Title
People vs. Morante
Case
G.R. No. 187732
Decision Date
Nov 28, 2012
Felix Morante convicted of child abuse and six counts of rape against his 12-year-old stepdaughter; upheld by courts due to credible testimony, medical evidence, and weak defense.
rape
credibility
testimony
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187732)

Factual Background

Seven informations were filed against appellant on August 8, 2000. One information charged appellant with violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (in Criminal Case No. 2283-M-00), alleging that in December 1999, while appellant and the complainant were in a domestic setting and while exploiting her minority and his moral ascendancy and influence as the common-law husband of her mother, he committed lewd acts including fondling her breasts, kissing, and taking unwarranted liberties, by means of force and intimidation and with lewd designs.

The remaining six informations each charged rape as defined under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (as reflected in the text of the informations), to be prosecuted in Criminal Case Nos. 2277-M-00 to 2282-M-00. Each rape count alleged that on or about the tenth day of January 2000 (for the first count) and subsequently on the following dates through January 15, 2000 (as reflected in the information dates), appellant, with lewd designs and by means of force, violence, and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA, who was described as twelve years of age and also as the daughter of his common-law wife, against her will and consent.

Trial Court Proceedings

Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty in all cases. After pre-trial, the cases were consolidated and tried together. The prosecution presented the complainant AAA, along with AAA’s birth certificate and a medical certificate by Dr. Ivan Richard Viray (Dr. Viray).

AAA testified that appellant was her stepfather and that she, her siblings, and her mother lived with appellant in a one-storey house/apartment. AAA stated that sometime in December 1999, at midnight, she was sleeping when she was awakened because someone heavy settled on top of her. She said she found appellant on top of her, kissing her cheeks and feeling her up. She further testified that appellant removed his clothing and had carnal knowledge of her. AAA stated that she could not alert her mother because she feared appellant would kill them. She also testified that the violation was repeated every night from January 10 to January 15, 2000, despite the family’s close living quarters, and that appellant threatened to kill her if she made noise or reported the incidents.

On cross-examination, however, AAA stated that during the evenings from January 10 to January 15, 2000, she lived with her aunt in Masuso, Calumpit, Bulacan, slept beside her aunt, and woke up early morning the following day. On redirect, she explained that her aunt’s house was still the house where she, her mother, her siblings, and appellant lived together, and she reiterated that appellant raped her despite living in close quarters and around several people.

Dr. Viray corroborated AAA’s testimony. He testified that during examination he found healed lacerations at specified positions (two, seven, nine, and ten o’clock) and deep lacerations at other positions (three and eleven o’clock). He found that AAA was in a non-virgin state physically, with no external signs of the application of trauma, and he opined that the probable date of the lacerations could be “more than one week, month, or year”, possibly considered permanent. He testified that the probable cause of the lacerations could be insertion of a hard object or an erected penis.

Appellant denied the accusations. He presented his own testimony and that of his daughter, Nora Morante. Appellant claimed AAA was the daughter of his common-law wife and maintained that he had no knowledge of sexual abuse committed in December 1999 or from January 10 to January 15, 2000. He attributed the allegations to ill-feelings among the ladies, stemming from an alleged fight involving salary earned by AAA from babysitting work, and argued that he was framed. Appellant also argued that he could not have raped AAA because she worked as a helper in Bocaue, Bulacan from January 13, 2000 to April 6, 2000. Nora testified that AAA was her father’s stepdaughter and that she treated AAA as a sister, and that on January 10 and 11, 2000, AAA was at her employer’s house in Bocaue.

The RTC found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It held that AAA’s testimony was consistent in material respects and that there was no showing of motivation to testify falsely. It also relied on Dr. Viray’s medical findings indicating that AAA was no longer a virgin weeks after the incident. The RTC acknowledged the perceived inconsistency in AAA’s testimony on cross, but it found that AAA clarified the matter on redirect. The RTC also noted and rejected appellant’s defense that he could not have raped AAA on certain dates from January 11, 2000 onwards, emphasizing that appellant’s defense was supported only by self-serving testimony and that no other witness supported the claim.

The RTC convicted appellant: in Criminal Case No. 2283-M-00, for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610, it imposed an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal as maximum; in Criminal Case Nos. 2277-M-00 to 2282-M-00, for six counts of rape under the Revised Penal Code, it imposed reclusion perpetua on each count. The RTC directed indemnification of P50,000.00 for each count of the offenses (totaling P350,000.00), as stated in the decision.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Appellant’s appeal was considered by the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated November 6, 2008, the Court of Appeals found no merit in appellant’s appeal. It noted that although there were apparent inconsistencies in AAA’s direct and cross-examination testimony, AAA was able to reconcile these during redirect examination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC findings but modified the penalty and damages. Specifically, it increased the maximum penalty in Criminal Case No. 2283-M-2000 to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, increased the civil indemnity for each count of rape to P75,000.00, and awarded moral and exemplary damages per count of rape in the amounts of P50,000.00 and P25,000.00, respectively.

Issues on Appeal and Parties’ Contentions

Before the Supreme Court, appellant argued that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt because of alleged inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony and because the conviction was rendered without basis. Both the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and appellant manifested that they would adopt the pleadings filed in the Court of Appeals in lieu of supplemental briefs.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court framed the controlling statutory provisions in Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. Under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, the penalty framework includes circumstances where the perpetrator commits sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, with an express proviso that when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators are to be prosecuted under the provisions on rape and lascivious conduct under the Revised Penal Code. Under Article 266-A, rape is committed through specified circumstances, including when the offended party is under twelve years of age, and where carnal knowledge is accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.

On the credibility issue, the Supreme Court reiterated the jurisprudential rule of great respect for the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, especially when the trial court’s decision turns on the demeanor of witnesses and when those findings were sustained by the Court of Appeals. It invoked holdings from People v. Arpon and People v. Dion emphasizing that rape cases, being intimate crimes often bereft of witnesses, make the victim’s testimony central. It stated that inconsistencies in a victim’s testimony do not necessarily impair credibility when they refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of rape.

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the courts below had sufficiently addressed the alleged inconsistencies and that appellant failed to present any evidence showing that AAA’s testimony was incredible. It agreed with the Court of Appeals’ observation that AAA reconciled the inconsistency on redirect by explaining that the “house” she referred to was the same house where she slept with her mother and siblings because they lived in one house. The Court treated the alleged inconsistencies as insufficient to destroy AAA’s credibility, considering that a rape victim is not expected to make an errorless recollection of humiliating and painful events.

The Supreme Court further noted that it was in line with jurisprudence that the victim’s testimony need not be flawless. It therefore upheld the RTC and Court of Appeals findings on guilt.

However, the Supreme Court modified the awards for damages. It adjusted the moral damages and exemplary damages for each count of rape, increasing moral damages to P75,000.00 and exemplary damages to P30,000.00 per count of rape. It also imposed interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on all monetary awards for damages, to run from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid, consist

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms