PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EULALIO PADIL, accused-appellant. ulandos

Cherilyn Magos, thirteen years old, filed a complaint before the Municipal Trial Court of Dulag, Leyte for multiple rape against Eulalio Padil, her maternal grandfather. Private complainant alleged that she was first raped in the month of April, 1992 and that she was being raped every night, sometimes twice a night.1 [Order dated April 23, 1996, p. 11 Record.] However, only ten (10) counts of rape were filed. Finding a prima face case against the accused, the cases were immediately forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and the following informations were filed against Eulalio Padil:

Cherilyn Magos testified that she was born on March 31, 1983.3 [Tsn., September 17, 1996; see Exhibit "B".] Her father died on April 1992 and her mother, the daughter of the accused, remarried. Cherilyn, together with her two younger brothers and sister started living in the house of the accused in Brgy. Victory, Dulag, Leyte after the 40th –day following her father’s death. A year later, her mother Teresita Padil Magos married Jun Legaspi and lived with the latter in Brgy. Tabo.

In April, 1992, Cherilyn’s grandmother, the wife of the accused, went to Alangalang, Leyte to harvest palay. One evening, while Cherilyn was sleeping in the sala next to her auntie Aireen, who was sleeping next to the accused, the accused transferred to the place behind her, removed her short pants and panties. She resisted but he held her thigh, got on top of her and moved his buttocks. He did not succeed because she struggled and after that he fell asleep. She covered herself with a blanket but he later succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina from behind. He moved his body; she was asked to stop moving her body because he already "asked the permission of the police". After telling her that "it is over", he again raped her from behind, removing again her shorts and her panties. She felt pain in her vagina.4 [September 17, 1996, pp. 7-13.] Korte

After four years, on March 14, 1996, accused raped her granddaughter again. At about 9:00 o’clock Cherilyn was sleeping beside her aunt Aireen, who was sleeping beside the accused. The accused transferred to a place behind Cherilyn, removed her short pants and her panty, and then removed his briefs. He made her lie on her side, spread her legs, raised one of her thighs by using his arm the hand of which was cut off, and then held his penis to insert it into her vagina. It was painful. As she stood she was warned that if she will tell anyone, they will all be beheaded. She was afraid.5 [Tsn., October 7, 1997, pp. 2-4.]

The incident was repeated in the evening of March 15, 1996, at about 10:00 in the evening. She was sleeping with Aireen and the accused in the sala, while her two brothers and sister were in the bedroom. The accused transferred to a place behind her towards her left side and after taking off her panty and his brief, he made her open her thighs and legs by using his arm with severed hand, and held his penis, directing it towards her vagina. As he stood up, he threatened to behead everyone if she will tell anyone.6 [Tsn., October 7, 1996, pp. 6-8.]

Cherilyn was raped again on March 16, 1996 at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening in the same place. The accused perpetrated the rape in substantially the same way – holding her legs with the arm with a severed hand, and inserting his penis by holding it with his right hand. Slxsc

She was spared from a similar ordeal on March 17, 1996, when she went to her auntie in Paranas, Samar to ask the latter buy her a dress. She stayed that night with her.7 [Tsn., October 8, 1996, pp. 7-8.]

The rape was repeated twice on March 18, 1996 at 9:00 o’clock p.m. and 10:00 o’clock p.m. Cherilyn was told after the first rape that he will do it again after urinating.8 [Tsn., October 8, 1996, pp. 2-6.]

Cherilyn also testified on the rape that was perpetrated by the accused in the evening of March 11, 1996. She was lying on the floor still awake when the accused transferred again to the place behind her, and after taking off her panty and his brief, raped her from behind by directing his penis held by his hand, and inserting it into her vagina.9 [Tsn., October 7, 1996, pp. 2-5.]

The rape that occurred at about 12:30 in the afternoon of March 12, 1996 in the sala of the same house was accomplished in the same manner; the accused again threatened to behead everybody if she will tell anyone.10 [Tsn., October 7, 1996, pp. 6-8.]

