People of the Philippines vs. XXX

In incestuous rape committed before R.A. No. 8353, the death penalty under R.A. No. 7659 is not automatic and may be reduced to reclusion perpetua where the accused is unlettered; and a conviction for rape under the then-governing Article 335 requires a criminal complaint before an Information is filed. The defense of insanity must be proven by clear and positive evidence of complete deprivation of reason or lack of discernment.

Accused-appellant XXX is the father of complainants AAA, BBB, and CCC. The alleged rapes occurred in February and March 1996, when Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, governed rape and allowed the death penalty when the victim was under eighteen and the offender was a parent. R.A. No. 8353, which later amended the rape provisions through Articles 266-A and 266-B, took effect only on October 22, 1997. Under the pre-R.A. No. 8353 regime, Article 335 required a criminal complaint before an Information for rape could be filed.

Accused-appellant XXX is the father of AAA, BBB, and CCC. He was charged with three counts of rape in separate Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 40, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. C-4974, C-4975, and C-4976. The Information in C-4974 alleged that sometime in February 1996, in the evening, he had carnal knowledge of AAA, his own daughter, by means of force and intimidation; the Information in C-4975 alleged the rape of BBB on March 17, 1996; and the Information in C-4976 alleged the rape of CCC on March 19, 1996. He pleaded not guilty on July 24, 1996, and the three cases were jointly tried.

According to the prosecution, AAA, who was twelve years old when she testified, was sleeping with her siblings in the living room of their house in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, because it was hot; their mother had left for Manila. In the night of February 1996, she was roused when someone removed her panties. She saw her father, accused-appellant, who removed his briefs, lay on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain but could not resist because accused-appellant threatened her with bodily harm if she reported the incident. After satisfying his lust, he went to the bathroom, then told AAA to wash herself; she did so and returned to sleep. AAA also testified that her father had raped her several times beginning when she was nine years old, and that she saw him crawl toward BBB and lie under a blanket beside her, and also saw him rape CCC; she did nothing for fear that he would kill her.

BBB, who was ten years old when she testified, corroborated AAA’s testimony that accused-appellant raped AAA and CCC several times at night in the living room. She testified that in the evening of March 17, 1996, while she was sleeping with her siblings, accused-appellant removed her panties and his briefs, inserted his penis into her private parts, and made thrusting motions; afterward, he went to the comfort room to wash, and she also washed herself. CCC was presented as a defense witness, but she admitted that accused-appellant raped her. She initially planned to forgive him, but turned hostile upon learning that he claimed he raped her as revenge against her mother; she confirmed that she witnessed accused-appellant abuse AAA and BBB, and said her uncle told her not to testify anymore because she was already grown up.

In his defense, accused-appellant admitted having raped CCC but claimed he did so to get back at her mother, who left him for a man with whom she already had a child. He denied having raped AAA and BBB and argued that the charges against him were filed at the instigation of his wife. On cross-examination, he admitted that he raped his three daughters because he suspected his wife was carrying on an illicit affair with another man, and he asked for forgiveness. He also claimed that he did not file charges against his wife because nobody was willing to help him since she had a brother who was a policeman.

The trial court’s findings, which the Supreme Court found no reason to disturb, credited the victims’ testimonies as straightforward, candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination, and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions on material points. It rejected accused-appellant’s denial and claim that the charges were instigated by the victims’ mother.

• Credibility of Victims and Instigation by Mother: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in basing its decision on the uncorroborated testimonies of the alleged victims without considering that the same were merely forced on them by their mother, who allegedly had the evil intention to “decapitate” him because he was a hindrance to her illicit relationship with her paramour.
• Disbelief of Accused-Appellant’s Testimony: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in not believing his testimony.
• Insanity or Mental Incapacity: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court failed to consider that he is unlettered and lacks even the instinctive decency and upright manner tantamount to insanity sufficient to exempt him from criminal liability.
• Retroactive Imposition of Death Penalty: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in sentencing him to death penalty for each of the three rapes when rape as a heinous crime was not yet punishable by death when the same were committed sometime in February 1996, on March 17, 1996, and on March 19, 1996 against different victims.

• Guilt for the Rapes of AAA and BBB: Whether accused-appellant’s guilt for the rapes of AAA and BBB was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Credibility of Child Rape Victims: Whether the trial court erred in relying on the victims’ testimonies despite the claim that the charges were instigated by their mother.
• Insanity Defense: Whether accused-appellant’s alleged unlettered condition and mental incapacity exempted him from criminal liability.
• Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 8353: Whether the death penalty could be imposed under R.A. No. 8353 for rapes committed in 1996.
• Propriety of the Death Penalty under R.A. No. 7659: Whether the death penalty was mandatory or could be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
• Validity of Conviction in Criminal Case No. C-4976: Whether accused-appellant could be convicted in C-4976 absent the required criminal complaint.

