[G.R. No. 128109.

November 19, 2003]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. VENO ESPERAS, appellant.
Appellant cannot be convicted of qualifed rape, because the Informations did not allege his
relationship with the victim. Moreover, the latters exact age at the time the crimes were
committed was not proven by the prosecution.
he !ase
"or automatic review before this !ourt is the #ctober $%, $&&' ()oint )udgment* of the
+egional rial !ourt ,+!- of .alawan, /ranch 01, in !riminal !ase 2os. $1001, $1343 and
$134%, fnding 5eno 6speras guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape. he
decretal portion of the 7ecision reads8
(9:6+6"#+6, premises considered, ;udgment is hereby rendered fnding the accused 562#
6<.6+A< guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of three counts of rape as charged in8
A. !+IMI2A= !A<6 2#. $1,001>
/. !+IMI2A= !A<6 2#. $1,343> and
!. !+IMI2A= !A<6 2#. $1,34%> and as the commission of each of the o?enses had been
attended by the qualifying circumstance that, the o?enses charged were committed against a
victim below $% years of age, and by an o?ender who is related to the o?ended party within
the second degree of a@nity, the accused is hereby sentenced to three ,A- counts of death B
one for each of the above entitled !riminal !ases C in the manner prescribed by law> to pay
the o?ended party and complainant 6mie +. Adier civil indemnity of .04,444,44 for each of
the three ,A- o?enses charged.*
In three separate Informations BB one dated August 1&, $&&0> and two, 2ovember 3, $&&0 BB
.rosecutor +eynaldo +. Duayco charged appellant as follows8
r!m!"#$ #%e No. 12&&2
(hat on August E, $&&0, at about 0844 oclocF in the afternoon, at <itio =anding, Municipality
of <an 5icente, .rovince of .alawan, .hilippines, and within the ;urisdiction of this :onorable
!ourt, the said accused, 562# 6<.6+A<, with violence, threat and intimidation by using a
Fnife and with lewd design, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
Fnowledge with 6MI6 +. A7I6+, a girl of $0 years of age, against her will and consent to her
damage and pre;udice.*
r!m!"#$ #%e No. 12'0'
(hat on the E
th
day of August, $&&0, at about 08A4 oclocF in the afternoon, at <itio =anding,
/arangay 2ew Agutaya, Municipality of <an 5icente, .rovince of .alawan, .hilippines, and
within the ;urisdiction of this :onorable !ourt, the said accused with lewd design and by
means of force, threat and intimidation with the use of a Fnife, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal Fnowledge with one, 6MI6 +. A7I6+, a girl of $0 years
of age, a minor, against her will and consent.*
r!m!"#$ #%e No. 12'08
(hat on the E
th
day of August, $&&0, at about '844 oclocF in the afternoon, at <itio =anding,
/arangay 2ew Agutaya, Municipality of <an 5icente, .rovince of .alawan, .hilippines, and
within the ;urisdiction of this :onorable !ourt, the said accused with lewd design and by
means of force, threat, and intimidation with the use of a Fnife, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal Fnowledge with one, 6MI6 +. A7I6+, a girl of $0 years
of age, a minor, against her will and consent.*
Gpon his arraignment on 2ovember $4, $&&0, appellant, with the assistance of counsel,
pleaded not guilty to all the charges. After trial in due course, the court a quo rendered the
assailed ;udgment.
T(e F#)*%
Version of the Prosecution
In its /rief, the #@ce of the <olicitor Deneral ,#<D- presents the prosecutions version of the
facts in the following manner8
(In the morning of August E, $&&0, while the victim 6mie Adier was cooFing breaFfast, her
brotherBinBlaw, appellant 5eno 6speras, arrived and requested her to buy medicine for his
fghting cocFs and to bring it to his house after attending her class. 6mie, who was then a
ffteenByear old barrio lass, had cordial relations with appellant who is the husband of her
sister 6lnora.
