G.R. No. 140635 - People vs. Terrible y Ona

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140635)

The Charges and the Allegations in the Information

The information charged the appellant with rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A and penalized under Article 266-B, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. It alleged that on or about November 2, 1998, at Aquino Compound, Barangay San Cristobal, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna, and within the court’s jurisdiction, the appellant, “with lewd design and thru force and intimidation and with intent to satisfy his lust,” inserted his penis into the mouth of his daughter KATHERINE TERRIBLE y CORNEJO, aged six, “against her will and consent.”

Factual Background: Disclosure by the Child and the Alleged Assault

The prosecution’s narrative anchored on the victim’s testimony. Katherine stated that on November 2, 1998, at around 2:30 in the afternoon, inside a room in their house, the appellant kissed her lips, made her lick his nipples, then inserted his penis into her mouth. She also testified that a whitish substance came out of his sex organ and that the appellant later inserted his finger into her vagina.

Gina Terrible testified that on November 3, 1998, at about 2:30 in the afternoon, she was awakened by Katherine’s muffled and whispered words—“Mama si Papa yung titi niya pinasok sa bibig ko.” Gina called her brother and asked him to speak with Katherine to confirm the disclosure. Katherine confirmed that the perpetrator was her own father. Gina then requested assistance from relatives so that a complaint could be filed.

Medical Evidence

Dr. Guerra conducted the physical examination on November 4, 1998. He testified, consistent with the medico-legal certificate presented in evidence, that Katherine had an old genital laceration at the twelve o’clock position, which might have occurred seven or more days prior to the examination, and redness of the labia minora. The prosecution used these findings to corroborate the allegation of penetration.

Appellant’s Defense: Denial and Alibi

The appellant denied the charge and testified that on November 2, 1998, he was at his father’s house in Barrio Banadero, Calamba, Laguna, about three kilometers away from his family home in Barangay San Cristobal, Calamba, Laguna. He claimed that he stayed there until November 3, 1998 and did not visit his family. His alibi was corroborated by his siblings Glecilda and Glen Terrible.

He further alleged that the accusation was fabricated by his wife out of revenge, attributing it to the deterioration of their relationship and Gina’s alleged jealousy.

Regional Trial Court’s Findings and Conviction

The Regional Trial Court found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It ruled that the defenses of denial and alibi could not prevail over Katherine’s affirmative testimony. It emphasized that Katherine, though only six, testified in a manner described as categorical, frank, and firm, and that her account was considered impeccable and unblemished. Consequently, on October 20, 1999, the court convicted the appellant of rape and imposed the penalty of death, with moral damages awarded to the victim.

Issues Raised on Appeal: Credibility, Sufficiency of Evidence, and Alibi

The appellant assigned errors imputing: first, that the trial court gave full weight and credence to the victim’s testimony; second, that the evidence was insufficient to convict him beyond reasonable doubt; and third, that the trial court disregarded his alibi, which he insisted was more credible.

In challenging credibility, the appellant argued that Katherine did not cry out or shout for help even though her grandmother was reportedly present, and that the victim’s explanation for not immediately reporting the assault—that she feared her parents would separate—was unbelievable. He also maintained that the case was motivated by his wife’s purported jealousy and revenge.

Appellate Review Standard on Witness Credibility

The Court reiterated that in prosecutions for rape, the credibility of the complainant’s testimony is crucial. It also affirmed the settled appellate principle that trial courts’ findings on credibility are entitled to great respect because the trial court had the opportunity to hear the witnesses firsthand and observe their demeanor. Reexamination on appeal required cogent reasons, and the Court found none to warrant disturbing the trial court’s assessment.

The Court’s Evaluation of the Victim’s Testimony

Upon further review, the Court held that Katherine’s testimony showed candor and consistency. The Court reproduced relevant portions of her direct examination where she identified the appellant as her father, affirmed that she understood the duty to tell the truth, and narrated the sequence of acts: kissing, licking of nipples, insertion of the penis into her mouth with “something white” coming out, and insertion of a finger into her private part. She also linked her recollection of the date to a sibling’s birthday.

On cross-examination, the Court observed that Katherine remained candid, including her testimony on the household circumstances during the alleged assault and her explanation that she had told her mother what happened. The Court considered her identification and narration straightforward, unwavering, and supported by the trial court’s observation that the story was impeccable and unblemished.

The Court further held that where the victim’s testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physician’s findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of carnal knowledge. It found such corroboration in Dr. Guerra’s testimony and the medico-legal certificate showing genital laceration and redness of the labia minora.

Rejection of the Claim that Failure to Shout Undermined Credibility

The Court rejected the argument that the absence of immediate outcry invalidated the charge. It reasoned that Katherine was the victim and a barely six-year-old child. Her tender age and the emotional stress of being subjected to the father’s deviant sexual behavior prevented her from resisting the intrusion. The Court stated that under emotional stress, human reactions are unpredictable and no standard form of behavior can be expected from a child confronting an incomprehensible and horrifying incident.

Rejection of the Claim that Delay in Reporting Was Implausible

The appellant also attacked the delay in disclosure to Gina. The Court held that Katherine had offered a satisfactory explanation: she was afraid that her parents would separate and that her mother might leave the house. The Court also considered her account contained in her sworn statement dated November 4, 1998, where she similarly said she was told not to report and that they might separate.

The Court applied the principle that delay in making a criminal accusation does not impair a witness’s credibility when satisfactorily explained. It found the explanation reasonable given the child’s fear of losing her mother, especially because the father was the one causing the harm.

