Page 1 of

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

-versus-

JAIME BELANO y ASENDIDO,
Accused,



JOINT DECISION

On June 18, 2001, accused was charged for three (3) counts
of Rape in relation to Republic Act (RA) 7610 otherwise known as the
Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act. The accusatory portions of the three informations
read,

In Criminal Case No. 8580-2001-C:

That sometime on January 2001 at Brgy.
Sto. Tomas, Municipality of Calauan, Province
of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with lewd and design thru force,
violence and intimidation did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge with one LEORICA MAY
REYES y ATAYLAR, a twelve (12) year old girl
(minor), his own niece against her will and
consent, to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
1



In Criminal Case No. 8581-2001-C:

That sometime on February 2001 at
Brgy. Sto. Tomas, Municipality of Calauan,
Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with lewd and design thru force,
violence and intimidation did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge with one LEORICA MAY
REYES y ATAYLAR, a twelve (12) year old girl
(minor), his own niece against her will and
consent, to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
2


1
Records (Criminal Case No. 8580-2001-C), p. 26, Information, dated on June 18,
2001.
2
Records (Criminal Case No. 8581-2001-C), p. 1, Information, dated on June 18,
2001.
Page 2 of

In Criminal Case No. 8582-2001-C:

That sometime on March 2001 at Brgy.
Sto. Tomas, Municipality of Calauan, Province
of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with lewd and design thru force,
violence and intimidation did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge with one LEORICA MAY
REYES y ATAYLAR, a twelve (12) year old girl
(minor), his own niece against her will and
consent, to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
3




During the arraignment on August 10, 2001, accused duly
assisted by counsel, pleaded in the three (3) cases separate pleas of
not guilty.
4


At the pre-trial hearing on March 15, 2002, the
prosecution and defense stipulated on the following:

1. The identity of the accused;

2. The jurisdiction of the Court over the case;

3. The complainant-victim Leorica May A. Reyes was
only twelve (12) years old at the time of the
commission of the offense;

4. The accused is the uncle of the complainant-victim
with the qualification that said complainant-victim
is the niece of the wife of the accused;

5. That after the complainant-victim went to the
police, she was medically examined as shown by
the Rape Case Report, attached to the records;
and

6. Complainant-victim gave a sworn statement in a
form of question and answer.
5






3
Records (Criminal Case No. 8582-2001-C), p. 1, Information, dated June 18,
2001.
4
Record (Criminal Case No. 8580-2001-C), p. 35, Order dated August 10, 2001.
5
Id at 74. Pre-trial Order dated March 15, 2002.
Page 3 of

Version of the Prosecution

The testimonial evidence for the prosecution consisted of the
testimonies of the following witnesses, namely, Dr. Teresita Samadi-
Denani (Dr. Samadi-Dedani) and private complainant Leorica May
A. Reyes (Reyes).

On April 19, 2002, the prosecution presented its first witness in
Dr. Samadi-Denani, a resident physician at Laguna Provincial
Hospital. Her competency as a doctor was admitted by the
defense. On April 23, 2001, she examined Reyes based on a letter
request from Police Superintendent Rodolfo Cabanillas Babera (PS
Babera).
6
The Director of the Provincial Hospital in Sta. Cruz, Laguna
received the letter-request. The Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Lagos,
assigned the said letter-request to the O.B. Gyne department. On
even date, Dr. Samadi-Denani was on 24-hour duty in the O.B. Gyne
Department and was tasked to conduct the physical examination
on the private complainant Reyes pursuant to the said letter-
request. She conducted the physical and internal examination on
Reyes. Her findings and conclusions were reflected in the Rape Case
Report dated April 24, 2001.
7
In said report, she stated that private
complainant Reyes sustained hymenal old laceration at 3, 6, and 8
oclock positions which were already healed or cured and had no
bleeding at the time of the examination. She also found the private
complainant positive for pregnancy test and was approximately in
her 14
th
week and 6 day of pregnancy. Based on the interview with
the private complainant, her last menstrual period was in January
2001. In her opinion the hymenal laceration could have been
caused by some contact before thru a hard object or medical
instrumentation but said objects could not have caused the
pregnancy of the private complainant. She identified the Rape
Case Report she executed relative to the instant case and signature
appearing thereon to be her signature.
8