(6mie bought the medicine after attending school. <he then proceeded to appellants house
at <itio =anding, /arangay 2ew Agutaya, <an 5icente, .alawan, which is about two ,1-
Filometers away from her school. #nly appellant was at home because his wife, the victims
sister, was away teaching at the far away town of !aruray, <an 5icente, .alawan, where she
and her child stayed during weeFdays. Gpon her arrival around 0844 in the afternoon, the
victim called the appellant and told him that she already bought the medicine he requested.
Appellant appeared and went down the stairs. 9hile she was handing the medicine to him,
appellant immediately held her hand, pulled her up the stairs and dragged her inside the
house.
(9hen inside the house, appellant hastily pointed a tenBinch ;ungle Fnife on 6mies necF. he
victim cried and shouted but appellant immediately covered her mouth with his hand.
(he victim told appellant not to proceed with his intentions because she treated him as her
own brother but appellant told her not to treat him as her brother. :er pleas went unheeded.
Appellant pushed 6mie to lie down and proceeded to undress her of her uniform and
underwear with his other hand. <he FicFed and struggled but she did not succeed in resisting
appellant.
(Appellant thereby undressed. :e then embraced and Fissed the victim from her face to her
vagina. Appellant placed his fnger on her private part and while lying on top of the victim,
inserted his organ to her vagina. he hapless victim felt pain. After about HtenI seconds,
appellant removed his organ from the victims vagina and rested on top of her for A4 minutes.
(After resting, he again pointed his Fnife at 6mies necF. <he boxed and FicFed appellant but
she could not resist his strength. Appellant again inserted his organ to her genitalia and
made a push and pull motion. After ravishing the victim, appellant sat and rested beside her.
6mie attempted to run but appellant grabbed her and prevented her from running. In pain
and feeling very weaF, 6mie was unable to escape.
("or the third time, he again poFed the Fnife on 6mies necF and once more placed his organ
inside her vagina. :e ravished her for ten minutes. After satisfying his lechery, appellant
ordered the victim to dress up. Appellant forewarned the victim not to tell anybody,
otherwise, JHindi ako aatras, papatayin ko kayong lahat.
(he victim who was hardly able to stand slowly dressed herself and headed home. <he
reached her house around '8A4 in the evening. <he saw her parents and siblings but she was
unable to immediately disclose her ordeal because she feared for their lives. In the
succeeding days, however, her mother noticed that she looFed weaF and did not eat regularly.
<he confded to her mother three days after the incident. he victims mother went to the
police. 6mie executed three ,A- complaints against appellant. he doctor who examined her
days after the incident found that she su?ered lacerations in her genitalia. he medical
certifcate dated August $4, $&&0, signed by 7r. +uthelma De;on stated8
Drossly "emale genitalia
2oted healed laceration at A, % and $$ oclocF
Admits one fnger with tenderness
2egative for spermatoKoa
(/ased on her fndings, the doctor concluded that the lacerations could have been caused by
penetration or trauma.* ,!itations omitted-
Ver%!o" o+ *(e ,e+e"%e
Appellant interposes the defense of denial. :is version of the facts is as follows8
(he accusedBappellant is a simple farmer, aged 10 years at the time of trial. :is marriage to
6lnora in $&&A was blessed with a child. 6lnora teaches in a far place, which needs crossing
the sea by pumpboat. 7uring schooldays, 6lnora and the child stay at her place of teaching
assignment, leaving the accusedBappellant alone at home to attend to their other concerns.
heir house is a oneBroom nipa shacF with a Loor made of bamboo slats.
(6arly in the morning of E August $&&0, the accusedBappellant went to the house of the
accuser and asFed her, being the younger sister of her wife, to buy some medicine for his
fghting cocFs, and to bring it to his house after class that day. As told, the accuser bought
the medicine and brought it to the house of accusedBappellant after class.
