G. R. No.
130662 - October 15, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. SERGIO ABON y ESTEBAN, Appellant.
DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For automatic review is the Decision1 dated April 22, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47,
Urdaneta, Pangasinan in Criminal Case No. U-8671, convicting Sergio Abon y Esteban, appellant, of
qualified rape and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death. He was ordered to pay the
victim, Charito L. Abon, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages,
and costs.
The Information charges appellant as follows:
"That on or about the month of January, 1995 at barangay Linmansangan, municipality of Binalonan,
province of Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused who is
the grandfather of the victim, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge on the person of Charito L. Abon, a woman of 13
years old, against her will.
"CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11, Rep. Act 7659."2 cräläwvirtualibräry
Upon arraignment on November 10, 1995, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded "not guilty." Trial
ensued thereafter.
The evidence for the prosecution, as borne by the records, shows that complainant Charito Abon was
born on September 29, 19823 to spouses Nelson and Felicidad "Emma" Lominoque Abon. But the
couple separated, prompting Charito, her elder sister Laarni, and younger brother Alexander to live
with their paternal grandparents, appellant and Alejandra Abon, at Barangay Linmansangan,
Binalonan, Pangasinan. They provided for their support and education.
Sometime in January, 1995, at about 4:00 oclock to 5:00 oclock in the afternoon, appellant, Charito,
then barely thirteen (13) years old, and Alexander were at their backyard gathering vegetables.
Appellant instructed Alexander to buy cigarettes at the store. While Charito was harvesting some
mangoes, appellant suddenly pulled down her shorts and drew his "panabas" (bolo). Frightened, she
asked him what he was doing but he simply admonished her not to make any noise. He then
proceeded to undress her and remove her panty. He also removed his shorts. Pointing the "panabas"
to her, he ordered her to lie down. He placed himself on top of her, touched her breasts, and even
forced her to hold his penis. Thereafter, he inserted his penis inside her vagina and sexually ravished
her. She felt pain and dizziness. But still she tried to push him away. However, she was overpowered
by his strength. After his bestial act, he dressed up and left for the farm.
Meanwhile, Alexander, who returned from the store, hid behind a mango tree. He saw both appellant
and Charito naked, indulging in sexual activity. Scared, Alexander decided to go back to the store and
then went home.
The next day, Charito informed her grandmother Alejandra that she was sexually molested by
appellant. However, she refused to believe and even accused Charito of fabricating the incident. After
a month, she stayed with her aunt Cristeta Bayno and revealed her traumatic experience to her.
On August 15, 1995, Cristeta brought Charito to Don Amadeo J. Perez, Sr. Memorial General Hospital
at Urdaneta, Pangasinan. There, she was examined by Dr. Noel Obedoza who issued a Medical
Certificate4 with the following findings:
"(1) No sign of external physical injury such as abrasions, contusion and laceration on examination;
"(2) Hymen is raptured with old healed laceration at 3-6 and 8 oclock;
"(3) Vaginal intoitus admit tip of a forefinger with minimal resistance;
"(4) Pregnancy test: negative (-)." (Emphasis supplied)
Dr. Obedoza confirmed on the witness stand that the lacerations at Charitos hymen were at 3, 6 and 8
oclock positions and more than two to three weeks old.
Charito and her aunt reported the incident to the Binalonan Police Station, where she executed and
signed a sworn statement. Eventually, she was brought to the Department of Social Welfare and
Development in La Union.
The defense presented appellant, Alejandra, Alexander and his other granddaughter as witnesses.
Appellant denied having raped Charito, whom he admitted is his own granddaughter, being the
daughter of his son Nelson. He claimed that in January, 1995, (the alleged date when the rape was
committed), Charito was in Manila. The filing of the rape charge against him was instigated by Cristeta
Bayno, his wifes niece, who felt slighted after Francisco Novido, his brother-in-law, transferred the
possession and cultivation of his land to him (appellant) in place of Cristeta. Charito denounced him
because she resented being disciplined by him and his wife.
Alejandra Abon, appellants wife, corroborated his testimony.
Alexander, Charitos brother, recanted his earlier testimony for the prosecution, explaining that he was
instigated by their aunt Cristeta in testifying against appellant.
On April 22, 1997, the trial court rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, finding the accused SERGIO ABON y ESTEBAN GUILTY of the crime of incestuous rape
under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11, Republic Act No. 7659,
beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH.
"In addition, he is ordered to pay the victim CHARITO ABON the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND
(P50,000.00) as indemnity, the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) as moral damages and
exemplary damages, and the costs.
