EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 124303-05. February 10, 1998.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . ALEJANDRO

ATOP @ "ALI" , accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

SYNOPSIS

Accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 12, of Ormoc City of three (3) counts of rape of 11-year old Regina Guafin and
sentenced him to two (2) terms of reclusion perpetua for the first two counts, and to death
for the third. The trial court sentenced appellant to death, holding that his common-law
relationship with the victim's grandmother aggravated the penalty. The trial court ruled that
the circumstances of nighttime and relationship aggravated all the three incidents of rape,
and considering that the last rape occurred after the effectivity of the RA 7659, the death
penalty law, the Court meted the capital punishment of death. In this appeal, appellant
maintains that the trial court erred in appreciating the circumstances of nighttime and
relationship as aggravating the penalty imposable to the rape allegedly committed on
October 9, 1992 and on December 26, 1994.
The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that nighttime was
deliberately sought by appellant to facilitate his dastardly acts. Neither can the Court
appreciate relationship as an aggravating circumstance. Relationship by affinity refers to a
relation by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage. The law cannot be stretched to include
persons attached by common-law relations. In the case at bar, there is no blood
relationship or legal bond that links the appellant to his victim, he being the common-law
husband of the victim's grandmother. From the testimony of the victim, the crimes
committed by appellant were consummated rapes, not merely acts of lasciviousness. In
the face of complainant's positive and unequivocal testimony, appellant's plain denial of
the accusations against him cannot prevail. The rule is that testimonies of rape victims
who are young and immature are each worthy of credence. The Court affirmed with
modification the decision appealed from. Appellant shall not suffer the penalty of death
but shall serve three (3) terms of reclusion perpetua, one for each of the three counts of
rape for which he was found guilty by the trial court. ECDAcS

Judgment of conviction affirmed with modification.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; NIGHTTIME; NOT APPLICABLE

IN CASE AT BAR; THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THAT NIGHTTIME WAS
DELIBERATELY SOUGHT BY APPELLANT TO FACILITATE HIS DASTARDLY ACTS. The
time-settled rule is that nocturnity, as an aggravating circumstance, must have been
deliberately sought by the offender to facilitate the crime or prevent its discovery or evade
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 his capture or facilitate his escape. The culprit must have purposely taken advantage of
the cover of night as an indispensable factor to attain his criminal purpose. We find merit
in appellant Atop's contention, to which the solicitor general agrees, that the prosecution
failed to prove that nighttime was deliberately sought by appellant to facilitate his
dastardly acts. In fact, the prosecution failed to show that appellant consummated his
carnal designs at night, except only for the December 26, 1994 incident which the victim
said occurred at 11:00 p.m. Much less is there any evidence substantiating the trial court's
conclusion that appellant intentionally sought the darkness to advance his criminal
exploits. DHCSTa