(Gpon reaching the house of accusedBappellant, she called out to him. <he was on the
ground, reaching out to him the medicine with her right hand. he accusedBappellant was at
the topmost part of stairs of his house. he Loor of the house or nipa shacF is about one
meter from the ground. hus, in the direct examination of the accuser.
M. Is the Looring elevated from the groundN
A. Oes, sir, about a meter high.
(9hile the accuser was in the act of giving the medicine to the accusedBappellant, the latter
tooF hold of her right hand with his left hand, forcibly pulling her up the stairs of his house,
and while facing her directly, covered her mouth with his hand as she was shouting loudly
even while she was still outside the house. he accusedBappellant allegedly dragged her into
his house, and when they were inside the house, pulled out from a scabbard tucFed at the
right side of his waist a ;ungle Fnife, poFing the right side of her necF. 6ven with a Fnife
poFed at her necF, she continued to shout.
(he accusedBappellant forcibly pushed her to the Loor, and the accusedBappellant while
holding the Fnife with one hand, undresseHdI her totally, removing her blouse, sFirt, bra and
panty with his free hand, even as she was continuously shouting for help, with her bacF
pressed against the Loor. <he was boxing, pushing, and FicFing the accusedBappellant. /ut
still the accusedBappellant succeeded in sexually abusing her.
(At the time of the alleged sexual assault she was menstruating. /ut she felt and touched
blood in her vagina only after the third sexual intercourse.
(he accusedBappellant removed her palda while he was on top of her. As the accusedB
appellant removed her panty, the waistline of her panty got torn ,although this was not
presented as exhibit by the prosecution-.
(#n the second count of HtheI alleged rape, the accuser testifed that before raping her the
second time, the accusedBappellant poFed the ;ungle Fnife to her necF. And while the
accusedBappellant was poFing the ;ungle Fnife to her necF, she again boxed him and FicFed
him but she could not resist his strength.
(he prosecution did not formally o?er to prove that the accuser was a minor.
(he prosecution reserved the presentation of the birth certifcate but never presented it in
evidence.*
R-$!". o+ *(e Tr!#$ o-r*
he +! convicted appellant of three counts of rape for the following reasons. First, more
than his negative assertion, it was complainants positive testimony that was given more
weight. Second, the physical evidence BB the medical examination of complainant six days
after the incident and the testimony of the examining physician BB was deemed to have
corroborated the formers assertion that appellant had ravished her.
he trial court discarded the denial pro?ered by appellant, saying that no woman, especially
of tender age, would concoct a story of deLoration, allow an examination of her private parts,
and expose herself and her family to a public trial, if she was not moved by the desire to have
her ravisher punished. Moreover, because the close and cordial relations between her and
appellant would be adversely a?ected by the fling of the charges, only the desire to seeF
;ustice could have motivated her and her mother to fle the charges, against him.
:ence, this automatic review before us.
T(e I%%-e%
Appellant raises the following errors for our consideration8
($.4$. he trial court gravely erred in according credence to the testimony of
the accuser, the scenes depicted in her testimony being highly
improbable and inconsistent with physical laws and human behavior.
($.41. he trial court gravely erred in imposing the death penalty on the
accusedBappellant as the qualifying circumstances of minority was not
su@ciently proven, and that of relationship was not pleaded in the
information.
($.4A. he trial court erred in fnding that the physical evidence culled from
the physicians physicalPmedical examination of the accuser six days
after the alleged rape was consistent with the latters complaint of
rape.
H($.4E.I he trial court gravely erred in ruling that the defense of denial by the
accused is inherently weaF, without putting to scrutiny the
contradictory and improbable testimony of the accuser.
H($.40.I he trial court gravely erred in holding appellant liable to pay his
accuser the sum of "ifty housand .esos ,.04,444.44- as civil
indemnity.*
<imply put, the main arguments of appellant are as follows8 $- the circumstances surrounding
the o?ense charged are highly improbable> ,1- the commissions of rape cannot be drawn from
the physical evidence presented by the prosecution> and ,A- the trial court erred in
appreciating the minority of the victim and her relationship with him.
he !ourts +uling
9e a@rm the conviction of appellant for three counts of rape, but reduce the penalty for each
count to reclusion perpetua for the failure of the Informations to allege his relationship with
the victim and for the failure of the prosecution to prove her exact age.