"SO ORDERED."5
Hence, this automatic review.
Appellant, in his brief, ascribes to the trial court the following errors:
"FIRST: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ACCUSED IS
INNOCENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
"SECOND: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE IS
ULTERIOR OR ILL MOTIVE ON THE PART OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND CRISTETA T. BAYNO IN
FILING THE RAPE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ACCUSED.
"THIRD: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE PROSECUTIONS
EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED.
"FOURTH: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS REASONABLE
DOUBT AS TO THE TRUTH OF THE RAPE CHARGE, AND THAT THE DOUBT SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN
FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED."
The law applicable to the case at bar is Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659,6 which provides:
"Article 335. When and how rape is committed. -Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
"The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx
"The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-
law-spouse of the parent of the victim.
x x x."
Under the above provisions, the essential elements of incestuous rape are: (1) the offender had carnal
knowledge of a woman; (2) the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age; and (3) the offender is a
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim.
Appellant, in assailing the evidence for the prosecution, contends that: (1) Charito admitted in the
course of her testimony that at the time of the commission of the crime in January, 1995, she was
actually in Metro Manila; (2) there is substantial delay of 240 days or 8 months before she reported
the crime to the proper authorities; (3) the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt because its witness Alexander recanted his testimony; (4) the results of Charitos physical
examination negate the finding that she was raped; and (5) the filing of the complaint was instigated
by Charitos aunt.
In a prosecution for rape, the victims credibility becomes the single most important issue, and when
her testimony satisfies the test of credibility, an accused may be convicted solely on the basis
thereof.7
cräläwvirtualibräry
The trial court, in giving full credence to Charitos testimony, held:
"This Court observed the deportment and demeanor of the complainant when she testified on the
witness chair. She uncontrollably cried while narrating her unfortunate experience. She appeared
candid and honest in her testimony; unsophisticated and so young. She claimed to have been born on
29 September 1982, which claim was never rebutted by the accused. It would appear that when she
was allegedly sexually abused, she was less than thirteen years old. She was only in elementary
school.
"She was subjected to thorough, extensive and rigid cross-examination for three settings, but her
testimony remained unshaken. While there may have been some inconsistencies and contradictions in
her testimony, these were expected considering her juvenility and inexperience and her apparent
inability to grasp the cross-examination questions."
Indeed, Charitos declaration has sufficiently and convincingly proved that appellant had sexually
ravished her sometime in January, 1995. Her direct and straightforward account of the harrowing
incident could not be any clearer, thus:
"x x x
"Q. Sometime in the month of January, 1995, do you recall if there was any unusual incident that
happened to you at your place?
xxx
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was that all about?
A. I was raped by my grandfather, sir.
Q. What is the name of your grandfather?
A. Sergio Abon, sir.
Q. If Sergio Abon whom you claimed raped you sometime in the month of January, 1995 is now inside
the courtroom, kindly stand up and point to said accused?
A. Witness stood up and pointed to a person who when asked of his name, answered Sergio Abon.
Q. You said that Sergio Abon raped you, where did he rape you?
A. At the back of our house, sir.
Q. And what time of the day if you remember?
A. In the afternoon, sir.
Q. About what time did he rape you?
A. Between 4:00 oclock to 5:00 oclock in the afternoon.
Q. You said Madam Witness, that your grandfather raped you at the back of your house between the
hours of 4:00 to 5:00 p.m., how did your grandfather rape you?
A. He undressed me, sir.
Q. You said he undressed me, tell us if your grandfather removed your clothes including your panty, is
that what you mean?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what happened after Sergio Abon removed your clothes and your panty?
xxx
A. He went on top of me and he raped me.
x x x.8
Q. x x x what do you mean by he raped you?
A. Sergio Abon undressed me then he was on top. What I meant by he raped me, he put his penis on
my private part, sir.
xxx
Q. What do you mean by your alleged testimony that Sergio Abon put his penis inside your private
part?
A. When he was on top of me he put his penis inside my vagina.
Q. And what did he do after he put his penis inside your vagina?
A. He pushed and pulled. (Witness demonstrating the motion of pumping, moving up and down, push
and pull).
Q. How long did the accused make a push and pull or pumping motion?
A. Quite short time, sir.
Q. And what did you do when the accused was making the pumping motion of push and pull motion
while he was on top of you and his penis was inside your vagina?