2. ID.; ID.; RELATIONSHIP; CANNOT BE APPRECIATED AS AN AGGRAVATING

CIRCUMSTANCE IN CASE AT BAR; NO BLOOD RELATIONSHIP OR LEGAL BOND THAT
LINKS APPELLANT TO HIS VICTIM. Neither can we appreciate relationship as an
aggravating circumstance. The scope of relationship as defined by law encompasses (1)
the spouse; (2) an ascendant; (3) a descendant; (4) a legitimate, natural or adopted
brother or sister; or (5) a relative by affinity in the same degree. Relationship by affinity
refers to a relation by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage. Relatives by affinity
therefore are those commonly referred to as "in-laws," or stepfather, stepmother, stepchild
and the like; in contrast to relatives by consanguinity or blood relatives encompassed
under the second, third and fourth enumeration above. The law cannot be stretched to
include persons attached by common-law relations. Here, there is no blood relationship or
legal bond that links the appellant to his victim. Thus, the modifying circumstance of
relationship cannot be considered against him.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SECTION 11 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659 LIKEWISE NOT APPLICABLE.
Undisputed is the fact that appellant is not the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim. He is the common-law husband of the girl's grandmother. Needless to state, neither
is appellant the victim's "parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil degree." Hence, he is not encompassed in any of the
relationships expressly enumerated in the aforecited provision. It is a basic rule of
statutory construction that penal statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the
accused. Courts must not bring cases within the provision of a law which are not clearly
embraced by it. No act can be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by
statute; so, too, no person who is not clearly within the terms of a statute can be brought
within them. Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
4. ID.; RAPE; IT IS UNTHINKABLE THAT COMPLAINANT, A YOUNG LADY OF FIFTEEN
YEARS, WOULD ALLOW HER PRIVATE PARTS TO BE EXAMINED AND WOULD WITHSTAND
THE RIGORS OF PUBLIC TRIAL ALONG WITH THE SHAME, HUMILIATION AND DISHONOR
OF EXPOSING HER OWN MORTIFYING DEFILEMENT IF SHE WAS NOT IN FACT RAVISHED.
No simple barrio lass would so candidly admit before the public that a man who had
lived as common-law husband to her grandmother had inserted his penis in her vagina for
so many times in the past. It is unthinkable that complainant, a young lady of fifteen years,
would allow her private parts to be examined and would withstand the rigors of a public
trial along with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own mortifying
defilement if she was not in fact ravished. A careful examination of her testimony does
not reveal any hint of prevarication. Rather, her straightforward and unequivocal
statements, during both her direct and her cross-examinations, show indelible badges of
truth. As the trial judge keenly observed, "The tears that spontaneously flowed from the
private complainant's eyes and the sobs that punctuated [her] testimony when asked
about her experience with the accused eloquently conveyed the hurt, the pain, and the
anguish the private complainant has suffered and lived with during all the years. When she
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 told the court that she was raped by the accused, she said it all with candor. The mixed
expression of sadness and anger shown in the private complainant's face during her
testimony convinced this court that she was telling the truth." We find it apt to say once
again that when a woman, especially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that the crime was committed.
5. ID.; ID.; IN THE FACE OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S POSITIVE AND UNEQUIVOCAL
TESTIMONY, APPELLANT'S PLAIN DENIAL OF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HIM CANNOT
PREVAIL. In the face of private complainant's positive and unequivocal testimony,
appellant's plain denial of the accusations against him cannot prevail. It is well-settled that
denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative self-serving
assertion which deserves no weight in law. The recognized rule is that testimonies of rape
victims who are young and immature are each worthy of full credence.
6. ID.; ID.; IMPOSABLE PENALTIES. For the rape incidents on October 9, 1992 and
sometime in 1993, the court a quo correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
each of the two criminal acts. The third rape incident, however, occurred after the
effectivity of RA 7659, the law which imposed the death penalty on certain heinous crimes.
Under this amendatory law, the penalty for rape committed with the use of a deadly
weapon is reclusion perpetua to death. This provision is applicable in the instant case,
since private complainant was threatened with a knife when appellant consummated his
beastly acts on her. In cases where the penalty prescribed is composed of two indivisible
penalties and there is neither an aggravating nor a mitigating circumstance in the
commission of the felony, the lesser penalty should be applied. Since there was no
modifying circumstance even in the third rape, the penalty therefor should be reclusion
perpetua, not the graver penalty of death as imposed by the court a quo. As earlier
explained, the attendant relationships enumerated under Sec. 11 of RA 7659 do not apply
either.
7. ID.; ID.; CIVIL INDEMNITY IMPOSED UPON APPELLANT BY THE TRIAL COURT
INCREASED TO P50,000.00 FOR EACH COUNT OF RAPE CONSISTENT WITH PREVAILING
JURISPRUDENCE. Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we increase the civil
indemnity imposed upon appellant by the trial court to P50,000 for each count of rape. The
Court notes that, for appellant's third conviction, the trial court ordered him to indemnify
the victim in the amount of P30,000 "as moral damages." Civil indemnity under Art. 100 of
the Revised Penal Code is separate and distinct from moral damages under Arts. 2217
and 2219 of the Civil Code. Conformably, appellant Atop should indemnify Regina Guafin in
the total amount of P150,000 for the three counts of rape separately from payment of
moral damages which we find justified under the circumstances. The moral sufferings of
private complainant were obvious during the court proceedings where, as observed by the
trial judge and also noted in the transcripts, she spontaneously cried and sobbed and
showed a mixed expression of sadness, pain and anger. CaDSHE

