SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 362 1 Case 11

Close Reader
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 362
Information | Reference
Case Title:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO
RIVERA, accused-appellant. VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 153
Citation: 362 SCRA 153 People vs. Rivera
More...
*
G.R. No. 139180. July 31, 2001.
Search Result
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ROLANDO RIVERA, accused-appellant.
Due Process; Procedural due process simply means that

a person must be heard before he is condemned.·Procedural
due process simply means that a person must be heard
before he is condemned. The due process requirement is a
part of a personÊs basic rights, not a mere formality that may
be dispensed with or performed perfunctorily. Considering
both the evidence and the law applicable to this case, we
hold that accused-appellant has been accorded his right to
due process.
Right of Confrontation; The cross-examination of a
witness is essential to test his or her credibility, expose
falsehoods or half-truths, uncover the truth which rehearsed
direct examination testimonies may successfully suppress,
and demonstrate inconsistencies in substantial matters
which create reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused
and thus give substance to the constitutional right of the
accused to confront the witnesses against him.·The right of
a party to cross-examine a witness is embodied in Art. III,
§14(2) of the Constitution which provides that the accused
shall
_______________
* EN BANC.
154
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Rivera
have the right to meet the witnesses face to face and in Rule
115, §l(f) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which
states that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
have the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses
against him. The cross-examination of a witness is essential
to test his or her credibility, expose falsehoods or half-truths,
uncover the truth which rehearsed direct examination
testimonies may successfully suppress, and demonstrate
inconsistencies in substantial matters which create
reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused and thus give
substance to the constitutional right of the accused to
confront the witnesses against him.
Same; The right of the accused to cross-examine a
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e12d89…03600fb002c009e/p/APN244/?username=Guest&device=ipad 24/8/17, 1K48 PM

Page 1 of 26
witness is, however, not without limits but is subject to the
rules on the admissibility and relevance of evidence.·The
right of the accused to cross-examine a witness is, however,
not without limits but is subject to the rules on the
admissibility and relevance of evidence. Thus, in People v.
Zheng Bai Hui, this Court upheld the ruling of the trial
judge disallowing the questions propounded by the accusedÊs
counsel on the ability of the arresting officer to distinguish
between tawas and shabu without a laboratory examination,
the academic degree of his training instructor, and the
officerÊs authorship of books on drug identity and analysis
for being irrelevant, improper, and impertinent.
Right to Counsel; Considering the StateÊs and the
offended partyÊs right to speedy and adequate justice, the
court may restrict the accusedÊs option to retain a private
counsel if the accused insists on an attorney he cannot afford,
or if the chosen counsel is not a member of the bar, or if the
attorney declines to represent the accused for a valid reason.
·While the Constitution recognizes the accusedÊs right to
competent and independent counsel of his own choice, his
option to secure the services of a private counsel is not
absolute. For considering the StateÊs and the offended
partyÊs right to speedy and adequate justice, the court may
restrict the accusedÊs option to retain a private counsel if the
accused insists on an attorney he cannot afford, or if the
chosen counsel is not a member of the bar, or if the attorney
declines to represent the accused for a valid reason.
Courts; Judges; It is oftentimes necessary in the due and
faithful administration of justice for the presiding judge to
re-examine a witness so that his judgment, when rendered,
may rest upon a full and clear understanding of the facts·it
is a judgeÊs prerogative to ask questions to ferret out the
truth.·Where the trial court is judge both of the law and of
the facts, it is oftentimes necessary in the due and faithful
administration of justice for the presiding judge to re-
examine a witness so that his judg-
155
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 155
People vs. Rivera
ment, when rendered, may rest upon a full and clear

understanding of the facts. Our reading of the transcript of
stenographic notes in this case shows that the trial judge
merely wanted to clarify certain points relating to the
defense of accused-appellant and not to establish his guilt. It
is a judgeÊs prerogative to ask questions to ferret out the
truth. It cannot be taken against him if the questions he
propounds reveals certain truths which, in turn, tend to
destroy the theory of one party.
Same; Same; Judgments; A judge is not supposed to
study a case only after all the pertinent pleadings have been
filed·it is a mark of diligence and devotion to duty that a
judge studies a case long before the deadline set for the
promulgation of his decision has arrived.·The decision
rendered by the trial court gives a clear account of the facts
and the law on which it is based. It discusses in full the
courtÊs findings on the credibility of both the prosecution and
defense witnesses and its evaluation of the evidence of both
parties. What we said in the analogous case of People v.
Mercado applies to this case: . . . A review of the trial courtÊs
decision shows that its findings were based on the records of

Page 2 of 26
this case and the transcripts of stenographic notes during
the trial. The speed with which the trial court disposed of
the case cannot thus be attributed to the injudicious
performance of its function. Indeed, a judge is not supposed
to study a case only after all the pertinent pleadings have
been filed. It is a mark of diligence and devotion to duty that
a judge studies a case long before the deadline set for the
promulgation of his decision has arrived. The one-day period
between the filing of accused-appellantsÊ memorandum and
the promulgation of the decision was sufficient time to
consider their arguments and to incorporate these in the
decision. As long as the trial judge does not sacrifice the
orderly administration of justice in favor of a speedy but
reckless disposition of a case, he cannot be taken to task for
rendering his decision with due dispatch. . .
Criminal Law; Rape; Guiding Principles in the Review
of Rape Cases.·Coming now to the merits of this case, we
find that the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt the
guilt of accused-appellant. In reviewing rape cases, we have
been guided by the following principles: (a) An accusation
for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove, and even more
difficult to disprove; (b) In view of the intrinsic nature of the
crime, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized
with extreme caution; and (c) The evidence for the
prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
156
People vs. Rivera
Same; Same; Witnesses; Well-settled is the rule that the

lone testimony of a rape victim, by itself, is sufficient to
warrant a judgment of conviction if found to be credible.·
Well-settled is the rule that the lone testimony of a rape
victim, by itself, is sufficient to warrant a judgment of
conviction if found to be credible. It has likewise been
established that when a woman declares that she has been
raped she says, in effect all that is necessary to mean that
she has been raped, and where her testimony passes the test
of credibility the accused can be convicted on the basis
thereof. This is because from the nature of the offense, the
sole evidence that can usually be offered to establish the
guilt of the accused is the complainantÊs testimony.
Same; Same; The possibility of rape is not negated by the
fact that the presence of even the whole family of the accused
inside the same room produced the possibility of discovery
·it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, for rapists
respect neither time nor place for carrying out their evil
designs.·ComplainantÊs failure to remember the date of the
commission of the rape cannot be taken against her. The
exact date when complainant was sexually abused is not an
essential element of the crime of rape. Nor does the fact that
complainant was sleeping beside her sister when the rape
occurred detract from her credibility. The possibility of rape
is not negated by the fact that the presence of even the
whole family of the accused inside the same room produced
the possibility of discovery. For rape to be committed, it is
not necessary for the place to be ideal, for rapists respect
neither time nor place for carrying out their evil designs.
Same; Same; Incestuous Rape; The gravity of filing a
case for incestuous rape is of such a nature that a daughterÊs
accusation must be taken seriously.·Accused-appellant
failed to show any reason why this Court should disbelieve

