Of all the so-called heinous crimes, none perhaps more deeply provokes feelings of outrage, detestation and disgust than incestuous rape.1 [People vs. Gabayron, 278 SCRA 78 (1997).] For the man who rapes his own daughter violates not only her purity and her trust but also the mores of his society which he has scornfully defied.2 [People vs. Ramos, 165 SCRA 400 (1988).] By inflicting the primitive, bestial act of incestuous lust on his own flesh and blood,3 [People vs. Melivo, 253 SCRA 347 (1996).] the culprit is reduced to a level lower than a beast.4 [People vs. Dusohan, 227 SCRA 87 (1993).] He deserves no less than to forfeit his place in human society.5 [People vs. Melivo, supra.]

In an Information, dated January 28, 1997, Romeo Llamo y Bolivar was charged with the crime of rape committed against his own daughter Arlyn Llamo y Sanchez, to wit:

After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a decision, dated November 14, 1997, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

A perusal of the records will reveal that aside from private complainant Arlyn Llamo, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Dionesio Lora, Esterlita Lora, Flordeliza F. Eborde, and Dr. Venus Tagarda.

Complainant Arlyn Llamo (also referred to in the transcripts as "Arlene Llamo") gave her testimony inside the judge's chamber upon motion of the prosecution.8 [Rollo, p. 12.] She told the court that her mother Tessie had left their home, taking with her Arlyn's younger sister but leaving Arlyn in the care of her father, herein accused-appellant Romeo Llamo.9 [Ibid.] She further testified that while she and her father were living in Don Carlos, Bukidnon, her father raped her in a sugarcane plantation.10 [TSN, July 2, 1997, p. 12.] When asked how she was raped, Arlyn gave the following testimony: Ky-le

x x x

x x x.

On cross-examination, Arlyn testified as follows:

x x x

x x x.

x x x

At this juncture, it is worthy to note that the trial court observed that Arlyn was "somewhat mentally retarded" and appeared tense.12 [Rollo, p. 12.] She could not tell the court her age, nor could she distinguish the twelve months of the year or tell the number of days in a month.13 [Ibid.]

Arlyn's testimony was corroborated by Dionesio Lora who saw accused-appellant in the act of raping his own daughter .14 [Rollo, p. 13.]

Dionisio testified that he is the vice-president as well as Peace and Order Committee Chairman of his purok in Barangay Bismartz, Municipality of Don Carlos, Bukidnon; that at about seven o'clock in the evening of October 18, 1996, he was supervising a patrol around the Purok with two companions, namely, Ruby Galarpe and Rogelio Galendez; that he had a flashlight with him; that as they were walking near a sugarcane field, they heard a cry for help from inside said field; that they hurried towards the direction of the voice, and saw and recognized the accused-appellant on top of his own daughter who was lying on the ground; that he (Dionesio) scolded the accused saying, "Stop that, she is your own daughter!"; that the accused-appellant quickly stood up and left.15 [Ibid.]

Dionesio further testified that he later brought Arlyn to the house of Esterlita Lora who was also a kagawad of Barangay Bismartz,16 [TSN, July 2, 1997, pp. 27-28.] and married to Dionesio's cousin, Ricardo "Totong" Lora.17 [Id., at 28; TSN, July 15, 1997, pp. 3-4.] After leaving Arlyn in the care of Esterlita, Dionesio reported the incident to the Punong Barangay, Metrobio Villador.18 [TSN, July 2, 1997, p. 28.]

Esterlita Lora, for her part, testified that at about nine o'clock in the evening of October 18, 1996, Dionesio Lora brought Arlyn Llamo to her house, requesting that she take care of Arlyn because she had just been raped by her own father in the sugarcane field; that at that time, her husband Totong was also at home; that she let Arlyn sleep in her house; that the next morning she brought Arlyn to one Flordeliza Eborde, a social worker at the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) of Don Carlos.19 [TSN, July 15, 1997, pp. 4-5.]

Flordeliza Eborde corroborated the testimony of Esterlita. She testified that in the morning of October 19, 1996, Esterlita Lora brought Arlyn Llamo to her house; that she interviewed Arlyn who told her that she had been molested by her father; that she went to Barangay New Nongnongan to inquire about Arlyn's family, particularly her mother; that she learned therein that Arlyn's mother had run away with her younger daughter; that she went to the municipal jail to interview the accused Romeo Llamo regarding the circumstances of Arlyn's birth; that she then went to the Local Civil Registrar to register the birth of Arlyn because Romeo Llamo himself told her that Arlyn's birth was not registered; that she was able to obtain a Certificate of Live Birth20 [Records, p. 47.] therefrom which was offered by the prosecution as Exhibit "B;" that, she then brought Arlyn to the Maramag District Hospital for a medical examination; and, that thereafter, they went to the chief of police of Don Carlos, Bukidnon.21 [TSN, July 15, 1997, p. 14.]Me-sm

Upon questioning by the court, Mrs. Eborde revealed that every time her father's name was mentioned, Arlyn would involuntarily urinate.22 [Id., at 17.]

