THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198632. October 2, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. MENEGILIO C. SALONGA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 2, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198632 (People of the Philippines v. Menegilio C. Salonga). — The State Prosecutor charged accused Menegilio C. Salonga of 11 counts of rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Criminal Cases 99-170738-48. 1
Complainant Julia 2 recounted that in the afternoon of July 10, 1997 she and Salonga, her biological father, were alone at their house in Tondo, Manila, when he suddenly grabbed her by her right shoulder, covered her mouth, and told her not to shout. She then feared that he would sexually abuse her again. She pleaded with him not to 3 but, unmoved, he pulled down her shorts and underwear and ravished her. After satisfying his lust, he left her in the house, crying. 4 Julia was 14 years old at that time. 5 Her mother had moved away and separated from her father. DEcITS
Salonga did the same thing to Julia in August 1997. He was alone in the house when she arrived from school at around 5:30 p.m. After changing into her house dress, she started working on her school assignment. She was seated on the floor with her legs stretched when her father squatted next to her, forcibly removed her shorts, laid her down on the floor, and had sex with her against her will. All that Julia could do was cry since she never found the courage to tell her brothers who lived with them what their father was doing. Gary 6 was quite close to their father while Ivan 7 always followed his bidding. 8
Salonga did the same thing to Julia in September 1997. Julia was going down to the kitchen to wash dishes when Salonga grabbed her by the arm, removed her palda shorts, positioned himself on her back, and had anal sex with her. She cried in pain yet kept mum about it out of fear and a sense that no one can help her. 9
Julia testified that Salonga sexually abused her again in October, November, and December of 1997 and in January, February, March, and April of 1998. He always took advantage of the absence of others in the house. The eleventh and last incident between them took place around 5:00 p.m. on April 21, 1998. To avoid being alone with him, Julia thought of pretending to do their laundry. But Salonga approached her while she was gathering clothes. He pinned her against the wall of the house and forcibly removed her blouse, shorts, and underwear. He taunted her to run into the street naked. She pleaded with him to stop and let her go but she ravished her in standing position. 10
On May 1, 1998 Gary learned from a relative in Malabon, who happened to be a midwife, that their father wanted some drugs that he could give a girlfriend who had become pregnant. Because he knew that his father seldom left the house and had no girlfriend, Gary suspected that it was Julia that his father was referring to. 11 When he got home the following day, Gary confirmed his fears and brought Julia to the police station. 12 Eventually, they went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where a medico-legal officer examined her. 13
In his defense, Salonga vehemently denied raping Julia. He claimed that his son Gary, who had an axe to grind against him, caused her to fabricate the charge. He argued that he could not have raped Julia since her physical examination showed that she was still a virgin. 14 Josefina Yambao, a distant relative, corroborated Salonga's claim that it was his son Gary who actively pursued the filing of the charges against his father. Yambao once accompanied Julia to the Department of Justice to withdraw the charges but she did not know if she eventually executed an affidavit of desistance. She also called Gary a liar and a bad influence on her children. 15 AEHTIC
To vouch for his character, Salonga presented Armando Bartolome who had recruited him to work as maintenance crew in Saudi Arabia from 1984 until 1987. Bartolome said that Salonga consistently attended the prayer meetings held at his residence and that he was never involved in any fights in his place of work. Instead of going out with his co-workers during his day off, the accused would just stay in his quarters reading technical books to enhance his skills. Salonga was always thinking of his children; constantly communicated with them through letters; and would always find ways and means to send them money for their expenses. Bartolome believed that Salonga could not have committed the crimes of which they charged him. 16
The RTC nonetheless found Salonga guilty of 11 counts of qualified rape, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered him to pay Julia for each count of rape the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. 17
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC with modifications in that Salonga was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of qualified rape without eligibility for parole. The CA further increased the award of exemplary damages to Julia from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. The CA also held that the awards for civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the decision. 18
Salonga tried to undermine Julia's credibility by imputing inconsistencies in her testimony. He cited Julia's failure to recall on cross-examination how her body was positioned during the December 1997 rape although she described how it was on direct. Salonga also faulted her for saying on direct in connection with the July 1997 rape that she was in standing position when he raped her but subsequently claimed during cross that she was lying down. 19
But rarely would a victim of an abominable crime such as rape consciously try to remember the details of her horrible experience, anticipating that she will later testify regarding it. 20 This is especially true in these cases since Julia's attacker violated her no less than 11 times. Dread, shock and shame could impair the ability of the victims to remember with precision everything that transpired, imprinting in their minds only the very act of their defilement. What is important is that Julia remained steadfast, unfaltering, and spontaneous in declaring that Salonga raped her on 11 occasions. 21
Salonga sought to discredit Julia's veracity on the ground that she incurred long delays in reporting the incidents to her mother. 22 But Julia gave reasonable explanation for those delays. She had been separated from her at the age of three. 23 That separation and the little contact they had eroded the bond that encourages trust.