Page 3 of 26
complainantÊs testimony. Indeed, the gravity of filing a case
for incestuous rape is of such a nature that a daughterÊs
accusation must be taken seriously. It is against human
experience for a girl to fabricate a story which would drag
herself and her family to a lifetime of dishonor, unless it is
the truth. More so when her charge could mean the
execution of her own father, as in this case.
Same; Same; Witnesses; Affidavits; Discrepancies
between a witnessÊ affidavit and his testimony in open court
does not necessarily impair his credibility.·Accused-
appellantÊs counsel on cross-examination made much of the
discrepancy between complainantÊs sworn statement where
she stated that accused-appellant slept beside her mother
after the rape and her testimony that her mother returned
home from the hospital only the day after the rape took
place. It must be pointed out, however, that dis-
157
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 157
People vs. Rivera
crepancies between a witnessÊ affidavit and his testimony in

open court does not necessarily impair his credibility.
Affidavits, which are taken ex parte, are often incomplete or
inaccurate for lack of or absence of searching inquiries, by
the investigating officer.
Same; Same; Same; The rule is that discrepancies and
inconsistencies on minor matters neither impair the essential
integrity of the prosecution evidence as a whole nor reflect on
the witnessÊ honesty.·Whether accused-appellant slept
alone or with complainantÊs mother after committing the
rape of complainant is of no moment as it is a minor point
that does not reflect on the commission of the crime itself.
The rule is that discrepancies and inconsistencies on minor
matters neither impair the essential integrity of the
prosecution evidence as a whole nor reflect on the witnessÊ
honesty. Such inconsistencies may in fact strengthen rather
than weaken the credibility of the witness as they erase any
suspicion of rehearsed testimony.
Same; Same; It is hard to ascertain the exact date of
fertilization inasmuch as more than two weeks is considered
to be the life span of the spermatozoa in the vaginal canal;
Pregnancy is not an element of the crime of rape and is
totally immaterial to the question of the accused-appellantÊs
guilt.·Accused-appellant contends that complainant could
not have been raped on March 1 or 2, 1997, the dates when
her sister Zaira was hospitalized, because she had her last
menstrual period on March 3, 1998 and thus she could not
have gotten pregnant as a result of the rape. He argues that
a woman who had her monthly period cannot be
impregnated as a result of sexual intercourse five days
before or five days after her last menstruation. Accused-
appellant does not, however, cite any legal or medical
authority for his thesis, except what he claims to be common
knowledge. On the other hand, we have previously held that
it is hard to ascertain the exact date of fertilization
inasmuch as more than two weeks is considered to be the
life span of the spermatozoa in the vaginal canal. Hence,
even granting that complainant could not have been
impregnated by accused-appellant during the period alleged
by him, it remains possible for complainant to have gotten
pregnant afterwards. More importantly, it must be

Page 4 of 26
emphasized that pregnancy is not an element of the crime of
rape and is, therefore, totally immaterial to the question of
accused-appellantÊs guilt. In other words, accused-appellant
being the cause of complainantÊs pregnancy is a non-issue in
the prosecution of the crime of rape. What should not be lost
sight of is the fact that complainantÊs testimony constitutes
proof beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had
carnal knowledge of her without her consent, and such fully
established the crime of rape.
158
People vs. Rivera
Same; Same; It is doubtful that the complainant would

let herself be embroiled in a petty family dispute in exchange
for her honor and dignity.·Accused-appellantÊs claim that
the motivation for the filing of this case was the animosity of
his wifeÊs relatives towards him caused by his land-grabbing
of their land is likewise without any basis. It may be that
his wifeÊs relatives took advantage of his incarceration and
made him sign his waiver of rights over the land. But this
does not necessarily mean they conspired to persecute him.
It is noteworthy that accused-appellant never claimed that
the document which he signed (Exh. 3) existed before the
filing of the criminal complaint against him or that his wifeÊs
relatives fabricated the charge against him because of his
failure to sign the same. Indeed, what accused-appellantÊs
defense cannot explain is the hymenal laceration sustained
by complainant or the steadfastness she has exhibited in
pursuing the charge against her own father. It is doubtful
that complainant would let herself be embroiled in a petty
family dispute in exchange for her honor and dignity. We
cannot believe that a young girl, like complainant, would
invent a sordid tale of sexual abuse by accused-appellant
unless it was the truth. Where there is no evidence to show
a doubtful reason or improper motive why a prosecution
witness should testify against the accused or falsely
implicate him in a crime, her testimony is trustworthy.
Alibis and Denials; Denial, when unsubstantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, constitutes negative self-
serving evidence which deserves no greater evidentiary value
than the testimony of a credible witness who testified on
affirmative matters.·Accused-appellant also raises the
defense of denial and alibi. But the bare denial of accused-
appellant cannot overcome the positive declarations of
complainant. Denial, when unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, constitutes negative self-serving
evidence which deserves no greater evidentiary value than
the testimony of a credible witness who testified on
affirmative matters.
Same; Witnesses; The defense of alibi cannot prosper if it
is established mainly by the accused and his relatives, and
not by credible persons.·Accused-appellantÊs sister,
Concepcion Sayo, testified that accused-appellant lived with
her family in Bulacan at the time of the rape. No other
witness not related to accused-appellant, however, was
called to corroborate her claim. We have already held that
the defense of alibi cannot prosper if it is established mainly
by the accused and his relatives, and not by credible
persons. It is not improbable that these witnesses would
freely perjure themselves for the sake of their loved ones.
Accused-appellantÊs defense thus fails to convince this
Court.

Page 5 of 26
159
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 159
People vs. Rivera
Same; Same; Qualified Rape; To justify the imposition of

the death penalty, both the relationship of the victim and her
age must be alleged and proved.·The foregoing discussion
notwithstanding, we think that the imposition of the death
penalty by the trial court is erroneous. It is settled that to
justify the imposition of the death penalty, both the
relationship of the victim and her age must be alleged and
proved.
Same; Same; Same; Minority; Judicial Notice; The trial
court can only take judicial notice of the victimÊs minority
when the latter is, for example, ten (10) years old or below.·
Nor was her birth certificate or baptismal certificate or any
school record presented by the prosecution to prove the age
of Erlanie at the time of the rape. Not even her mother,
whose testimony could have been sufficient to prove the age
of complainant, testified in this case. What was relied upon
by the trial court was that fact that the age of the victim
was undisputed by the defense. It also took judicial notice of
the victimÊs minority on account of her appearance. We do
not agree with this conclusion. The trial court can only take
judicial notice of the victimÊs minority when the latter is, for
example, 10 years old or below. Otherwise, the prosecution
has the burden of proving the victimÊs age at the time of the
rape and the absence of denial on the part of accused-
appellant does not excuse the prosecution from discharging
its burden.
Same; Same; Damages; The award of civil indemnity in
the amount of P75,000.00 may only be made if the crime of
rape was effectively qualified by any of the circumstances
under which the death penalty is authorized by the
applicable amendatory laws.·The award of civil indemnity
in the amount of P75,000.00 made by the trial court cannot
be sustained. Such amount can only be awarded if the crime
of rape was effectively qualified by any of the circumstances
under which the death penalty is authorized by the
applicable amendatory laws. Accordingly, the civil indemnity
awarded to complainant must be reduced to P50,000.00 in
consonance with current rulings.
Same; Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstances;
Relationship; The relationship of the accused being the
father of the complainant, can be appreciated as a generic
aggravating circumstance warranting the award of
exemplary damages.·In addition to the damages given by
the trial court, exemplary damages in the amount of
P25,000.00 should likewise be awarded in favor of
complainant. Accused-appellant being the father of
complainant, such relationship can be appreciated as a
generic aggravating circumstance warranting the award of
exemplary damages. In rapes committed by fathers against
their daughters, such award may be imposed
160
People vs. Rivera
to serve as a deterrent to other parents similarly disposed to

Page 6 of 26
commit the same crime.
AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional

Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, Br. 49.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Federico S. Tolentino, Jr. for accused-appellant.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a review pursuant to Rule 122, 1§10 of the Rules

of Criminal Procedure of the decision, dated June 22,
1999, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Guagua,
Pampanga, finding accused-appellant Rolando Rivera
guilty of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of death and to pay the offended party, Erlanie Rivera,
the sum of P75,000.00 as compensatory damages and
P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The information against accused-appellant charged
·
That sometime in the month of March 1997, in barangay

Santiago, municipality of Lubao, province of Pampanga,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused ROLANDO RIVERA, by
means of violence, threat and intimidation, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and maliciously
succeeded in having carnal knowledge [of] his 13 year old
daughter, Erlanie D. Rivera, against the latterÊs will and
without her consent.
2
Contrary to law.
When the information was read to him in the local

dialect (Pampango) during his arraignment on
September 30, 1997, accused-appellant, duly assisted
by counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the crime
3
charged, whereupon trial was held.
_______________
1 Per Judge Rogelio C. Gonzales.