A. He was holding my hand and he was on top of me. I was pushing him but he was strong.
Q. What happened after that?
A. He dressed up before he left the place.
Q. What did you feel after you experienced his penis inside your vagina and made a pumping motion
and after the accused dressed up?
A. I felt pain and felt dizzy, sir.
x x x."9
During the cross-examination, Charito never wavered in her assertion that appellant raped her; that
during the act, he placed his bolo on her neck; and that he threatened to oust her and her brother
from his house, thus:
"Q. Last time also Madam Witness, you testified that your grandfather Sergio Abon raped you at the
back of your house, my question is, what particular place at the back of your house were you raped by
your grandfather, the accused herein?
A. Right at the back of the house and sometimes inside our house, sir.
Q. How many times were your raped by your grandfather?
A. He raped me once, sir.
xxx
Q. Now, you also said that your grandfather undressed you, where did your grandfather undress you?
A. In the fields, sir.
Q. Will you demonstrate before this Honorable Court how your grandfather undressed you or how he
removed your clothes?
A. When I was then standing picking up mango fruits, my grandfather removed my shorts.
Q. How did he remove your shorts Madam Witness, will you please demonstrate to us?
A. When I was standing, he suddenly pulled down my shorts and then suddenly, he drew his panabas
and pointed it to me.
xxx
Q. And after your grandfather pulled down your shorts with garter, will you demonstrate to us the
other things that happened?
A. He just told me to lie down and when I asked him what is he doing, he just replied just lie down
and I was then crying.
xxx
Q. x x x, when you lied down, where was your grandfather Sergio Abon?
A. He went on top of me, sir.
xxx
Q. Now, what was the appearance of your grandfather when he went on top of you?
A. He touched my breasts, sir.
Q. Was that the only thing he did to you, Madam Witness?
A. He then told me to hold his penis.
Q. Did you touch his penis, Madam Witness?
A. I did not touch his penis, sir. But he placed his panabas on my neck, forcing me to hold his penis.
xxx
Q. And when your grandfather went on top of you, what did he tell you while he was on top of you?
A. He told me not to tell to anybody what happened or else he threatened that my brother and I will
be kicked out of his house.
x x x."10
Certainly, a rape victims testimony is entitled to great weight especially when she accuses a close
relative of having ravished her.11 For there can be ascribed no greater motivation for a woman abused
by her own kin than that innate yearning of the human spirit to declare the truth to obtain justice.12cräläwvirtualibräry
However, appellant insists that he could not have committed the crime considering that Charito
admitted during the cross-examination that she stayed with her aunt Remedios Novido in Manila from
December, 1994 up to March, 1995, in effect negating the trial courts finding that she was sexually
abused by appellant at Binalonan, Pangasinan sometime in January, 1995.
The exact time or date of the commission of rape is not an element of the crime. What is decisive is
that the commission of rape by the accused has been sufficiently proved. Inconsistencies and
discrepancies as to minor matters irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be considered
grounds for acquittal.13 In this case, the alleged inconsistency in Charitos testimony regarding the
exact date and place of the commission of rape does not impair her credibility.
In fact, no less than Alexander, Charitos brother, testified categorically that he saw appellant having
sexual intercourse with his sister on the day in question, thus:
"x x x
Q. Do you recall of any incident that happened to your sister Charito Abon sometime in January 1995?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was that incident that happened to your sister?
A. She was raped, sir.
Q. You said your sister Charito Abon was raped, who raped her?
A. Sergio Abon, sir.
Q. You claimed that your sister Charito Abon was raped by the accused Sergio Abon, where did Sergio
Abon rape your sister?
A. At the back of our house, sir.
Q. What time did the accused rape your sister?
A. In the afternoon, sir.
Q. You said your sister was raped at the back of your house, where in particular in that place?
A. Near the place where we are taking rice, sir.
Q. Where were you at the time when Charito Abon was being raped by the accused Sergio Abon?
A. I was at the mango tree, sir.
Q. Why were you at the mango tree at that time?
A. I was hiding, sir.
Q. How far is that mango tree where you were hiding to the place where your sister Charito Abon was
raped by the accused?
A. Maybe at the door of the courtroom from the witness stand [witness indicating a distance of more
or less eight (8) meters].
xxx
Q. You said you witnessed the incident, will you tell us how Sergio Abon raped your sister Charito
Abon?
A. When Sergio Abon asked me to buy cigarette I heeded his order and I bought cigarette and upon
returning l saw Sergio Abon on top of my sister, so I hid behind the mango tree because I was afraid
to go near them, sir.