Eulalio again raped Cherilyn from behind in the same manner, in the evening of March 13, 1996 at 10:00 o’clock in the house of Eulalio.11 [Tsn., October 7, 1996, pp. 9-11.] Scslx

Cherilyn wrote her mother Teresita Padil, who was then in Manila, to report that her grandfather had been raping her, and to ask for help.12 [Tsn., October 8, 1996, pp. 9-10.] Teresita went home and assisted Cherilyn in filing her complaint at the police station.

Dr. Edgardo E. Daya, the Rural Health Physician of Dulag, Leyte, who conducted a medical examination of the victim Cherilyn on March 19, 1996 testified that he conducted a speculum examination and an internal examination. The speculum examination13 [Exhibit "A".] revealed that it was positive for semen and spermatozoa and the milky secretions outside the vulva would not have been present if no sexual contact had occurred. The totality of the hymen was already broken through the insertion of a hard object like a penis inside the vagina and the index finger could be inserted with ease, indicating the victim is no longer a virgin.14 [Tsn., September 16, 1996, pp. 6-10.]

The accused Eulalio Padil denied that he molested her granddaughter. He claimed that he caught Cherilyn having sexual intercourse with her boyfriend in the afternoon of March 18, 1996 at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon at Hill 120, Dulag, Leyte and whipped her out of anger. He declared that the motive of Cherilyn in filing these cases is that she got angry after she was chastised for having sexual intercourse with her boyfriend.15 [Tsn., October 17, 1996, pp. 9-16.]

A witness, Teresita Cesar confirmed his account that Cherilyn was with her boyfriend at Hill 120 in the afternoon of March 18, 1996.16 [Tsn., October 17, 1996, pp. 5-10.]

The trial court found the accused guilty as charged: Mesm

The case is before us on automatic review. The accused-appellant assigns a lone error in his brief, to wit: Slx

Accused-appellant claims that the testimony of the private complainant lacks the elements of truthfulness and candor as shown by (1) the glaring similarities of complainant’s account concerning the ten counts of rape, which are "basically similar", and "without major variations"; (2) complainant’s long silence over a period of four years runs counter to natural reaction. In his reply brief, appellant contends that it is hard to believe that he could have raped the victim on the occasions she narrated when she was sleeping beside her aunt Aireen and her siblings were in the adjoining room.

We affirm the finding that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

We find no cogent legal basis to disturb the finding of the trial court upholding the credibility of the complainant Cherilyn whose demeanor when testifying the court observed carefully and intensely, and found to be "sincere, truthful and honest." The court observed that in most parts of her testimony she was sobbing in tears, and that while there may be some lapses in her testimony, these did not adversely affect, but instead strengthened its credibility. Our own reading of the records yields no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings, which by well-established precedents are given great weight and accorded high respect by the appellate court which cannot be in a better position, by reading the transcripts, to decide the question of credibility.19 [People vs. Padilla, 242 SCRA 629.] Sclaw

We agree with the Solicitor General that the fact that the multiple rapes were committed in "similar manner" does not disprove the sexual assaults were committed, much less affect the credibility of the private complainant, who must of necessity base her narration on what actually transpired during the repeated assaults. The fact that the accused-appellant committed the multiple rape and satisfied his bestial instincts in similar unusual manner does not reflect on the truthfulness of Cherilyn’s account of her ordeal. Sclex

