People v. Nachor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant was charged with two counts of rape against his daughter (the private complainant, "AAA") alleged to have occurred on May 9, 2001 and in the first week of June 2001. The complainant became pregnant and later gave birth on December 27, 2001. The Informations alleged incestuous rape with the qualifying circumstance that the victim was below eighteen years old and the offender was a parent. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 35, convicted the appellant on January 27, 2003 and imposed the penalty of death and awards of indemnity and damages. The case was elevated for mandatory review, referred to the Court of Appeals (pursuant to People v. Mateo) which, in a decision dated June 16, 2006, affirmed with modifications the RTC judgment and adjusted damages. The case was thereafter before the Supreme Court for review and decision. The Petition: Hence, this appeal where the appellant raises the following assignment of errors contained in his Brief before the CA: I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT. II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court gravely erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the private complainant. Whether the imposition of the capital punishment of death by the trial court was proper.
Ruling
The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with modifications. The conviction for two counts of rape is sustained. The penalty of death as previously imposed is commuted to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346. For each count, the appellant is condemned to pay civil indemnity of ₹75,000.00, moral damages of ₹75,000.00, and exemplary damages of ₹30,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the trial court erred in crediting the private complainant's testimony: The Court applied the established principles that guide rape cases and emphasized that an accusation of rape can be easily made but is difficult to disprove; that the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution given that only two persons are usually involved; and that the prosecution's evidence must stand on its own. The Court found "AAA" to be credible because she positively identified the appellant as her assailant, consistently testified under oath on both occasions, and did not waver even under cross-examination. The Court gave weight to the trial court's opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness and noted that such factual findings are entitled to great weight absent arbitrariness or oversight. The Court rejected the appellant's attempts to discredit the complainant by pointing to alleged inconsistencies, lack of immediate reporting, or supposed improbabilities in the physical mechanics of the offense, explaining that delay in reporting and the circumstances of filial relationship and threats adequately explain the complainant's conduct. The Court further held that resistance is not an element of the crime of rape and that the father's moral ascendancy may substitute for overt force or intimidation, thereby sustaining the conviction on the basis of the complainant's credible testimony. On Whether the imposition of death was proper: The trial court had imposed the death penalty because of the qualifying circumstance that the victim was under eighteen and the offender was her parent. However, subsequent legislation, namely Republic Act No. 9346, abolished the death penalty. The Court therefore modified the sentence, commuting the death penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count. The Court also reviewed and adjusted the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The modification of the penalty to reclusion perpetua reflects adherence to applicable statutory changes rather than a re-assessment of the facts supporting conviction. The Court thus affirmed the conviction but applied the statutory penalty currently in force.
Main Doctrine
A credible and consistent testimony of a young victim is sufficient to convict for rape; resistance is not an element of the crime and a father's moral ascendancy can substitute for force and intimidation. The imposition of the death penalty was replaced by reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346.