For automatic review is the Decision1 [Penned by Judge Angelito C. Teh.] of Branch 87 of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas, finding accused-appellant Ruben de los Reyes y Diola guilty of two (2) counts of rape in Criminal Cases Nos. R95-017 and R95-018, for raping his sixteen-year-old daughter, Bernadette de los Reyes, and five (5) counts of rape in Criminal Cases Nos. R95-022 to R95-026, inclusive, for raping his fourteen-year-old daughter, Melanie de los Reyes; and sentencing him as follows:

On the basis of the complaints lodged on March 30, 1995 by the complainants, Bernadette de los Reyes and Melanie de los Reyes, with the assistance of their mother, Yolanda R. de los Reyes, the Informations presented by Fourth Assistant Provincial Prosecutors Bella Salva-Gayeta and Juanita G. Areta, indicting the accused-appellant for seven (7) counts of rape, allege:

In Criminal Cases Nos. R95-017 and R95-018, upon arraignment on May 30, 1995, assisted by Counsel Octavio Macatangay,6 [Original Records (O.R.), p. 22.] accused-appellant entered pleas of Not Guilty to the crimes charged. In Criminal Case Nos. R95-022 to R95-026, inclusive, upon arraignment on June 13, 1995, with the assistance his counsel, Dante Resurrection, accused-appellant also entered negative pleas.7 [O.R., p. 26.]

Testified on by prosecution witnesses Bernadette de los Reyes, Melanie de los Reyes, Yolanda de los Reyes and Dr. Lea J. Aseron, the version of the People is synthesized by the Solicitor General in the Appellee's Brief, as follows:

The medico-legal examination conducted by Dr. Lea J. Aseron on Bernadette de los Reyes, disclosed:

The medico-legal examination on Melanie de los Reyes showed:

For the defense, accused-appellant Ruben de los Reyes, and his sister, Imelda Castillo, testified. He interposed the defense of denial, theorizing on "his estranged wife's desire to conveniently escape their stifling but still binding relationship, coupled with his brand of discipline, prompted a retaliatory act manifested with the filing of the two (2) sets of complaints for rape."11 [Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 136.]

After trial, the lower court found the People's version credible and on the basis thereof handed down on February 27, 1996, the judgment of conviction under review.

Pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and Sections 3(e) and 10 of Rule 122, Rules of Court, the aforesaid verdict imposing the supreme penalty of death is before this Court for automatic review.

Accused-appellant contends that:

In an appeal from a judgment of conviction in rape cases, the issue boils down, almost invariably, to the tale and credibility of the victim, and just as often, this Court places reliance on the observations by the trial court, which had the singular opportunity, not enjoyed by the appellate court to observe and rate the credibility of the evidence on record. It has thus become doctrinal that the evaluation of testimonial evidence by the trial court is accorded great respect precisely because of its chance to observe first hand the demeanor on the stand of the witnesses, a matter which is important in determining whether what has been testified on should be taken to be the truth or falsehood.13 [People vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 129397, February 8, 1999, citing: People vs. Atuel, 261 SCRA 339.]

In the case at bar, the trial court found complainants' account of their harrowing experience to be positive, convincing and free from serious contradictions, ratiocinating thus:

After a careful scrutiny and evaluation of the victims' narration of the events complained of, the Court is of the considered opinion, and so holds, that the complainants have narrated the truth with all candor and honesty. Their testimonies are straightforward, without the alleged inconsistencies, which accused-appellant dismally failed to indicate in the appellant's brief.* [See Appellent’s Brief, Rollo, p. 137.]

The Court perceives no tenability in the theory of accused-appellant that the charges levelled against him are but retaliatory moves on the part of his wife, who wanted to end their marriage, and on the part of his daughters, who suffered maltreatment in his hands.15 [Apellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 145.] In a long line of cases, this Court has consistently ruled that such a defense is simply unbelievable and too unnatural to merit faith and credit. It is hard to fathom that a parent would use her offsprings as engines of malice especially if the same would subject them to humiliation, nay stigma. No mother in her right mind would expose her daughters to the disgrace and trauma resulting inevitably from a prosecution for rape, if she was not motivated truly by a desire to incarcerate the person responsible for her daughters' defilement. In the same vein, a mother would not subject her daughter to such an ignominy merely to end her relationship with her husband or to retaliate against him for his transgressions as a family man. And it is unbelievable for a daughter to charge her own father with rape at the expense of being ridiculed. Consequently, as the defense utterly failed to prove that the principal witnesses for the People were improperly motivated, the presumption is that they were not so moved and therefore, their testimony is entitled to full faith and credence.16 [People vs. Lasola, G.R. No. 123152, November 16, 1999, citing: People vs. Silvano, G.R. No. 127356, June 29, 1999; People vs. Escober, 281 SCRA 498; People vs. Romua, 272 SCRA 818; People vs. SanJuan, 270 SCRA 693; People vs. Zaballero, 274 SCRA 627; People vs. Bugarin, 273 SCRA 384; People vs. Burce, 269 SCRA 293; People vs. Gabayron, 78 SCRA 78; People vs. Arellano, 282 SCRA 500; Ugaddan vs. CA, 275 SCRA 35; People vs. Sancholes, 271 SCRA 527; People vs. Salvame, 270 SCRA 766; and People vs. Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32.]