2 Records, p. 2.
3 Id., p. 15.
161
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 161

People vs. Rivera
The prosecution presented as its witnesses

complainant Erlanie Rivera, her aunt, Marietta
Pagtalunan, and Dr. Demetria Barin, who conducted
the physical examination of complainant.
Complainant Erlanie Rivera testified that
4
sometime
in March 1997, her younger sister, Zaira, was taken
by their parents to the Escolastica Romero Memorial
Hospital in Lubao, Pampanga. ComplainantÊs mother
stayed with her sister in the hospital, but her father,
herein accused-appellant, went back home to Santiago,
Lubao, Pampanga. At around 11 oÊclock in the evening
of the same day, complainant was awakened as
accused-appellant started kissing her and fondling her
breasts. Complainant tried to resist by kicking and
pushing accused-appellant, but her efforts were to no
avail. Accused-appellant removed her shorts and
panty, touched her private parts, and then had sexual

Page 7 of 26
intercourse with her. After he was through with her,
accused-appellant told complainant not to tell anyone
what had happened or he would kill complainantÊs
mother and sister. Hence, when her mother came home
the following day, Erlanie did not tell her what had
happened because she was afraid of accused-appellant.
On April 9, 1997, however, Erlanie, in the presence
of her mother, told her aunt, Marietta Pagtalunan, and
her grandmother, Maxima Payumo, that she had been
raped by accused-appellant. For this reason, she was
referred to Dr. Barin for physical examination. She
also executed a sworn
5
statement before the police of
Lubao, Pampanga.
Erlanie testified that she became pregnant as a
result of the rape committed against her by 6
accused-
appellant, but the pregnancy was aborted. On cross-
examination, she said she was 13 years old at the time
of her testimony, the second child in the family. She
said that her parents were not on good terms with
each other and that she knew that her father had a
mistress. Atty. Mangalindan, then defense counsel,
questioned Erlanie about other supposed acts of
molestation committed by accused-appellant against
her previous to the rape subject of the present case,
but,
________________
4 Also referred to as Shaira.

5 TSN, pp. 4-14, Nov. 4, 1997.
6 TSN, pp. 2-3, Nov. 25, 1997.
162

People vs. Rivera
upon objection of the prosecution, the trial court

disallowed the question on the ground that it
concerned matters
7
not covered by her direct
examination.
Erlanie testified that her mother, grandmother,
aunt, and a certain Nora Baluyut were present when
she made her sworn statement before the police. She
said that her father raped her only once, sometime in
March 1997. She could not remember the exact date
when she was raped by accused-appellant, but she did
remember that the same took place in March as her
sister, Zaira, was hospitalized at the time. When the
rape occurred, her younger brother and sister were in
their house asleep. She did not tell her mother after
the latter had returned home that she had been raped
by accused-appellant because she was afraid of her
father who had threatened her. After the rape, 8
accused-appellant would only come home on Sundays.
Questioned further on cross-examination, Erlanie
said that she gave her sworn statement before the
police and that her answers to questions asked during
her direct examination were freely given without
coaching by anyone. She could understand Tagalog,
the language used in her sworn statement. She told
the court that she struggled against accused-appellant,
kicking and pushing him, but she was overpowered by
her father. At that time, ErlanieÊs younger sister,
Corazon, was lying beside her, but Erlanie did not
shout even when her father succeeded in penetrating

Page 8 of 26
her. Erlanie could not remember how long the sexual
act took place, but she felt something like urine come
out of her fatherÊs penis after he was finished with her.
Erlanie testified that she9
was 12 years old when she
was raped by her father.
On re-direct examination, when asked about the
discrepancy between her testimony that her mother
returned home only the day after the rape and her
statement in her affidavit that accused-appellant slept
beside her mother after the rape, Erlanie replied that
she made a mistake as the incident narrated in her
affidavit
_______________
7 TSN, pp. 2-10, Dec. 2, 1997.

8 TSN, pp. 4-10, July 14, 1998.
9 TSN, pp. 2-16, July 23, 1998.
163
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 163

People vs. Rivera
referred to a different occasion when no 10rape was

committed against her by accused-appellant.
The next witness for the prosecution was Marietta
Pagtalunan, complainantÊs aunt and the sister of
complainantÊs mother, Evangeline. Marietta
corroborated ErlanieÊs testimony that the latter told
her sometime in April 1997 that she had been raped by
accused-appellant. Marietta said she took complainant
11
to Dr. Barin, who examined complainant. Dr.
Demetria Barin was Chief Physician of the Escolastica
Romero District Hospital. Her findings are as follows:
P.E. FINDINGS:
·No signs of external Physical Injuries
I.E. FINDINGS:
HYMEN·healed laceration at 3:00 oÊclock
VAGINA·Admits one finger with ease two fingers
with difficulty
UTERUS·not enlarged
LMP·March 3, 1997
12
Pregnancy Test (+)
Dr. Barin testified that on April 10, 1997, she

examined complainant Erlanie Rivera and found that
the victim had an injury in the hymen at the 3 oÊclock
position which could possibly have been caused by the
insertion of a hard object, such as a male organ. Dr.
Barin testified that complainant Erlanie went back to
see her on May 2, 1997 because she suffered from
vaginal bleeding indicative of a threatened abortion.
She said that she found that complainant was then
pregnant. Upon examination of the patient at that
time, Dr. Barin found that abortion had not yet taken
place and prescribed medicines for the complainant.
Erlanie was subjected to another pregnancy test on
May 13, 1997, but the result was nega-
_______________
10 TSN, pp. 2-6, Aug. 27, 1998.

11 TSN, pp. 3-6, Sept. 3, 1998.
12 Exh. C.

Page 9 of 26
164

People vs. Rivera
tive. Dr. Barin stated that the vaginal bleeding

suffered by complainant
13
could have caused the
abortion of the fetus.
Thereafter, the defense presented its evidence.
Accused-appellant, his sister, Concepcion Sayo, and
Natividad Pinlac, Records Officer of the Escolastica
Romero District Hospital, were presented as witnesses.
Accused-appellant denied that he raped Erlanie
Rivera. He alleged that the rape charge was filed
against him because his wife, Evangeline, had a
paramour and resented him because he hurt her. He
explained that he saw his wife talking with another
man in their house and beat her up on April 1, 1997
because he heard that she had a lover. He also said
that his wife was angry with him because he had a
mistress who stayed in their house for three weeks. He
further stated that his wifeÊs relatives were likewise
angry with him because he caused the lot owned by his
father-in-law in Santiago, Lubao, Pampanga to be
registered in his name. He said that he was compelled
to sign a waiver of14 his rights over the land owned by
his parents-in-law. The defense presented a letter to
accused-appellant written by his wife, who was asking
him to sign a document so15 that she could attend to it
before he got out of prison.
The defense also offered as evidence
16
a document,
designated as Waiver of Rights, signed by accused-
appellant, in which he acknowledged that he was a
tenant of a parcel of land and that he waived and
voluntarily surrendered his right over the said
landholding to the „SMPCI,‰ recommending that a
certain Ponciano Miguel be given the land to work on
the same. The document was identified by accused-
appellant in open court. He said that Ponciano Miguel
was a first cousin of his wife and that he signed the
document because his wifeÊs relatives promised him
that he would
17
get out of prison after signing the
document.
_______________
13 TSN, pp. 3-10, Oct. 6, 1998.