DECISION

PANGANIBAN , J : p

The trial court sentenced the appellant to death, holding that his common-law relationship
with the victim's grandmother aggravated the penalty. We hold, however, that Sec. 11 of RA
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 7659 prescribes the capital penalty in rape, only "when the victim is under eighteen (18)
years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim," and not by reason of any other kinship. On the other hand,
"relationship" as an alternative aggravating circumstance under Art. 15 of the Revised
Penal Code encompasses only "the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or
adopted brother or sister, and relative by affinity in the same degrees." Outside these
enumerations and consistent with the doctrine that criminal laws must be liberally
construed in favor of the accused, no other relationship, kinship or association between
the offender and the victim may aggravate the imposable penalty for the crime committed.
The fact, then, that the offended party is the granddaughter or descendant of appellant's
live-in partner cannot justify the imposition of death upon the rapist.
The Case
This is a combined appeal from, and an automatic review of, the Joint Decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, of Ormoc City, finding Appellant Alejandro Atop, alias "Ali,"
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape and sentencing him to two (2)
terms of reclusion perpetua for the first two counts, and to death for the third.
On April 21, 1995, Provincial Prosecutor I Rosario D. Beleta filed four separate
informations 1 against accused-appellant charging him with rape on three separate
occasions on October 9, 1992, sometime in 1993 and on December 26, 1994 as well
as with attempted rape on December 31, 1994. The informations charging rape, except for
the date of commission and the age of the victim, similarly allege the following:
"That on or about the 9th day of October, 1992, at Sitio Tambunan, Brgy. Sta.
Rosa, Municipality of Matag-ob, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force
and intimidation, did then and there wilfully [sic], unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of the herein offended party REGINA GUAFIN, 11 years old, the
accused is the live-in partner of her grandmother with whom she is living with
[sic], against her will and without her consent, with the use of a knife, mashed her
breast, embraced, kissed and inserted his penis over the victim's genital organ to
accomplish his lewd design, to her damage and prejudice."

During his arraignment, appellant, assisted by Counsel de Oficio Wenceslao Vanilla of the
Public Attorney's Office, pleaded not guilty. 2 Thereafter, the cases were tried jointly. In his
Decision, 3 the trial judge 4 disposed of the cases as follows:
"1. In Criminal Case No. 4627-0 finding the accused Alejandro Atop GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE defined and penalized under Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code. Appreciating the aggravating circumstances of relationship
and nighttime with no mitigating circumstance to offset any of the two, this court
imposes upon the said ALEJANDRO ATOP the sentence of RECLUSION
PERPETUA and to indemnify Regina Guafin the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P30,000.00) and to pay the costs.

2. In Criminal Case No. 4628-0 finding the accused Alejandro Atop GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE defined and penalized under Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code. Appreciating the aggravating circumstances of relationship
and nighttime with no mitigating circumstance to offset any of the two, this court
imposes upon the said ALEJANDRO ATOP the sentence of RECLUSION
PERPETUA and to indemnify Regina Guafin the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 PESOS (P30,000.00) and to pay the costs.
3. In Criminal Case No. 4630-0 finding the accused Alejandro Atop NOT
GUILTY for insufficiency of evidence.

4. In Criminal Case No. 4629-0 finding the accused ALEJANDRO ATOP guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE defined under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659. Appreciating the aggravating
circumstances of relationship and nighttime with no mitigating circumstance to
offset any of the two, this court imposes upon the said ALEJANDRO ATOP, also
known as 'Ali', the sentence of DEATH. Further, the same Alejandro Atop is
directed to indemnify Regina Guafin the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P30,000.00) as moral damages and to pay the costs.
By reason of the imposition of two reclusion perpetua and of the death penalties
the jail warden is directed to immediately commit the person of Alejandro Atop to
the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Metro Manila while awaiting the review
by the Supreme Court of this decision." 5

