G.R. No. 128153-56 - People vs. Buison y Punsalan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 128153-56)

Factual Background: The Four Incidents of Abuse

The complainant testified that her father had abandoned her mother and her when she was still a toddler. After a prolonged separation, he returned and visited her in the company where she was then living in Talisay, Negros Occidental. He promised to send her to school if she would accompany him to General Santos City. Adelina agreed to go with him three months after that reunion, without seeking permission from her mother and grandfather.

On 15 August 1991, Adelina was sleeping on the floor of her father’s shanty with her two minor stepsisters when she awoke to the crushing weight of a person on top of her. She found herself naked with her father on top of her, with his penis being inserted into her vagina. She tried to box him but could not resist his strength. He muffled her attempts to scream, carried out the sexual assault in about three minutes, and mocked her afterward by telling her, “You are still a virgin.”

Early the next morning, 16 August 1991, Adelina slept and again awoke to renewed abuse. The accused removed her panty, bra, and duster and mounted her once more, sexually assaulting her against her will. She remonstrated that she was his daughter, but he ignored her. She testified that she did not report the assaults because she feared the accused would carry out a threat to kill her if she revealed the sexual abuse to anyone. She also feared that if she revealed it, her father would pry into her letters.

The third rape allegedly occurred at about 9:00 p.m. on 16 August 1991. The accused undressed inside the room in front of his daughter, who saw his penis dangling. The complainant testified that she was stunned and did not know what to do. The accused ravished her by kissing her and culminating in the insertion of his penis into her organ.

Adelina further explained that she refrained from reporting even to her mother or grandfather in Bacolod, and could not seek refuge in her stepmother Mila or from neighbors or the police, because she feared the accused would learn of her betrayal and harm her.

Escape Attempt and Disclosure to Authorities

Adelina eventually saw a perceived opportunity for escape. She narrated that the accused asked her to accompany him to Davao City, and she agreed, intending to disclose the abuse to her uncle Rodrigo in Davao. On 25 October 1991, in the course of their travel from General Santos City to Davao City, the accused and Adelina left with a truck helper as part of a three-vehicle convoy of Brian Freight Trucking, where the accused also worked as a driver.

Adelina testified that after traveling about ten to twenty minutes, the accused pretended that he could not drive fast enough and arranged for the truck helper to transfer to another vehicle. When the helper was gone, the accused poked a knife at her and sexually abused her in the truck. After about three minutes, he told her, with false regret, that she was “no longer a virgin.” He then stated they would proceed to his brother’s house in Davao City, but instead they headed back to General Santos City.

When she could no longer bear the physical and emotional strain, Adelina ran away and found solace in Fely Bartiana, whom the accused had introduced to her earlier as his godmother in his wedding. Three days after she narrated the incidents to Fely, Fely brought her to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), which assisted her in filing the rape cases.

Medico-Legal Findings

Dr. Virginia Ramirez, the medico-legal officer who examined Adelina, testified that while no semen was found in the complainant’s vagina, there were scars at the eight o’clock and five o’clock positions, which could have been caused by a male organ.

Defense of Accused: Denial, Alibi, and Alleged Motive of Revenge

The accused testified that he met his daughter Adelina, after a long interval, on 17 May 1991, when she was about fifteen years old. He claimed that his presence was discovered during a visit by his mother to the area. He stated that during their reunion, Adelina insisted on going with him to Mindanao, rejecting his suggestion that she stay with her uncle Rodrigo in Davao City because he was better off financially.

The accused admitted bringing her with him to General Santos City in June 1991. He raised an alibi for the first and second rape incidents by claiming he was on a trip to Davao City and returned to General Santos City at about 2:00 p.m. on 16 August 1991. He also denied unusual conduct during the third rape incident by asserting that although he was already at home in the evening of 16 August 1991, his wife, three children, and Adelina were all inside the house.

For the fourth rape alleged on 25 October 1991, he admitted a midnight trip to Davao City but claimed Adelina was left at home with his wife and children. He additionally contended that the filing of the charges was driven by ill feeling or resentment attributable to alleged circumstances involving his failure to provide financial support and discipline, including Adelina’s alleged remark to his wife about not providing milk and about her grandfather rearing her.

Mila Buison, the accused’s wife, corroborated the accused’s alibi in material respects. She asserted that Adelina was treated as a family member and provided with necessities, food, and education. She claimed that on the evening of 15 August 1991 she was at home with her husband and children, contradicting the complainant’s claim that she was in the hospital with her youngest son. She also maintained that she was inside the house during the alleged assaults on 16 August 1991 and 25 October 1991.

For the travel-related incident, Bonnie Bantacalo, the truck helper, testified that he was travelling with the accused on the night of 15 August 1991, and that they unloaded cement at 8:00 a.m. the next day before returning to General Santos City at 2:00 p.m.. He likewise testified that on 25 October 1991, after delivering cement, they left Davao City and arrived in General Santos City at 2:00 p.m.