On May 10, 2002, the prosecution presented its second and
last witness in private complainant Reyes who testified that she was
born on May 23, 1988. Her parents are Ma. Luisa Ataylar and
Feliciano Reyes. The accused is the husband of Josephine Reyes
Asendido, her aunt being the sister of her father. Their family and the
family of the accused lived under one roof owned by her father,
located at Brgy. Sto. Tomas. Calauan, Laguna. Sometime in January
2001, the first incident happened in their house when she was
ginalaw by the accused. The accused inserted his ari (genital
organ) to her ari. The horrible inicident happened at the second
floor of their house at the cabinet area where their pillows were kept
which is about 3-4 meters wide. Accused instructed her to go
upstairs otherwise he would kill them. Afraid of the threat, she went
upstairs. Thereafter, accused followed her and at the second floor
commanded her to remove her dress otherwise she and her family

6
Id at 79, Exhibit C.
7
Id at 17, Exhibit B.
8
TSN April 19, 2002, pp. 2-6.
Page 4 of
would be killed. Afraid of the threat and even against her will, she
followed his command. The accused who was then armed with bolo
placed it against the wall beside her. Accused also removed his
clothes. Accused kiss her on her lips, on her neck and all over her
body including her vagina. The accused then placed her legs on
top of his shoulders, held it tight and kissed her vagina. She kept on
resisting by twisting her body to avoid the kiss but accused held her
legs. Accused tried to lay her flat on the elevated area but she tried
to get up, using her elbows. She was slightly lying on the elevated
area and her legs were spread out hanging at the edge of the
elevated area. Accused positioned between her legs. Accused
tried to insert his penis on her vagina and made urong sulong
movements. She did not know if accused was able to penetrate his
penis in her vagina for she only felt pain and even on the following
day, blood was oozing from her vagina, which only stopped later in
the afternoon. During the horrible incident, her father and younger
brother were in Bulacan. The wife of the accused or her aunt was
not also there during the incident because she was always out
attending to important matters. Her grandmother during the
incident was washing clothes at the back, which was about 8-10
meters away from their house. Her mother was already dead and
since then her grandmother was the one taking care of her. She
had been molested by the accused since she was still eight years
old. She identified the accused as the person who molested her.
Reyes was crying while she testified.
9


On October 9, 2002, the prosecution recalled to the witness
stand private complainant Reyes to continue her direct testimony.
She further testified that sometime in the month of February 2001 in
the afternoon she was again ginalaw by the accused in their house.
This horrible incident again happened at the second of their house
inside a room. She was ordered by the accused to remove her dress
and panty otherwise he would kill them. Afraid of the threat, Reyes
obeyed against her will. Accused when naked started to kiss her lips
while standing. She resisted the kiss but accused was able to satisfy
his lust. She was made to lie down on top of a table where their
pillows were placed. Accused was standing trying to insert his penis
in her vagina. Accused would sometime raise her legs. Her feet were
both hanging from the table. Reyes tried to avoid accused by
itinatagilid ko po ang katawan ko para di nya maipasok ang ari nya
but despite the resistance accused was able to insert his penis in her
vagina. While the penis of the accused was inserted on her vagina,
accused was making upward and downward movements. During
the entire rape she was crying. Thereafter she felt fluid in her vagina.
Accused had satisfied his lust, and he ordered her to put on her
dress and not to tell anybody what happened to them, otherwise he
would kill her. She was very afraid as the accused was again armed
with bolo when the second rape incident happened. The bolo was
again placed beside her. She was not able to go to school that day
because of the rape incident. She told her grandmother during the
incident was at the back of their house washing clothes and
sometimes sitting only.