The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution's evidence is narrated by the trial court 6 as follows:
"Private complainant Regina Guafin, told the court that she is a granddaughter of
Trinidad Mejos and that the accused Alejandro Atop is the common law husband
of said Trinidad Atop [sic]. Her mother is a daughter of said Trinidad Atop [sic]
and lives in Pangasinan. She is an illegitimate child and she does not even know
her father. Since her early childhood she stayed with her grandmother Trinidad
Atop [sic] and the accused at Barangay Santa Rosa, Matag-ob, Leyte. Sometime
in 1991 when she was already 10 years of age the accused started having lustful
desire on her. The accused then inserted his finger into her vagina. She told her
grandmother about this but her grandmother did not believe her. She was then
told by her grandmother, Trinidad Mejos, that what her grandfather did to her was
just a manifestation of fatherly concern. She continued staying with her
grandmother and her common law husband Alejandro Atop, the herein accused.
On October 9, 1992, she was called by the accused Alejandro Atop to do
something for him. When she approached him the accused rushed towards her,
removed her panty and inserted his male organ into her vagina. She was not able
to do anything to resist him because the accused gagged her mouth and was
carrying a knife with him. She was then 12 years old when the first rape was
committed to her and at that time her grandmother was then attending a delivery
since her grandmother was a 'hilot'. When her grandmother returned home she
told her what the accused did to her but her grandmother, again, refused to
believe her. She also remember [sic] of another incident wherein she was raped
again by the accused Alejandro Atop. It was in the year 1993 but she could not
recall the month when it was committed. Only she and the accused were then at
their house at Barangay Santa Rosa, Matag-ob, Leyte as her grandmother was at
San Vicente attending to a delivery. Again, she told her grandmother about the
heinous acts that the accused did to her but her Lola refused to believe her.
cdphil

On December 26, 1994, the accused again raped her. She could not ask for help
because her mouth was gagged by the accused. Aside from gagging her, the
accused also carried a knife which he placed at his side.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 On December 31, 1994, while she together with her Aunt Gloria Montealto and her
two (2) nieces Rubilen and Jubilen Atop were about to go to sleep, she noticed
that the accused was looking for her. Upon seeing her the accused rushed
towards her and was about to lay on top of her. She kicked him. After that, the
accused caressed and touched his nieces but his nieces also kicked him.
Thereafter, the accused stopped molesting her and his nieces and went to sleep
instead. In the following morning, January 1, 1995, she went to the barrio to go to
school. She then forgot that there were no classes. She was not able to get a ride
towards the school, so she went directly to the house of her grandfather Zacarias
Geva. While she was at the house of her Lolo Geva, the accused arrived and
immediately entered the house of her grandfather. The accused was met by
Rubilen Atop who was about to box him but they immediately went out of the
house and the accused followed them. The accused wanted to bring her back to
their house but she refused. So, the accused pulled her. The accused kept on
holding her until they reached the waiting shed were the accused smashed her to
the concrete wall.

She reported the incidents of rape that happened in 1992, 1993 and 1994 only in
January 1995. It took her so long to report the said incidents because she was
afraid. The accused threatened to kill her should she tell anybody about the
incidents. She was accompanied by her Aunts Fe Decio and Rosenda Andales in
reporting the said incidents to the police. Her statement was taken by the police at
the police headquarters. Thereafter, she filed a complaint with the Municipal Trial
Judge of Matag-ob, Leyte. . . . In her sworn statement which was also marked as
Exhibit '1' for the defense, she only stated therein that what was inserted into her
vagina on July 1991 was only the finger of the accused. Out of fear, she
deliberately concealed from the investigator what actually had happened to her
because at that time, because the accused was not yet apprehended and she was
afraid that the accused would kill her. Then she filed complaints with the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor and requested the fiscal to make a re-investigation in
these cases. She told the Fiscal the truth of what was done to her by the accused
because at that time the accused was already arrested. . .
xxx xxx xxx
Another prosecution witness Fe Decio, an aunt of the private offended party
Regina Guafin, testified that she knows the accused Alejandro Atop, the latter
being her stepfather. She pointed in court the said accused. She testified also that
when her niece Regina Guafin went to her residence at Himarco, Palompon, Leyte
on January 2, 1995, she noticed that Regina Guafin had abrasions on her body
and was then crying. She asked her the reason why she cried and Regina told her
that on January 1, 1995 the accused again tried to rape her but did not succeed
because she fought back and was able to resist. The abrasions in her body was
the result of the maltreatments made by the accused who forcibly pulled her back
to their house. Further, Regina told her that the said accused Alejandro Atop had
raped her 3 to 4 times. She was told by Regina when the said incidents happened
but she forgot the actual dates that the latter told to her. She accompanied
Regina to the police authorities of Matag-ob, Leyte and reported the said
incidents. During the time that Regina was investigated by the police authorities,
the accused had also fled. Thereafter, she submitted Regina for a medical
examination at the Ormoc District Hospital. Then, Regina Guafin filed a complaint
at the MCTC of Matag-ob, Leyte.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 On cross examination, she testified that they offer no objection with the
relationship of the accused to her mother. In fact during the time that the accused
and her mother were living together, they were in good terms with the accused.
She denied the fact of sending her mother to Manila for the purpose of separating
her from the accused Alejandro Atop because it was only the decision of her
mother to have a vacation in Manila. She testified also that the age of her mother
is more than 50 years old." 7

