People v. Teves

9/11/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME310
788
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Teves
*
G.R.No.128839.July20,1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee,

GODOFREDOTEVESyLEMEN,accusedappellant.
vs.
CriminalLaw Rape Principles guiding the Court in reversing rape

cases.In reviewing rape cases we are guided by the following well
entrenchedprinciples:(1)anaccusationforrapecanbemadewithfacility:it
is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though
innocent, to disprove it (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of
rape where only two persons are usually involved, 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
allowedtodrawstrengthfromtheweaknessoftheevidenceforthedefense.
SameSameEvidenceCredibilityofWitnessesWhentheissueisone
of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the
findingsofthetrialcourtExceptions.Basicineveryprosecutionforrape
isthedeterminationofthecredibilityofthe
___________________
*ENBANC.
789
VOL.310,JULY20,1999
789
Peoplevs.Teves
offendedpartystestimony,forthelonetestimonyofthevictim,ifcredible,
issufficienttosustaintheverdictofconviction.Onthisnote,whentheissue
isoneofcredibilityofwitnesses,appellatecourtswillgenerallynotdisturb
the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better
position to decide the question as it heard the witnesses themselves and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. The
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157179c2d725470722e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/21
9/11/2016
exceptions to the rule are when such evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or
whenthetrialcourtoverlooked,misunderstoodormisappliedsomefactsor
circumstance of weight and substance which could affect the result of the
case.WesustainthetrialcourtsrulingastothecredibilityofCHERRYand
findthatGODOFREDOmiserablyfailedtodemonstratetheexistenceofany
oftheexceptionsaforementioned.OurreviewofCHERRYstestimonyhas
usfullyconvincedofhersincerity,candorandtruthfulnessastothefactof
rape,totheextentthattheonlyissuetoberesolvedisthenumberoftimes
shewasraped.
Same Same Same Same It is settled that the precise time of the
commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime The natural
vacillationofadaughtertopubliclydenounceherfatherandtotestifyinan
unfamiliar and unfriendly environment on such a delicate matter very well
explain the minor lapses in her testimony Settled is the rule that
discrepancies and inconsistencies on minor matters do not impair the
essentialintegrityoftheprosecutionsevidenceasawholenorreflectonthe
witness honesty.Respecting the charge that CHERRYs testimony
consistedmainlyofuncertain,conflicting,vagueandinconsistentanswersto
specific questions propounded upon her during the direct and cross
examination,sufficeittostatethatherfailuretorememberandelaborateon
every detail of her unfortunate experience was inconsequential. What must
beborneinmindwasthatshewasmerelyfourteen(14)yearsoldwhenshe
testifiedmoreover,GODOFREDOdidnotobjecttohertestimonyastothe
timeofthecommissionofthecrime.Itissettledthattheprecisetimeofthe
commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime. Likewise,
GODOFREDOs harping on CHERRYs failure to recall the exact number
oftimesshewasrapedisnotpersuasive.Wecannotreasonablyexpectherto
recount in detail her humiliating experience since the accused is of her own
flesh and blood. The natural vacillation of a daughter to publicly denounce
herfatherandtotestifyinanunfamiliarandunfriendlyenvironmentonsuch
a delicate matter very well explain the minor lapses in her testimony. More
thananythingelse,theallegedincon
790
790
Peoplevs.Teves
sistenciesanddiscrepanciesinCHERRYstestimonyreferredonlytominor
and trivial matters and were, undoubtedly, insufficient to dilute the
truthfulness and destroy the probative value of her testimony. We find no
iotaofevidenceshowingthatCHERRYsaccountwasaresultofdeliberate
falsehood.Settledistherulethatdiscrepanciesandinconsistenciesonminor
mattersdonotimpairtheessentialintegrityoftheprosecutionsevidenceas
awholenorreflectonthewitnesshonesty.Suchinconsistencies,whichmay
2/21
9/11/2016
be caused by the natural fickleness of the memory, even tend to strengthen

rather than weaken the credibility of the witness because they erase any
suspicionofrehearsedtestimony.
Same Same Same In a rape committed by a father against his
daughter, the moral dominance and parental influence x x x substitute for
forceandintimidation,whichproducereasonablefearinthechild.Neither
canGODOFREDObeallowedtomakemuchofthefactthattheprosecution
was unable to establish forcible carnal knowledge of CHERRY. In a rape
committed by a father against his daughter, the moral dominance and
parental influence that essentially flows from the reverence and respect a
childhastowardtheirparentswhichareingrainedandobservedintheminds
oftheFilipinochildren,substituteforforceandintimidation,whichproduce
reasonablefearinthechild.
Same Same Same It is not uncommon that young girls usually
concealforsometimetheassaultupontheirvirtuebecauseofthethreatson
their lives.The delay in instituting the present criminal prosecution
likewisedoesnotengenderdoubtastoGODOFREDOsguilt,inlightofthe
established fact that CHERRY kept silent about the incident because of
GODOFREDOs death threat. CHERRY, a young barrio lass and with a
simple and unsophisticated mind, cannot be expected to have the fortitude
andcourageofanadult,matureandexperiencedwomanwhomaydisregard
thethreatand,withpromptitude,condemnintheopentheshamefulscandal
wrought upon her by her very own father. It is not uncommon that young
girls usually conceal for some time the assault upon their virtue because of
thethreatsontheirlives.
AUTOMATICREVIEWofadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
Imus,Cavite,Br.20.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
791
VOL.310,JULY20,1999
791
Peoplevs.Teves
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant.
DAVIDE,JR.,C.J.:
1
This case is before us on automatic review of the decision of 14