Motive of Revenge Argument: Not Credited

The appellant sought to attribute the prosecution to revenge. The Court held that the supposed motives asserted by accused persons in rape cases—family feuds, resentment, or revenge—did not sway the Court when the complainant remained firm and steadfast in describing how she was ravished. The Court stated that it was not satisfied that a mother would subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace, and trauma of rape prosecution solely to assuage her hurt feelings, absent proof that her child’s testimony was fabricated. It held that no mother in her right mind would do so if not motivated by a desire to have the person responsible for her child’s defilement incarcerated.

Rejection of Alibi

The Court sustained the rejection of alibi. The appellant claimed he was in his father’s house in Barrio Banadero, Laguna, about three kilometers away from the family home, at the time of the alleged rape. The Court held that such distance could be traversed with readily available transportation, so alibi could not override Katherine’s positive identification.

It also stressed that alibi is inherently weak and unreliable and may be fabricated. To prosper, alibi required that its requisites of time and place be strictly met with clear and convincing evidence. The appellant failed to convincingly show physical impossibility for him to have been at the scene.

Liability and Proper Penalty: Modification of the Death Sentence

After determining that the appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A, the Court turned to the propriety of imposing the death penalty. The Court explained the statutory structure: Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 and further amended by R.A. 8353, became Articles 266-A and 266-B. Under the law, the death penalty could be imposed only when rape was prosecuted under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A with qualifying circumstances under Article 266-B, including when the victim is under eighteen and the offender is the parent of the victim.

The Court noted a critical defect in the information. Although the information alleged the appellant was the father of a victim under eighteen, it charged the appellant with rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A. Under Article 266-B, when rape under paragraph 2 is committed, the prescribed base penalty was prision mayor, and the imposition of reclusion temporal applied when the act wa

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 140635)

The case involved a criminal appeal by Mario Terrible y Ona from a Regional Trial Court judgment of conviction for rape.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, of Calamba, Laguna convicted the appellant and imposed the supreme penalty of death.
The Supreme Court reviewed the conviction and ultimately modified the penalty while sustaining the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines acted as appellee and defended the conviction.
Mario Terrible y Ona acted as appellant and contested the judgment of conviction and the imposed penalty.
The appellant was charged before the Regional Trial Court with rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, as penalized by Article 266-B, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision dated October 20, 1999 finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to death.
On appeal, the appellant assigned errors centered on the credibility of the victim, the alleged insufficiency of evidence, and the alleged improper rejection of alibi.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty, and it adjusted the civil damages awarded.

Key Factual Allegations

The charge alleged that on or about November 2, 1998, at Aquino Compound, Barangay San Cristobal, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna, the appellant, with lewd design and through force and intimidation and with intent to satisfy lust, inserted his penis into the mouth of his daughter Katherine Terrible y Cornejo, who was six years old, against her will and consent.
The prosecution presented the victim’s account that, while she and her father were inside a room in their house, the appellant kissed her lips, made her lick his nipples, inserted his penis into her mouth, and caused a whitish substance to come out.
The victim also testified that the appellant inserted his finger into her vagina.
The mother, Gina Terrible, testified that she was awakened by the child’s whispered disclosure in the afternoon and that the victim confirmed the accusation when questioned by Gina’s brother.
The physician, Dr. Felimon Raymond P. Guerra III, testified that his physical examination of the victim conducted on November 4, 1998 showed an old genital laceration and redness of the labia minora, and that these findings appeared to have occurred days earlier.

Defense Theory and Contentions

The appellant denied the accusation and claimed alibi.
The appellant testified that on November 2, 1998, he was at his father’s house in Barrio Banadero, Calamba, Laguna, about three kilometers away, and that he did not visit his family until November 3, 1998.
The appellant’s alibi was purportedly corroborated by his siblings Glecilda and Glen Terrible.
The appellant further alleged that the rape charge was imputed due to alleged revenge by his wife because of a deteriorating marital relationship.
On appeal, the appellant attacked the credibility of the victim and argued that the evidence failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellant specifically pointed to the victim’s alleged failure to shout for help and her alleged delayed disclosure to her mother as indicators of incredibility.

Evidence and Witness Credibility

The prosecution’s case rested principally on the testimony of Katherine Terrible, Gina Terrible, and Dr. Guerra.
The victim’s direct examination reflected a categorical and straightforward narration of the sexual acts performed by her father.
The Supreme Court noted that, even on cross-examination, the victim’s testimony remained candid and consistent.
The Supreme Court relied on the trial court’s assessment that the victim’s testimony was credible and unblemished despite her age.
The Court treated the victim’s identification of the appellant as the perpetrator as positive and unwavering.
The Court held that when the victim’s testimony of penetration is corroborated by the physician’s findings, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of carnal knowledge.
The Court rejected the appellant’s attempt to use the victim’s failure to shout as a reason to doubt the testimony, emphasizing the victim’s tender age and inability to resist due to fear and confusion.
The Court found that the victim’s hesitation to report earlier was satisfactorily explained by fear that her parents would separate and her mother would leave the house.
The Court rejected the defense of revenge as a motive that would overcome the credibility of the victim’s consistent account, noting that courts are seldom convinced that a mother would subject her child to the trauma of rape prosecution without genuine reason.

Alibi Assessment

The trial court rejected alibi for failing to overcome the victim’s positive identification.
The Supreme Court held that alibi is inherently weak and easily fabricated.
The Court reiterated that for alibi to produce acquittal, it must be established with clear and convincing evidence and the requisites of time and place must be strictly met.
The Court found that the distance between the alleged location of the appellant during the rape and the victim’s house was only three kilometers, a distance it considered easily reachable by transportation.
Because the appellant did not convincingly