The third prosecution witness, Dr. Judith V. Lomocso who was a resident gynecologist at
the Ormoc District Hospital, testified that she examined Regina Guafin. Her findings were
reduced in writing, as follows:
"External Findings:
1. Incised wound with scab formation (L) middle finger.
2. Tenderness (L) breast.
OB-Gyne Findings:

External genetalia [sic] grossly normal

negative pubic hair
Vaginal canal admits 2 fingers with ease
hymen healed laceration
uterus small

LMP December 4, 1994" 8

Version of the Defense

Appellant denied the accusations of Guafin and imputed ill motive upon her aunts, who
were the daughters of his live-in partner. 9 The trial court summed up his testimony this
wise:
"Accused Alejandro Atop [then 37 years old] testified that he and Trinidad Mejos
had been living together as husband and wife for about 10 years already. When
they started living together, Trinidad Mejos was already a widow with eight (8)
children of her previous marriage. When he started to live with Trinidad Mejos the
latter's children became mad at him because their mother was already old and he
was still young. He personally knew Regina Guafin, the latter being their adopted
child. Regina Guafin was still 2 years old when he and his wife took care of her.
That Regina Guafin continuously resided at Sta. Rosa, Matag-ob, Leyte. The other
persons who also lived with them aside from Regina Guafin, were the three sons
of Trinidad and his two (2) nieces whom he took from Butuan City and sent them
to school. He denied committing rape against Regina Guafin on October 9, 1992,
in the year 1993 and on December 26, 1994. On December 31, 1994, while he was
at his house, Regina went to the barrio proper to go to school. In the afternoon of
the same date, he went to fetch Regina Guafin because at that time classes were
not regular yet. At that time, the companions of Regina were Jovelyn and Rubilyn.
He also denied committing an offense against Regina Guafin on December 31,
1994. He testified also that he did not evade arrest by going out of Matag-ob,
Leyte because during that time he was working in Hideco as a laborer. The reason
why Regina Guafin filed a case against him because the said private complainant
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 was coached by her aunt who wanted him and his wife Trinidad to be separated.
On cross examination, he testified also that he was told by his cousin Nicolas
Valencia that her [sic] wife Trinidad was prevented by her children from visiting
him in jail upon her arrival from Manila." 1 0

Ruling of the Trial Court

The court a quo evaluated the testimony of the offended party in this manner:
". . . this court observed both the complainant and the accused when both were on
the witness stand. The tears that spontaneously flowed from the private
complainant's eyes and the sobs that punctuated complainant's testimony when
asked about her experience with the accused eloquently conveyed the hurt, the
pain, and the anguish the private complainant has suffered and lived with during
all the years. When she told the court that she was raped by the accused she said
it all with candor. The mixed expression of sadness and anger shown in the
private complainant's face during her testimony convinced this court that she was
telling the truth. This court then found nothing in the evidence which would
indicate in any way that the said Regina Guafin was motivated in narrating to the
court her ordeal other than her quest for justice. The defense's claim that Regina
was coached by her aunts to fabricate her rape story in order to force their mother
Trinidad Mejos to separate from the accused is nothing but a mere speculation
[upon] which this court found no probative value. This court then gives the
testimony of the private offended party full faith and credit." 1 1

The trial court also ruled that the circumstances of nighttime and relationship aggravated
all the three incidents of rape, but that there was no sufficient evidence proving attempted
rape on December 31, 1994. Considering that the last rape occurred after the effectivity of
RA 7659, the death penalty law, the court meted out the capital punishment to accused-
appellant.
Issues
In his appeal 1 2 before us, appellant assigns the following errors: 1 3
"I. The trial court erred in appreciating the circumstances of nighttime and
relationship as aggravating the penalty imposable for the rape allegedly
committed on October 9, 1992, in 1993 and on December 26, 1994. cdrep

"II. The trial court erred in finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crimes charged."