March1997oftheRegionalTrialCourtofImus,Cavite,Branch20,
in four (4) criminal cases, finding accusedappellant Godofredo
Teves y Lemen (hereafter GODOFREDO) guilty of the crime of
multiplerapeandsentencinghimtosufferthepenaltyofdeathand
3/21
9/11/2016
to pay the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as compensatory

damages.
3
On the basis of a sworn statement executed by Cherry Rose
Teves(hereafterCHERRY),daughterofGODOFREDO,acriminal
4
complaint formultiplerape committed since the year 1993 up to
the 1st, 8th and 3rd day of January 1995, was filed against
GODOFREDO before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Kawit,
Cavite. Although not clear from the record, GODOFREDO was
somehowarrestedanddetained.
Despite due notice, GODOFREDO did not file his
counteraffidavit with the MTC. After due proceedings, the MTC
foundaprimafaciecaseagainstGODOFREDOandthusforwarded
the record
of the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
5
Cavite.
___________________
1PursuanttoArticle47oftheRevisedPenalcode,asamendedbySection22of
R.A. No. 7659, entitled An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous
Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other
SpecialPenalLaws,andforOtherPurposes,whichtookeffecton31December1993
(Peoplev.Simon,234SCRA555[1994]).
2OriginalRecord(OR),CriminalCasesNos.387295,387395,387495and3875
95,5457Rollo,1619.PerJudgeLucenitoN.Tagle.
3ExhibitA,FolderofExhibits,1.
4OR,CriminalCaseNos.387395,etal.,8.
5Id.,11.
792
792
Peoplevs.Teves
On 4 July 1995, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite

filedfour(4)separateinformationsforrapeagainstGODOFREDO
with the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 20, in Imus.
The
6
informationsweredocketedasCriminalCasesNos.387295,
3873
7
8
9
95, 387495 and387595, respectively.
TheaccusatoryportionoftheinformationinCriminalCaseNo.
387295,denominatedasoneformultiplerape,readsasfollows:
That sometimes [sic] in the year 1993, in the Municipality of Kawit,
ProvinceofCavite,PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable
Court, the abovenamed accused, taking advantage of his superior strength
over the person of his thirteen (13) year old daughter, by means of force,
violenceandintimidationandwithlewddesigns,didthenandthere,wilfully,
unlawfullyandfeloniously,haverepeatedcarnalknowledgeofCherryRose
Q.Teves,againstherwillandconsent,toherdamageandprejudice.
4/21
9/11/2016
CONTRARYTOLAW.
The accusatory portion of the information in Criminal Case No.

387395readsasfollows:
Thatonoraboutthe1stdayofJanuary1995,intheMunicipalityofKawit,
ProvinceofCavite,PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable
Court, the abovenamed accused, by means of force, violence and
intimidation,withlewddesignsandtakingadvantageofhissuperiorstrength
overthepersonofhisowndaughterwhoisonlythirteenyearsold,did,then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge of
Cherry Rose Q. Teves, against her will and consent, thereby causing her
damageandprejudice.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
_______________
6OR,CriminalCaseNo.387295,12.
7OR,CriminalCaseNos.387395,etal.,12.
8Id.,34.
9Id.,56.
793
VOL.310,JULY20,1999
793
Peoplevs.Teves
The accusatory portions of the informations in Criminal Case No.

387495 and Criminal Case No. 387595 are similarly worded as
that in Criminal Case No. 387295, except as to the dates of the
commissionofthecrimes,whichwerespecifiedas3January1995
and8January1995,respectively.
The four cases were consolidated and jointly tried. At his
arraignment on 9 October
1995, GODOFREDO entered a plea of
10
notguiltyineachcase.
At trial on the merits, the prosecution presented the offended
party, CHERRY, but dispensed with the testimonies of the social
worker,LeonidaRamos,andoftheMedicoLegalOfficer,Dr.Owen
Lebaquin, as the parties stipulated on the substance of their
testimonies.
Onhispart,GODOFREDOreliedsolelyonhistestimony,raising
thedefensesofdenialandalibi.Hefurtherimputedillmotiveonthe
partofCHERRYinhavingfiledthecase.
The trial court gave full faith and credence to the testimony of
CHERRY, having been given spontaneously and in a
straightforwardmannerandwhichstoodunrebutted.Ontheother
hand,thetrialcourtconsideredGODOFREDOsclaimofillmotive
hollowandtotallyunworthyofbelief.
5/21
9/11/2016
The trial court faithfully summarized the evidence for the

