People v. Pedro Hernandez y Palma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused was charged in two criminal informations with the crime charged against his minor daughter on separate dates in October 1994 and February 24, 1997. The complainant testified at trial and identified the accused as the perpetrator. Medical examination disclosed healed and incompletely healed lacerations of the hymen and other genital findings. The complainant and several lay witnesses, including a barangay official and the complainant's mother, testified for the prosecution. The accused denied the charges, offered an alibi for one alleged incident, and testified in his own defense. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 4, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of the crime charged and sentenced him to death for each count, and ordered payment of moral and exemplary damages. Pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, the cases were automatically reviewed by this Court. The accused appealed to this Court assigning errors pertaining to the credibility of the complainant and the probative value of the testimony of his wife. This Court affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awards. The Petition: The accused's appeal challenged (1) the trial court's acceptance of the complainant's testimony despite alleged inconsistencies and contradictions, and (2) the trial court's alleged failure to give probative weight to the testimony of his wife. The accused also questioned the propriety of the twice-imposed capital punishment.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving full and unconditional credence and consideration to the testimony of the complainant despite alleged factual and material inconsistencies in her testimony. Whether the trial court erred in not giving probative value to the testimony of the accused's wife. Whether the imposition of the death penalty in both cases was proper under Republic Act No. 7659 and Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The appeal is DENIED. The conviction for two counts of the crime charged is AFFIRMED. The sentences of death for each count are AFFIRMED. The awards of damages are MODIFIED: for each count, the accused shall pay P75,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages. Upon promulgation, the records shall be forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of executive clemency.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the trial court erred in crediting the complainant's testimony: The Court found that, on review of the complainant's entire testimony, she was consistent on the principal occurrences and positively identified the accused as the perpetrator. The Court held that minor variances and inconsistencies that do not touch on the elements of the crime do not destroy credibility; a perfect description of the crime scene is not an element of the crime. The Court emphasized the trial court's superior vantage point to observe demeanor and the manner of testifying, and that absent palpable error or grave abuse of discretion the trial court's credibility findings will not be disturbed. The Court also considered the complainant's age and vulnerability and the social stigma attendant to publicly accusing a parent as factors supporting her credibility. On balance, the complainant's testimony met the test of credibility and was sufficient to sustain conviction even without third-party corroboration. On Whether the trial court erred in not giving probative value to the testimony of the accused's wife: The Court examined the record and found that the wife's statements were inconsistent, as she had been presented by the prosecution and later by the defense and had contradicting statements regarding whether she saw the crime charged. Because of these contradictions the trial court properly gave little probative weight to her testimony. The Court reiterated that in prosecutions for the crime charged, third-party witnesses are often absent and the victim's credible testimony may suffice for conviction. The Court found the wife's testimonial contradictions undermined her reliability and therefore the lower court did not commit reversible error in disregarding her testimony. The accused failed to show that the wife's testimony created reasonable doubt sufficient to overturn the conviction. On the propriety of the death penalty under R.A. 7659 and Article 335: The Court explained that under Republic Act No. 7659, for the death penalty to be imposable the information must allege both the victim's minority and the relationship between offender and victim, and both circumstances must be convincingly proved at trial. The Court found that both the relationship (father-daughter) and the victim's minority were alleged in the informations and were proved beyond doubt at trial by testimony and documentary evidence (birth certificate and baptismal certificate). Accordingly, the imposition of the death penalty in each case complied with the statutory preconditions and was proper under the applicable law. The Court nonetheless revised the damages awarded to conform with prevailing rules on civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages for the crime charged.
Main Doctrine
The uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim may suffice to convict if credible; imposition of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 7659 requires that both the victim's minority and the relationship between offender and victim be specifically alleged in the information and convincingly proved.