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is partly meritorious. We find that the alleged aggravating circumstances were
not duly proved.
First Issue : Nighttime and Relationship
The time-settled rule is that nocturnity, as an aggravating circumstance, must have been
deliberately sought by the offender to facilitate the crime or prevent its discovery or evade
his capture or facilitate his escape. 1 4 The culprit must have purposely taken advantage of
the cover of night as an indispensable factor to attain his criminal purpose. 1 5
We find merit in Appellant Atop's contention, to which the solicitor general agrees, that the
prosecution failed to prove that nighttime was deliberately sought by appellant to facilitate
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 his dastardly acts. In fact, the prosecution failed to show that appellant consummated his
carnal designs at night, except only for the December 26, 1994 incident which the victim
said occurred at 11:00 p.m. 1 6 Much less is there any evidence substantiating the trial
court's conclusion that appellant intentionally sought the darkness to advance his criminal
exploits.
Neither can we appreciate relationship as an aggravating circumstance. The scope of
relationship as defined by law encompasses (1) the spouse; (2) an ascendant; (3) a
descendant; (4) a legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister; or (5) a relative by
affinity in the same degree. 1 7 Relationship by affinity refers to a relation by virtue of a legal
bond such as marriage. Relatives by affinity therefore are those commonly referred to as
"in-laws," or stepfather, stepmother, stepchild and the like; in contrast to relatives by
consanguinity or blood relatives encompassed under the second, third and fourth
enumeration above. The law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common-
law relations. Here, there is no blood relationship or legal bond that links the appellant to
his victim. Thus, the modifying circumstance of relationship cannot be considered against
him.
Neither is the following provision of Sec. 11, RA 7659 applicable:
"Sec. 11. Article 335 of the [Revised Penal] Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
'xxx xxx xxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with
any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.
xxx xxx xxx' "

Undisputed is the fact that appellant is not the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim. He is the common-law husband of the girl's grandmother. Needless to state, neither
is appellant the victim's "parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil degree." Hence, he is not encompassed in any of the
relationships expressly enumerated in the aforecited provision.
It is a basic rule of statutory construction that penal statutes are to be liberally construed
in favor of the accused. 1 8 Courts must not bring cases within the provision of a law which
are not clearly embraced by it. No act can be pronounced criminal which is not clearly
made so by statute; so, too, no person who is not clearly within the terms of a statute can
be brought within them. 1 9 Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
20

Second Issue : Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence

However, we do not agree with the claim of appellant that the prosecution evidence was
not sufficient to prove his guilt. In the main, appellant relies on the disparity between, on
the one hand, the allegations of Regina in her sworn statement 2 1 executed before MCTC
Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez Jr. of Matag-ob, Leyte which merely prove acts of
lasciviousness; and, on the other, her testimony in court showing three counts of rape.
Such disparity, which at first glance may raise some doubts on the truthfulness of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 complainant's statements, was cogently and satisfactorily explained by her thus:
"Q . . . why did you state in your affidavit that only the finger that [sic] was
inserted into your vagina?
A Because during the time of the investigation, I did not tell what was really
true because he was not yet apprehended, sir.
Q So, you deliberately conceal[ed] from the investigator what actually
happened out of fear?
A Yes, your Honor.
CONTINUE
PROSECUTOR
Q And when you appeared before the Office of the Prov'l. Fiscal, were you
investigated?
A Yes, ma'am.

Q And did you tell the Fiscal the truth of what had this accused done to you?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And what was that statement you have given to the Fiscal?
A I told the Fiscal the truth because the accused was already arrested.

Q And what was the truth?

A The truth that it was his penis that was inserted to my vagina.
Q How many times did the accused inserted [sic] his penis into your vagina?
A Many times ma'am but I can remember only three (3) to four (4) times.

Q And the first time that [sic] was on October 9, 1992?

A Yes, ma'am.
Q When was the second time he inserted his penis into your vagina?
A In the year 1993. LLpr

Q And the third time?