prosecutionandthedefense,asfollows:
Taking the witness stand, the victim Cherry Rose Teves narrated how she
wasrapedbyherfatheronseveraloccasions.Sheclaimedthatsometimein
1994 when she was only thirteen (13) years old and while washing dishes,
herfathertouchedherbreast.AdaybeforeNewYearof1995,herfathertold
her not to leave their house that in a little while, her father laid her down,
removedherpantyandshorts,touchedherbreastandinsertedhissexthing
into her organ that after a week, while she was taking a bath, her father
askedhertohandhimthedipperthatwhensheobeyed,hesuddenlyentered
the bathroom and again sexually abused her that she even noticed blood
comingoutofherorgan.Continuing,sheelucidatedthatonJanuary1,1995,
shewasinstructedbyherfatherto
_________________
10OR,CriminalCaseNo.387295,7.
794
794
Peoplevs.Teves
clean the house and to take care of her younger brothers and sisters after
sending her twelve (12) year old brother [on] an errand to buy cigarettes
after her brother left, she was molested by her father. The assault on her
virtue was always followed by a threat for her not to report the incident to
hermotherorelseshe[would]bekilledthatduringallthosetimesthatshe
wasabusedbyherfather,hermotherwho[was]alaundrywoman,wasout
ofthehouse.
Whencrossexamined,shedeclaredthatherfatherwasthenworkingasa
carpenterandusuallyarrivedhomeataround5:00oclockintheafternoonor
late in the evening. She, being the eldest among the six children in the
family,wastheonetakingcareofherlittlebrothersandsistersbecauseshe
alreadystoppedschooling.Nobodyknewoftheabused[sic]heapeduponher
by her father until she confided it to her friends who [resided] at Kaingin,
Kawit,Cavite.
Afterpresentingthevictim,thepartiesenteredintostipulationstowit:
1. That Social Worker Leonida Ramos was the one who assisted and
brought the complainant to the PC Crime Laboratory for
examinationresultingintheissuanceofamedicolegalreport
2. That said Social Worker knew the complainant because the latter
cametoseeherandso,shebroughthertotheKawitPoliceStation
whereherstatementwastaken.
In view of the above stipulations, the testimony of Social Worker
LeonidaRamoswasdispensedwith.
6/21
9/11/2016
Likewise,thetestimonyofDr.OwenLebaquin,MedicoLegalOfficerof
the PNP Crime Laboratory Service, was dispensed with after the defense
admitted the findings of the said physician as contained in MedicoLegal
Report No. M009295 (Exh. B). As stated in the Report of the Medico
Legal Officer which was completed on January 31, 1995, the subject is in
nonvirginstatephysicallywithoutexternalsignsofapplicationofviolence.
Accused . . . claimed that he knew of no reason why he was charged
[with] rape, except that he did not approve of [his] daughter coming home
late from her friend at the DSWD. And because of this, he maltreated her.
He added that he only comes home on weekends, being a construction
workerattheArconticaonapakyawanbasis
795
VOL.310,JULY20,1999
795
Peoplevs.Teves
thattherewereoccasionsthatheandhisdaughterweretheonlyonesleftat
11
theirhouse.
Applying Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by

Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, which imposes the
deathpenaltyinrapecasescommittedbyaparentwhenthevictimis
under18yearsofage,thetrialcourtthendecreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding
accusedGuiltyofMultipleRape.Heisthussentencedtodeathfortherape
of his 13 year old daughter and to indemnify her of the sum of P50,000.00
ascompensatorydamages.
SOORDERED.
InhisAppellantsBrief,GODOFREDOsloneerroristhatthetrial
court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimeofrape.
GODOFREDO asserts that since his conviction rests on the
uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, there must be a
carefulandpainstakingscrutinyofthelatteritshouldnotbeeasily
12
accepted and believed with precipitate credulity. GODOFREDO
contends that CHERRYs testimony contained uncertain and
conflictinganswersandthatthefollowingcircumstanceswarranta
reversalofthechallengedjudgment:(1)CHERRYstestimonywas
tainted with uncertainties and implausibilities as evidenced by
inconsistenciesandherfailuretorecallthenumberoftimesandthe
datesshewasallegedlyrapedbyherfather,aswellasofthedetails
thereof (2) CHERRYs testimony did not prove existence of force
and intimidation (3) the evidence for the prosecution was purely
speculative and conjectural and (4) the unreasonable delay of two
yearsinthefilingofthecomplaint.
7/21
9/11/2016
IntheBrieffortheAppellee,thePeoplemaintainthatthealleged
inconsistenciesinCHERRYstestimonyarenotsuffi
___________________
11OR,CriminalCaseNo.387295,5556Rollo,1718.
12CitingU.S.v.Ramos,35Phil.671.
796
796
Peoplevs.Teves
cienttocastseriousdoubtuponhercredibilitysincevictimsofrape
cannotbeexpectedtoremembereverygrislydetailofthefactofthe
commissionoftheoffenseandthereafterkeepanaccurateaccount
13
ofhertraumaticexperience. Atanyrate,theinconsistencieswere
only on minor matters which, instead of weakening CHERRYs
credibility, all the more strengthened
it as they eradicated the
14
suspicion of rehearsed testimony. Moreover, the assessment of
credibilityofwitnessesisbestlefttothetrialcourtwhosejudgment
thereon is entitled to the highest respect by appellate courts, it
having had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses.This,thePeopleobserve,isespeciallytrueintheinstant
case where CHERRY, a young and unschooled barrio lass, had no
evilmotivetochargeherfatherwithagrievousoffense.Anentthe
issue of force and intimidation, the People assert that it was of no
moment that the prosecution failed to show its presence in the
commission of the offense, since in a rape case committed by a
father against his daughter, the moral ascendancy and influence of
15
thelatterovertheformersubstitutesfortheforceandintimidation.
Astothedelayinreportingtherapeincident,thePeoplecontend
it is settled that such delay neither diminishes complainants
credibilitynorunderminesthechargesofrapewherethedelaycan16
beattributedtodeaththreatsoftheassailantuponthecomplainant.
Be that as it may, GODOFREDOs contention that the charges of
rapeweremadeknownonlytwoyearsthereafterwasbaseless,foras
a matter of fact, it did not take two years before CHERRY finally
brokehersilence:thefirstrapeincidenthappenedsometimein1994
beforeNewYearsdayof1995,andthaton25January1995,
________________
13CitingPeoplev.Sabellina,238SCRA492[1994]Peoplev.Adlawan,217SCRA
489[1993]Peoplev.Feliciano,195SCRA19[1991].
14CitingPeoplev.Joya,227SCRA9[1993].
15CitingPeoplev.Matrimonio,215SCRA613[1992].
8/21
9/11/2016
16CitingPeoplev.Talaboc,256SCRA441[1996]Peoplev.Dones,254SCRA696
[1996].
797
VOL.310,JULY20,1999
797
Peoplevs.Teves
acomplaintchargingGODOFREDOwithrapewasfiledbeforethe
MunicipalTrialCourtofKawit,Cavite.
In reviewing rape cases we are guided by the following well
entrenched principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with
facility: it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person
accused,thoughinnocent,todisproveit(2)inviewoftheintrinsic
nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually
involved,thetestimonyofthecomplainantmustbescrutinizedwith
extremecautionand(3)theevidencefortheprosecutionmuststand
or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed17to draw strength
fromtheweaknessoftheevidenceforthedefense.
Basic in every prosecution for rape is the determination of the
credibilityoftheoffendedpartystestimony,forthelonetestimony
of the victim,
if credible, is sufficient to sustain the verdict of
18
conviction. On this note, when the issue is one of credibility of
witnesses,appellatecourtswillgenerallynotdisturbthefindingsof
the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to
decide the question as it heard the witnesses themselves and
19
observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial.
The exceptions to the rule are when such evaluation was reached
arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstance
of weight and substance
20
whichcouldaffecttheresultofthecase. Wesustainthetrialcourts
rulingastothecredibilityofCHERRYandfindthatGODOFREDO
miserably failed to demonstrate the existence of any of the
exceptionsaforementioned.OurreviewofCHERRYstestimonyhas
usfullyconvincedofhersincerity,candorand
___________________
17 People v. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707, 727 [1991] People v. Casinillo, 213
SCRA777, 788789 [1992] People v. Lucas, 232 SCRA 537, 546 [1994] People v.
Excija,258SCRA424,438439[1996].
18Peoplev.Tismo,204SCRA535,553[1991]Peoplev.Lascuna,225SCRA386,
399[1993]Peoplev.Antonio,233SCRA283,299[1994]Peoplev.Lao,249SCRA
137,145[1995].
19Peoplev.Cristobal,252SCRA507,515[1996].
20Id.,516.
798
9/21
9/11/2016
798
Peoplevs.Teves
truthfulnessastothefactofrape,totheextentthattheonlyissueto
beresolvedisthenumberoftimesshewasraped.
ThefollowingexcerptofCHERRYstestimonyestablishedwith
moralcertaintyGODOFREDOsguilt:
Q Doyourememberwhenyourfatherrapedyou?
A Icannotremember.
Q Howmanytimeswereyourapedbyyourfather?
A Manytimes.
Q MissWitness,howoldwereyouwhenyouwerefirstrapedby
yourfather?
A 13yearsold.
Q Thatwouldbesometimein1994?
A Yes,mam[sic].
Q Canyoutellthecourtwhathappenedonthefirstoccasionwhen
youwererapedbyyourfather?
A Yes,mam[sic].
Q Whatwereyoudoingonthatdaywhenyouwerefirstrapedby
yourfather?
A Iwaswashingdishes.
Q Doyourememberwhattimewasit[sic]?Wasitmorning,
afternoonorevening?
A Icannotrecall.Ithappenedquitesometime.
Q Whileyouwerewashingdishes,whatdidyourfatherdo?
A Hetouchedmybreast.
Q Afterthatwhatelsedidyoudo?
A Nothinghappenedanymore.OnthatdaybeforeNewYear,my
fathertoldmenottogooutofthehouse.
Q Afteryourfathertoldyounottogooutofthehouse,what
happened?
A Myfathertoldmetolieonthefloor.Helaidmedown.
Q Afterhelaidyoudown,whatdidhedo?
A Heinsertedhisorganintomyorgan.
Q Wereyouwearingadressatthattime?
A Yes,mam[sic].
799
10/21
9/11/2016
VOL.310,JULY20,1999
799
Peoplevs.Teves
Q Whatwereyouwearing?
A Tshirtandshortpants.
Q Beforeyourfatherinsertedhisorganinsideyourorgan,whatif
any,didhedowithyourshort?
A Heremovedmyshorts.
Q Howaboutyourpantie?
A Healsoremovedmypantie.
Q Afterheremovedyourshortsandpantiewhatelsedidhedo?
A Heinsertedhisorganintomyorgan.Hetouchedmybreast.My
motherwasoutofthehouse.
Q Yousaidthatyourfatherinsertedhisorganintoyourorgan,what
didyoufeel?
A Ifeltpain.
Q Whatdidyoudo?
A Ijustborethepain.Tiniiskonalangangsakit.
Q Afterthat,whatelsedidyourfatherdo?
A None.
Q Didheleavethehouse?
A Hefelt[sic]asleep.Hewasdrunkthen.
Q Yousaidawhileagothatyouwererapedseveraltimesbyyour
father,afterthatfirstnightwhendidyourfatherrapeyouagain,
canyouremember?
A Icannotrecall.
Q Coulditbeoneweekafter?
A Afteraweek.
Q Canyoutellthecourthowyourfatherrapedyouonthesecond
instance?
A Iwastakingabath.
Q Whenyouweretakingabath,whathappened?
A Myfatheraskedmetogivehimthetabo.
Q Wherewereyoutakingabathatthattime?
A Insideourbathroom.
Q Whereisthatbathroomlocated?
A Kaingin,Kawit,Cavite.
11/21
9/11/2016
800
800
Peoplevs.Teves
Q Thefirstinstancewhenyousaidyourfatherrapedyouinwhat
placewhereyouthen?
A AtKaingin,Kawit,Cavite.
Q Yousaidthatinthesecondinstanceyourfatheraskedyoutohand
himthetabo[dipper],whatdidyoudowhenyourfatherasked
youtohandthedipper?
A Ihandedittohim.
Q Whatdidyoudoafterthat?
A Hesuddenlyenteredin[sic]thebathroom.
Q Afterenteringthebathroom,whatdidhedo?
A Heinsertedhisorganintomyorgan.Inoticedbloodcameoutof
myorgan.
Q Yousaidthatyouwererapedseveraltimesbyyourfather,when
wasthelasttimeyourfatherrapedyou?
A January23.
Q Whatyear?
A January23,1995.
Q WherewereyouonJan.23,1995?
A Iwascleaningourhouse.
Q Whileyouwerecleaningyourhouse,whathappened?
A Mymothercameandthen[the]raped[sic][did]notpushed[sic]
through.
Q MadamWitness,inconnectionwiththiscase,doyouremember
havingexecutedanaffidavit?
A Yes,mam[sic].
Q Ifyouwereshownthatdocumentwillyoubeabletoidentifyit?
A Yes,mam[sic].
Q Iamshowingtoyouthisdocumentbelowisasignatureabovethe
typewrittennameCherryRoseTeves,willyoupleasetellusifthat
isthestatementwhichyousaidyouexecuted?
A Yes,mam[sic].
Q WhosesignatureisthisabovethetypewrittennamecherryRose
Teves?
A Mine,mam[sic].
12/21
9/11/2016
801
VOL.310,JULY20,1999
801
Peoplevs.Teves
PROS.DECASTRO
Forpurposesofidentification,werequestthatthisdocumentbe
markedasExh.AandthesignatureofthewitnessasExh.A1.
Q Inthisstatementparticularlypar.5thequestionwasKailankani
rapengiyongtatay?Ans:SaKawit,Cavite.
Q CanyoutelltheCourtwhathappenedonJan.1,1995?
A IwentoutofthehouseandthenIwenthome.
Q Whathappenedafteryouwenthomeonthatday?
A Myfathercalledme.
Q Whatdidyoudoafterhecalledyou?
A Heaskedmybrothertobuycigarette[s].
Q Afterthat,whathappened?
A Heaskedmetocleanourhouseandtotakecaremysmall
brothersandsister.
Q Whatdidyoudo?
A Icleanedourhouse.
Q Afterthatwhathappened?
A Iwasagainrapedbymyfatherandithappenedmanytimes.
Q Duringallthosetimeswhenyouwerebeingrapedbyourfather,
wherewasyourmother?
A Shewasnotaround.
Q Wherewasshe?
A Shewentsomewhereelse.Onlymysmallbrothersandsisters
werearound.
Q Whatwastheoccupationofyourmother?
A Laundrywoman.
Q Duringthosetimeswhenyouwererapedbyyourfather,doyou
rememberwhereyourmotherwas?
A Shewaswashingclothes.
Q Where?
A Intheapartmentalittlebitnearourhouse.
Q Whydidyounottellyoumotheraboutwhatyourfatherdidto
youthefirsttimethatyouwereraped?
A Iwasafraid.
13/21
9/11/2016
802
802
Peoplevs.Teves
Q Whywereyouafraid?
A Ididnottellmymotherbecausefathertoldmenottotellher.
Q Whatelsedidyourfathertellyou?
A NottotellthemattertomymotherbecauseifIwilltellmymother
hewillkillme.
Q Beforeyouwererapedbyyourfatherforthefirsttime,didyou
loveyourfather?
A Yes,mam[sic].
Q Howaboutnowhowdoyoufell[sic]towardsyourfather?
A Iammadathim.
21
Respecting the charge that CHERRYs testimony consisted mainly