9
TSN May 10, 2002, pp. ____
Page 5 of

On the same day, Reyes further testified on the third rape
incident that transpired in the afternoon of a day in March 2001. She
was again raped by the accused in the kitchen located at the
ground floor of their house. She was alone in the house during that
time as her grandmother was in hospital and his father was in
Bulacan. She was again ordered by the accused to remove/lower
her short below her knee and to sit on the bench. She obeyed
accuseds instruction due to fear upon the same threat to kill her
family if she would not follow him. She was forced to lie on the table.
Then accused kissed her in the lips and neck. She tried to resist but
accused had his way. He placed himself on top of her and inserted
his penis in her vagina. While his penis was inserted in her vagina,
accused moved upward and downward. Thereafter, fluid came out
from accused penis. He wiped it and told her to get up and dress.
She also wiped her vagina. Accused told her not to tell anybody on
what happened between them, otherwise he would kill her and her
family. Thereafter, she was directed to buy cigarettes. A month later,
or sometime April 2001, her aunt noticed her stomach getting bigger
and asked her if she was pregnant. She told her aunt she did not
know. She underwent a pregnancy test which came out positive.
Her aunt asked her who was responsible for it. At first, she was
hesitant to reveal the person responsible for her pregnancy but she
eventually told her that her uncle accused Jaime Belano y
Asendido did it to her. Thereafter, thru the assistance of her aunt she
went to the police station and gave statement. At the time she
gave statement to the police station she was only twelve (12) years
old. In the clarificatory questions propounded by the Court, Reyes
testified that she got pregnant and gave birth at the age of thirteen
years old. She gave the name Nina Rica Reyes to her baby. The
child is now at Sta. Cruz, Laguna
10


On November 7, 2002, Reyes again took the witness stand and
was cross-examined by the defense. She clarified that she had been
raped by the accused three times in months of January, February
and March all in the 2001 but the exact dates of the incidents she
could not recall. She also asserted that when she was only eight
years old accused started to molest her. During the three rape
incidents subject of the instant case, she was only twelve years old.
She was not able to tell her parents or any of her relatives about the
horrible incidents because she was very afraid. Every time she was
raped by the accused, the latter threatened to kill her and her
family. Accuseds family and her family lived under one (1) roof. She
was living there since birth. During the two (2) rape incidents in
January and February 2001, her grandmother was on the other side
of their house. Also, during those incidents the wife and children of
the accused were not around. Her cousins were in school, while her
aunt was always out of the house, attending to many tasks. Her
brother was also not around during those incidents. She clarified that
the wall of their house was made of coconut leaves hence, it was
possible for her grandmother to hear her shouts. However, during
those horrible incidents, she did not shout or help because she was

10
TSN October _, 2002, pp. 3-16.
Page 6 of
afraid of the accused. She was threatened to pagnagsumbong ka
at nalaman ng lola mo, papatayin ko kayo pati ang tiya mo. Also
during those two (2) rape incidents her uncle, the accused, was
armed with a bolo. In the March 2001 rape incident, she was alone
in the house. Her grandmother was in the hospital. After March 2001,
she still saw the accused in their house and she stayed there as if
nothing happened. She was assisted by her aunt Marina Orosco in
going to the police station and in giving statements. She was
advised by her aunt to tell the police only truth. If not for her aunts
support and encouragement she would not be able to file the case.
After the incidents it would be impossible to befriend the accused
whom she had already forgiven. On re-direct examination she
clarified that after March 2001, she continued to stay in their house
where accused was also living because she had no place to go. It
was her aunt Marina Orosco who encouraged her to file the case
against the accused after she ha discovered that she was pregnant
and the person responsible for it was her uncle accused Jaime
Belano Asendido. Her aunt noticed that her stomach was getting
bigger and she told her aunt that it was only fats because she did
not know then that she was pregnant until she had undergone
pregnancy test that she learned that she was pregnant. She did not
tell anyone about what happened between her and the accused
because she was very afraid of him. The two (2) rape incidents in
January and February 2001 happened at their second floor of their
house. On re-cross examination, she testified that she was raped at
the second floor of their house and it might be impossible for her
grandmother to hear her in case shouts, because her grandmother
was very old and is suffering from hearing problems. The Court
propounded some clarificatory questions to Reyes who testified that
she gave birth to Nina Rica Reyes on August 15, 2001. Nina Rica is
now living with her other aunt in Sta. Cruz, Laguna. She clarified that
while she had already forgiven the accused she still wanted
justice.
11


After the presentation of prosecutions evidence, the public
prosecutor filed his Formal Offer of Evidence
12
on March 21, 2003.
Accused thru counsel filed his comment/opposition
13
thereto on
March 27, 2003. The Court in its Order
14
admitted prosecutions
Exhibits A to C and their sub-markings inclusive.