"irst Issue8
Probability of Circumstances
Appellant questions why complainant did not sustain in;uries despite the resistance she was
supposed to have put up against him BB boxing and FicFing him while loudly shouting for help.
<uch struggle should have caused bodily in;uries not confned only to the genitalia. Abrasions,
hematoma or contusions should have resulted if he had indeed forcibly pulled her from the
ground up to his house, which was about a meter above the ground. Moreover, a marF or cut
would have been left on her necF, if he had truly poFed a Fnife at it.
:e adds as improbable the failure of his neighbors to hear her cries if she truly shouted for
help. Among them was 6ly .eralta who testifed that she was inside her house, which was
about $4 meters away from his, yet she did not hear any shouts at the time.
Allegedly unable to fathom why complainant and her mother would fabricate the charges
against him despite his cordial relations with them, he contends that the trial court should not
have applied the rule that no decent woman would fle a rape charge if she was not motivated
by the desire to seeF ;ustice.
9e re;ect his arguments. he assigned errors, being essentially factual, may readily be
explained upon a careful review of the records.
First, the records do not show whether the victim su?ered other bodily in;uries. 7uring the
trial, questions on this matter were limited to the lacerations of her genitalia. As to other
in;uries, none was propounded to her, her mother or the examining physician.
Second, appellant did not pull the victim from the ground while he was still inside his nipa
house. <he clearly testifed that he had gone down the stairs> gripped her hand> and dragged
her from there, up the stairs, and into the house. It was not improbable that the whole process
left her unscathed, assuming that she was.
Third, his claim that the victim did not su?er in;uries when he poFed a Fnife at her necF is of
no moment. It must be clarifed that the word (poFe* in the transcript was interchangeably
used with the word (pointed,* which indicates that it was a rough translation of the "ilipino
word (tinutok.* 2aturally, a Fnife that does not touch the sFin would not cause in;ury.
2onetheless, the presence of in;uries is not vital to establishing the guilt of appellant. he
alleged absence of external in;uries on the victim does not detract from the fact that rape was
committed. 6ven, assuming arguendo that there were no signs of other bodily in;uries, the
occurrence of rape is still not negated, since their absence is not an essential element of the
crime.
2either is the fact of the rape weaFened by the claim of appellant that none of his neighbors
heard any shout for help from the victim. As can be gleaned from the records, he quicFly
halted her shouts by covering her mouth with his hand and poFing a Fnife at her necF. :e also
warned her that he would Fill her if she made any noise. "rom time to time he silenced her
succeeding shouts until she eventually became too weaF to maFe any noise.
hus, the circumstances surrounding the rapes are not implausible, as appellant would liFe
this !ourt to believe. hese are immaterial, as they refer to explainable details that have
nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of the crime of rape BB carnal
Fnowledge through force or intimidation.
Appellants denial cannot overcome the victims positive assertion. Mere denial, if
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given
greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim. ime and time again
this !ourt has said that when a woman BB more so when she is a minor BB says she has been
raped, she says in e?ect all that is required to prove the ravishment.
"urthermore, appellant failed to show any ill motive, on the part of the victim and her mother,
to fabricate such a story. A witness testifying candidly, trustworthily and consistently BB
without any ill motive BB is surely more credible than an appellant who simply denies the
charge. (9here there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the rape
victim to testify falsely against the accused or to implicate him falsely in the commission of a
crime, the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.*
he victim recounted how appellant BB armed with a Fnife BB defled her thrice on that fateful
day8
("I<!A= 6<#=A2#
,cont-
9hat else did he remove from his bodyN
A :e removed his pants and brief.
M After removing his brief, what did he doN
A :e again pointed the Fnife to me.