ofuncertain,conflicting,vagueandinconsistentanswerstospecific
questions propounded upon her during the direct and cross
examination, suffice it to state that her failure to remember and
elaborate on every detail of her unfortunate experience was
inconsequential. What must be borne in mind was that she was
merely fourteen (14) years old when she testified moreover,
GODOFREDOdidnotobjecttohertestimonyastothetimeofthe
22
commission of the crime. It is settled that the precise time of the
23
commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime.
Likewise, GODOFREDOs harping on CHERRYs failure to recall
the exact number of times she was raped is not persuasive. We
cannot reasonably expect her to recount in detail her humiliating
experience since the accused is of her own flesh and blood. The
naturalvacillationofadaughtertopubliclydenounceherfatherand
to testify in an unfamiliar and unfriendly environment on such a
delicatematterverywellexplaintheminorlapsesinhertestimony.
More than anything else, the alleged inconsistencies and
discrepanciesinCHERRYstestimonyreferred
___________________
21TSN,18December1995,38.
22RICARDOJ.FRANCISCO,CRIMINALPROCEDURE69[1996].
23 People v. Alfeche, G.R. No. 124213, 17 August 1998, 294 SCRA 352,
citing
Peoplev.Empleo,226 SCRA 454 [1993] People v. Bernaldez,G.R. No. 109780, 17

