G.R. Nos. 128346-48. August 14, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SIMEON B. CRUZ A.K.A. “BAROK”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DE LEON, JR., J.:
of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 25, in Criminal
Cases Nos. 6970-AF to 6972-AF, convicting the appellant, Simeon B. Cruz,
of three (3) counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the supreme
penalty of death in each case.
The appellant, Simeon B. Cruz, stands charged with three (3)
counts of rape, defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, in three (3) criminal complaints, filed and
signed by the private complainant, Vanessa S. Cruz, assisted by her
legal guardian, Felicidad Santiago, and subscribed and sworn to on June
5, 1996 before Prosecutor II Rodolfo P. Beltran of the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija. The said criminal complaints read
as follows:
Criminal Case No. 6970-AF:
That on or about one evening in the month of November, 1994 at
Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of Gen. Natividad, Province of Nueva
Ecija, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, with lewd designs by means of force, violence
and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant against
her will, to her damage and prejudice.The herein accused committed the crime with the aggravating
circumstance of relationship, the accused being the father of herein
complainant.CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 6971-AF:
That on or about one evening in the month of August, 1994 at
Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of Gen. Natividad, Province of Nueva
Ecija, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, with lewd designs by means of force, violence
and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant against
her will, to her damage and prejudice.The herein accused committed the crime with the aggravating
circumstance of relationship, the accused being the father of herein
complainant.CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 6972-AF:
That on or about one evening in the month of November, 1994 at
Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of Gen. Natividad, Province of Nueva
Ecija, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, with lewd designs by means of force, violence
and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant against
her will, to her damage and prejudice.The herein accused committed the crime with the aggravating
circumstance of relationship, the accused being the father of herein
complainant.CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon being arraigned on June 24, 1996, appellant Simeon B. Cruz, assisted by counsel de oficio, entered the plea of “Not guilty” in each of these cases. Thereafter, joint trial on the merits ensued.
The evidence of the prosecution shows that one Wednesday evening,
in the third week of August, 1994, the appellant, Simeon Cruz, arrived
home in Barangay Poblacion, Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija heavily drunk.
The private complainant, Vanessa S. Cruz, who was then sleeping on the
second floor of the house with her younger sister, Lorraine, woke up and
went downstairs when called by her father from the master’s bedroom
which was located on the groundfloor. Simeon ordered Vanessa to enter
the room but the latter refused thus, he pulled her and locked the door.[2]
Simeon poked a knife on the lower right ear of his daughter and
ordered her to undress. After having undressed, Simeon, who was already
naked from waist down, removed Vanessa’s underwear and proceeded to
kiss her breast and other private parts. Vanessa pleaded for him to
stop inasmuch as she was his daughter, but in vain. Simeon continued
kissing her body and placed himself on top of her. Vanessa cried in
pain when her father inserted his penis into her vagina and made push
and pull motions.[3]
Vanessa was raped by her father again in the second week of
November 1994. Simeon called his children namely: Vanessa, Lorraine
and Mark Ian from the master’s bedroom at past 12:00 o’clock midnight.
After the three (3) had entered the room, Simeon instructed Lorraine and
Mark Ian to step out and leave Vanessa alone with him. Simeon locked
the door and removed his clothes before undressing his daughter.
Vanessa cried and asked her father why he was doing such thing when she
was her daughter, but Simeon did not respond. Instead, he laid Vanessa
in bed and kissed her. Then he instructed her to stand, hold his penis
and place the same into her mouth. He also instructed his daughter to
masturbate his penis. Subsequently, he laid her again in bed and kissed
her private parts before finally entering her. Thereafter, Simeon
threatened Vanessa with death, including her maternal grandmother, if
she would report the incident.[4]
The last incident of rape happened in the third week of November,
1994 after Simeon arrived home late in the evening heavily drunk. He
took Vanessa from upstairs, where she was sleeping together with her
brothers and sister, and brought her into the master’s bedroom at the
ground floor. Simeon removed her bra, then her pair of shorts and
panty. He then kissed her private parts even though she was crying.