A On December 26, 1994." 2 2

From the testimony of Regina, the crimes evidently committed by appellant on the
aforestated dates were consummated rapes, not merely acts of lasciviousness. Initially,
she hesitated to completely divulge her ravishment by appellant because of his threats to
kill her should she tell anybody of his assaults. 2 3 With his arrest and detention, she
mustered the courage to finally and completely reveal her embarrassing story.
No simple barrio lass would so candidly admit before the public that a man who had lived
as common-law husband to her grandmother had inserted his penis in her vagina for so
many times in the past. It is unthinkable that complainant, a young lady of fifteen years,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 would allow her private parts to be examined and would withstand the rigors of a public
trial along with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own mortifying
defilement if she was not in fact ravished. A careful examination of her testimony does
not reveal any hint of prevarication. Rather, her straightforward and unequivocal
statements, during both her direct and her cross-examinations, show indelible badges of
truth. As the trial judge keenly observed, "The tears that spontaneously flowed from the
private complainant's eyes and the sobs that punctuated [her] testimony when asked
about her experience with the accused eloquently conveyed the hurt, the pain, and the
anguish the private complainant has suffered and lived with during all the years. When she
told the court that she was raped by the accused, she said it all with candor. The mixed
expression of sadness and anger shown in the private complainant's face during her
testimony convinced this court that she was telling the truth." 2 4 We find it apt to say once
again that when a woman, especially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that the crime was committed. 2 5
Appellant's contention that private complainant was merely induced by her aunts who had
objected to his relationship with their mother, Trinidad Mejos, is a trite defense that is
completely undeserving of credit. It is unnatural and unbelievable for Regina's aunts to
concoct a story of rape of their own very young niece, that would bring shame and scandal
not only to her but to the entire family, especially to their mother. There could have been so
many ways to alienate appellant from their mother, so many crimes to impute to him
without dragging the family's honor into it. The preposterousness of appellant's assertion
becomes more obvious in light of the fact that this case was instituted only after ten (10)
years of his illegitimate union with Regina's grandmother. If Regina's aunts truly wanted
them to discontinue such relationship, the long wait is inexplicable.
Consequently, in the face of private complainant's positive and unequivocal testimony,
appellant's plain denial of the accusations against him cannot prevail. 2 6 It is well-settled
that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative self-serving
assertion which deserves no weight in law. 2 7 The recognized rule is that testimonies of
rape victims who are young and immature are each worthy of full credence. 2 8
Time and again, we have also held that when the question deals with the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve
great respect and are often accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact
or circumstance, of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or
misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case. 29
The trial judge has the valuable edge of observing the witness' deportment and manner of
testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering
tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" 30 all of which are useful
aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. After a thorough
review of all the evidence on record, the Court finds no reason to reverse the trial court's
findings on the guilt of appellant.
Penalties Imposable
For the rape incidents on October 9, 1992 and sometime in 1993, the court a quo correctly
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the two criminal acts. The third rape
incident, however, occurred after the effectivity of RA 7659, the law which imposed the
death penalty on certain heinous crimes. Under this amendatory law, the penalty for rape
committed with the use of a deadly weapon is reclusion perpetua to death. 3 1 This
provision is applicable in the instant case, since private complainant was threatened with a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 knife when appellant consummated his beastly acts on her. 3 2
In cases where the penalty prescribed is composed of two indivisible penalties and there
is neither an aggravating nor a mitigating circumstance in the commission of the felony,
the lesser penalty should be applied. 3 3 Since there was no modifying circumstance even in
the third rape, the penalty therefor should be reclusion perpetua, not the graver penalty of
death as imposed by the court a quo. As earlier explained, the attendant relationships
enumerated under Sec. 11 of RA 7659 do not apply either. llcd

Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, 3 4 we increase the civil indemnity imposed upon
appellant by the trial court to P50,000 for each count of rape. The Court notes that, for
appellant's third conviction, the trial court ordered him to indemnify the victim in the
amount of P30,000 "as moral damages." Civil indemnity under Art. 100 3 5 of the Revised
Penal Code is separate and distinct from moral damages under Arts. 2217 and 2219 of
the Civil Code. 3 6 Conformably, Appellant Atop should indemnify Regina Guafin in the total
amount of P150,000 for the three counts of rape separately from payment of moral
damages which we find justified under the circumstances. The moral sufferings of private
complainant were obvious during the court proceedings where, as observed by the trial
judge and also noted in the transcripts, she spontaneously cried and sobbed and showed a
mixed expression of sadness, pain and anger.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION
that Appellant Alejandro Atop shall not suffer the penalty of death but shall SERVE three
(3) terms of reclusion perpetua, one for each of the three (3) counts of rape for which he
was found GUILTY by the trial court, and is ordered to PAY Regina Guafin indemnity in the
amount of P150,000 plus moral damages of P50,000.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Francisco, Martinez, Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 10-15; records, pp. 1-5.