August1998,294SCRA317.
14/21
9/11/2016
803
VOL.310,JULY20,1999
803
Peoplevs.Teves
onlytominorandtrivialmattersandwere,undoubtedly,insufficient
to dilute the truthfulness and destroy the probative value of her
testimony. We find no iota of evidence showing that CHERRYs
accountwasaresultofdeliberatefalsehood.Settledistherulethat
discrepanciesandinconsistenciesonminormattersdonotimpairthe
essential integrity of the prosecutions evidence as a whole nor
reflectonthewitnesshonesty.Suchinconsistencies,whichmaybe
caused by the natural fickleness of the memory, even tend to
strengthenratherthanweakenthecredibilityofthewitnessbecause
24
theyeraseanysuspicionofrehearsedtestimony.
NeithercanGODOFREDObeallowedtomakemuchofthefact
that the prosecution was unable to establish forcible carnal
knowledgeofCHERRY.Inarapecommittedbyafatheragainsthis
daughter, the moral dominance and parental influence that
essentiallyflowsfromthereverenceandrespectachildhastoward
their parents which are ingrained and observed in the minds of the
Filipino children, substitute for force
and intimidation, which
25
producereasonablefearinthechild.
Thedelayininstitutingthepresentcriminalprosecutionlikewise
doesnotengenderdoubtastoGODOFREDOsguilt,inlightofthe
establishedfactthatCHERRYkeptsilentabouttheincidentbecause
ofGODOFREDOsdeaththreat.CHERRY,ayoungbarriolassand
withasimpleandunsophisticatedmind,cannotbeexpectedtohave
the fortitude and courage of an adult, mature and experienced
woman who may disregard the threat and, with promptitude,
condemnintheopentheshamefulscandalwroughtuponherbyher
veryownfather.Itisnotuncommonthatyounggirlsusuallyconf
________________
24Peoplev.Cristobal,252SCRA507,517[1996]Peoplev.Diaz,262SCRA723,
732[1996]Peoplev.Leoterio,264SCRA608,617[1996].
25Peoplev.Matrimonio,215SCRA613,631[1992]Peoplev.Baculi,246SCRA
756,766767[1995].
804
804
Peoplevs.Teves
ceal for some time26the assault upon their virtue because of the
threatsontheirlives.
15/21
9/11/2016
Finally, there is absolutely no showing that CHERRY was