Vanessa told him to stop but Simeon proceeded to remove his clothes and
continued kissing her breast. Thereafter, he went on top of her and
inserted his penis into her vagina causing her intense pain.[5]
Vanessa disclosed that her mother, Marlyn S. Cruz, went to Hong
Kong on November 12, 1991 to work as a domestic helper. Since then,
Vanessa and her siblings namely: Michael (14), Lorraine (9) and Mark Ian
(4) had been living with their father in Barangay Poblacion, Gen.
Natividad, Nueva Ecija. Her maternal grandmother, Felicidad Santiago,
also moved in their house to keep them company.[6]
However, her grandmother was not always in the house inasmuch as the
latter would be away twice a week or, at times for three (3) straight
days in a week, to stay in her house in Mataas na Kahoy, Gen. Natividad,
Nueva Ecija, which is about three (3) kilometers away from their house.[7]
On March 26, 1996, Simeon arrived home at around 4:00 o’clock in
the afternoon heavily drunk. He dragged Vanessa, who was then watching
the television together with her grandmother at the sala, into the
master’s bedroom. Simeon locked the door, and this time even placed a
nail to secure it. He covered the windows before he began kissing his
daughter. Vanessa protested and told her father to better kill her.
Infuriated, Simeon hit her in the stomach and bumped her head four (4)
times against the wall. Apparently not contented, Simeon got hold of a
hammer and swung it against her daughter hitting her in the jaw.[8]
Aware of what was happening, Felicidad hurried to the house where
Simeon had come from drinking, to request Julian Ibarra to intercede
and pacify his kumpadre. Had it not been for the timely arrival of
Julian, Simeon would have again succeeded in molesting his daughter.[9]
On the same day, Vanessa and her siblings were brought by
Felicidad to her house in Mataas na Kahoy, Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija.
For the first time, Vanessa revealed to her grandmother the bestial
acts committed by her father against her.
On March 28, 1996, Vanessa was accompanied by her grandmother to
the NBI office in Cabanatuan City to lodge a complaint for rape against
her father. After taking her sworn statement on April 30, 1996, the NBI
authorities in Cabanatuan City arrested the appellant on May 1, 1996.[10]
The physical examination conducted by Dra. Lucila Gatchalian,
M.D. on Vanessa at the Dr. Paulino J. Garcia Memorial Research and
Medical Center in Cabanatuan City on April 30, 1996, shows the following
findings:
NOI — alleged rape
POI — in their own house, Pob., Gen. Nat., N. E.
DOI –since she is (sic) years old, ‘till March 27, 1996
TOI – anytimePatient came accompanied by her maternal grandmother.
General Survey: conscious, coherent, ambulatory with the following vital signs:
BP – 100/70; Temp. – 36 c; PR –75/min.; RR – 20/min.
LMP – April 25, 1996 menarche 13 years old.
HEENT – pinkish palpebral conjunctive.
Breast – well-developed pinkish areola, no nipple discharge.
Abdomen – flat, soft, no mass palpable.
Pelvic examination – scanty pubic hair, well coaptated labia minora, whitish mucoid discharge was noted in the introitus.
Hymen – old lacerations at 5 o’clock, 8 o’clock and 11 o’clock positions.
IE – admits 1 finger with slight difficulty.