2. Records, p. 34.
3. Rollo, pp. 23-33.
4. Judge Francisco H. Escao Jr.
5. Assailed Decision, pp. 10-11; Rollo, pp. 32-33.

6. In his brief, the solicitor general adopted this narration.

7. Assailed Decision, pp. 3-6; Rollo, pp. 25-28.

8. Records, p. 130.

9. The 14-page appellant's brief, dated May 22, 1997, prepared by the Public Attorney's
Office summarized the evidence for the defense (Rollo, pp. 47-48) simply as follows:
"Accused denied the charges against him. He denied committing the rape
against Regina Guafin on October 9, 1992, in the year 1993 and on December 26, 1994.
He also denied committing an offense against Regina on December 31, 1994. He
suspect[ed] that Regina was coached by her aunt in filing this complaint against him
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 for the purpose of separating him from his wife Trinidad.
Aside from Regina Guafin, the three sons of Trinidad and his two nieces,
Jovelyn and Rubilyn, were also living with them."

10. Assailed Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 28.

11. Ibid., p. 7; ibid., p. 29.
12. This case was deemed submitted for decision upon receipt by this Court on October 17,
1997 of the appellee's brief.
13. Appellant's brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 41.

14. People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 118824, July 5, 1996; People vs. Pareja, G.R. No. 88043,
December 9, 1996; People vs. Empacis, 222 SCRA 59, May 14, 1993.
15. People vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. 102062, March 14, 1996; People vs. Broncano, G.R. No.
104870, August 22, 1996.

16. TSN, August 8, 1995, p. 41.

17. Art. 15, 2nd par., Revised Penal Code; People vs. Balondo, 30 Phil. 155, 161, October 31,
1969; People vs. Lamberte, 142 SCRA 685, 692, July 11, 1986.

18. Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 1990 ed., p. 208, citing People vs. Subido, 66 SCRA 545,
September 5, 1975, People vs. Yu Jai, 99 Phil. 725, August 15, 1956; People vs. Terrado,
125 SCRA 648, November 25, 1983, and other cases.
19. Ibid., citing U .S . vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243, February 10, 1917, and U .S . vs.
Madrigal, 27 Phil. 347, March 28, 1914.
20. Ibid.
21. Records, pp. 122-123.

22. TSN, August 15, 1995, pp. 10-12.

23. TSN, August 8, 1995, p. 21.

24. Assailed Decision, p. 7; Rollo, p. 29.

25. People vs. Corea, G.R. No. 114383, March 3, 1997, citing People vs. Vitor, 245 SCRA
392, June 27, 1995, and People vs. Biendo, 216 SCRA 626, December 16, 1992; People
vs. Malabago, G.R. No. 108613, April 18, 1997.
26. People vs. Catoltol Sr., 265 SCRA 109, November 28, 1996; People vs. Andres, 253
SCRA 751, February 20, 1996.

27. People vs. Narsico, 262 SCRA 1, September 18, 1996.

28. People vs. Galimba, 253 SCRA 722, February 20, 1996; People vs. Rosare, 264 SCRA
398, November 19, 1996.

29. People vs. Apilo, 263 SCRA 582, October 25, 1996, citing People vs. Gapasan, 243 SCRA
53, March 29, 1995.

30. People vs. Diaz, 262 SCRA 723, October 4, 1996, citing People vs. Delovino, 247 SCRA
637, 647, August 23, 1995.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 31. Art. 335, par. 3, Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659.

32. TSN, August 8, 1995, pp. 15-16.

33. Art. 63, par. 2, no. 2, Revised Penal Code.

34. People vs. San Juan, G.R. No. 105556, April 4, 1997; People vs. Apilo, 263 SCRA 582,
October 28, 1996; People vs. Escoto, 229 SCRA 430, January 21, 1994.
35. "Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony . Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable."

36. People vs. Apilo, supra; People vs. Caballes, G.R. No. 102723-24, June 19, 1997.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com