actuatedbyasinistermotivetofalselychargeandimplicateherown
27
fatherinaseriouscrime. Briefly,ifshedidadmittheignominyshe
had undergone, allowed her private parts to be examined, exposed
herselftothetroubleandinconvenienceofapublictrialandendure
the embarrassments and humiliation which a public revelation of
what ought to
be kept secret, she had nothing in mind except to
28
obtainjustice.
FromtheaforequotedtestimonyofCHERRY,itiscleartousthat
therapesthatweredulyprovedwerethosecommittedon:(a)New
Yearsdayof1995(b)aweekaftersaidNewYearsdayand(c)on
23January1995.ThatcommittedonNewYearsdayof1995isthe
subjectofCriminalCaseNo.383795,whilethatcommittedaweek
after New Years day of 1995 is covered by the Information in
Criminal Case No. 387595. There is no factual basis for the rapes
chargedintheinformationinCriminalCaseNo.387295,allegedly
committed sometime in the year 1993, and in the information in
CriminalCaseNo.387495,on3January1995.GODOFREDOhas
notbeenchargedfortherapecommittedon23January1995.
Concretelythen,GODOFREDOmightonlybeconvictedofthe
crimes of rape charged in the informations in Criminal Case No.
387395andinCriminalCaseNo.387595.Itwasthenerrorforthe
trialcourttofindhimguiltyofrapeinthefour(4)casesand,worse,
imposeuponhimonepenaltyofdeathformultiplerape.Inviewof
itsfindings,thecourtaquoshouldhaveimposedthedeathpenalty
ineachofthefour(4)cases.
_________________
26Peoplev.Bayani,262SCRA660,683[1996]Peoplev.Leoterio,264SCRA608,
615[1996].
27Peoplev.Malunes,247SCRA317,326327[1995]Peoplev.Excija,258SCRA
424,440[1996]Peoplev.Leoterio,264SCRA608,618[1996].
28Peoplev.Corpuz,222SCRA842,858[1993].
805
VOL.310,JULY20,1999
805
Peoplevs.Teves
At this point, however, we are compelled to inquire into the

proprietyoftheimpositionofcapitalpunishment.Torepeat,thetrial
courtsoimposedthedeathpenalty,reasoningthatunderArticle335
oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyR.A.No.7659,thesame
waswarrantedinrapecasescommittedbyaparentwhenthevictim
wasunder18yearsofage.
Initially, we note that the trial court found that R.A. No. 7659
29
took effect in January 1994. However, in People v. Simon, as
16/21
9/11/2016
reiterated in a multitude of cases since, we categorically held that

saidstatutetookeffecton31December1993.
Pursuant to Section 11 of the amendatory statute, the death
penalty may be imposed in rape cases under the last paragraph of
Article335oftheRevisedPenalCode,whentherapeiscommitted
withanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
1. Whenthevictimisundereighteen(18)yearsofageandthe
offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the commonlaw spouse of the parent of the
victim.
2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or
militaryauthorities.
3. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband,
parent,anyofthechildrenorotherrelativeswithinthethird
degreeofconsanguinity.
4. When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7)
yearsold.
5. WhentheoffenderknowsthatheisafflictedwithAcquired
ImmuneDeficiencySyndrome(AIDS)disease.
6. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of
thePhilippinesorthePhilippineNationalPoliceoranylaw
enforcementagency.
___________________
29Supranote1.
806
806
Peoplevs.Teves
7. Whenbyreasonorontheoccasionoftherape,thevictim
has suffered permanent physical mutilation. (As amended
bySec.11,RA7659.)
Thesesevenattendantcircumstances,giventhattheyalterthenature
ofthecrimeofrapeandthusincreasethedegreeofthepenalty,are
in the nature of qualifying circumstances. Plainly, these attendant
circumstances added by R.A. No. 7659 are not mere aggravating
circumstances, which merely increase
the period of the penalty. So
30
we held in People v. Ramos, to the effect that a qualifying
circumstancemustbespecificallypleadedintheinformation,thus:
17/21
9/11/2016
WhileRepublicActNo.7659didnotgivealegaldesignationto
the crime of rape attended by any of the seven new circumstances
introduced in Article 335 on December 31, 1993, this Court has
referredtosuchcrimeasqualifiedrapeinanumberofitsdecisions.
However, with or without a name for this kind of rape, the
concurrenceoftheminorityofthevictimandherrelationshipwith
theoffendergiveadifferentcharactertotherapedefinedinthefirst
partofArticle335.Theyraisetheimposablepenaltyuponaperson
accusedofrapefromreclusionperpetuatothehigherandsupreme
penalty of death. Such an effect conjointly puts relationship and
minorityoftheoffendedpartyintothenatureofaspecialqualifying
circumstance.
As this qualifying circumstance was not pleaded in the
information or in the complaint against appellant, he cannot be
convicted of qualified rape because he was not properly informed
that he is being accused of qualified rape. The Constitution
guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal
prosecution 31to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
againsthim. This right finds amplification and32implementation in
the different provisions of the Rules of Court. Foremost among
theseenablingprovisionsistheofficeofaninformation.
___________________
30G.R.No.129439,25September1998,296SCRA559,reiteratedinPeoplev.Ilao,
G.R.No.129529,29September1998,296SCRA658.
31CitingSection14(2),ArticleIII,Constitution.
32CitingSection1(b),Rule115Sections3,4,614,Rule110Rule116Rule117
Sections3,4,5,11,Rule120.
807
VOL.310,JULY20,1999
807
Peoplevs.Teves
AnenttheConstitutionalrightaffordedanaccusedtobeinformedof
the natureandcause of an accusation against him, as implemented
by the relevant provisions of the Rules on Criminal Procedure,
Section9ofRule110provides:
Section 9. Cause of accusation.The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language
without repetition, not necessarily in the terms of the statute defining the
offense, but in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common
understandingtoknowwhatoffenseisintendedtobechargedandenablethe
courttopronounceajudgment.
18/21
9/11/2016
Pertinent to this case is the phrase of the current set of adjective