Q. What was the physical appearance of Sergio Abon when he was raping your sister Charito Abon?
A. He was naked, sir.
Q. How about your sister?
A. She was naked too, sir.
Q. When you saw the accused Sergio Abon naked and you also saw your sister naked what did Sergio
Abon do to your sister?
A. She was raping my sister, sir. He was having sex with my sister, sir.
Q. How did your grandfather have sex with your sister? Was your sister lying down at the time when
she was being raped by your grandfather, the accused?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when you said Sergio Abon had sex with your sister, the accused was on top of your sister?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many times did your grandfather Sergio Abon rape your sister?
A. Only one time, sir.
xxx."14
But appellant discredits the above testimony because Alexander retracted. A mere retraction by a
prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if credible.15 The rationale for
the rule is obvious: Affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through
intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Moreover, recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable.
There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated.16
cräläwvirtualibräry
On appellants contention that the results of the physical examination on Charito belie the charge that
the crime was committed sometime in January, 1995, suffice it to state that Dr. Obedoza,
emphatically testified that the old healed hymenal lacerations were "more than two to three weeks
old"17 from the date of examination.
The alleged ulterior motive of Charito in testifying against his grandfather also deserves scant
consideration. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General:
"Appellant argues that Charito filed a rape complaint against him because of ill feelings, hatred and
jealousy against him and his wife who tried to discipline her to be a good child, but Charito however,
refused to be disciplined and was stubborn and hard-headed.
"x x x
"Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young
woman to concoct a story of defloration, which would put her grandfathers liberty and life in peril and
drag herself to a lifetime of shame. (People vs. Sangil, 276 SCRA 532; People vs. Silvano, G.R. No.
127356, June 29, 1999)."18 cräläwvirtualibräry
Appellant also submits that the unreasonable delay of 240 days or 8 months in reporting the rape
incident to the authorities evinces that the charge is a mere fabrication.
We are not convinced. The Solicitor General prudently observed:
"When the rape happened, Charito was a 13-year old unsophisticated barrio lass who was living with
appellant and dependent upon him for support. At first, she admitted the commission of the rape to
Alexander when the latter confronted her. The morning after the rape incident, she revealed the same
to her grandmother, wife of appellant, but her grandmother would not believe her.
"After Charito fled her grandparents house, she reported the rape to her aunt, Cristeta Bayno, who
immediately accompanied her to the police authorities and to a physician for gynecological
examination.
"Considering the foregoing, there was therefore no unreasonable delay in revealing the molestation to
the police authorities. Charito immediately reported the same to a relative (grandmother) who did not
mind the same probably because of the scandal it might create. The delay in reporting the matter to
the police was caused by the grandmothers refusal to believe Charitos account of rape. Indeed, it
would be quite unnatural for a 13-year old unsophisticated barrio lass to go straight to the police
authorities to reveal the defloration which her grandfather did to her."
And so, complainants delay in divulging what she knows, such as the identity of the offender, is not by
itself a setback to the probative value of her testimony.19 To reiterate, what is important is that there
is nothing to indicate that Charito had any improper motive to implicate appellant. Here, a young girls
revelation that she had been raped, coupled by her voluntary submission to medical examination and
willingness to undergo public trial where she gave out the details of the assault on her dignity, cannot
be easily dismissed as mere concoction.
In People vs. Ocumen,20 we emphasized that "the qualifying circumstances
of minority and relationship must concur. As these circumstances, if proven, raise the penalty of
the crime to death, great caution must be exercised in their evaluation. For these circumstances to be
appreciated, both must be specifically alleged in the Information and duly proved during the trial
with equal certainty as the crime itself.
Here, it is undisputed that the minority of the victim - that she was 13 years old when she was raped
in January 1995 - and appellants relationship with the victim - that he is complainants grandfather -
have been alleged in the Information.
But, were these qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship sufficiently established during
the trial?
The prosecution has duly established that appellant is the grandfather of Charito.21 The appellant
himself, in his direct testimony, categorically admitted that Charito is his granddaughter, she being
the daughter of his son Nelson.22cräläwvirtualibräry
However, the prosecution failed to prove that Charito was 13 years old when she was raped. No
certificate of live birth or any authentic document was presented and offered in evidence to prove her
age. The fact that there was no objection from the defense regarding her age could not be taken
against appellant since it is the prosecution that has the burden of proving her age.23
cräläwvirtualibräry
Thus, in the absence of sufficient proof of Charitos minority, appellant cannot be convicted of qualified
rape and sentenced to suffer the death penalty. He should only be convicted of simple rape and meted
the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
As regards the civil liability of appellant, the trial courts award of P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary
damages is erroneous.