Version of the Defense

The defense presented the testimonies of four witnesses, to wit:
(a) the accused; (b) Jeffred Asendido (Jeffred); (c) Jojo Asendido
(Jojo); and; (d) Norman Jopia (Norman).


11
TSN November __ 2002, pp. 2-10.
12
Records (Criminal Case No. 8580-2001-C), pp. 162-163.
13
Id at 164 Comment Objections in the Prosecutions Former Offer of Exhibits
14
Id at 165 Order dated April 4, 2003
Page 7 of
On March 10, 2004, the defense presented the accused its first
witness. The accused testified that in the months January, February
and March 2001 he was in LIliw, Laguna planting vegetables in the
mountain together with his companions Jefren, Norman and Jojo.
He started to work in Liliw, Laguna in April 2000. He resided in Sto.
Tomas, Calauan, Laguna and he goes home once in a while to
remit his salary to his wife. When he was in Liliw, Laguna he stayed at
the house of a Fermin Magno. He did not know exactly the address
of Fermin Magno and he did not know the name of Fermins wife
and children. In January, February and March 2001, he happened
to visit their house only once each month. He stayed there only for a
day. Nobody stays in his house. His wife was working then at Brgy.
Lamot, Calauan, Laguna in a candy factory. He knew private
complainant Reyes because she was the granddaughter of his
mother-in-law. She was also staying in their house, but every time he
went home she was not there. She sometimes stayed at the store or
in the candy factory. She was living there since she was still a child
and at present he did not know where she resides. He was arrested
in Calauan, Laguna at the candy factory. He did not know the
reason why he was arrested by the police. He was just invited by the
police officers to go with them. At the police station, he was not
informed of the charges against him. At the prosecutors office only
private complainant Reyes was investigated. He was not instructed
to file any counter-affidavit. He did not know of any reasons or
motives why private complainant filed the instant rape cases
against him. He was shocked and could not say anything. On cross-
examination, he testified that he stayed in Liliw, Laguna from 2000 to
2001 or for almost a year. He started to stay in LIliw in April 2000 to
work in the mountain. He was the helper of Fermin Magno. He did
not know the exact address of the place where he stayed in Liliw, he
dropped by the house of Fermin and thereafter immediately
proceeded to the mountain to work. He did not know the name of
the wife of Fermin as well as the names of his three children. He
likewise did not know the neighbors of Fermin and other workers in
the mountain. Jefred, Jojo and Norman were his only companions in
the mountain who are his son, brother and nephew, respectively.
Reyes is he niece of his wife. Prior to January, February and March
2001, he had no quarrel of misunderstanding with Reyes. He was
arrested and brought to Calauan Police Station because of the
complaint of Reyes. He was not able to file counter-affidavit
because he did not receive any order from the Court. Jefred, Jojo
and Norman knew that he was arrested but did not volunteer to
give any written statement to rebut the complain of Reyes. It was
only now that he was giving statement regarding his whereabouts
during the period of January, February and March 2001. He
explained during that clarificatory questions from the Court that he
went and stayed in Liliw, Laguna during the period of January,
February and March 2001 only to work and he went home once in a
while to remit his salary to his wife. He chose those months in going
to Liliw because it was the best period to plant.
15