The prosecution also presented the testimony of Dr. Venus Tagarda, the physician who examined Arlyn. Dr. Tagarda testified as follows:

x x x

x x x

The defense for its part, presented the sole testimony of accused-appellant Romeo Llamo. He testified, thus:

x x x

x x x.

x x x.

x x x

x x x.

x x x.

x x x.

x x x.

x x x.

x x x.

On cross-examination, the accused-appellant testified as follows:

x x x.

In gist, the testimony of accused-appellant Romeo Llamo consisted of his denial of the crime imputed to him, and the alibi that during the period within which the rape allegedly happened, he was in Bismartz, Don Carlos, harvesting palay. He allegedly left his daughter Arlyn in the house of one Monding Estampador in the same barangay. After three days, he allegedly came back from the ricefield to pick up Arlyn only to be told that she had gone to the nearby barangay of Masimag. According to the accused-appellant, he searched for his daughter for several days to no avail. Finally, on October 20, 1996, he was arrested for the rape of his own daughter, herein complainant Arlyn Llamo.

In convicting the accused, the trial court chose to give credence to the testimony of 12-year-old Arlyn Llamo. Said court ruled:

The case is now before us on automatic review.

In his brief, accused-appellant makes a lone assignment of error, to wit: M-issdaa

Accused-appellant argues that the claim of witness Dionesio Lora that he caught the former raping his daughter on the evening of October 18, 1996 does not jibe with the medical findings of Dr. Venus Tagarda who examined the private complainant three (3) days after the alleged rape was committed or on October 21, 1996. Dr. Tagarda testified that he found an "old healed laceration" in the hymen of private complainant. According to accused-appellant, if it were true that the alleged rape was committed on October 18, 1996, then the laceration of the private complainant's hymen should still be fresh or not totally healed.27 [Id,. at 38.]

Accused-appellant's argument is untenable. Well-settled is the rule that in rape cases, the absence of fresh lacerations in complainant's hymen does not prove that she was not raped.28 [People vs. Ngo, 202 SCRA 549 (1991).] A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.29 [People vs. Madridano, 227 SCRA 363 (1993).] Healed lacerations do not negate rape.30 [People vs. Liquiran, 228 SCRA 62 (1993).]

In one case, this Court ruled that the testimony of the complainant herself as supported by the medical evidence of her non-virgin state is sufficient to sustain the accused's conviction.31 [People vs. Joaquin, Jr., 225 SCRA 179 (1993).]

The case of People vs. Erardo,32 [277 SCRA 643 (1997).] is another case in point. In that case, as with the one at bar, the physician who examined the victim three (3) days after the commission of rape, found old hymenal lacerations. Accused-appellant therein contended that since the medical examination was conducted only three (3) days after the alleged rape, this implies that the hymenal lacerations already existed prior to the date of the rape.

The Court found this contention unavailing. It ruled that the claim that another person is responsible for the old healed hymenal lacerations prior to the date of the examination does not negate the commission of rape by accused-appellant when this has been demonstrated in vivid detail by complainant herself.

Similarly, in the case at bar, the defense tried to impute the crime to another person, one Uncle "Totong,"33 [TSN, July 2, 1997, p. 20.] to whom Arlyn reported the alleged rape.34 [Id., at 14.] This contention must fall flat in the face of Arlyn's positive assertion that it was her father, the accused-appellant Romeo Llamo who raped her.35 [Id., at 17 & 20.] A perusal of Arlyn’s testimony as borne by the transcripts will show that she unhesitatingly pointed to her father as the person who deflowered her. Her testimony was simple and straightforward, consistent and unwavering, much like that of an innocent child that Arlyn Llamo was and still is. The trial court's conclusions, therefore, finding that the victim was raped by the accused-appellant, based on the direct and positive assertions of the victim, corroborated by an impartial eyewitness and the physician who examined her, deserve respect.36 [People vs. Dejucos, 156 SCRA 469 (1987).]Sd-aad-sc

Accused-appellant's claim that if he had libidinous designs on his daughter, he need not have brought her to the sugarcane plantation to perpetrate it because "he had every opportunity to do it at home" deserves scant consideration. Based on his own account, accused-appellant declared that when he and Arlyn went to Bismartz, Don Carlos, Bukidnon on October 7, 1996, they stayed at the house of the Estampador spouses.37 [Rollo, p. 71.] As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, accused-appellant's reason for bringing Arlyn to the sugarcane field then becomes obvious--to be away from the prying eyes of Monding Estampador and his wife so that he can perpetrate his dastardly act with absolute ease and impunity.38 [Ibid.]