In line with current jurisprudence, where, as here, the death penalty is not imposed, the victim should
be entitled to P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto. Such award is mandatory upon the finding of the
fact of rape.24 We likewise award the victim moral damages which is fixed at P50,000.00 without need
of pleading or proof of basis thereof.25 In addition, exemplary damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to
deter grandfathers with aberrant sexual behavior.26 cräläwvirtualibräry
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, in Criminal
Case No. U-8671, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that appellant Sergio Abon y
Esteban is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the victim, Charito L. Abon, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity;
P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Q: Who are you complaining against?
A: Tito CCC, Sir.
Q: Do you see Tito CCC in the premises?
A: None, Sir.
Q: If you will go out, will you be able to identify him?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Please go out?
A: Witness pointed to a male man wearing yellow t-shirt when asked for his name, he answered CCC.
Q: AAA, why are you suing Tito CCC?
A: Kasi po ni-rape po niya ako.
Q: You said you were rape (sic), how many times?
A: Two po.
Q: AAA, when was the first time?
A: April 2011, Sir.
Q: About what time?
A: 3:00 P.M.
Q: Where did this happen?
A: At the YYY Camp, Sir.
Q: What were you doing at YYY Camp, Sitio XXX at that time?
A: We were about to buy bananas, Sir.
Q: You said "kami" who was with you?
A: Tito CCC, sir.
Q: So what happened while you were going out to buy bananas?
A: He pulled me in the grassy portion, Sir.
xxxx
Q: AM you said that you were rape? (sic)
A:Opo
Q: What happened to your private parts if any?
A: Nasira po.
Q: Ipinakita ko sa iyo ito ay ... ano ang tingin mo dito manika?
A:Opo.
Q: Ngayon, ito ay manika at ang nirerepresent ng manika na ito ay ... ano ba ang tingin mo dito mukha
ba siyang lalaki or babae?
A: Lalaki po.
Q: So itong lalaki na ito may mukha, may kamay at paa, meron ding siyang katulad noong nasa lalaki ...
maari mo bang ituro sa amin kung ano ang ginamit niya?
AAA pointed to the private part of the anatomically correct doll.
PROSECUTOR DEDIOS:
Your Honor, can I unbare?
COURT:
Yes pero dahan-dahan lang baka magulat si AAA.
Q: AAA, this doll is representing a male person. Now a male person has its own private parts. I'd like to
show to you a depiction of such private part, is that okay with you?
A:Opo.
Q: I'd like to show to you this portion of the doll, now what do you know about this portion? Ano ito?
COURT:
Q: Ano ba ang alam mo na tawag sa ganyan? Alam mo ba?
A:Opo.
Q: Ano ang tawag diyan, alam mo ba?
A: Witness just pointed the private parts of the anatomical (sic) correct doll
PROSECUTOR DEDIOS:
Q: AAA, am I correct to say that this was the part of the body used by Tito CCC in raping you?
A:Opo.
Q: Now, on September 11, 2011, you also said that you were molested by Tito CCC, what time?
A: 10:00 P.M.
Q: Where did this happen?
A: Sa bahay po.
Q: Now, AAA you said that you were molested, how were you molested by Tito CCC exactly?
COURT:
Q: Gusto mo bang gamitin ulit or ituro ... bibigay ko ulit ang doll kay Prosec ... di to mo na lang ituro kung
ano ang ginamit sa iyo o may ginamit o anong parte ng katawan?
PROSECUTOR DE DIOS:
Q: May ginamit ba si Tito CCC anong parte ng ... katawan?
A: Kamay po.
Q: So what did he do with his hands to your persons?
A: Hinipo niya ako.
Q: AAA, with the use of Tito CCC's hands, where did he touch you?
A: Sa ari ko po.
xxxx
Q: Do you have any proof AAA to show us that you were indeed born on October 7, 1999?
A: Opo.
Q: I'd like to show to you certificate of live birth, is this your certificate of live birth?
A: Opo.
xxxx
Q: I noticed the first molestation was on (sic) April 2011 and the second was on (sic) September 2011,
from April up to September why did you not tell anyone that you were subject of the molestation?
A: Natakot po ako.
Q: Who are you afraid of?
A: Kay Tito CCC po.
Q: So why are you afraid of Tito CCC?