15
TSN March 10, 2004, pp. 3-15
Page 8 of
On April 28, 2004, the defense presented its second witness
Jeffred who testified that during the period of January, February and
March 2001 he was in Liliw, Laguna working in the mountain
together with Norman and Jojo. They cut grass and plant tomatoes.
He was residing at Brgy. Sto. Tomas, Calauan, Laguna. He knew that
Reyes who is his cousin. Reyes was living with their grandmother
Raymunda Reyes in their house in Brgy. Sto. Tomas, Calauan,
Laguna. In March 2001, when he returned home, Reyes already left
their house. Her aunt took her. He did not know of any reason why
his cousin Reyes filed the instant cases against his father. On cross-
examination, he testified that he did not know the exact address of
the place where they stayed in Liliw, Laguna. He had the occasions
to meet the wife and two children of Fermin, but he did not know
their names. Fermin is his cousin as his grandmother and the mother
of Fermin are cousins. Despite such fact, he could not remember the
names of Fermins wife and two (2) children. Fermin has two houses;
one in the bayan and the other at the mountain where they stayed.
The wife and children of Fermin lived at the bayan. Likewise, he did
not know the names of other persons working in the mountain. He
also did not know the name of the mountain where they worked.
That on January 1, 2001 at 3:00 oclock in the afternoon after they
celebrated New Year they went to Liliw, Laguna. It took them an
hour and a half to reach Liliw. He learned that his father, herein
accused, was charged for rape by his cousin Reyes. He did not
know of any reason why his cousin is charging his father for rape. By
reason of said charges his father was arrested and incarcerated in
jail. Despite such fact, he did not volunteer to submit any statement
to rebut the charges against his father. The Court asked the witness
some clarificatory questions. He testified that in the year 2001 he was
in Liliw, Laguna together with his father, cousin and uncle. After
March 2001 they were replaced and did not work anymore in Liliw,
Laguna and returned to their house at Brgy. Sto. Tomas, Calauan,
Laguna.
16


On February 18, 2008, the defense presented its third witness in
Jojo, the brother of accused. He testified that in the year 2000 he
was nagpapaupa ng pagkakarga ng lanzoned and in the year
2001 magpapaupa sa kamatisan sa LIliw. During the period of
January, February and March 2001, he was in Liliw, Laguna working
together with the accused Fermin, Jeffred, Norman. He could not
anymore remember the name of the owner of the farm in Liliw
where they worked. During thise oeriods that they worked in Liliw,
Laguna, accused wasresiding in Brgy. Sto. Tomas, Calauan, Laguna.
He did not know if accused happened to go home to his residence
in Calauan, Laguna during those months. The distance from Liliw,
Laguna to accuseds residence in Calauan, Laguna is very far and
one has to ride jeep in order to reach the place. Jojo stayed in Liliw
during the entire period of January, February and March 2001. On
cross-examination, he testified that he was with the accused in Liliw,
Laguna during the period of January 2001, February 2001 and
March 2001. Prior to January 2001 he was not with the accused.
They were both living in Calauan, Laguna at that time in different

16
TSN April 28, 2004, pp. __ -18
Page 9 of
houses. He had never heard any news that his brother raped his
niece Reyes. He was also not aware that Reyes got pregnant. He is
not related in any way with the victim Reyes. He was with the
accused all the time and never been apart. They were planting and
harvesting kamatis in Liliw, Laguna. Their harvest was picked by
mamimili. They worked in the mountain the whole day and they
stop working at around 5 oclock in the afternoon. After working in
the farm, they would sleep in the house designated for them,
together with the accused. During the periods of January, February
and March 2001, he was always together with the accused. He was
still single then and accused was already married. He could not
remember if the accused went home during those periods. In 2001,
the accused already had three (3) children. Accused brought with
him his two children to Liliw, Laguna. He clarified when he was asked
who took care of the children of the accused while he was working,
Jojo said that accuseds children did not actually stay with him in
Liliw, but his wife merely brought their children to visit him. During
their stay in Liliw, there was no instance that accused went home to
their residence in Calauan, Laguna. They were always together
even during the time they were sleeping. He further testified during
the clarificatory questions from the Court, that he and accused
were together during periods of January, February and March 2001.
After March 2001 they were not anymore together because the
term of their work in Liliw, Laguna had been terminated or finished.
17


On July 29, 2011, in the supposed presentation of fourth
witness, Fermin, the defense dispensed with the presentation of said
witness and moved that instead Norman testify in the next
scheduled hearing. Over the vehement objection from the
prosecution, the Court granted the defense last opportunity to
present additional evidence.
18


On September 26, 2012, the testimony of supposed fourth
witness Norman was dispensed with upon stipulation by the defense
and the prosecution that his testimony would be merely
corroborative to the testimonies of the first three defense witnesses.
Therefore, accused was given a period of five (5) days to file the
proper manifestation or formal offer of exhibits.
19