Lab. Result – no spermatozoa seen.[11]
Dra. Lucila Gatchalian identified her signature appearing on the
lower right portion of the medical certificate and affirmed the medical
findings contained therein. Dra. Gatchalian recalled that Vanessa was
crying and afraid when she came to the hospital on April 30, 1996 for
physical examination. The three (3) healed hymenal lacerations
sustained by Vanessa which are respectively indicated in the medical
certificate as 5 o’clock, 8 o’clock and 11 o’clock may have been caused
by the penetration of any hard object which could be an erect penis.[12]
Internal examination reveals that the introitus or vaginal opening of
the patient admitted one (1) finger with slight difficulty.[13]
Appellant Simeon B. Cruz vehemently denied in court any liability
for the crimes charged in the three (3) informations. Simeon claimed
that his mother-in-law was behind the filing of the instant charges by
his own daughter against him allegedly due to a long standing quarrel
over money. Simeon disclosed that he worked in Taiwan as a factory
worker from June 30, 1995 to November 15, 1995. During the said period,
he sent money to his mother-in-law through the BPI Family Bank,
Cabanatuan City branch, in the total amount of P10,000.00 to redeem
their mortgaged property for the same amount. In addition, his
mother-in-law received from him the amount of P15,000.00 which he sent
her through his brother, Claudio Cruz, who returned to the Philippines
from Taiwan on October 20, 1995. Upon his arrival to the Philippines in
November 1995, Simeon learned that their property remained mortgaged.
He confronted his mother-in-law that led to an altercation. In the
process he hurled a glass hitting her in the right arm. Since then, the
two seldom talked.[14]
On March 26, 1996, Simeon attended the birthday party of his
kumpadre, Juanito Torres, at the latter’s house at 1:00 o’clock in the
afternoon. At around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, his youngest son
arrived at the house of Juanito Torres to inform Simeon that they were
going to Mataas na Kahoy with their grandmother. Simeon excused himself
and went home with his son to see them go. After his mother-in-law and
the kids, namely: Vanessa, Lorraine and Mark Ian had left, Simeon and
Julian Ibarra, who earlier came to fetch him, went back to the birthday
party. Simeon stayed at the party until 2:00 o’clock in the following
morning.[15]
On March 28, 1996, Simeon went to Mataas na Kahoy, Gen.
Natividad, Nueva Ecija to fetch his children from the house of his
mother-in-law. Having been informed that they had gone to Cabanatuan
City, he requested his sister, Maria Garcia, to go to the house of his
brother-in-law, Orlando Santiago, in Cabanatuan City to inquire about
his children. At the house of Orlando Santiago, Maria was informed that
her nephew and nieces had transferred together with their grandmother
to an ex-policeman relative, a certain Rene Bernado, who lived also in
the city.[16]
On May 1, 1996 at around 6:00 o’clock in the morning, Simeon was
arrested in his house by NBI agents and was brought to the NBI stockade
in Cabanatuan City. Simeon was allegedly mauled by the arresting NBI
agents when he refused to admit having raped his daughter, Vanessa. He
presented a medical certificate to show that he suffered contusions on
his body.[17]
Three (3) days after his arrest, the inquest fiscal of Cabanatuan
City ordered the release of Simeon and required him to file his
counter-affidavits. From Cabanatuan City, Simeon proceeded to the house
of his sister, Maria Garcia, in Angeles City, Pampanga for fear of his
life. While thereat, he was able to talk to his wife, Marlyn Cruz,
through an overseas call to Hong Kong. He requested Marlyn to come
home and help him solve their domestic problems. However, Marlyn’s
live-in partner in Hong Kong allegedly would not allow her.[18]
Simeon disclosed that he knew his wife had a live-in partner in
Hong Kong. Marlyn allegedly informed him of her extra-marital affair
when the latter went home to the Philippines on November 30, 1995 and
explained that she did it to retain her employment in Hong Kong for the
sake of their children. Simeon initially protested but later on agreed
after Marlyn promised to come home for good when she had enough savings.[19]
Simeon was again arrested by NBI agents on June 6, 1996 at the
Gapan-Olongapo highway while he was on his way to file additional
counter-affidavit with the fiscal in Cabanatuan City in connection with
these cases.[20]
Meanwhile, on December 25, 1996, Simeon’s mother-in-law,
Felicidad Santiago, together with his youngest son, Mark Ian, visited
Simeon at the provincial jail of Nueva Ecija. Felicidad allegedly told
Simeon that the rape cases filed in court against him may be settled
amicably provided he paid P100,000.00. Simeon refused for the reason
that he did not commit the charges in these cases.[21]
Claudio Cruz corroborated Simeon’s testimony that the latter sent
P10,000.00 to his mother-in-law, Felicidad Santiago, from Taiwan.