14 TSN, pp. 2-15, Oct. 29, 1998.
15 Exh. 2.
16 Exh. 3.
17 TSN, pp. 4-7, Feb. 11, 1997.
165
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 165

People vs. Rivera
Another witness for the defense was Concepcion Sayo,

accused-appellantÊs sister, who testified that in March
1997, accused-appellant lived with her family in
Malawak, Bustos, Bulacan, to help her husband
operate a fishpond. She said that accused-appellant
stayed in their house during the entire month of
March, except in March 19, 1997 when he stayed 18
with
their sister, Perla, in Tibagan, Bustos, Bulacan.

Page 10 of 26
The last defense witness was Natividad Pinlac,
Records Officer of the 19Escolastica Romero District
Hospital, who identified a certification, dated April
29, 1999, in which it was stated that Zaira Rivera was
confined
20
at that hospital from March 1 to March 2,
1997.
On June 22, 1999, the trial court rendered a
decision, the dispositive portion of which stated:
WHEREFORE, the court finding the accused guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as charged. For having
violated Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by Republic Act 7659, with the attendant circumstances that
the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender is the father of the victim and absent any
circumstance that could mitigate the commission thereof,
accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of
death by lethal injection.
In line with established jurisprudence, said accused is
also ordered to indemnify the offended party Erlanie Rivera
in the sum of P75,000.00 as compensatory damages and
P50,000.00 as moral damages.
21
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that:
1. The lower court failed to observe the

constitutional right of the Accused-Appellant to
due process and right to counsel;
2. The lower court failed to 22consider the evidence
of the Accused-Appellant.
_______________
18 TSN, pp. 3-5, March 30, 1999.

19 TSN, pp. 3-6, April 29, 1999.
20 Exh. 4.
21 Decision, p. 11; Records, p. 142.
22 Brief for the Accused-Appellant, p. 1; Rollo, p. 54.
166

People vs. Rivera
I. Accused-appellant invokes his right to due process of

law. He claims that he was denied the same because:
(a) the trial judge disallowed his lawyer from cross-
examining Erlanie Rivera concerning the latterÊs
sworn statements on the ground of irrelevance and
immateriality; (b) the trial court denied the motion
made by accused-appellantÊs counsel de oficio to
postpone the cross-examination of Dr. Barin, the
examining physician, because of which the said
counsel consequently waived the cross-examination of
Dr. Barin; (c) the judge propounded numerous
questions to accused-appellant during his cross-
examination by the prosecutor; and (d) the trial courtÊs
decision was promulgated just one day after accused-
appellant submitted his memorandum.
Procedural due process simply means that a person
must be heard before he is condemned. The due
process requirement is a part of a personÊs basic rights,
not a mere formality that23 may be dispensed with or
performed perfunctorily. Considering both the
evidence and the law applicable to this case, we hold
that accused-appellant has been accorded his right to

Page 11 of 26
due process.
A. One basis for accused-appellantÊs contention that
he was denied due process is the refusal of the trial
judge to allow Atty. MangalindanÊs questions
concerning the other alleged acts of molestation
committed by accused-appellant against complainant.
Accused-appellant argues that no legal ground exists
for the trial courtÊs ruling.
The transcript of stenographic notes concerning this
incident shows the following:
ATTY. MANGALINDAN:
Q You mentioned in your testimony that you were
molested by your father since 1996.
COURT:
Are you referring to a chain of events because
police station you are referring is something there
are two places this girl testified that she was
raped, you referred to us Acts of Lascivio usness
and she did not testified about that, that is another
case with another Court, we are only trying here a
rape case
_______________
23 People v. Santocildes, Jr., 321 SCRA 310 (1999).
167
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 167

People vs. Rivera
that is only they you never mention. Only on the

matters that she testified (sic).
ATTY. MANGALINDAN:
But this is also related to the rape case your Honor
because I will confront it with another form of a
question.
ATTY. MANGALINDAN:
Q Prior to this incident, were you molested by your
father?
PROSECUTOR SANTOS:
Immaterial, your Honor, whatever acts w[ere] done
by the accused is not a subject of the case at bar.
COURT:
Let us confine [questioning] to the complaint at bar
which is a rape case.
ATTY. MANGALINDAN:
This is related to the incident because we are here
your Honor to prove, we are trying to discredit her
testimony. We will just direct our question
touching on the direct examination.
COURT:
Only on the matters that she only testified that is
only thing you can cross-examine. Only matters
testified which is only a rape case let us not dwell
the Court knows there are other cases Acts of
Lasciviousness pending in the lower Court at the
proper Court otherwise if I will allow you to ask
questions on other matters specially I know you

Page 12 of 26
are pinpointing the Acts of Lasciviousness you are
prolonging this case here (sic).
ATTY. MANGALINDAN:
I am trying to discredit the witness as one where
the credibility as witness here your Honor is very
important. I stated before our main cross-
examination is the accused is not a plan insuch
case, although I do sympathize (sic). We would like
to propound question that will discredit her as
witness and a complainant not with her testimony
alone. Our center of cross- examination is to
discredit her as complaining witness that is why
our question may not be limited to be accepted
under the rule of cross-examination your Honor
the cross-examination your Honor the cross-
examiner is not limited on the direct- testimony of
the witness but he can propound questions which
may petition or destroy the credibility of the
witness that is our view point (sic).
168

People vs. Rivera
PROSECUTOR SANTOS:
We cannot dispute the right of accused to
discredit or to adopt our credibility of our witness,
but it should be done in the proper way, not to ask
immaterial questions which are not related.
ATTY. MANGALINDAN:
The rule for cross-examination insofar as to
destroy the credibility of the witness is not only
limited to what the Honorable Fiscal we came
approach of so many cross-examinations goes
allow your Honor under the rules of Court insofar
as this case is related to the present case we are
trying, this is very related because even the
witness I have transcript in my hand, testified
not only the rape case your Honor she had
testified by direct-examination the preparatory
acts before the testimony of rape that she was
been molested early, finger of the father, this were
testified through by the witness, it is here direct-
testimony it is not limited (sic).
PROSECUTOR SANTOS:
Prior to this incident were you molested by your
father, obviously your Honor the question is not
relevant.
ATTY. MANGALINDAN:
Your Honor please IÊm very disagreeable (sic), I
have not with me the transcript but I have read
that you [can] ask questions concerning the rape
case.
COURT:
A question referring
24
to events prior to the
complaint at bar.
The trial court later issued an order, dated December

9, 1997, the pertinent parts of which provided:

Page 13 of 26
After private complainant testified on direct-examination,
counsel for accused attempted to cross-examine her on
matters relevant to the complaint for Acts of Lasciviousness
which was objected to by Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Arturo
G. Santos on the ground that private complainant did not
testify on that matter but limited her testimony on the rape
case only. Counsel for the accused argued that although that
is correct nonetheless because [of] the sworn statement
executed by private complainant identified by said witness
in her direct examination and marked as Exhibit „C‰ for the
prosecution, he is at liberty to cross-examine the
______________
24 TSN, pp. 5-8, Dec. 2, 1997.
169
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 169