Finally, accused-appellant contends that the trial court failed to consider his candid and unrebutted testimony to the effect that prior to the alleged rape imputed to him, his daughter Arlyn was missing;39 [Rollo, p. 39.] and, that he allegedly spent several days searching for her. Accused-appellant further claims that there was a great possibility that the alleged rape was committed during the time that Arlyn was missing.40 [Id., at 39-40.]

Accused-appellant's lame denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of complainant as well as eyewitness Dionesio Lora and the other prosecution witnesses. Notably, while appellant consistently declared that he searched for his daughter and even reported to the authorities that she was missing, he failed to present any witness to corroborate his claim. As it is, such claim is self-serving and deserves no evidentiary value.

Denials and alibis unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving which deserve no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight over the testimonies of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.41 [People vs. Gayon, 269 SCRA 587 (1997).]

In the instant case, the trial court observed that "despite her apparent low mental endowment, Arlene was able to give to the court a good account of the crime. In her simple but straightforward narration of the incident, the court cannot but be impressed that she bared painful truth." The trial court, likewise, found Dionesio Lora a credible witness.42 [Rollo, pp. 15-16.]

Moreover, it is worthy to note that accused-appellant himself testified that he had no quarrel with any of the prosecution witnesses, two of whom are even his relatives.43 [TSN, July 28, 1997, pp. 26 & 32.] Well-entrenched is the rule that the testimony of a rape victim is credible where she has no motive to testify against the accused;44 [People vs. Matamorosa, 231 SCRA 509 (1997).] more so, when such testimony is simple and straightforward, unshaken by a rigid cross-examination and unflawed by any inconsistency or contradiction. The same must be given full faith and credit.45 [People vs. Saballe, 236 SCRA 365 (1994).]Rtc-spped

This Court has consistently held that when the victim says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.46 [People vs. Hangdaan, 201 SCRA 568 (1991); People vs. Erardo, supra.] This is all the more true where the complainant is the daughter of the accused because it is absurd that a daughter would accuse her own father of this heinous crime had she really not been aggrieved. Given the naivete, age, and low mentality of complainant, it is difficult to believe that she would fabricate a charge of rape against her own father whom she had depended on for all her material and emotional needs.

In this culture, the father is called "haligi ng tahanan," the pillar of strength upon whom his children look to for moral guidance and material as well as emotional support. The father is the "padre de familia," the head of the family who is morally and socially obligated to protect his family and to ensure their well-being.

That is why society recoils with disgust and repulsion when confronted with cases of incestuous rapes such as the one at bar. That is why we are outraged when the very person whom society in general and the family in particular, look up to is the one who betrays his family's trust and destroys the moral fibers of society. For, as stated at the outset, the man who violates the chastity of his own daughter, his own flesh and blood is reduced to a level lower than a beast. By inflicting the primitive, bestial act of incestuous lust on his own blood, such a man deserves to forfeit his place in human society.47 [People vs. Melivo, supra.]

In this case, the Cour is morally convinced beyond an iota of doubt that herein accused-appellant committed the dastardly act of rape against his own daughter Arlyn.

Thus, we find that the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of death upon the accused-appellant considering the latter's relationship to the complainant who was only twelve (12) years old at the time the rape was committed. Four Justices of the Court continue to maintain the unconstitutionality of Republic Act 7659 insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority to the effect that this law is constitutional and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No.7659 (An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, other Special Penal Laws, and for other purposes) provides:

x x x.

x x x.

The presence of any of the seven special qualifying circumstances as enumerated above effectively qualifies simple rape to warrant the imposition of the death penalty regardless of the presence of other aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Under item number one (1), the concurrence of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender constitutes one special qualifying circumstance; both should be alleged and proved.48 [People vs. Sacapaño, G.R. No.130525, September 3, 1999.] In the instant case, it was specifically alleged in the complaint and information; and, indubitably proved during trial that Arlyn was under eighteen years of age, in fact only twelve years old, when the rape was committed and that the offender, Romeo, was her father. The prosecution offered the Certificate of Live Birth of Arlyn Llamo; and, more significantly Romeo admitted his paternity and Arlyn's minority at the time of the commission of the rape, in open court.49 [TSN, July 28,1997, pp. 3 & 28.]

Thus, the Court is constrained to affirm the death penalty imposed by the trial court. Four justices of the Court have continued to maintain the unconstitutionality of Republic Act 7659 insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless they submit to the ruling of the majority to the effect that this law is constitutional and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision, dated November 14, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Branch 8, finding accused-appellant Romeo Llamo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape against his 12-year-old daughter Arlyn Llamo, and sentencing him to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH as defined and penalized Wider Section 11 of Republic Act 7659 is hereby AFFIRMED. In line with recent jurisprudence, accused-appellant is, likewise, ordered to pay, the victim in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) by way of civil indemnity damages, and the additional amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, with costs.

In accordance with Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of R.A. 7659, upon finality of this decision, let the Records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of his pardoning power.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. xl-aw