5/27/2017 G.R.No.

176631

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

PEOPLEOFTHE G.R.No.176631
PHILIPPINES,
PlaintiffAppellee, Present:

CARPIOMORALES,Chairperson,
BRION,

BERSAMIN,
versus
VILLARAMA,JR.,and
SERENOJJ.

Promulgated:
AVELINOFELAN,
AccusedAppellant. February2,2011
xx
DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:

HisowndaughtercommencedtheprosecutionofAvelinoFelanforqualifiedrapethrough
[1]
hercomplaintdatedMay30,1996. TheinformationsubsequentlyfiledintheRegionalTrial
Court(RTC)inOrmocCityalleged:

Thatonoraboutthe12thdayofFebruary1995,ataround10:00oclockintheevening,at
Brgy. Tambulilid, Ormoc City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above
named accused AVELINO FELAN, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there
willfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyhavesexualintercoursewithhisveryowndaughter,AAA,
[2] [3]
afourteen(14)yearsoldlass,againstherwill.

The Prosecution showed that at about 10:00 p.m. on February 12, 1995, the accused
rousedhisdaughterAAA,thecomplainant,then14yearsold,fromsleepinsidetheirhousethat
hetoldhernottobeafraidthatheremovedherpanty,spreadherlegs,andwentontopofher
that she resisted but he overpowered her that he inserted his penis into her vagina and made
pumpingmovementsuntilhesatisfiedhimselfthatshecriedduetovaginalpainthatsheleft

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/176631.htm 1/6
5/27/2017 G.R.No.176631

thehouseandstayedwithherfriends,whoadvisedhertoreporttherapetoMrs.CharitoAris,a
socialworkeroftheDepartmentofSocialWelfareandDevelopment(DSWD)inOrmocCity
thatMrs.Arislaterbroughtherfirsttothepolicestationforreportingoftherape,andthentoDr.
Gloria Esmero Pastor, City Health Officer of Ormoc City, for medical examination that Dr.
Pastor found that AAAs hymen was torn and that Dr. Pastor concluded that the hymenal
lacerationcouldbecausedbysexualintercourse.

Theaccuseddeniedtheaccusation,brandingitasthefabricationofAAAoutofangerat
himfornotgivingherbasicneedsandforadmonishinghertostopusingillegaldrugs.

Aftertrial,onNovember26,1997,theRTCconvictedtheaccusedofqualifiedrapeand
[4]
imposedthedeathpenalty.HewasalsoorderedtopayAAAP50,000.00ascivilindemnity.

OnJuly14,2006,theCourtofAppeals(CA)modifiedthecriminalandcivilliabilitiesof
the accused after finding him guilty of simple rape on account of AAAs minority not being
established beyond reasonable doubt. The CA lowered the penalty to reclusion perpetua and
sentencedhimtopayanamountofP50,000.00asmoraldamagesandP25,000.00asexemplary
[5]
damagesinadditiontothecivilindemnityofP50,000.00.

InhisappealtothisCourt,theaccusedcontendsthattheRTCandtheCAerredinrelying
mainlyonAAAstestimony,despitehernotbeingacrediblewitnessandalthoughhertestimony
was doubtful by reason of her having used illegal drugs and having engaged in prostitution,
[6]
asidefrompossessingapoormemory.Heinsiststhathecouldcontrolhissexualurge.

Theappeallacksmeritandpersuasion.Weaffirmtheconviction.

ThelawapplicableisArticle335oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbySection11of
[7]
RepublicActNo.7659, whichprovides:

Article 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal
knowledgeofawomanunderanyofthefollowingcircumstances:

1.Byusingforceorintimidation

2.Whenthewomanisdeprivedofreasonorotherwiseunconsciousand
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/176631.htm 2/6
5/27/2017 G.R.No.176631

3.Whenthewomanisundertwelveyearsofageorisdemented.

The State competently and sufficiently established these elements beyond reasonable
doubt. AAA rendered a complete and credible narration of her ordeal at the hands of the
accused, whom she positively identified. In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be
convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and
[8]
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, as in this case. Here, the
victimstestimonywasevencorroboratedonmaterialpointsbythetestimoniesofMrs.Arisand
Dr.Pastoraswellasbythedocumentaryevidencesadduced.

It is notable that the RTC and the CA both found and considered AAA as a credible
witness whose testimony should be believed. We accord great weight to the trial judges
assessment of the credibility of AAA and of her testimony because the trial judge, having
personallyobservedAAAsconductanddemeanorasawitness,wastherebyenabledtodiscern
[9]
if she was telling or inventing the truth. The trial judges evaluation, when affirmed by the
CA,isbindingontheCourt,anditbecomestheburdenoftheaccusedtoprojecttousfactsor
circumstancesofweightthatwereoverlooked,misapprehended,ormisinterpretedwhich,when
[10]
duly considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case differently. We do not
varyfromthisrulenow,however,consideringthattheaccuseddidnotmakeanyshowingthat
the RTC, in the first instance, and the CA, on review, ignored, misapprehended, or
misinterpretedfactsorcircumstancessupportiveoforcrucialtohisdefense.