On October 1, 2012, the accused, thru counsel filed a
Manifestation stating that the defense has no documentary
evidence to offer and is thus resting the case.
20
The Court in its Order
dated October 3, 2012 took cognizance of the manifestation of the
accused and submitted the case for decision.
21







17
TSN February 13, 2008, pp. 3-14.
18
Records, p. 462, Order dated July 29, 2011.
19
Id at 488, Order dated September 26, 2012.
20
Id at 489, Manifestation dated October 1, 2012.
21
Id at 490, Order dated October 3, 2012
Page 10 of
THE COURTS RULING

A careful scrutiny of the respective documentary and
testimonial evidence adduced by the parties convinces the Court
that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt if Rape in three
counts.

Three principles guide the courts in resolving rape cases: (1) an
accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove
but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2)
in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two
persons are usually involved in the testimony of the complainant
must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense.
22


In determining the guilt of an accused for the crime of rape,
primordial is the credibility of complainants testimony, because, by
the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction thereon usually rests
solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim, provided that such
testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things.
23


Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that
the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable for three counts of crime rape as defined and penalized
under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by
RA 8353
24
in relation to RA 7610. Arts. 266-A and 266-B of the RPC, as
amended, pertinently 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 is
otherwise unconscious;

c. By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of
authority;


22
People v. Glivano, G.R. No. 177565, January 28, 2008; 542 SCRA 656, 662 citing
People v. Malones, 125 SCRA 318, 329.
23
People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 168101, February 3, 2006, 482 SCRA 435, 444.
24
Otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which became effective on
October 22, 1997.
Page 11 of
d. When the offended party is
under twelve (12) years of age
or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances
mentioned above is 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 persons mouth or
anal orifice, or any instrument or
object, into the genital or anal orifice
of another person. (R.A. No. 8353,
October 22, 1997.)

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

x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)


Consequently, for the charge of rape to prosper, the
prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge
of a woman; (2) through force, threat or intimidation, or when she
was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was
under 12 years of age or was demented.

In the instant case, the prosecution established the elements
of rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC, as amended. First, Reyes
positively identified the accused as her rapist. She was certain and
never wavered in her identification and straightforward in her
narration of how the rape occurred. The Court finds her eloquent
testimony straightforward and candid, and not at all rebutted
during the cross-examination, thus deserving full weight ad credit.
She narrated the circumstances and events on how the three rape
incidents happened.

Not only was her testimony straightforward, her emotions
showed her credibility and veracity which must be given full weight
and credit. Besides, when the offended party is young and
immature, from the age of thirteen to sixteen, courts are inclined to
give credit to their account of what transpired, considering not only
their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to
which they would be exposed if the matter to which they testified is
not true.
25
Verily, the first time Reyes took the witness stand on May
10, 2002, she was only 13 years old. Moreover, the rule is that when a
rape victims testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by
rigid cross-examination and un-flawed inconsistencies, or

25
Llave v. People, G.R. No. 166040, April 26, 2006, 488 SCRA 376, 400; People v.
Candaza, G.R. No. 170474, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 280, 295-296.
Page 12 of
contradictions in material points, the same must be given full faith
and credit.
26

Moreover, the physical examination conducted on Reyes by
Dr. Samadi-Denani also amply explains and corroborates her
testimony on the full penile penetration. The Rape Case Report
dated April 24, 2001 states that private complainant Reyes sustained
hymenal old laceration at 3, 6, 8 oclock positions which were
already healed or cured and had no bleeding at the time of the
examination. But more damning of the fact of the rapes committed
was that the victim (Reyes) during the physical examination
conducted by Dr. Samadi-Denani on April 23, 2001 was found to be
pregnant. In fact, Dr. Samadi-Denani found that Reyes was
approximately in her 14
th
week and 6 day of pregnancy. This fact
jibes with the first rape in January 2001. Being in her 14
th
or basically
15
th
week of pregnancy, Reyes was impregnated sometime in
January 2001. As Dr. Samadi-Denani testified that based on her
interview of private complainant Reyes, the last menstrual period
was in January 2001.