People vs. Rivera
witness on all matters stated in her sworn statement

including that portion touching on the acts of lasciviousness
subject matter of another case before another court.
The Court sustained the objection. Section 6, Rule 132,
Revised Rules on Evidence provides that „the witness may
be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters
stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith,
with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and
truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias or the
reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the
issue.‰
The witness testified only on the rape case. She did not
testify anything about acts of lasciviousness committed upon
her person. She may not therefore be questioned on this
matter because it is not connected with her direct testimony
or has any bearing upon the issue. To allow adverse party to
cross-examine the witness on the acts of lasciviousness
which is pending trial in another court and which the
witness did not testify is improper.
Questions concerning acts of lasciviousness will not in
any way test the accuracy and truthfulness and freedom
from interest or bias or the reverse. On the contrary such
questions, if allowed, will unduly burden the court with
25
immaterial testimonies.
In another order, dated January 13, 1998, the trial

court gave accused-appellantÊs counsel 20 days within
26
which to elevate its ruling to the appellate court. The
records reveal, however, that no such petition was filed
by Atty. Mangalindan as regards this particular
matter.
The question, therefore, is whether the trial court
correctly disallowed accused-appellantÊs counsel from
questioning complainant as regards the other
supposed acts of lasciviousness contained in her sworn
statement. On this point, Rule 132, §6 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence provides:
Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness

may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any
matters stated in the direct examination, or connected
therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest, bias
or the reverse and to elicit all important facts bearing upon
the issue.

Page 14 of 26
_______________
25 Records, pp. 26-27.

26 Records, p. 30.
170

People vs. Rivera
The right of a party to cross-examine a witness is

embodied in Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution which
provides that the accused shall have the right to meet
the witnesses face to face and in Rule 115, §l(f) of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which states
that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
have the right to confront27
and cross-examine the
witnesses against him. The cross-examination of a
witness is essential to test his or her credibility, expose
falsehoods or half-truths, uncover the truth which
rehearsed direct examination testimonies may
successfully suppress, and demonstrate inconsistencies
in substantial matters which create reasonable doubt
as to the guilt of the accused and thus give substance
to the constitutional right28 of the accused to confront
the witnesses against him.
The right of the accused to cross-examine a witness
is, however, not without limits but is subject to the
rules on the admissibility and relevance
29
of evidence.
Thus, in People v. Zheng Bai Hui, this Court upheld
the ruling of the trial judge disallowing the questions
propounded by the accusedÊs counsel on the ability of
the arresting officer to distinguish between tawas and
shabu without a laboratory examination, the academic
degree of his training instructor, and the officerÊs
authorship of books on drug identity and analysis for
being irrelevant, improper, and impertinent.
In this case, accused-appellantÊs counsel argued
that his questions to Erlanie on the other acts of
lasciviousness supposedly committed by accused-
appellant against her were for the purpose of testing
her credibility. There was, however, no showing on his
part how these questions had any bearing on
complainantÊs credibility or on the truth of her claims.
One is led to suspect that the purpose of these
questions was to confuse complainant into committing
mistakes in her answers during cross-examination
that accused-appellantÊs counsel could later use to
possibly put complainantÊs credibility, not to mention
her character, in question.
Accused-appellant insists that his counsel should
have been allowed to ask questions in relation to the
sworn statement executed
_______________
27 People v. Suplito, 314 SCRA 493 (1999).

28 People v. Nadera, Jr., 324 SCRA 490 (2000).
29 G.R. No. 127580, Aug. 22, 2000, 338 SCRA 420.
171
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 171

People vs. Rivera

Page 15 of 26
by complainant. He cites Rule 132, §17 of the Revised
Rules of Evidence which provides that:
When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or

record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the
same subject matter may be inquired into by the other.
Neither can this rule be invoked to justify the

questioning of complainant which the trial court did
not allow. As the above provision states, this rule
applies to parts of „an act, declaration, conversation,
writing or record‰ which is given in evidence.
Indeed, the records show that after Erlanie had
finished with her direct examination on November 25,
1997, the trial judge granted the motion made by Atty.
Anselmo Mangalindan, accused-appellantÊs private
counsel, to postpone Erlanie RiveraÊs cross-
examination to allow him time to secure copies of the
transcript of stenographic notes of ErlanieÊs testimony 30
and thus enable him to fully question complainant.
Erlanie was first cross-examined on December 2, 1997,
but several
31
postponements, 32
namely, on January
33
13,
1998, February
34
10, 1998,
35
March 12, 1998,
36
March
31, 1998,
37
April 7, 381998, May 12, 1998, 39
May 26,
1998, May 28, 1998, and June 11, 1998, on ErlanieÊs
cross-examination took place because of the failure of
Atty. Mangalindan to appear on the said trial dates.
ErlanieÊs cross-examination was continued on July 14,
1998 and July 23, 1998. Her cross-examination by
accused-appellantÊs counsel was thorough and covered
various subjects, such as the nature of the relationship
between her parents, who were present during the
execution of her sworn statement, whether the same
had been executed by her voluntarily, the date when
she was raped
_______________
30 TSN, pp. 3-4, Nov. 25, 1997.

31 Id., p. 30.
32 Id., p. 32.
33 Id., p. 37.
34 Id., p. 42.
35 Id., p. 47.
36 Id., pp. 56-57.
37 Id., p. 58.
38 Id., pp. 59-60.
39 Id., p. 65.
172

People vs. Rivera
by accused-appellant, the reason for her delay in

reporting the rape committed by accused-appellant,
her understanding of Tagalog, who were with her in
the house at the time of the rape, the details
surrounding the rape committed against her, and her
age. It is evident that accused-appellant and his
counsel were given ample opportunity to conduct the
cross-examination of Erlanie Rivera in order to test
her truthfulness.
B. The record shows that because accused-
appellantÊs private counsel was not present when Dr.
Barin testified, Atty. Eddie Bansil was appointed by
the trial court as accused-appellantÊs counsel de oficio

Page 16 of 26
for that particular hearing. Atty. Bansil moved for the
postponement of the witnessÊ cross-examination, but
the trial court denied his request because, on the one
hand, accused-appellant was a detention prisoner and
Dr. Barin was a very busy person, while, on the other
hand, Atty. Bansil had heard the testimony of the said
witness. Atty.
40
Bansil then decided not to cross-examine
Dr. Barin.
Accused-appellant now contends that the trial judge
denied the motion of Atty. Bansil for postponement
because he was biased against him. Accused-appellant
claims that the counsel de oficio was not familiar with
the facts of his case and was thus in no position to
cross-examine Dr. Barin.
While the Constitution recognizes the accusedÊs
right to competent and independent counsel of his own
choice, his option to secure the services of a private
counsel is not absolute. For considering the StateÊs and
the offended partyÊs right to speedy and adequate
justice, the court may restrict the accusedÊs option to
retain a private counsel if the accused insists on an
attorney he cannot afford, or if the chosen counsel is
not a member of the bar, or if the attorney
41
declines to
represent the accused for a valid reason.
The trial court appointed Atty. Bansil a counsel de
oficio to represent accused-appellant on October 6,
1998 because his regular counsel, Atty. Anselmo
Mangalindan, was absent without any
_______________
40 TSN, p. 11. Oct. 6, 1998.