A: Baka po kasi palayasin kami at patayin ako.
Q: You said "baka" why did you say that you might be evicted or killed? Why do you say that?
A: Kasi iyon po ang sinabi niya sa akin. :xxx14
Q: You said you were raped by Kuya Richard, is this true or not?
A: That's true, Sir.
Q: How did he rape you?
A: He placed himself on top of me, Sir.
Q: And what else did he do?
A: He inserted his penis into my vagina, Sir.
Q: What else?
A: He licked my vagina, Sir. 23
xxxx
Q: This Kuya Richard who raped you, is he here today?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Can you point to him?
A: That one, Sir. (Witness pointing to a person who when asked, answered by the name of Richard
Ramirez.)
Q: Can you tell us what you felt when Kuya Richard was doing this? What was your reaction?
A: I was hurt, Sir.
Q: Did you cry?
A: Yes, Sir. 24
FISCAL
In the year 2000, April, Ms. Witness, do you remember of any unusual
incident that happened to you with [XXX]?
WITNESS
Yes, ma'am.
FISCAL
What was that incident?
WITNESS
During that time when my parents were not at home and me and
[XXX] were alone, he dragged me inside the room and pushed me towards
the bed.
FISCAL
After he pushed you towards the bed, what happened next?
WITNESS
He asked me if I know what my parents are doing because we will do
the same.
FISCAL
And what was your answer, Ms. Witness?
WITNESS
I cried, ma'am.
FISCAL
x x x After he pushed you and asked you what your Mom and Dad
were doing, what happened next?
WITNESS
He removed my shorts and panty, ma'am.
FISCAL
Did you shout for help?
Private complainant was 16 years old when she testified in court.
Decision - 10 - G.R. No. 236562
WITNESS
I cried and he threatened me and he inserted his "ari sa akin."
FISCAL
When you said "ari," Madame Witness, what do you mean?
WITNESS
"Titi niya" (His penis), ma'am.
FISCAL
x x x Where did he insert his penis?
WITNESS
In my vagina, ma'am.
FISCAL
After he inserted his penis into your vagina, what happened next,
Madame Witness?
WITNESS
After that, he dressed me up and he pointed a sharp instrument to me.
FISCAL
What is that sharp instrument, Madam Witness?
WITNESS
An icepick, ma'am.33
Q: Can you describe before this court what are you referring to us he was molesting you while you
were still young?
A: I was still in grade one, eight years old.
Q: The question is what did he do when you said he was molesting you?
A: I was sleeping at that time and he removed my panty.
Q: Can you still recall what date wherein you were first molested by your stepfather?
A: What I can remember is that I was still eight years old at that time.
Q: Now you said you were born in the year 1991, will you please add eight years to 1991 and inform
this court what is the year?
A: 1999.
xxx
Q: Can you still remember the exact time by which you were molested the first time in the year
1999?
xxx
A: Perhaps it's 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon because at 5:00 o'clock my mother would arrive.
Q: Now, aside from undressing yourself during that time, what else did accused ███████ do?
A: That's then he kissed me and touched me.
Q: Aside from those things, what else did he do?
A: That's then he raped or molested me.
xxx
Q: Can you tell the court and elaborate what do you mean by he raped you?
A: He caused me to touch his sex organ.
Q: Aside from that what other else did he do?
A: He inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q: What have you felt when his penis was inserted in your vagina?
A: Pain.
Q: For how long in terms of minutes did he insert his penis into your vagina?
A: For a long time.
Q: Can you estimate before this court that long time you are mentioning?
A: Around one hour.
Q: During that one hour period, what have you felt when he was then in the act of inserting his penis
in your womanhood?
A: I was afraid.
Q: Aside from fear, what other else have you felt?
A: Pain.
Q: What part of your body have you felt pain?
A: My vagina sir. 22
On the second rape incident (Criminal Case No. DN0-3394), AAA recalled:
Q: Now, going back to those rape instances, now after the first incident in the year 1999, can you still
recall how many days had elapsed before the second rape incident happened?
A: Around three days later.
Q: And what have you felt when that second incident happened?
A: I was then sick.
Q: The question is what have you feel (sic) when the second rape happened?
A: I was also afraid sir.
Q: And again describe before this court of what do you mean you were rape (sic) the second time,
what action did he do towards you?
A: The same thing happened sir he inserted his penis (in) my organ.
Q: What have you felt when that organ of him was placed inside to (sic) your organ?
A: I felt also pain sir. 23