• Guilt for the Rapes of AAA and BBB: Yes. The prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the credible testimonies of AAA and BBB; the trial court’s credibility findings are entitled to deference.
• Credibility of Child Rape Victims: No. The trial court did not err; the victims’ testimonies were straightforward, candid, consistent, and unshaken, and youth and immaturity are badges of truth.
• Insanity Defense: No. Insanity requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of complete deprivation of reason or lack of discernment; the bare claim of being unlettered or bordering on insanity failed.
• Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 8353: No. R.A. No. 8353 took effect on October 22, 1997; the 1996 rapes are governed by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
• Propriety of the Death Penalty under R.A. No. 7659: No. The death penalty was not automatic; guided discretion allowed reduction to reclusion perpetua, and accused-appellant’s limited schooling as an unlettered fisherman justified reduction.
• Validity of Conviction in Criminal Case No. C-4976: No. Prior to R.A. No. 8353, Article 335 required a criminal complaint before an Information for rape; no such complaint was presented, and no trial was conducted, so the conviction could not stand.

• Guilt for the Rapes of AAA and BBB: The Court found the testimonies of AAA and BBB sufficient to establish carnal knowledge by force and intimidation. AAA testified to the February 1996 rape, and BBB testified to the March 17, 1996 rape. CCC, though presented by the defense, admitted that accused-appellant raped her and confirmed that she witnessed him abuse AAA and BBB. The Court applied the rule that testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims, are given full weight and credit; when a woman, more so a minor, says she has been raped, she says all that is necessary to prove rape. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth, and the embarrassment and stigma of examination and public trial rule out false accusations. Ill motive is not an essential element and becomes inconsequential in the face of affirmative, categorical declarations. The trial court’s credibility findings were not disturbed.
• Credibility of Child Rape Victims: The Court rejected the claim that the charges were instigated by the victims’ mother. It reasoned that it would be most unnatural for young and immature girls to fabricate a story of rape by their father, allow a medical examination of their genitalia, subject themselves to a public trial, and expose themselves to public ridicule merely to enable their mother to carry on an alleged illicit relationship with a paramour. The victims’ testimonies were consistent on material points and unshaken by rigid cross-examination. The trial court, having observed their demeanor, was best situated to evaluate credibility, and the appellate court found no overlooked or misappreciated facts.
• Insanity Defense: The Court held that the defense of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance; like self-defense, the burden is on the defense to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant was insane immediately before the commission of the crime or at the very moment of its execution. There must be complete deprivation of reason or that the accused acted without discernment, proven by clear and positive evidence. Mere abnormality of mental faculties does not preclude imputability. The non-medical opinion of defense counsel that accused-appellant was bordering on insanity did not meet these yardsticks, especially against the positive testimony of the victims.
• Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 8353: The trial court erroneously cited Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353. The crimes were committed in February and March 1996, while R.A. No. 8353 took effect only on October 22, 1997. The law in effect at the time of the rapes was Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659. R.A. No. 8353 could not be applied retroactively to the prejudice of accused-appellant.
• Propriety of the Death Penalty under R.A. No. 7659: Even under Article 335 as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the death penalty was not automatically imposed by the presence of the attendant circumstance that the victim was under eighteen and the offender was a parent. The Court, in People vs. Echegaray, held that where the law provides a penalty ranging from reclusion perpetua to death, the trial court has guided discretion, not unfettered discretion. Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22 of R.A. No. 7659, provides that if the required majority vote for the death penalty is not obtained, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. The Court may exercise forbearance. In People vs. Santos, limited schooling justified reduction of death to reclusion perpetua; in People vs. De la Cruz, deplorable prison conditions; and in People vs. Marcos, failure to realize the gravity of the offense. Accused-appellant was an unlettered fisherman, so the Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count.
• Validity of Conviction in Criminal Case No. C-4976: The Information in C-4976 spoke of a “criminal complaint,” but none was ever presented. SPO4 Calderon, uncle of CCC, testified that CCC insisted on not pursuing the case because she was already grown up and did not want to be the subject of gossip in her school. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of three counts on the belief that R.A. No. 8353 applied, but the crimes were committed in 1996 before R.A. No. 8353 took effect. Prior to its amendment, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code required a criminal complaint before an Information is filed. There being no such complaint in C-4976, and no trial having been conducted in that case, it was palpable error for the lower court to convict accused-appellant for the rape of CCC. The conviction was struck down and accused-appellant was acquitted.