Claudio testified that he was working in Taiwan at the time his brother,
Simeon, went there to work in the factory. Upon his return to the
Philippines in October 1995, Claudio proceeded to the house of Simeon in
Barangay Poblacion, Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija and gave to Felicidad
Santiago the amount of P10,000.00 per instruction of his brother who
remained in Taiwan.[22]
Another defense witness, Fernando Marcelo, BPI Family Bank,
Cabanatuan City branch employee identified in court the pertinent
records[23]of the bank which
show that Felicidad Santiago withdrew from the Account No. S.A.
5233060005 of Simeon Cruz, with the same bank in Cabanatuan City, the
total amount of P11,299.00 on September 7, 1995, and twice on October 9,
1995.
Additionally, Julian Ibarra testified that Simeon was one of the
guests in the birthday party of Juanito Torres on March 26, 1996.
Julian and Simeon drank liquor with the other guests in the house of
Juanito Torres in Barangay Poblacion, Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija. At
4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Simeon went home upon being fetched by
his youngest son but promised to return. After thirty (30) minutes,
Julian followed Simeon in his house, which was about three hundred (300)
meters away, where he saw Felicidad Santiago at the doorway. Julian
did not notice the appearance of Vanessa who was sitting with Lorraine
inside the sala. He merely called for Simeon from the outside and the
two of them returned to the birthday party.[24]
On rebuttal, Felicidad Santiago testified that she brought Mark
Ian to the provincial jail of Nueva Ecija on December 25, 1996 upon the
request of his father. Felicidad denied having influenced Vanessa to
file any complaint against her father nor proposed to Simeon the
settlement of the instant criminal cases for a consideration. She
admitted having received from Simeon the total amount of P8,000.00 which
the latter sent from Taiwan in 1995 for his children. However, she
denied having received any instruction from him to apply the said amount
to redeem their property.[25]
Thereafter, the trial court rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which is quoted hereunder, to wit:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, and finding the accused Simeon B. Cruz guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of rape in each of the three (3) cases, is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of:
- DEATH in Criminal Case No. 6970-AF and to indemnify the offended
party in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as moral
damages and Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages;- DEATH in Criminal Case No. 6971-AF and to pay the offended party
the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos also as moral and
Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages;- DEATH in Criminal Case No. 6972-AF and to finally indemnify also
the offended party in another amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00)
Pesos as moral and Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos as exemplary
damages; and- To pay the costs of suit.
In his Appellant’s Brief,[26] appellant Simeon Cruz interposed the following assignment of errors, to wit:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ON A TESTIMONY THAT IS HIGHLY DUBIOUS AND INCREDIBLE; AND
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE LACK OF INCULPATORY EVIDENCE.
Appellant Simeon Cruz characterized the instant criminal charges of
rape against him as pure lies (kasinungalingan) which were allegedly
conceived maliciously by his mother-in-law who had an axe to grind
against him. He averred that Vanessa went about her daily routine even
after each of the alleged sexual abuses were committed against her. She
did not disclose the same despite opportunities to do so nor take any
initiative to prevent a repetition thereof. In fact, her grandmother
did not suspect anything wrong had happened. The medical certificate
which was issued by Dra. Lucila Gatchalian, M.D. also attests that
Vanessa’s vaginal opening admitted only one (1) finger with slight
difficulty.
In the review of rape cases, this Court is almost invariably
guided by three (3) principles, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape can
be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for
the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme
caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its
own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of
the defense.[27] In other
words, the credibility of the private complainant is determinative of
the outcome of these cases for the crime of rape. It is settled that in
rape cases, the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is enough to
sustain a conviction.[28]
Private complainant, Vanessa Cruz, testified in essence that she
was raped by her father, herein appellant Simeon Cruz, once in the third
week of August, which was a Wednesday evening, and twice in the second
and third weeks of November, all in 1994. The trial court found the
testimony of the private complainant to be direct and spontaneous. The
said court also noted that Vanessa was only twelve (12) years old and a
Grade V student in one of the remote towns of Nueva Ecija when she was
raped. She broke down in tears on several occasions during the trial of
the instant cases,[29] thus
giving the trial court the unmistakable impression that she would not
impute so grave an accusation against her own father if the same were
not true.