41 People v. Serzo, Jr., 274 SCRA 553 (1997).
173
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 173

People vs. Rivera
explanation. Atty. Mangalindan had previously been

granted several postponements. As this Court ruled in
another case:
. . . Courts are not required to wait indefinitely the pleasure

and convenience of the accused as they are also mandated to
promote the speedy and orderly administration of justice.
Nor should they countenance such an obvious trifling with
the rules. Indeed, public policy requires that the trial
continue as scheduled, considering that appellant was
adequately represented by counsels who were not shown to
be negligent,
42
incompetent or otherwise unable to represent
him.
Atty. Bansil was present and heard the testimony of

Dr. Barin, the prosecution witness, on that day. Dr.
BarinÊs testimony on direct examination was simple,
containing primarily a discussion of her findings on
the hymenal laceration sustained by complain-ant. Her
testimony did not require considerable study and
extraordinary preparation on the part of defense
counsel for the purpose of cross-examination. It seems
Atty. Bansil no longer found it necessary to cross-
examine Dr. Barin.
Moreover, beyond stating that Dr. Barin was a vital
witness, accused-appellant has not indicated what
questions his counsel wanted to ask from Dr. Barin. It
may well be that these questions do not exist at all and

Page 17 of 26
that the importance given by accused-appellant to
counsel de oficioÊs failure to cross-examine the witness
is exaggerated. Indeed, a medical examination of the
victim, together with the medical certificate, is merely
corroborative
43
and is not an indispensable element of
rape. The primordial issue in this case remains to be
whether the complainantÊs testimony, not Dr. BarinÊs,
established beyond reasonable doubt the crime of rape.
C. Accused-appellant likewise points to the trial
judgeÊs questions propounded to him during his cross-
examination as an indication of the latterÊs partiality
for the prosecution.
We find no merit in this contention. Where the trial
court is judge both of the law and of the facts, it is
oftentimes necessary in the due and faithful
administration of justice for the presiding
_______________
42 Id., p. 568.
43 People v. Segui, G.R. Nos. 131532-34, Nov. 28, 2000, 346 SCRA
178.
174

People vs. Rivera
judge to re-examine a witness so that his judgment,

when rendered, may rest upon 44
a full and clear
understanding of the facts. Our reading of the
transcript of stenographic notes in this case shows that
the trial judge merely wanted to clarify certain points
relating to the defense of accused-appellant and not to
establish his guilt. It is a judgeÊs
45
prerogative to ask
questions to ferret out the truth. It cannot be taken
against him if the questions he propounds reveals
certain truths which,
46
in turn, tend to destroy the
theory of one party. As this Court held:
In any case, a severe examination by a trial judge of some of

the witness for the defense in an effort to develop the truth
and to get at the real facts affords no justification for a
charge that he has assisted the prosecution with an evident
desire to secure a conviction, or that he had intimidated the
witnesses for the defense. The trial judge must be accorded
a reasonable leeway in putting such questions to witnesses
as may be essential to elicit relevant facts to make the
record speak the truth. Trial judges in this jurisdiction are
judges of both the law and the facts, and they would be
negligent in the performance of their duties if they
permitted a miscarriage of justice as a result of a failure to
propound a proper question to a witness which might
develop some material bearing upon the outcome. In the
exercise of sound discretion, he may put such question to the
witness as will enable him to formulate a sound opinion as
to the ability or the willingness of the witness to tell the
truth. A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. He
may propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility
of the witness and to extract the truth. He may seek to draw
out relevant and material testimony though that testimony
may tend to support or rebut the position taken by one or
47
the other party . . .
D. We also find no merit in accused-appellantÊs

argument that he was denied due process considering
the speed with which the trial court rendered

Page 18 of 26
judgment against him, which judgment was
promulgated one day after he filed his memorandum.
________________
44 People v. Aquino, 314 SCRA 543 (1999) citing People v.
Manalo 148 SCRA 98 (1987).

45 People v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 125005, Oct. 3, 2000, 341 SCRA
721.
46 People v. Docena, 322 SCRA 820 (2000), citing People v.
Edualino 271 SCRA 189 (1997).

47 People v. Zheng Bai Hui, supra.
175
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 175

People vs. Rivera
The decision rendered by the trial court gives a clear

account of the facts and the law on which it is based. It
discusses in full the courtÊs findings on the credibility
of both the prosecution and defense witnesses and its
evaluation of the evidence of both parties. What we 48
said in the analogous case of People v. Mercado
applies to this case:
. . . A review of the trial courtÊs decision shows that its

findings were based on the records of this case and the
transcripts of stenographic notes during the trial. The speed
with which the trial court disposed of the case cannot thus
be attributed to the injudicious performance of its function.
Indeed, a judge is not supposed to study a case only after all
the pertinent pleadings have been filed. It is a mark of
diligence and devotion to duty that a judge studies a case
long before the deadline set for the promulgation of his
decision has arrived. The one-day period between the filing
of accused-appellantsÊ memorandum and the promulgation
of the decision was sufficient time to consider their
arguments and to incorporate these in the decision. As long
as the trial judge does not sacrifice the orderly
administration of justice in favor of a speedy but reckless
disposition of a case, he cannot be taken to task for
rendering his decision with due dispatch. . .
II. Coming now to the merits of this case, we find that

the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt the guilt
of accused-appellant. In reviewing rape cases, we have
been guided by the following principles: (a) An
accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove,
and even more difficult to disprove; (b) In view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution;
and (c) The evidence for the prosecution must stand on
its own merits and cannot draw strength 49
from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.
A. Well-settled is the rule that the lone testimony of
a rape victim, by itself, is sufficient to warrant a
judgment of conviction if found to be credible. It has
likewise been established that when a woman declares
that she has been raped she says in effect all that is
necessary to mean that she has been raped, and where
her tes-
_______________
48 G.R. No. 116239, Nov. 29, 2000, 346 SCRA 256.

49 People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 124368, June 8, 2000, 333

Page 19 of 26
SCRA 269.
176

People vs. Rivera
timony passes the test of credibility the accused can be

convicted on the basis thereof. This is because from the
nature of the offense, the sole evidence that can
usually be offered to establish 50the guilt of the accused
is the complainantÊs testimony.
Considering complainantÊs tender age, her shy
demeanor, and manner of testifying in court, the trial
court found ErlanieÊs testimony to be straightforward,
natural, and convincing
51
and accorded the same full
faith and credit.
Complainant told the court how she was awakened
because accused-appellant kissed her and fondled her
breasts. She narrated that she tried to resist accused-
appellantÊs advances by pushing and kicking him, but
the latter succeeded in ravishing her. She told of how
her father threatened to kill her mother and her
siblings if she reported the incident. Despite the
lengthy cross-examination of accused-appellantÊs
counsel, she remained firm and steadfast in her story
of how she was raped by her father. Her narration not
only rings true and sincere but is consistent and
unshaken on its material points. ComplainantÊs
testimony is fully corroborated by the medical findings
of Dr. Barin who examined complainant shortly after
she had been raped. She found complainant to have
suffered a hymenal laceration at the 3 oÊclock position
which could have been caused by the penetration of a
hard object, such as a male organ.
ComplainantÊs failure to remember the date of the
commission of the rape cannot be taken against her.
The exact date when complainant was sexually abused 52
is not an essential element of the crime of rape. Nor
does the fact that complainant was sleeping beside her
sister when the rape occurred detract from her
credibility. The possibility of rape is not negated by the
fact that the presence of even the whole family of the
accused inside the same room produced the possibility
of discovery. For rape to be committed, it
_______________
50 People v. Aloro, G.R. No. 129208, Sept. 14, 2000, 340 SCRA
346.
51 Decision, pp. 4-5; Records, pp. 135-136.
52 People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 117406, Jan. 16, 2001, 349 SCRA
67.
177
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 177

