straight and was direct to the point.  At her age she will not falsely testify
against her father, the most is protect the honor and
integrity of her father but she did otherwise.” (Rollo, p. 21).

The appellant questions the absence of evidence showing that the
complainant suffered physical injuries from the force allegedly applied on her.

We agree with the Solicitor General that:

“xxx Although
the medical certificate did not contain any indication whatsoever of physical
injuries (Rec., p. 34; Exh. “H”;
Exh. “I”) the same does not in any
manner refute much less disprove that physical force was employed by appellant in satisfying his bestial desires.  It is well to note that the physical
examination was conducted two days after the victim was last abused, thereby
allow­ing any physical injuries to have healed or disappeared by the time of the examination.

“In any event, the testimony of complainant that she was boxed
by appel­lant, is credible even if no external injury was visible (People v. Budon, 143 SCRA 251 (1986), more so in view of the
testimony of her sister Mary
Jane who stated that the victim was crying when she saw her father on top of Rosemi (tsn, June 1984, p.
7).  In any event, actual force or
intimidation need not be employed for
rape to be committed.  The overpowering
influence of a father over his daughter suffices (People v. Erardo,
127 SCRA 256 (1984).  Such being the
case, therefore, the absence of any physical injuries cannot negate the
allegation that complainant was forcibly raped much less destroy complainant’s
testimony of how she was raped.” (Brief for the Appellee, pp. 13­-14).

The appellant questions the failure of the complainant to
immediately report her defloration.

The cause of the delay was Rosemi’s
fear for her own life and that of her brothers and sisters.

As held in the case of People v. Oydoc,
(125 SCRA 250, 256):

“One should not expect a fourteen-year old girl to act like an
adult or mature and experienced woman who would know what to do under such
difficult circumstances and who would have the courage and intelligence to disregard a threat on her life and the
members of her family and complain immediately that she had been forcibly
deflowered.  It is not uncommon for young
girls to conceal for sometime the assaults on their virtue because of the
rapists’ threat on the lives, xxx.” (See also People v.
Valdez, G.R. No. 51034, May 29, 1987; and People v. Ibal,
supra).

In the case at bar, the complainant’s mother had already
died.  She was completely dependent upon
her father.  One cannot expect Rosemi to immediately know what to do or who to turn to.

The letter of Rosemi Cruz dated
December 6, 1986 addressed to her father shows that she is now happily married
to a good man and she has forgiven him. 
She also expresses concern for her brothers and sisters who have
scattered since their father entered jail. 
We find
no evidence in the letter to indicate that the appellant did not commit the
crime for which he was convicted.  It
merely indicates the bigness of heart of the daughter who, inspite
of the horrible experience she suffered at the hands of her drunken and
perverted father, can still forgive him and, at the same time, show concern for
the other innocent victims of this family tragedy.

WHEREFORE, on the finding that accused-appel­lant Alberto
Cruz, Sr. is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in all six (6)
counts filed against him, the judgment of the lower court sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
is hereby AFFIRMED except for the modi­fication that the appellant is ordered
to indemnify Rosemi Cruz the sum of P30,000.0.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.