Salonga's defense that Gary, his son, merely used Julia to get even with him 24 is simply too implausible to be believed. For one, it is not likely for a brother to subject his younger sister to the stigma of rape 25 just because his father had cursed him for misusing the money he had sent from abroad for his son's studies. 26 In the same vein, it is not likely for a teenage girl to cry rape and by his own father, have her body examined by a stranger, subject herself to humiliation, go through the rigors of public trial, and taint her good name if her claim were not true. 27 EHCDSI
The fact that Julia's hymen remained intact 28 does not preclude the fact that her father raped her on several occasions. Medical research points out that negative findings are of no significance since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. 29 Besides, here, the lack of injury to Julia's hymen had been explained. Her hymen was distensible and its orifice wide as would allow a tube of 2.5 centimeters in diameter, the equivalent of an average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection, complete penetration without producing genital injury. 30
The RTC's factual determination, sustained by the CA, is to be respected. 31 This Court finds no reason to deviate from this rule and reverse the findings of the RTC and CA given that the accused failed to show that they were manifestly mistaken in its appreciation of the factual circumstances and the evidence presented in this case.
The Court agrees with the RTC and CA that the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship have been alleged and proved. Julia's birth certificate shows that she was less than 18 years of age when Salonga raped her and that Salonga is her biological father. 32 The concurrence of the minority of the rape victim and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance that upgrades the penalty.
As to damages, this Court has held that if the rape is perpetrated with any of the attending qualifying aggravating circumstances that require the imposition of the death penalty, as in this case, the civil indemnity for the victim shall be P75,000.00. The Court also finds the award of P75,000.00 moral damages for each count of rape proper under prevailing jurisprudence in recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape. 33 The award of P30,000.00 exemplary damages for each count of rape is also justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example and serve as deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth. 34 In line with current jurisprudence, the CA correctly ordered payment of 6% interest per annum on all damages awarded from the finality of the decision until fully paid. 35
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS in its entirety the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 02839 dated March 18, 2011 which affirmed with modification the trial court's conviction of the accused Menegilio C. Salonga of 11 counts of qualified rape. (Mendoza, J., no part; Del Castillo, J., Additional Member, per Raffle dated September 30, 2013.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Records, pp. 3-34.
2. Pursuant to Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy (People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 [2006]).
3. TSN, June 4, 2003, pp. 2-5.
4. Id. at 4-6.
5. Id. at 3.
6. Not his real name in compliance with People v. Cabalquinto, supra note 1.
7. Id.
8. Supra note 3, at 7-9.
9. TSN, January 21, 2004, pp. 2-7.
10. TSN, July 19, 2004, pp. 4-5.
11. TSN, March 7, 2005, pp. 4-8.
12. Supra note 10, at 6-8; id. at 8.
13. Records, p. 72.
14. CA rollo, p. 93.
15. TSN, October 12, 2005, pp. 4, 6, 8.
16. TSN, February 13, 2006, pp. 7-10, 12, 18-22, 26-30.
17. Records, pp. 338-367.
18. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Michael P. Elbinias, rollo, pp. 2-76.
19. Id. at 102.
20. People v. Lalican, G.R. No. 191389, March 7, 2011, 644 SCRA 529, 533.
21. TSN, June 4, 2003, pp. 2-9; January 21, 2004, pp. 2-20; March 3, 2004, pp. 2-17; March 10, 2004, pp. 2-12; May 3, 2004, pp. 2-14; May 4, 2004, pp. 2-27; July 19, 2004, pp. 2-5; July 19, 2004, pp. 8-16; September 8, 2004, pp. 2-12.
22. CA rollo, p. 97.
23. Supra note 3, at 3.
24. Rollo, p. 100.
25. SeePeople v. Repollo, G.R. No. 108872, October 7, 1994, 237 SCRA 476, 483.
26. TSN, June 8, 2005, p. 17.
27. People v. Ortoa, G.R. No. 174484, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 80, 92-93.
28. Rollo, pp. 101-102.
29. People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 177740, April 5, 2010, 617 SCRA 318, 332.
30. Records, p. 72.
31. People v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 177357, October 17, 2012, 684 SCRA 260, 275.
32. Records, p. 75.
33. People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 489, 520.
34. People v. Masagca, Jr., G.R. No. 184922, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 278, 287.
35. People v. Olesco, G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011, 647 SCRA 461, 471-472.