We agree. Considering the age of the private complainant, it
would be highly improbable for a girl of her age to fabricate a charge
so humiliating to herself and to her family had she not been truly
subjected to the painful experience of sexual abuse.[30]
Indeed, no woman, much less a girl of such tender age, would willingly
submit herself to the rigors, the humiliation and the stigma attendant
upon the prosecution of rape, if she were not motivated by an earnest
desire to put the culprit behind bars.[31]
Besides, after a thorough review, this Court failed to discern
any material contradiction in the testimony of Vanessa Cruz that may
detract from her credibility. Vanessa testified in a direct and
spontaneous manner. She did not waver in asserting that the appellant
sexually abused her (3) three times even under the rigorous and
extensive cross-examination of the defense counsel. Hence, there is no
cogent reason to depart from the time-honored legal principle that when
the issue is one of the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will
not disturb the findings of the trial court.[32] The reason for the principle is cited in the case of People vs. De Guzman,[33]
wherein this Court ruled that the trial judge is in the best position
to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that
will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not
be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the
reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that
will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of
an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the
tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready
reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or
looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has
nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were
shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned
innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the
basis of his observations arrived at an informed and reasoned verdict.
Consequently, the bestiality of the appellant was portrayed
vividly by private complainant Vanessa S. Cruz, in her own detailed
account, thus:
Atty. Cajucom:
Q: In that month of August, 1994 while you were at the Poblacion,
Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija, do you remember anything unusual that
happened to you?A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you please tell the court what is that?
A: In August, 1994 that was the day when my father raped me, sir.
x x x
Q: If your father is here, will you please point to him?
A: (The witness is pointing to a young man inside the courtroom
wearing checkered blue long sleeves when asked of his name answered
Simeon B. Cruz).Q: Will you please tell the court how you were raped?
A: I was then sleeping with my sister at the upper part of our house when my father arrived drunk, sir.
Q: When your father arrived drunk, what did he do?
A: My father called for me and I went down stair and he brought me inside the room of our house, sir.
Q: Which room?
A: The room of my father at the lower floor of our house, sir.
Q: How did it (sic) take you to that room?
A: He called me and when I refused he forced me to go with him at his room at the ground floor, sir.
Court:
Q: How did he force you?
A: He pulled me, your honor.
Atty. Cajucom:
Q: When he pulled you, what else did he do?
A: He locked the door of the room, sir.
Q: After locking the door of the room, what else did he do?
A: He poked his knife at my lower right ear, sir.
Q: When he poked the knife to you, what else did he do?
A: He instructed me to undress, sir.
Q: What did you do?
A: I removed my dress, sir.
Q: What part of your dress was removed?
A: My blouse, sir.
Q: What about your underwear?
A: He removed my underwear, sir.
Q: After removing your underwear, what did he do?
A: He kiss (sic) my breast and my private part, sir.
Q: When he was kissing your breast and private part, what did you do?
A: I told him not to do that because I am his daughter, sir.
Atty. Cajucom:
Please record that the witness is crying. (Witness is crying).
Q: When you said that, what did he do?
A: He did not listen to me and instead continued what he is (sic) doing to me, sir.
Q: What is that he continued?
A: He kissed my body and after that he laid me down on the bed, sir.
Q: After laying you down on the bed, what else did he do?
A: He placed himself on top of me, sir.
Q: Was he wearing anything when he placed himself on top of you?
A: Only a t-shirt, sir.
Q: What about his underwear?
A: None, sir.
Q: And when he put himself on top, what else happened?
A: He inserted his penis into my private part, sir.
Q: When he was inserting his private part to your private part, what did you do?
A: None, sir. I just cried.[34]
x x x
Atty. Cajucom:
Q: In the month of November, 1994, do you remember anything unusual that happened to you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What is that?