People vs. Rivera
is not necessary for the place to be ideal, for rapists

respect neither
53
time nor place for carrying out their
evil designs.
In sum, accused-appellant failed to show any reason
why this Court should disbelieve complainantÊs
testimony. Indeed, the gravity of filing a case for

Page 20 of 26
incestuous rape is of such a nature that a daughterÊs
accusation must be taken seriously. It is against
human experience for a girl to fabricate a story which
would drag herself and her family to a lifetime of
dishonor, unless it is the truth. More so when her
charge could54 mean the execution of her own father, as
in this case.
Accused-appellantÊs counsel on cross-examination
made much of the discrepancy between complainantÊs
sworn statement where she stated that accused- 55
appellant slept beside her mother after the rape and
her testimony that her mother returned home from56the
hospital only the day after the rape took place. It
must be pointed out, however, that discrepancies
between a witnessÊ affidavit and his testimony in open
court does not necessarily impair his credibility.
Affidavits, which are taken ex parte, are often
incomplete or inaccurate for lack of or absence 57
of
searching inquiries, by the investigating officer.
Moreover, whether accused-appellant slept alone or
with complainantÊs mother after committing the rape
of complainant is of no moment as it is a minor point
that does not reflect on the commission of the crime
itself. The rule is that discrepancies and
inconsistencies on minor matters neither impair the
essential integrity of the prosecution evidence as a
whole nor reflect on the witnessÊ honesty. Such
inconsistencies may in fact strengthen rather than
_______________
53 People v. Watimar, G.R. Nos. 121651-52, Aug. 16, 2000, 338
SCRA 173 citing People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 122473, June 8, 2000,
333 SCRA 201.
54 People v. Elpedes, G.R. Nos. 137106-07, Jan. 31, 2001, 350
SCRA 716.
55 Exh. C; Exh. 1.
56 TSN, p. 10, Nov. 4, 1997.
57 People v. Perez, 319 SCRA 622 (1999).
178

People vs. Rivera
weaken the credibility of the witness

58
as they erase any
suspicion of rehearsed testimony.
Accused-appellant contends that complainant could
not have been raped on March 1 or 2, 1997, the dates
when her sister Zaira was hospitalized, because she
had her last menstrual period on March 3, 1998 and
thus she could not have gotten pregnant as a result of
the rape. He argues that a woman who had her
monthly period cannot be impregnated as a result of
sexual intercourse five59 days before or five days after
her last menstruation.
Accused-appellant does not, however, cite any legal
or medical authority for his thesis, except what he
claims to be common knowledge. On the other hand,
we have previously held that it is hard to ascertain the
exact date of fertilization inasmuch as more than two
weeks is considered to be the life 60
span of the
spermatozoa in the vaginal canal. Hence, even
granting that complainant could not have been
impregnated by accused-appellant during the period
alleged by him, it remains possible for complainant to

Page 21 of 26
have gotten pregnant afterwards. More importantly, it
must be emphasized that pregnancy is not an element
of the crime of rape and is, therefore, totally
immaterial
61
to the question of accused-appellantÊs
guilt. In other words, accused-appellant being the
cause of complainantÊs pregnancy is a non-issue in the
prosecution of the crime of rape. What should not be
lost sight of is the fact that complainantÊs testimony
constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt that
accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her without
her consent, and such fully established the crime of
rape.
B. Accused-appellant imputes ill motive on the part
of complainantÊs mother and her relatives for bringing
charges against him. He claims that complainantÊs
mother resented the fact that he used to beat her up
out of jealousy and that he had several paramours in
the past. He further asserts that his wifeÊs relatives
were
_______________
58 People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 135330, Aug. 31, 2000 339
3CRA 482.
59 Brief for the Accused-Appellant, pp. 9-10; Rollo, pp. 62-63.
60 People v. Sta. Ana, 291 SCRA 188 (1998).
61 Id. See also People v. Perez, 307 SCRA 276 (1999) and People
v Adora, 275 SCRA 441 (1997).
179
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 179

People vs. Rivera
angry with him because of the land which he caused to

be registered in his name to the prejudice of the latter.
This allegation is without merit. Accused-appellant
makes it appear that complainantÊs mother was
responsible for the filing of this case against him. This
is not so. For that matter, his wife did not testify
against him. It was his daughter, complainant, alone
who denounced him in court.
Accused-appellantÊs claim that the motivation for
the filing of this case was the animosity of his wifeÊs
relatives towards him caused by his land-grabbing of
their land is likewise without any basis. It may be that
his wifeÊs relatives took advantage of his incarceration 62
and made him sign his waiver of rights over the land.
But this does not necessarily mean they conspired to
persecute him. It is noteworthy that accused-appellant
never claimed that the document which he signed
(Exh. 3) existed before the filing of the criminal
complaint against him or that his wifeÊs relatives
fabricated the charge against him because of his
failure to sign the same.
Indeed, what accused-appellantÊs defense cannot
explain is the hymenal laceration sustained by
complainant or the steadfastness she has exhibited in
pursuing the charge against her own father. It is
doubtful that complainant would let herself be
embroiled in a petty family dispute in exchange for her
honor and dignity. We cannot believe that a young girl,
like complainant, would invent a sordid tale of sexual 63
abuse by accused-appellant unless it was the truth.
Where there is no evidence to show a doubtful reason
or improper motive why a prosecution witness should
testify against the accused or falsely implicate him in a

Page 22 of 26
64
crime, her testimony is trustworthy.
Accused-appellant also raises the defense of denial
and alibi. But the bare denial of accused-appellant
cannot overcome the positive declarations of
complainant. Denial, when unsubstantiated by clear
and convincing evidence, constitutes negative self-
serving evidence which deserves no greater
evidentiary value than the
_______________
62 Exh. 3.
63 People v. Segui, supra.
64 People v. Aloro, supra.
180

People vs. Rivera
testimony of a credible
65
witness who testified on
affirmative matters.
Accused-appellantÊs sister, Concepcion Sayo,
testified that accused-appellant lived with her family
in Bulacan at the time of the rape. No other witness
not related to accused-appellant, however, was called
to corroborate her claim. We have already held that
the defense of alibi cannot prosper if it is established
mainly by the accused and his relatives, and not by
credible persons. It is not improbable that these
witnesses would freely
66
perjure themselves for the sake
of their loved ones. Accused-appellantÊs defense thus
fails7 to convince this Court.
C. The foregoing discussion notwithstanding, we
think that the imposition of the death penalty by the
trial court is erroneous. It is settled that to justify the
imposition of the death penalty, both the relationship 67
of the victim and her age must 68
be alleged and proved.
Thus, in People v. Javier, where the victim was
alleged to be 16 years old at the time of the
commission of the rapes, it was held:
. . . Although the victimÊs age was not contested by the

defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly necessary
in this case considering that the victimÊs age which was then
16 years old is just two years less than the majority age of
18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference
between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one insofar as
physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically
developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year
old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and
young-looking 18-year old lady may pass as a 16-year old
minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of
the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential
so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim is indeed
under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying
circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659. In a
criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the
extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond
reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to
_______________
65 People v. Quilatan, G.R. No. 132725, Sept. 28, 2000, 341 SCRA 247.
66 People v. Gopio, G.R. No. 133925, Nov. 29, 2000, 346 SCRA 408.
67 People v. Francisco, G.R. Nos. 134566-67, Jan. 22, 2001, 350 SCRA 55.
68 311 SCRA 122, 140-141 (1999).