Private complainants testified that the accused-appellant threatened to kill them if they divulged to anybody what he had been doing to them. Scared, frightened, and confused, they kept their horrible ordeal to themselves until they mustered enough courage to reveal the unfortunate happening to their mother. In such a scenario, the victims' reluctance to disclose what accused-appellant did to them did not render their testimonies unworthy of belief. It bears stressing that delay in reporting a rape incident due to death threats are not to be taken against the victim.17 [People vs. Montefalcon, G.R. No. 116741-43, March 25, 1999, citing: People vs. Sarellana, 233 SCRA 31.] This doctrine applies with greater force to the present case, where the hesitation of the victims to reveal what happened is due not only to a genuine fear which their father instilled in their mind but also to their young age and the moral ascendancy of accused-appellant.

So also, accused-appellant claims that Melanie's continued stay in their house despite the alleged assaults on her virtue, was contrary to the natural reaction of a girl who has been violated.18 [Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, pp. 138-139.] As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the best explanation why Melanie did not leave their house was that, confronted with such a dreadful experience at a tender age, and in the absence of a trusted person like her mother, she (Melanie) undoubtedly was at a loss on what to do.19 [Appellee’s Brief, Rollo, p. 241.] Indeed, one should not expect a fourteen-year-old girl to act like an adult or a mature and experienced woman who would know what to do under difficult circumstances, and would have the courage and intelligence to disregard a threat on her life and complain immediately that she had been forcibly deflowered.20 [People vs. Manual, 236 SCRA 545, p. 552; citing: People vs. Ignacio, G.R. Nos. 106644-45, June 7, 1994; People vs. Oydoc, 125 SCRA 250; Cf. People vs. Sonico, 156 SCRA 419; People vs. Ibay, G.R. No. 101631, June 8, 1994; and People vs. Olivar, 215 SCRA 759 (1992)]

The issues posed by accused-appellant on the results of the medical examination of the private complainants as well as on the qualification of the doctor who prepared the same, deserve scant consideration because a medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.21 [People vs. Catoltol, Sr., 265 SCRA 109, p. 117, citing: People vs. Sadang, 233 SCRA 412.] In fact, there could be a finding of rape even if the medical examination showed no vaginal laceration.22 [People vs. Sapurco, 245 SCRA 519, 528.] Besides, it is settled that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to constitute the commission of the crime, and this rule applies with more vigor when the culprit is a close relative of the victim.23 [People vs. Burce, 269 SCRA 293, 311, citing: People vs. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613, 632.]

All things studiedly considered and viewed in proper perspective, the mind of the Court can rest easy on a finding of guilt of accused-appellant. Judgment of affirmance is indicated.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, provides:

Conformably, in the case under consideration, with the concurrence of the special qualifying circumstances of relationship of accused-appellant with the victims and the latter's minority, capital punishment has to be imposed on accused-appellant in Criminal Cases Nos. R95-017, R95-022, R95-023, R95-024, R94-025, and R95-026.

In Criminal Case No. R95-018, the lower court correctly imposed the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the rape charged having been committed on January 26, 1992, before the effectivity of R.A. No. 7659.

Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, an indemnity of P75,000.00 is awardable to the victim, the rape sued upon being qualified by circumstances calling for the imposition of the death penalty.24 [People vs. Lasola, supra.] Thus, in Criminal Case Nos. R95-017, R95-022, R95-023, R95-024, R95-025 and R95-026, where the imposition of death penalty is warranted, accused-appellant has to pay the victim in each case, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. In Criminal Case No. R95-018, where the penalty meted is reclusion perpetua, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is proper.25 [People vs. Lasola, supra.] The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape is upheld, the said award being imposable in rape cases without need of proof.26 [People vs. Lim, G.R. No. 131861-63, August 17, 1999, citing: People vs. Prades 292 SCRA 186 (1998)]

Four members of the Court are steadfast in their adherence to the separate opinion expressed in People vs. Echegaray27 [G.R. No. 117472, 267 SCRA 682, February 7, 1997.] that Republic Act No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. However, they bow to the majority opinion that the said law is constitutional and thereunder, the imposition of the death penalty is proper.

WHEREFORE, the Decision under automatic review, finding the accused-appellant, Ruben de los Reyes, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven (7) counts of rape and imposing upon him the penalty of Death for each rape in Criminal Cases Nos. R95-017, R95-022, R95-023, R95-024, R94-025, (sic) and R95-026, and Reclusion Perpetua in Criminal Case No. R95-018, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that apart from the award of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as moral damages in each case, the accused-appellant is sentenced to pay civil indemnity of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos in Criminal Case No. R95-018, and Seventy-five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos in each case in Criminal Cases Nos. R95-017, R95-022, R95-023, R95-024, R05-025 (sic) and R95-026. Costs against the accused-appellant.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon the finality of this decision, let the records of the case be forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.

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