A: That was the second time when my father raped me, sir.
x x x
Q: After locking the room, what else did he do?
A: He removed his dress, sir.
Q: After removing his dress, what else did he do?
A: He removed my dress, sir.
Q: When he was removing your dress, what did you do?
A: I was then crying, sir.
Q: How did you cry?
A: I cried very loud, sir.
Q: While crying, did you say anything?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What?
A: I told him why you are doing this to me when I am your daughter, sir.
Q: What did he reply?
A: None, sir.
Q: After stating that and without saying anything, what happened?
A: He kiss (sic) me, sir.
Q: After doing that, what else happened?
A: He laid me down on the bed, sir.
Q: While laying on the bed, what else did he do?
A: He instructed me to stand up and hold his penis, sir.
Atty. Cajucom:
Please make it on record that the witness is crying again. (Witness is crying).
Q: Did you hold his penis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: While holding the penis, what did he say, if any?
A: He instructed me to put his penis into my mouth, sir.
Q: Did you follow him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And after that, what happened?
A: After that he instructed me to masturbate his penis, sir.
Q: Did you masturbate his penis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: After doing that, what happened?
A: After that he laid me down again, sir.
Q: While you were laying (sic) down, what else did he do?
A: He again kiss (sic) me, sir.
Q: After kissing you, what else happened?
A: He kiss (sic) my private part, sir.
Q: What else did he do after that?
A: He placed his body on top of me, sir.
Q: And when he did that, what else happened?
A: He inserted his penis to my private part, sir.
Q: Did he succeed?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: While he was doing that what did you do?
A: I was then crying, sir.
Q: Did you not struggle?
A: I was pushing him, sir.
Q: After that, what else happened?
A: After that he threatened me that if I will reveal the matter
he will kill me and my grandmother, sir, if I will report the matter.[35]x x x
Q: In answer to the court you said that you were twice raped in November, when was the second time in November?
A: Third week in November, sir.
Q: What time of the day?
A: Also in the evening, sir.
Q: What time in the evening?
A: I cannot remember anymore, sir.
Q: How did it happen?
A: He arrived then very drunk, sir.
x x x
Q: What happened when he went up?
A: He took me down stair, sir.
Q: Where at down stair?
A: In his room, sir.
Q: When you were there, what happened?
A: He kiss (sic) my body and laid me down his bed, sir.
Q: When he laid you, were you fully dressed?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you were laying (sic) down, what else did he do?
A: He removed my bra, sir.
Q: And then what happened?
A: He removed my short and panty, sir.
Q: What else happened?
A: He kiss (sic) my private part, sir.
Q: And when he was doing that, what were you doing?
A: I was then crying, sir.
Q: Did you say anything?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What?
A: I told him no don’t do that, sir.
Q: What else happened after that?
A: After that, he again placed himself on top of me, sir.
Q: Was he dressed?
A: He removed his dress, sir.
Q: And when he removed his dress what did he do?
A: He kiss (sic) my breast sir.
Q: When he was on top of you what did he do?
A: He inserted his private part to my private part, sir.
Q: Was he able to insert?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did you feel when he inserted his penis?
A: Also, I felt pain, sir.
Q: After this incident, did you report this matter to anyone?
A: No, sir. I did not.
Q: Why not?
A: I was afraid to (sic) his threat, sir.[36]
The appellant failed to impute any improper motive on the part of the
private complainant. However, he lays the blame on his mother-in-law,
Felicidad Santiago, who allegedly had an axe to grind against him over
money. He seeks to impress upon this Court that the instant criminal
cases were offshoots of his mother-in-law’s malicious contrivance which
was aimed at exacting revenge against him and to pave the way for her
daughter’s unhampered homecoming to the Philippines who allegedly
maintained an adulterous relationship in Hong Kong where she works.