Second, the prosecution likewise sufficiently showed the force,
threat and intimidation employed by the accused in perpetrating
the three rapes. The victims recollection of how the rapes transpired
shows the indelible mark they produced in her memory. The first two
rapes were committed at the second floor of the same house she
shared with the family of the accused. The third happened in the
kitchen. In all three
26
instances, the accused was armed with bolo
and threatened to kill the victims family, which produced such
great fear in her. It must be borne in mind that in rape, the force and
intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victims perception
and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. The Court
finds sufficient force, threat and intimidation employed by accused
to produce such great fear in the victim. As to why she did not cry
for help, such can be gleaned by the insurmountable fear she was
experiencing. Besides, as already settled in our jurisdiction, not all
victims react the same way.
27


The Court cannot look favorably on the accuseds defense of
denial and alibi. Not only are these defenses Inherently weak, they
are not even buttressed with convincing evidence. The testimonies
of the accused and the three other defense witness the Court finds
incredulous. The Court notes that while accused asserted working
for Fermin Magno together with his son, brother and nephew (who
are the other defense witnesses)- he did not know the address of
Fermin Magno and he did not know the name of Fermins wife and
children. These same amnesia or ignorance is uniform with the other
defense witnesses. They do not know the other workers in the
mountain where they worked for a year and more incredulous is the
fact that they do not know the name of the mountain where they

26
People v. Canuto, G.R. No. 169083, August 7, 2006. 498 SCRA 198, 216 citing
People v. Baway, G.R. No. 130406, January 22, 2001, 350 SCRA 29, 46.
27
People v. Balonzo, G.R. No. 176153, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 760; People
v. Soriano, G.R. No. 172373, September 25, 2007, 534 SCRA 140, 145.
Page 13 of
worked for a year! This the Court finds preposterous and highly
incredible.

But what is damning in the testimonies of the defense is the
fact of their inconsistency. Jojo, the brother of the accused, in order
to show that the accused could not have raped the victim in
January, February and March 2001 testified that during their stay in
Liliw (i.e., for a year), there was no instance that accused went
home to their residence in Calauan, Laguna as they were always
together even during the time they were sleeping. The assertion of
Jojo Asendido is belied by the accused himself who testified that in
January, February and March 2001, he visited the house- where his
family lived together with Reyes only once each month.

Even granting arguendo that the accused only visited one
day a moth the house in Calauan, such would not show that he
could not have raped Reyes. Verily, he had the opportunity to do so
on those days he was around in those three months. Besides, the
testimonies of accuseds son (Jeffred), brother (Jojo) and his relative
(Fermin) were all expectedly biased in his favor. Owing to their
relationship to him, their natural tendency was to testify for him and
extricate him from the tightening noose of the victims damning
testimony. Moreover, their statements cannot prevail over the
positive identification and categorical accusation made by the
private complainant.

As regards the civil liability of the accused, in conformity with
People v. Jumawid
28
and People v Baldo,
29
the award of civil
indemnity of Php50,000.00 and moral damages of Php50,000.00 are
proper, for each count of rape. The award of civil indemnity to the
rape victim is mandatory upon the finding that rape took place.
Moral damages, on the other hand, are rewarded to rape victims
without need of proof other than the fact of rape, under the
assumption that the victim suffered moral injuries from the
experience she underwent.
30
Moreover, under current jurisprudence,
exemplary damages of Php 30, 000.00 for each count of rape is
likewise awarded. The award of exemplary damages is justified
under Article 2229 of Civil Code to set a public example or
correction for the public good.
31


WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, JUDGMENT is
hereby rendered finding the accused JAIME BELANO y ASENDIDO
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE on three (3) counts falling
under paragraph 1, subparagraph a, Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by RA 8353 and hereby imposes upon him
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA for each count of rape, as
imposed under Article 266-B of the same Code, as amended.


28
G.R. No. 184756, June 5, 2009.
29
G.R. No. 175238, February 24, 2009, 580 SCRA 225
30
People v. Lascano, G.R. No. 192180, March 21, 2012.
31
Id.
Page 14 of
Accused is, likewise, ORDERED TO PAY private complainant the
amount of Php 50,000.00 as moral damages, Php 50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and Php 30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count
of rape.

SO ORDERED.

Calamba City, December 6, 2012.







MARIA FLORENCIA B. FORMES-BACULO
Presiding Judge