Page 23 of 26
181
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 181

People vs. Rivera
constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must

be established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to
be upheld.
A duly certified certificate of live birth showing

complainantÊs age, or some other official document on
record, such as a school 69
record, has been recognized as competent evidence.
In this case, although complainantÊs minority has been
alleged in the information, no independent evidence
was presented by the prosecution to prove the same.
Complainant did not even state her age at the time of
the rape during direct examination; it was only during
her cross-examination when she stated that she was 70
12 years old at the time she was raped by her father.
Nor was her birth certificate or baptismal certificate
or any school record presented by the prosecution to
prove the age of Erlanie at the time of the rape. Not
even her mother, whose testimony could71 have been
sufficient to prove the age of complainant, testified in
this case. What was relied upon by the trial court was
that fact that
72
the age of the victim was undisputed by
the defense. It also took judicial notice73
of the victimÊs
minority on account of her appearance.
We do not agree with this conclusion. The trial court
can only take judicial notice of the victimÊs minority
when the latter is, for example, 10 years old or below.
Otherwise, the prosecution has the burden of proving
the victimÊs age at the time of the rape and the absence
of denial on the part of accused-appellant does not 74
excuse the prosecution from discharging
75
its burden.
In a similar case, People v. Tundag, in which the trial
court took judicial notice of
_______________
69 People v. Marquez, G.R. Nos. 137408-10, Dec. 8, 2000, 347
SCRA 510,
70 TSN, p. 12, July 23, 1998.
71 People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 131167-68, Aug. 23, 2000, 338
SCRA 582.
72 Decision, p. 10; records, p. 141.
73 Id., p. 4; id., p. 135.
74 People v. Tipay, 329 SCRA 52 (2000); People v. Guia, 329
SCRA 101 (2000).

75 G.R. Nos. 135695-96, Oct. 12, 2000, 342 SCRA 704.
182

People vs. Rivera
the minority of the victim who was alleged to be 13

years old, we ruled:
In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is

improper, despite the defense counselÊs admission, thereof
acceding to the prosecutionÊs motion. As required by Section
3 of Rule 129, as to any other matters such as age, a hearing
is required before courts can take judicial notice of such fact.
Generally, the age of the victim may be proven by the birth

Page 24 of 26
or baptismal certificate of the victim, or in the absence
thereof, upon showing that said documents were lost or
destroyed, by other documentary or oral evidence sufficient
for the purpose.
The prosecution having failed to present evidence as to

complainantÊs age, accused-appellant can be convicted
only of simple rape, for which the penalty is reclusion
perpetua.
Consequently, the award of civil indemnity in the
amount of P75,000.00 made by the trial court cannot
be sustained. Such amount can only be awarded if the
crime of rape was effectively qualified by any of the
circumstances under which the death penalty is 76
authorized by the applicable amendatory laws.
Accordingly, the civil indemnity awarded to
complainant must be reduced 77
to P50,000.00 in
consonance with current rulings.
The award of moral damages in the amount of
P50,000.00 to complainant is correct. Moral damages is
awarded in rape cases without need of showing that
the victim suffered from mental, physical, and
psychological trauma as these are too 78
obvious to
require recital by the victim during trial.
In addition to the damages given by the trial court,
exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00
should likewise be awarded in favor of complainant.
Accused-appellant being the father of complainant,
such relationship can be appreciated as a generic
aggravating circumstance warranting the award of
exemplary damages. In rapes committed by fathers
against their daughters,
_______________
76 People v. Rafales, 323 SCRA 13 (2000).

77 People v. Lomibao, G.R. No. 135855, Aug. 3, 2000, 337 SCRA
211; People v. Mendez, G.R. No. 132546, July 5, 2000, 335 SCRA
147.
78 People v. Docena, supra.
183
VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 183

People vs. Rivera
such award may be imposed to serve as a deterrent to

other 79parents similarly disposed to commit the same
crime.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 49, Guagua, Pampanga, finding
accused-appellant guilty of the crime of rape is
AFFIRMED with the modification that accused-
appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay complainant Erlanie Rivera the
amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as
moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Quisumbing,

Pardo, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon,
Jr., JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Melo, Panganiban and
Buena, JJ., Abroad on official business.
Sandoval Gutierrez, J., On leave.

Page 25 of 26
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Notes.·The main and essential purpose of

requiring a witness to appear and testify orally at a
trial is to secure for the adverse party the opportunity
of cross-examination. (People vs. Estenzo, 72 SCRA 428
[1976])
A rape victim is not and cannot be expected to keep
an accurate account of her traumatic experience·rape
victims do not cherish in their memories an accurate
account of the dates, number of times and manner they
were violated. (People vs. Historillo, 333 SCRA 615
[2000])
··o0o··
_______________
79 People v. Lopez, G.R. Nos. 135671-72, Nov. 29, 2000, 346
SCRA 469; People v. Tundag, supra.
184
© Copyright 2010 CentralBooks Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 26 of 26

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 362 1 Case 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 362 1 Case 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 362 1 Case 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Close Reader

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 362

Due Process; Procedural due process simply means that

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Rivera

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e12d89…03600fb002c009e/p/APN244/?username=Guest&device=ipad 24/8/17, 1K48 PM

VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 155

People vs. Rivera

ment, when rendered, may rest upon a full and clear

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e12d89…03600fb002c009e/p/APN244/?username=Guest&device=ipad 24/8/17, 1K48 PM

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Rivera

Same; Same; Witnesses; Well-settled is the rule that the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e12d89…03600fb002c009e/p/APN244/?username=Guest&device=ipad 24/8/17, 1K48 PM

VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 157

People vs. Rivera

crepancies between a witnessÊ affidavit and his testimony in

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e12d89…03600fb002c009e/p/APN244/?username=Guest&device=ipad 24/8/17, 1K48 PM

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Rivera

Same; Same; It is doubtful that the complainant would

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e12d89…03600fb002c009e/p/APN244/?username=Guest&device=ipad 24/8/17, 1K48 PM

VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 159

People vs. Rivera

Same; Same; Qualified Rape; To justify the imposition of

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Rivera

to serve as a deterrent to other parents similarly disposed to

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e12d89…03600fb002c009e/p/APN244/?username=Guest&device=ipad 24/8/17, 1K48 PM

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This is a review pursuant to Rule 122, 1§10 of the Rules

That sometime in the month of March 1997, in barangay

When the information was read to him in the local

1 Per Judge Rogelio C. Gonzales.

VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 161

The prosecution presented as its witnesses

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e12d89…03600fb002c009e/p/APN244/?username=Guest&device=ipad 24/8/17, 1K48 PM

4 Also referred to as Shaira.

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

upon objection of the prosecution, the trial court

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e12d89…03600fb002c009e/p/APN244/?username=Guest&device=ipad 24/8/17, 1K48 PM

7 TSN, pp. 2-10, Dec. 2, 1997.

VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 163

referred to a different occasion when no 10rape was

Dr. Barin testified that on April 10, 1997, she

10 TSN, pp. 2-6, Aug. 27, 1998.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e12d89…03600fb002c009e/p/APN244/?username=Guest&device=ipad 24/8/17, 1K48 PM

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tive. Dr. Barin stated that the vaginal bleeding

13 TSN, pp. 3-10, Oct. 6, 1998.

17 TSN, pp. 4-7, Feb. 11, 1997.

VOL. 362, JULY 31, 2001 165

Another witness for the defense was Concepcion Sayo,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e12d89…03600fb002c009e/p/APN244/?username=Guest&device=ipad 24/8/17, 1K48 PM

WHEREFORE, the court finding the accused guilty beyond

Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that:

1. The lower court failed to observe the

18 TSN, pp. 3-5, March 30, 1999.