It is elementary that where there is no showing that the private
complainant was impelled by any improper motive in making the
accusations against the accused, her complaints are entitled to full
faith and credence.[37] The
claims of the appellant against his mother-in-law are at best
self-serving and too speculative to deserve any serious consideration by
the Court. That a grandmother would allegedly be so callous so as to
expose her 12-year old granddaughter, Vanessa, to the humiliation and
stigma of a rape trial just to satisfy a purely personal interest,
defies logic and human experience. We rule that no possible amount of
influence from a grandmother can drive a daughter to willingly send her
father to the gallows by imputing charges of rape if the same were not
true.
Besides, even on the assumption that Marlyn S. Cruz had a
paramour in Hong Kong where she works, the same was subsequently
condoned by her husband, herein appellant, and had become a consensual
matter between them, thus:
Court:
Q: When for the first time that you knew that your wife had a live-in partner?
A: When she went home, Your Honor, on November 30, 1995.
Q: So, you want to impress the court that through overseas call
your wife went home and you talked together about her live-in partner?A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Now, when you had talk in November 1995 about her live-in partner, what was your final decision both of you?
A: She informed me that she did that because of our children and if she can already save money she will return home.
Q: So, meaning to say, you agreed with that condition of your wife?
A: At first, Your Honor, I did not agree.
Q: But ultimately, you agreed that’s why she left again for abroad?
A: Yes, Your Honor.[38]
Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of
psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which could
take the life of her own father and drag herself and the rest of the
family to a lifetime of shame.[39]
As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the appellant failed to
demonstrate that his daughter, Vanessa, suffers from such kind of
psychological depravity. On the contrary, Vanessa was found by the
trial court as a meek and modest girl.[40]
She was also gifted with brilliance, being an honor student, and having
graduated from the elementary as one of the top five students in her
class.[41]
The appellant also contended that Vanessa appeared unaffected and
went about her daily routine even after the alleged sexual abuses. The
contention is devoid of merit. It should be emphasized that such
alleged unseemly attitude of his daughter does not in any way negate
that rape had been committed against her. We have already ruled that
people react differently to a given type of situation, and there is no
standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a
strange, startling or frightful experience.[42]
Additionally, Vanessa’s failure to promptly report the incidents of
rape may be attributed to her young age and the appellant’s moral
ascendancy. It may be noted that the appellant threatened Vanessa with
death after he perpetrated the dastardly acts against his said daughter.
It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for sometime the
assaults on their virtue because of the rapist’s threats on their lives.[43]
In a desperate attempt to extricate himself from the instant
charges, appellant Simeon Cruz underscores the particular finding of the
attending physician which states that Vanessa’s vagina admitted one (1)
finger, which was two (2) centimeters in diameter, with slight
difficulty. The examining physician, Dra. Lucila Gatchalian, M.D.
however, explained on cross-examination that Vanessa was afraid and
crying while her hands were perspiring when she came to the hospital on
April 30, 1996 for examination. If a woman is afraid, according to Dra.
Gatchalian, M.D., vaginismus or the unconscious constriction of the
introitus or vaginal opening may happen. In any case, the slight
difficulty which occasioned the insertion of a finger, two (2)
centimeters in diameter, into the private complainant’s vagina does not
militate against the fact that she was raped. The said fact is
corroborated by the finding in the same medical certificate which shows
that Vanessa sustained three (3) hymenal lacerations.
In view of the foregoing, the guilt of the appellant, Simeon B.
Cruz, for three (3) counts of the crime of rape has been established
beyond reasonable doubt. However, the trial court erred in imposing the
supreme penalty of death on the appellant. Section 11 of Republic Act
No. 7659 amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
x x x
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 (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
It appears that the criminal complaints in Criminal Cases Nos.
