G.R. No. 144344-68 - People vs. Dulay y Corona

The case involves accused-appellant Severino Gondaway Dulay y Corona, charged with committing 25 counts of rape against his daughter, Juvelyn Dulay y Mones.
The charges were filed under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353 – the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
The offenses were alleged to have been committed from September 1998 to December 1998, with each Information recounting an incident where the accused allegedly used force, threats, and intimidation to rape his daughter.

The 25 Informations specify that on various dates between September and December 1998, the accused-appellant:

The first incident occurred on September 14, 1998, at about 1:00 a.m. in the victim’s home, where the victim was sleeping and awoke to feel someone touching her.
Subsequent incidents occurred repeatedly in September (including on the 16th, 19th, and 24th), in October (eight occasions), in November (nine times), and in December (four times).
The final rape described took place on December 13, 1998, when the accused-appellant, after calling the victim to fetch a lamp and a knife, molested her in the bathroom.

The rapes largely occurred in a cramped family home measuring approximately 6 by 4 meters.
At night, the entire home functioned as a bedroom where the victim, siblings, and parents all slept in close proximity.
The accused-appellant alleged that he always slept with his wife; however, admissions during cross-examination revealed that on several occasions, he slept in a separate area from his wife, allowing him access to the victim.

Juvelyn described in graphic detail each incident, including her attempts to resist, her feelings of fear, and the physical and emotional pain that ensued.
Her account included the fact that despite resisting—even if only minimally—her fear of her father and concern for her pregnant mother prevented her from mounting a tenacious or noticeable physical struggle.
She noted that she did not alert her siblings or mother, fearing further violence.
Despite a lapse in recalling exact dates, she confirmed the total number of incidents (25) and explained how she carefully recorded the dates in a notebook which she later misplaced.

Dr. Winston Tan, a medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, conducted the medical examination.
His findings included shallow-healed and deep-healed lacerations on the victim’s hymen, consistent with blunt trauma inflicted by an erect penis or similar object.
These findings corroborated the victim’s account of repeated sexual abuse.

Other witnesses in the prosecution’s case included a barangay tanod who arrested the accused and a rebuttal witness who testified regarding the accused-appellant’s employment records.
The defense presented the wife, Lilia Dulay, and the accused himself, arguing that they always slept together and that his work commitments provided him with an alibi.
Cross-examination, however, uncovered inconsistencies in the accused’s employment record and confirmed his admissions regarding sleeping arrangements during the period in question.

The accused-appellant was arraigned on December 22, 1998, and pleaded not guilty to the charges.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 166, Pasig City, convicted him beyond reasonable doubt for all 25 counts of rape.
The penalty imposed was the death sentence for each count, along with awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and, upon modification on appeal, exemplary damages aggregating to a sum of P3,750,000.00.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court on automatic review, which scrutinized the evidentiary basis particularly with regard to the victim’s physical resistance and the credibility of the alibi presented by the accused.

Whether, under R.A. No. 8353, the victim’s overt physical resistance is necessary to establish lack of consent in rape.
How resistance is to be proven, especially when the victim may be overwhelmed by fear or inhibited from mounting a vigorous physical struggle.

Whether the accused-appellant’s claim of always sleeping with his wife during the period in question and his work schedule sufficiently precludes the possibility of his being present during the alleged rapes.
The effectiveness and reliability of corroborative evidence presented by his defense in light of admissions made during cross-examination.

Whether the detailed, albeit traumatic, testimony of the victim, in conjunction with the medico-legal findings, adequately proves the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
The relevance of the physical and circumstantial evidence in negating the defense’s arguments of improbability and alibi.