The delay of four years in reporting the first offense committed in 1992 is not fatal to the prosecution’s cause. Delay in reporting the offense of incestuous rape is not an indication that the charge is fabricated.20 [People vs. Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82.] The accused-appellant consistently intimidated the victim and effectively instilled fear in her mind specially considering the fact that he had been previously convicted of homicide. Delay in reporting a rape incident neither diminishes complainant’s credibility nor undermines the charges of rape where the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm, specially by one who exercised moral ascendancy21 [People vs. Talaboc, 256 SCRA 441; People vs. Dones, 254 SCRA 696.] over the victim. The silence of the victim of rape or her failure to disclose her state without loss of time to the authorities do not prove that the charges are baseless and fabricated.22 [People vs. Yambao, 193 SCRA 571.] The victim might bear the ignominy and pain in private rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the rapist’s making good the threat to hurt the victim.23 [People vs. Rafanan, 182 SCRA 811.] Moreover, Cherilyn told her aunt Aireen the day following the first rape incident that she was raped by her grandfather and her aunt merely told her that she too was raped by her father Eulalio Padil. It was not until she wrote about the repeated rapes to her mother in 1996 that her mother returned to Brgy. Victory to assist her in filing the complaint before the authorities. There were occasions that her mother Teresita Padil visited her and her siblings in the house of the accused after the former’s marriage to Jun Legaspi. Cherilyn did not report the rape incident in 1992 to the authorities, but the repeated rapes perpetrated by the accused in 1996 must have compelled her to write to her mother in Manila and finally report her ordeal to the latter. xlaw

Accused-appellant’s allegation that it was only in April 1993 that Cherilyn and her siblings transferred to the house of their grandfather the accused, and that accordingly, Cherilyn could not have been raped in April 1992, is not borne out by the evidence. Teresita Padil and her children transferred to the house of the accused after the 40th day following the death of Cherilyn’s father in February, 1992.24 [Tsn., October 8, 1996, p. 2; Tsn., October 15, 1996, p. 4.]

The defense of denial interposed by accused-appellant is inherently weak and is viewed with disfavor. It cannot prevail over the positive and candid testimony of the victim, whose credibility was upheld by the trial court. No young girl would concoct a story of sexual assault, undergo gynecologic examination, subject herself to the trauma and embarrassment of criminal prosecution unless she speaks the truth.25 [People vs. Erese, 281 SCRA 361; People vs. Gomez, 279 SCRA 288; People vs. Mamalayan, 280 SCRA 748.] On the suggestion that it was the boyfriend of Cherilyn who deflowered her, the following disposition of the trial court is apt and invites no contravention-

An examination of the transcripts reveals that Cherilyn failed to testify on the rape incident purportedly committed on March 9, 1996, at 9:00 o’clock p.m. subject of Criminal Case No. 96-05-147.27 [MTC Civil Case No. 12,180; Complaint dated April 11, 1996.] Hence, the accused can only be found guilty of nine counts of rape.

For the rape committed in April 1992,28 [Civil Case No. 96-05-150.] the applicable law is Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, before it was amended by R.A. 7659, which imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

For the rapes committed after the amendment introduced by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659,29 [People vs. Simon, 234 SCRA 555.] which took effect on December 31, 1993, the applicable provision is as follows: Scmis

xxx......xxx......xxx

The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance both of which were alleged and proved with certainty, and which justifies the imposition of death penalty.

As explained in People vs. Ramos-

The amount of damages awarded by the trial court must be modified. The civil indemnity in Criminal Cases Nos. 96-05-146; 96-05-148; 96-05-149; 96-05-151; 96-05-152; 96-05-153; 96-05-154; 96-05-1555 should be modified to P75,000.00 considering that the crime was committed under circumstances which justify the imposition of the death penalty.31 [People vs. Victor, G. R. No. 127903, Prom. July 9, 1998.] Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof for it assured that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.32 [People vs. Prades, G. R. No. 127569, Prom. July 30, 1998.]

Four (4) members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People vs. Echegaray33 [267 SCRA 682 (1997)] that R. A. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death is unconstitutional, nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed. Missc

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Tacloban City is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant Eulalio Padil is ordered to pay the offended party Cherilyn Magos in Criminal Cases Nos. 96-05-146; 96-05-148; 96-05-149; 96-05-151; 96-05-152; 96-05-153; 96-05-154; 96-05-155 the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, and in Criminal Case No. 96-05-150 the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity and P50,000.00 a moral damages; and is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 96-05-147.

In accordance with Section 25 of R. A. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for his reference in case he decides to exercise his prerogative of mercy. No pronouncements as to costs.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, JJ., concur.12/3/99 11:04 AM