• Credibility of child rape victims — Testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims, are given full weight and credit. When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth, and the embarrassment and stigma of a medical examination and public trial effectively rule out false accusations. The Court applied this doctrine to credit the testimonies of AAA and BBB and to reject the claim that the charges were instigated by their mother.
• Ill motive is not an essential element of a crime — Ill motive is never an essential element of a crime and becomes inconsequential where there are affirmative, categorical declarations establishing the accused’s accountability for the felony. The Court applied this in disregarding accused-appellant’s claim of maternal instigation.
• Insanity as confession and avoidance — The defense of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance. The burden is on the defense to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was insane immediately before the commission of the crime or at the very moment of its execution. There must be complete deprivation of reason or that the accused acted without discernment, proven by clear and positive evidence. Mere abnormality of mental faculties does not preclude imputability. The Court applied this to reject accused-appellant’s bare claim of being unlettered and bordering on insanity.
• Non-retroactivity of R.A. No. 8353 — R.A. No. 8353 took effect on October 22, 1997, and cannot be applied retroactively to rapes committed in 1996. The governing law at the time of the offenses was Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The Court applied this to set aside the trial court’s reliance on Articles 266-A and 266-B.
• Guided discretion in imposing the death penalty — Where the law provides for a penalty ranging from reclusion perpetua to death, the presence of an attendant circumstance does not automatically merit the death penalty. The trial court has guided discretion, and under Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, if the required majority vote for the death penalty is not obtained, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. The Court applied this, along with People vs. Santos, to reduce the penalty to reclusion perpetua because accused-appellant was an unlettered fisherman.
• Criminal complaint requirement under Article 335 prior to R.A. No. 8353 — Before its amendment by R.A. No. 8353, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code required a criminal complaint before an Information for rape could be filed. Absent such a complaint, a conviction for rape cannot stand. The Court applied this to strike down the conviction in Criminal Case No. C-4976.

• "In a litany of cases, we have ruled that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed." — States the Court’s canonical credibility doctrine for rape victims, especially minors, and supports affirmance of the convictions for AAA and BBB.
• "The defense of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance. Like the justifying circumstance of self-defense, the burden is on the defense to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant was insane immediately before the commission of the crime or at the very moment of its execution." — Defines the insanity defense and its burden, which accused-appellant failed to discharge.
• "However, the fact that rape was committed with the foregoing attendant circumstance does not automatically merit the imposition of the death penalty." — States the ratio for reducing the death penalty under R.A. No. 7659, because the trial court has guided discretion.
• "Prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 8535, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code required a criminal complaint before an Information is filed. There being no such complaint in Criminal Case No. C-4976, it was palpable error for the lower court to convict accused-appellant for the crime of rape on CCC." — States the basis for acquittal in C-4976 due to absence of the required criminal complaint.

• People vs. Echegaray, 267 SCRA 682 [1997] — Held that where the law provides a penalty ranging from reclusion perpetua to death, the trial court has guided discretion and the death penalty is not automatically imposed; relied on to reduce the penalty.
• People vs. Antonio Roque, G.R. Nos. 130659 & 144002, 14 August 2002 — Reduced death penalties to reclusion perpetua for raping two daughters; cited as an example of the Court’s guided discretion.
• People vs. Santos, 19 SCRA 445 [1967] — Considered the accused’s limited schooling in reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua; applied to accused-appellant as an unlettered fisherman.
• People vs. De la Cruz, 122 SCRA 227 [1983] — Reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua in view of the deplorable sub-human conditions of the National Penitentiary; cited as an example of judicial forbearance.
• People vs. Marcos, 147 SCRA 204 [1987] — Reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua where the appellant failed to realize the gravity of his offense; cited as another example of forbearance.
• People vs. Caratay, 316 SCRA 251 [1999] — Cited for the rule that testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims, are given full weight and credit.
• People vs. Lusa, 288 SCRA 296 [1998] — Cited for giving full weight and credit to testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims.
• People vs. Bañez, 301 SCRA 248 [1999] — Cited for the rule that insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and avoidance and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 140676, 31 July 2002 — Cited for reducing the indemnity ex delicto to P50,000.00.
• People vs. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, 10 October 2002 — Cited for the award of moral damages.
• People vs. Puzon, 339 SCRA 164 [2000] — Cited for reducing exemplary damages to P25,000.00.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 — Defined rape and provided that the death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is under eighteen and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or common-law spouse of the parent. The Court applied this provision because the crimes were committed in 1996, but held that the attendant circumstance did not automatically merit death.
• Article 47, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22 of R.A. No. 7659 — Governed automatic review of death penalty cases and provided that the death penalty shall not be imposed if the required majority vote is not obtained, in which case the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. Applied to reduce the penalty.
• Republic Act No. 8353 — Took effect on October 22, 1997, fifteen days after publication in Malaya on October 7, 1997. It amended the rape provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Held not applicable to the 1996 rapes.
• Article 266-A and Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 — Cited by the trial court as basis for the death penalty, but held inapplicable because R.A. No. 8353 was not yet effective at the time of the crimes.
• Article 335, Revised Penal Code (prior to amendment by R.A. No. 8353) — Required a criminal complaint before an Information for rape could be filed. Applied to invalidate the conviction in Criminal Case No. C-4976.
• Section 5, R.A. No. 8353 — Provided that the Act shall take effect fifteen days after completion of publication in two newspapers of general circulation; publication was made in Malaya on October 7, 1997, so it took effect on October 22, 1997. Applied to the non-retroactivity holding.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur. Mendoza, J., in the result.