M And what happened nextN
A 9hile he was pointing the Fnife, I continued pushing him, but I cannot resist his
strength.
x x x x x x x x x
M 9hat happened nextN
A :e placed his fnger inside my vagina.
M hen what happened nextN
A :e inserted his organ to my vagina.
"I<!A= 6<#=A2#
,cont-
9hat was his position when he inserted his penis inside your vaginaN
A :e was on top of me.
M After inserting his penis to your vagina, what did you feelN
A I felt pain.
M After inserting his penis to your vagina, what did you do and while he was on top of
youN
A :e is still pointing the Fnife to my necF.*
x x x x x x x x x
QM 9hen you said rested, what do you mean by restedN
A :e was resting.
M 9here was his penis while restingN 9here did he restN
A #n top of me.
!#G+
,to witness-
7id he sleep on top of youN
A 2o, sir.
"I<!A= 6<#=A2#
,cont-
9hile the accused was resting, what did you doN
A 9hile he was resting I Fept on boxing him.
H"I<!A= 6<#=A2#I
,to witness-
9as the penis still inside your vaginaN
A 2o more, sir.
M :ow long did 5eno 6speras restN
A "or A4 minutes.
!#G+
,to witness-
#n top of you he rested for A4 minutesN
A Oes, sir.
"I<!A= 6<#=A2#
,cont-
9hy did you say that he was resting thereN
A /ecause at that time he was no longer moving.
M 2o longer moving his whatN
A :e is no longer moving his body.
M After resting for A4 minutes, what did 5eno 6speras doN
A :e again point a ;ungle Fnife on my necF.
M 9hat did you do when he pointed the ;ungle Fnife to your necFN
A I again boxed him and FicFed him but I cannot resist his strength.
"I<!A= 6<#=A2#
,cont-
9hat happened nextN
A :e again inserted his male organ to my vagina.
M 9hat did you feel when he inserted his penis inside your vaginaN
A I felt pain.
M :ow long did the penis stay inside your vaginaN
A "or $4 minutes.
M 9hile his penis was inside your vagina, what was he doingN
A :e was then Fissing me.
x x x x x x x x x
"I<!A= 6<#=A2#
,cont-
After $4 minutes what did 5eno 6speras doN
A :e again rested himself.
M 9hen you said he rested, what was his position when restingN
A :e was sitting beside me.
"I<!A= 6<#=A2#
,cont-
:ow about you, what did you do since his body was no longer on top of youN
A 9hen he was resting I was about to run away but he immediately held my hand, so I
was not able to run.
M :ow long did 5eno 6speras restN
A "or $4 minutes.
M After he rested what happened nextN
A :e again inserted his penis to my vagina.
M :ow was he able to insert his penis inside your vagina when you said he was sitting
beside you and you were about to run awayN
A 9hile he rested, he again raped me.*
It is a hornbooF doctrine that that the competence and the credibility of witnesses are best
determined by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe their deportment
while testifying. /inding and conclusive on this !ourt are its factual fndings, absent any
arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of weight and substance. In the present
case, the court a quo gave more credence to the positive testimony of the victim, and we fnd
no reason to set aside its factual fndings.
<econd Issue8
Physical Evidence
Appellant contends that the physical evidence from the medical examination is not consistent
with the fnding of rape. :e argues that the examining physician should not have concluded
hastily that complainant had been raped, because the medical fndings merely showed that
her genitalia was positive for lacerations. :e adds that such lacerations are not conclusive of
the commission of rape. Allegedly, although the examination was intended to determine its
factual truth, the physician should not have rendered the conclusion that complainant had
indeed been raped. :e further alleges that the doctor was not even an expert witness, having
commenced medical practice only a year after she passed her licensure examination.
Moreover, her previous examinations on more than $4 rape victims supposedly resulted in
inconclusive fndings.