The denial of the accused, being worthless, was properly disregarded. It was both self
servinganduncorroborated.Itcouldnot,therefore,overcomethepositivedeclarationsagainst
[11]
theaccusedandthepositiveidentificationoftheaccusedbyAAA, whosegoodmotiveto
imputesuchaheinousacttoherownfatherwasnotdisprovedorrefuted.Wedoconsidertobe
highly inconceivable for a daughter like AAA to impute against her own father a crime as
seriousanddespicableasincestrape,unlesstheimputationwastheplaintruth. In fact, as we
observed before, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to
concoctastorywhichwouldputherownfathertojailfortherestofhisremaininglifeanddrag
[12]
therestofthefamilyincludingherselftoalifetimeofshame.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/176631.htm 3/6
5/27/2017 G.R.No.176631

TheattempttodiscreditAAAonthegroundofherbeingauserofillegaldrugsandofher
havingengagedinprostitutiondeservednoconsideration.Firstofall,AAAsuseofillegaldrugs
andengaginginprostitution,eveniftrue,didnotdestroyhercredibilityasawitnessornegate
the rape. Indeed, the Court has ruled that the victims moral character was immaterial in the
prosecutionandconvictionofanaccusedforrape,therebeingabsolutelynonexusbetweenit
[13]
and the odious deed committed. Moreover, even a prostitute or a woman of loose morals
[14]
couldfallvictimofrape,forshecouldstillrefuseamanslustfuladvances.

The CA correctly pronounced the accused liable for simple rape and properly punished
him with reclusion perpetua. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, supra, rape is qualified and punished by death if it is
allegedandprovedthatthevictimwasaminorduringthecommissionofthecrimeandthatthe
[15]
offenderwasherparent. Althoughtheinformationallegedthatthevictimwasonly14years
ofageatthetimeoftherape,theStatedidnotdulyestablishsuchcircumstancebecausenobirth
certificate, or baptismal certificate, or other competent document showing her age was
[16]
presented.Hertestimonyregardingheragewithoutanyindependentproofisnotsufficient.
Asaresult,thepenaltyforsimplerapewasproperlyreclusionperpetua.

Prevailing jurisprudence leads us to affirm the CAs ruling that AAA was entitled to
[17] [18]
P50,000.00ascivilindemnity, andP50,000.00asmoraldamages, withoutneedofany
pleadingandproof.SimilarlycorrectwastheCAsgrantofP25,000.00asexemplarydamages.
[19] [20]
InPeoplev.Mira, weobservedthatwheneitheroneofthequalifyingcircumstancesof
relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the information and
proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. In this case, the
relationshipbetweenthevictimandtheaccusedisanaggravatingcircumstancebecauseitwas
alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial. Thus, conformably with Article
2230oftheCivilCode,whichprovidesthatincriminaloffenses,exemplarydamagesasapart
of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more
aggravatingcircumstance,weratifytheawardofexemplarydamages.

WHEREFORE,theCourtaffirmsthedecisionpromulgatedonJuly14,2006inCAG.R.
CR.H.C.No.00158.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/176631.htm 4/6
5/27/2017 G.R.No.176631

SOORDERED.



LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson



ARTUROD.BRIONMARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice




MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson




CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/176631.htm 5/6
5/27/2017 G.R.No.176631

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
Records,p.23.
[2]
PursuanttoRepublicActNo.9262(AntiViolenceAgainstWomenandTheirChildrenActof2004),anditsimplementingrules,
therealnameofthevictimandtherealnamesofherimmediatefamilymembersarewithheldand,instead,fictitiousinitialsareused
torepresenthertoprotectherprivacy.SeealsoPeoplev.Cabalquinto,G.R.No.167693,September19,2006,502SCRA419.
[3]
Supranote1.
[4]
Records,pp.191200.
[5]
Rollo,pp.714pennedbyAssociateJusticeAgustinS.Dizon(retired),withAssociateJusticeIsaiasP.DicdicanandAssociate
JusticeApolinarioD.Bruselas,Jr.,concurring.
[6]
CArollo,pp.3340.
[7]
AnActtoImposetheDeathPenaltyonCertainHeinousCrimes,AmendingforthatPurposetheRevisedPenalLaws,andfor
otherPurposes.(ThelawtookeffectonDecember31,1993).
[8]
Peoplev.Montesa,G.R.No.181899,November27,2008,572SCRA317,331.
[9]
Peoplev.Lantano,G.R.No.176734,January28,2008,542SCRA640,651652.
[10]
Peoplev.Domingo,G.R.No.184958,September17,2009,600SCRA280,288Gerastav.People,G.R.No.176981,December
24,2008,575SCRA503,512.
[11]
Peoplev.Agsaoay,Jr.,G.R.Nos.13212526,June3,2004,430SCRA450.
[12]
Peoplev.Javier,G.R.No.126096,July26,1999,311SCRA122,133.
[13]
Supranote11,p.466.
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
Article335.xxx
xxx
Thedeathpenaltyshallbeimposedifthecrimeofrapeiscommittedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
1.Whenthevictimisundereighteen(18)yearsofageandtheoffenderisaparent,ascendant,stepparent,guardian,relativeby
consanguinityoraffinitywithinthethirdcivildegree,orthecommonlawspouseoftheparentofthevictim.
xxx
[16]
Peoplev.Mira,G.R.No.175324,October10,2007,535SCRA543,561.
[17]
Peoplev.Dalisay,G.R.No.188106,November25,2009,605SCRA807,816.
[18]
Peoplev.Gragasin,G.R.No.186496,August25,2009,597SCRA214,233.
[19]
Peoplev.Arcosiba,G.R.No.181081,September4,2009,598SCRA517,525.
[20]
Supra,note16,p.562.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/176631.htm 6/6