rules:apersonofcommonunderstanding,whichhaditsoriginsin
33
thisjurisdictioninthephrase:apersonofordinaryintelligence.
In this light, we hold that the informations in Criminal Cases
Nos.387395and387595donotsufficientlyallegethetwinspecial
qualifying circumstances of the victims age and the relationship
between the culprit and the victim. The informations in these two
casesprovide,respectively:
[A]nd taking advantage of his superior strength over the person of his own
daughterwhoisonlythirteenyearsold...
[T]aking advantage of his superior strength over the person of his
thirteen(13)yearolddaughter...
What strikes us about the informations is that, as phrased, they

undulylaystressonthegenericaggravatingcircumstanceoftaking
34
advantage of superior strength. Be it in terms of syntax or
composition, the wording of the informations is unable to
sufficiently notify the accused, a person of common understanding
orordinaryintelligence,ofthegravityornatureofthecrimehehad
beenchargedwith,especially
___________________
332FLORENZD.REGALADO,REMEDIALLAWCOMPENDIUM250(1995),
citingU.S.v.Gatmaitan,4Phil.265.
34Article14(15),RevisedPenalCode.
808
808
Peoplevs.Teves
considering that the generic aggravating circumstance of taking

advantage of superior strength is not even an element of the
attendantcircumstancestreatedundernumber1ofthelastparagraph
ofArticle335.Theaforequotedclausesintheinformationscanthus
notbereadnorunderstoodasconstitutingaspecificallegationofthe
specialcircumstancesofrelationshipoffatheranddaughterandthat
thedaughterwaslessthan18yearsofageatthetimethecrimeof
rapewascommitted.
All told, to impose upon GODOFREDO the penalty of death
under these circumstances would be to deprive him of his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation.Thepenaltyshouldthusonlybeforsimplerape,ineach
of the two cases, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua under
thesecondparagraphofArticle335oftheRevisedPenalCode,as
amended.
19/21
9/11/2016
Finally, as regards the civil indemnity. The P50,000.00

compensatory damages awarded by the trial court shall represent
indemnityinonecase,butanotherP50,000.00mustbeawardedin
the second case. Moral damages of P50,000.00 in each case, must
likewise be awarded, even in the absence of proof of mental and
physical suffering of the victim, these being
an inherent and
35
necessaryconsequencesofthecrimeofrape.
WHEREFORE,theappealedjointdecisionoftheRegionalTrial
Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite, is REVERSED insofar as Criminal
Cases Nos. 387295 and 387495 are concerned and accused
appellant GODOFREDO TEVES y LEMEN is ACQUITTED
therein forlackof evidence, and MODIFIED as to CriminalCases
Nos. 387395 and 387595. As modified, said accusedappellant
GODOFREDO TEVES y LEMEN is, in each of said cases, found
GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtasprincipalofthecrimeofrape
and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
andorderedtopaycom
___________________
35 People v. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, 30 July 1998, 293
SCRA 411 People v.
Fuertes,G.R.No.126285,29September1998,296SCRA602.
809
VOL.310,JULY20,1999
809
Peoplevs.Recones
plainantCherryRoseQ.TevesindemnityofP50,000.00andmoral
damagesofP50,000.00.
Costsdeoficio.
SOORDERED.
Romero,Bellosillo,Melo,Puno,Vitug,Kapunan,Mendoza,
Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, GonzagaReyes and Ynares
Santiago,JJ.,concur.
Panganiban,J.,Intheresult.
AppealedjointdecisionreversedinsofarasCriminalCasesNos.
387295 and 387495 are concerned and modified as to Criminal
CasesNos.387395and387595.
Note.Delayorvacillationinmakingacriminalaccusationdoes
not necessarily impair the credibility of the complaining witness if
such delay is satisfactorily explained. (People vs. Devilleres, 269
SCRA716[1997])
o0o
20/21
9/11/2016
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
21/21

People v. Teves

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

People v. Teves

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

9/11/2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee,

CriminalLaw Rape Principles guiding the Court in reversing rape

be caused by the natural fickleness of the memory, even tend to strengthen

This case is before us on automatic review of the decision of 14

to pay the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as compensatory

On 4 July 1995, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite

The accusatory portion of the information in Criminal Case No.

The accusatory portions of the informations in Criminal Case No.

The trial court faithfully summarized the evidence for the

Applying Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by

Respecting the charge that CHERRYs testimony consisted mainly

Peoplev.Empleo,226 SCRA 454 [1993] People v. Bernaldez,G.R. No. 109780, 17

Finally, there is absolutely no showing that CHERRY was

At this point, however, we are compelled to inquire into the

reiterated in a multitude of cases since, we categorically held that

Pertinent to this case is the phrase of the current set of adjective

What strikes us about the informations is that, as phrased, they

considering that the generic aggravating circumstance of taking

Finally, as regards the civil indemnity. The P50,000.00

SCRA 411 People v.

S-ar putea să vă placă și