9e disagree with appellant. 9hile vaginal lacerations alone cannot establish rape, they are
corroborative of its commission. he straightforward and unwavering testimony of the victim,
coupled with her vaginal lacerations, proved that rape was committed, and that he was the
perpetrator. It was the totality of evidence BB not the mere presence or absence of those
lacerations BB that established his culpability for the o?ense charged.
hird Issue8
inority and !elationship
Appellant claims that the +! imposed on him the penalty of death, because the trial court
had appreciated the minority of the victim and his alleged relationship by a@nity to her.
9e are persuaded.
inority of the "ictim
#ot Proven $eyond
!easonable %oubt
9e agree with appellant that the minority of the victim was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt. he prosecution failed to present her birth certifcate despite its reservation to present
it during the trial.
It must be noted that the rapes were committed prior to the e?ectivity of +A 2o. %A0A,
otherwise Fnown as (he AntiB+ape =aw of $&&3.* Applicable, then is the old provision BB
<ection $$ of +A 2o. 3'0& BB which reads as follows8
/SE. 11. Ar*!)$e 33& o+ *(e %#me o0e !% (ereb1 #me"0e0 *o re#0 #% +o$$o2%3
x x x x x x x x x
J9henever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more
persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
x x x x x x x x x
Jhe death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances8
J$. when the victim is under eighteen ,$%- years of age and the o?ender is a parent,
ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or a@nity within the third civil
degree, or the commonBlawBspouse of the parent of the victim.*
Minority not having been su@ciently established, the trial court committed reversible error in
appreciating it as a qualifying circumstance> as such, it must be proved with equal certainty
and clearness as the crime itself. +equired, therefore, is independent proof of the ageof the
victim, such as, her birth certifcate or her mothers testimony.
he victim testifed that she was born on August $E, $&3&, and was thus $0 years old on the
date of the trial. #n the other hand, her mother testifed that she was born in <eptember
$&3&. hese conLicting BB albeit casual BB testimonies cast a serious doubt on the victims
exact age at the time of rape.
In People v& $rigildo ,the !ourt held that minority as a qualifying circumstance under <ection
$$ of +A 2o. 3'0& had not been properly proven when the testimony of the mother as to the
true age of the victim contradicted that of the latter. he !ourt was thus constrained to
reduce to reclusion perpetua the penalty of death imposed by the trial court.
'ppellant(s !elationship
by ')nity to the "ictim
Another error committed by the +! was its appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of
relationship of appellant with the victim. :e is allegedly her brotherBinBlaw, but because this
fact was not alleged in the Informations, it should not have been used by the trial court to
qualify the crime.
9ellBsettled is the rule that the relationship of the perpetrator with the victim must be duly
alleged in order to ;ustify the imposition of the death penalty. (If the o?ender is merely a
relation C not a parent, ascendant, stepBparent, guardian, or common law spouse of the
mother of the victim BB the specifc relationship must be alleged in the information, i&e., that
he is Ja relative by consanguinity or a@nity Has the case may beI within the third civil
degree.*
Civil *iability
In addition to indemnity e+ delicto, the victim should be awarded moral damages in the sum
of .04,444. his !ourt has granted the same to victims of rape without need of proof other
than the fact of rape, which by itself shows the factual bases for the award. Also, exemplary
damages of .10,444s proper, since the prosecution was able to prove the relationship of
appellant with the victim. 6ven if not alleged in the Information, their proven relationship is
su@cient basis for this civil liability.
4HEREFORE, the )oint )udgment promulgated on #ctober $%, $&&' by the +egional rial
!ourt of .alawan, fnding appellant guilty of three counts of qualifed rape, is ,%-F-E%& :e is
found ./-*T0 of three counts of S-P*E !'PE only, and for each count he is sentenced to
three ,A- terms of reclusion perpetua. "urthermore, for each count of rape he is ordered to
pay the victim moral damages of .04,444 and exemplary damages of .10,444, in addition to
the .04,444 civil indemnity imposed by the +! for each count.
<# #+76+67.