Trial Court’s Credibility Determination

In convicting the accused, the trial court gave full credence to the complainant’s testimony and rejected the defense of alibi and denial. It held that the complainant’s narrative reflected a consistent account of what occurred and that the defense could not prevail over her positive and veracious declarations, emphasizing the implausibility of the accused’s theory that the charges were fabricated out of revenge. The trial court noted that even the accused’s family members attempted to mollify the complainant by offering money or appealing to her sense of filiation.

The Accused’s Issues on Appeal and the Court’s Resolution

On appeal, the accused assigned as the lone error the finding that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that Adelina’s supposed deep-seated resentment stemmed from his alleged failure to extend financial and moral support, rendering the complaint an alleged fabrication motivated by revenge.

The Supreme Court rejected this position by focusing on the complainant’s demeanor and declarations regarding the reunion. It noted that Adelina testified she was happy to meet her father after ten years and that she agreed to go with him, without exhibiting hatred or resentment upon learning he was her father. The Court also observed that Adelina embraced the accused upon seeing him, which the accused himself affirmed.

The Supreme Court further reasoned that even if the accused alleged resentment, such motive would not erase the elements of the offense once established. It invoked People v. Gagto to underscore that alleged motives like resentment or revenge have not deterred courts from crediting the complainant’s testimony, particularly when the complainant remained steadfast throughout direct and cross-examination, and when the complainant was a minor in the case.

The Court also addressed the accused’s claims that aspects of the complainant’s testimony contradicted human experience. It held that Adelina had sufficiently explained why she still went to Davao City after the prior assaults: she agreed to go only after assurances that there would be other passengers, and in doing so she believed she could escape to contact her uncle Rodrigo. It also treated the accused’s inability to comprehend why Adelina did not leave the house after the first set o

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 128153-56)

Vicente Buison y Punsalan (Accused-Appellant) was charged with four (4) counts of rape committed against his daughter, Adelina T. Buison (private complainant).
The trial court found him guilty as charged and imposed reclusion perpetua for each count.
The trial court also ordered Accused-Appellant to pay moral damages of P50,000.00 for each rape count and to pay the costs.
The accused appealed, challenging the trial court’s finding that his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal by Accused-Appellant from a conviction for four (4) counts of rape.
The People of the Philippines acted as plaintiff-appellee in the proceedings.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with a modification on civil liabilities.

Key Factual Allegations

The private complainant alleged that she was abandoned by her father, Accused-Appellant, for another woman, and later reunited with him after an absence of more than ten (10) years.
She stated that, following the reunion, Accused-Appellant promised to send her to school if she would go with him to General Santos City, and she went with him without asking permission from her mother and grandfather in Talisay, Negros Occidental.
She alleged that the first rape occurred on 15 August 1991 at around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, about three (3) months after the father-and-daughter reunion.
She described that she was sleeping on the floor of Accused-Appellant’s shanty with two (2) minor stepsisters when Accused-Appellant mounted her, covered her mouth to prevent screaming, and inserted his penis into her vagina within about three (3) minutes.
She stated that she remonstrated that he was her daughter, and he responded with a taunt that she was “still a virgin,” followed by laughter.
She alleged the second rape occurred early dawn of 16 August 1991, when Accused-Appellant again removed her clothing and mounted her without her consent.
She alleged that the third rape occurred at around 9:00 o’clock in the evening of 16 August 1991, after Accused-Appellant undressed inside the room in front of her while she saw his penis.
She recounted that he kissed her and culminated in insertion of his penis into her organ, while she remained too stunned to act.
She explained that fear and despair prevented her from reporting the assaults, including to her mother and grandfather, because Accused-Appellant would look into her letters and she could not trust her stepmother or seek help from neighbors or the police due to fear of discovery.
She alleged that on 25 October 1991, after being asked to accompany Accused-Appellant to Davao City, Accused-Appellant instead committed the fourth rape during travel in a cargo truck while they were in a three-vehicle convoy for Brian Freight Trucking, after he allegedly caused the truck helper to transfer to another vehicle.
She described that when the helper left, Accused-Appellant poked a knife at her and sexually abused her again inside the truck, and after about three (3) minutes he told her she was no longer a virgin.
She alleged that Accused-Appellant then stated they would proceed to his brother Rodrigo’s house but instead headed back to General Santos City.
She stated she escaped by running away and finding solace in Fely Bartiana, whom Accused-Appellant had introduced as his godmother.
She testified that three (3) days after recounting the assaults to Fely, Fely brought her to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), which helped her file the cases.
The medico-legal officer, Dr. Virginia Ramirez, testified that no semen was found in the vagina but that there were scars at the eight (8) o’clock and five (5) o’clock positions which could have been caused by a male organ.

Defense Theory and Counter-Arguments

Accused-Appellant denied the charges and claimed he met his daughter only on 17 May 1991, when she was fifteen (15) years old, and alleged she insisted on going with him to Mindanao.
He claimed that the first and second reported rape incidents on 15 August 1991 and the dawn of 16 August 1991 could not have occurred because he was on a trip to Davao City and returned to General Santos City at around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of 16 August 1991.
He maintained that even if he was already home in the evening of 16 August 1991, nothing unusual happened because his wife, three (3) children, and Adelina were all in the house.
For the fourth rape alleged on 25 October 1991, he asserted he was on