6970-AF, 6971-AF and 6972-AF against appellant Simeon B. Cruz merely
allege that the private complainant, Vanessa S. Cruz, is the daughter of
the appellant. However, the same criminal complaints failed to allege
that the private complainant was a minor or under eighteen (18) years of age at the time when each of the crimes of rape was committed against her. In the cases of People vs. Garcia,[44] People vs. Ramos[45] and People vs. Medina,[46]
this Court declared that the attendant circumstances enumerated in
Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 partake of the nature of qualifying
circumstances since the same are punishable by the single indivisible
penalty of death and not reclusion perpetua to death. It has been the
rule that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the
indictment. If the same are not pleaded but proved, they shall be
considered only as aggravating circumstances. Despite the absence of
allegation in each of the criminal complaints in these cases that the
private complainant was a minor or under eighteen (18) years of age at
the time of the commission of each of the crimes of rape, the trial
court erroneously imposed on the appellant the indivisible penalty of
death in violation of his right under Article III, Section 14 of the
1987 Constitution to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusations against him. Consequently, the appellant can be held liable
for three (3) counts of simple rape only and for which the impossible
penalty is reclusion perpetua.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[47] the civil indemnity ex delicto
due the victim shall be in the amount of P50,000.00 in addition to
moral damages of P50,000.00 for each count of simple rape and without
need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby
AFFIRMS the appealed decision convicting the appellant, Simeon B. Cruz,
a.k.a. Barok, of three (3) counts of rape with the MODIFICATION that
the appellant shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify the victim, herein private complainant Vanessa S. Cruz, in the
amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in addition to P50,000.00 as
moral damages for each count of the offense proved.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., on official leave.
[1] Penned by Judge Johnson L. Ballutay. Rollo, pp. 30-42.
[2] TSN dated November 4, 1996, pp. 5-6, 19.
[3] Id., pp. 6-8, 23.
[4] Id., pp. 9-13.
[5] Id., pp. 13-15.
[6] Id., pp. 18, 23-24.
[7] TSN dated November 8, 1996, pp. 10-11.
[8] TSN dated November 4, 1996, pp. 15-16.
[9] Id., pp. 16-17.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Exhibits “A”, “A-1”.
[12] TSN dated October 21, 1996, pp. 13-14.
[13] Id., pp. 22-23.
[14] TSN dated December 16, 1996, pp. 11-21.
[15] Id., pp. 21-26.
[16] Id., pp. 27-29.
[17] Id., pp. 30-31.
[18] Id., p. 34.
[19] Id., pp. 35-36.
[20] TSN dated January 7, 1997, pp. 15-16.
[21] TSN dated January 20, 1997, pp. 3-6.
[22] TSN dated January 13, 1997, pp. 7-8.
[23] Exhibits “4” and “5”.
[24] TSN dated January 20, 1997, pp. 4-8.
[25] TSN dated February 10, 1997, pp. 4-6.
[26] Rollo, pp. 56-78.
[27] People vs. Perez, 270 SCRA 526, 531 (1997).27
[28]28 People vs. Quitoriano, 266 SCRA 373, 376 (1997).
[29] Decision, Rollo, pp. 40-41.
[30] People vs. Molas, 286 SCRA 684, 690 (1998); People vs. Dacoba 289 SCRA 267, 272 (1998).
[31] People vs. Cabebe, 290 SCRA 543, 554 (1998).
[32] People vs. Llaguno, 285 SCRA 124,135 (1998).
[33] 188 SCRA 407, 410-411 (1990).
[34] TSN dated November 4, 1996, pp. 5-8.
[35] Id., pp. 9-13.
[36] Id., pp. 13-15.
[37] People vs. Malabago, 271 SCRA 464, 476 (1997).
[38] TSN dated December 16, 1996, pp. 35-36.
[39] People vs. Melivo, 253 SCRA 347,362 (1996).
[40] Decision. Rollo, p. 40.
[41] TSN dated November 13, 1996, pp. 18, 25.
[42] People vs. Villanueva, 254 SCRA 202, 208 (1996); People vs. Talaboc, 256 SCRA 441, 453 (1996).
[43] People vs. Devilleres, 269 SCRA 716, 729 (1997).
[44] 281 SCRA 463, 489 (1997).
[45] G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998.
[46] 300 SCRA 98, 116 (1998).
[47] People vs. Tabarangao, 303 SCRA 623, 636 (1999).