People vs. Ocampo

A rape conviction may rest on the victim’s credible testimony corroborated by medical findings of penetration, but the death penalty under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 requires that the victim’s minority and her relationship to the offender be both alleged in the Information and proved with certainty; absent the allegation of age, the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

Eduardo T. Ocampo is the father of complainant Suzette H. Ocampo, and Susie Ocampo is Suzette’s mother. The prosecution was brought under the rape provision of the Revised Penal Code as qualified by Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, which authorizes the death penalty 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 the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

Suzette H. Ocampo, the complainant, was the eldest among four children of accused Eduardo T. Ocampo. She testified that one early morning in February 1994, upon waking up inside their house in Taguig, she saw bloodstains on her blanket; knowing she did not have her menstrual period at that time, she concluded she had been raped. She claimed she was a sound sleeper and was not awakened when she was violated, but she pointed to her father as the culprit because, according to her, he had been raping her for a long time.

In the early morning of June 21, 1994, while alone in her room in the same house in Taguig, she woke up naked and found her father, also naked, on top of her. She did not shout for help because she did not want other people to know what her father was doing; her mother was then in their canteen at Buting, Pasig, while her brothers were in another room. She cried and pleaded with her father to stop, and after some time he stopped and left. She put on her clothes and went back to sleep; when she woke up she went to school. In the afternoon she saw her mother, who told her that her younger sister had seen what her father did to her that morning.

The following morning, complainant and her mother went to her godmother in Sumilang, Pasig and told her what happened. Her godmother did not allow her to go home and instead brought her to the house of the godmother’s sister in Sta. Mesa. Later they went to the NBI, where complainant was medically examined, and afterwards they filed a complaint against appellant; two Informations for rape were filed, docketed as Criminal Case No. 113836-H and Criminal Case No. 113837-H. The Amended Information in Criminal Case No. 113837-H charged that on or about June 21, 1994, in Taguig, Metro Manila, appellant, with lewd designs and by means of force and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with his daughter Suzette against her will and consent; it did not allege her age. Records show that the acts complained of were committed when complainant was still at a tender age of fourteen.

Susie Ocampo, complainant’s mother, testified that she did not recall any unusual incident in February 1994, but that on June 21, 1994 her youngest daughter told her she saw her father rape her sister Suzette between 5:00 and 6:00 in the morning. Fearing appellant might do something against her and their children, Susie sought the help of Suzette’s godmother, who accompanied Suzette to the NBI and helped her file the complaint. Susie also testified that on June 29, 1994 appellant was arrested and a case was filed against him, docketed as Criminal Case No. 106542, charging him with rape committed against Suzette; that case was provisionally dismissed because Suzette, with her mother’s conformity, filed an Affidavit of Desistance declaring that the case did not warrant criminal prosecution and that she was forgiving her father.

Dr. Maximo Reyes, the NBI medico-legal officer who examined Suzette, found no external injuries, but her genital examination revealed an “old-healed deep laceration at 6:00 o’clock position corresponding to the face of a watch, edges of which are rounded and non-coaptable.” He testified that the laceration could have been inflicted not later than March 1994 and might have been caused by a fully erect penis or any other hard instrument inserted in complainant’s vagina. Appellant, the sole defense witness, testified that the charges were fabricated; that complainant’s mother is his common-law wife and had convinced complainant to file the case because she was jealous of his girlfriend; and that his daughter also filed the case to prevent him from getting his share in the income of the canteen they owned.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in convicting him of rape in Criminal Case No. 113837-H despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; he claimed complainant’s testimony was inconsistent and lacked truthfulness and spontaneity, and that her failure to recall the details of the incident was contrary to the normal reaction of a rape victim.
• Penalty: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court gravely erred in imposing the death penalty notwithstanding the prosecution’s failure to allege the victim’s age in Criminal Case No. 113837-H.

• Penalty: The Office of the Solicitor General concurred in appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of rape in Criminal Case No. 113837-H despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Penalty / Special Qualifying Circumstance: Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to allege the victim’s age in Criminal Case No. 113837-H.
• Damages: Whether the victim is entitled to moral and exemplary damages in addition to civil indemnity even though these were not specifically assigned as errors.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: No. The conviction stands because complainant’s testimony was credible and corroborated by the NBI medico-legal finding of a healed hymenal laceration; minor lapses in rape testimony and the affidavit of desistance did not destroy the prosecution’s case.
• Penalty / Special Qualifying Circumstance: Yes, the trial court erred. The death penalty cannot be imposed because the victim’s age was not alleged in the Information; the special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship must be both alleged and proved with certainty.
• Damages: Yes. A conviction for rape carries moral damages without need of further proof, and exemplary damages may be imposed because the relationship was proven; an appeal opens the whole case for review.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The SC rejected appellant’s claim that complainant’s testimony was inconsistent and lacked truthfulness and spontaneity. It held that minor lapses in a witness’s testimony should be expected when a person recounts an experience so humiliating and painful to recall as rape, for rape is usually not remembered in detail. Complainant was fourteen at the time, so an ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to her. The SC applied the long-standing rule that when an alleged rape victim says she was violated, she says all that is necessary to show rape, and as long as her testimony meets the credibility test, the accused may be convicted. It deferred to the trial court’s credibility findings because the trial court heard the witnesses and observed their deportment, and found nothing on record to depart from those findings. Complainant’s testimony was corroborated by the NBI medico-legal officer’s finding of a healed laceration in her hymen; when the victim’s testimony of violation is corroborated by physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation for concluding carnal knowledge. The SC rejected the defenses of jealousy and deprivation of canteen income, reasoning that no mother in her right mind would expose her daughter to the disgrace and trauma of a rape prosecution if not genuinely motivated, and that a daughter of tender age would not accuse her own father of a heinous crime unless aggrieved. The affidavit of desistance had no evidentiary weight; courts do not attach persuasive value to such affidavits, especially when executed as an afterthought, and the mother explained it was executed after appellant pleaded for forgiveness. Following People vs. Igat, an affidavit of desistance or pardon cannot justify dismissal because the pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal action. Appellant’s denial, inherently weak, could not prevail over the prosecution evidence.
• Penalty / Special Qualifying Circumstance: Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 imposes death 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 the common-law spouse of the parent. The SC held that the concurrence of the victim’s minority and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance that must be both alleged and proved with certainty; otherwise the death penalty cannot be imposed. Although appellant admitted complainant was his daughter and evidence showed she was less than eighteen when the crime was committed, her age was not alleged in the Information. Thus the special qualifying circumstance could not be appreciated against him, and the penalty was modified to reclusion perpetua under the second paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The Office of the Solicitor General concurred in this conclusion.
• Damages: The SC noted that an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review and makes it the SC’s duty to correct errors even if not specifically assigned. In addition to the civil indemnity awarded by the trial court, the victim is entitled to moral damages under the principle that a conviction for rape carries with it the award of moral damages without need of further proof; the SC awarded P50,000 as moral damages. It also imposed P20,000 as exemplary damages considering that the relationship was proven.

• Credibility of a rape victim and minor lapses — Minor lapses in testimony are expected in recounting a humiliating and painful experience like rape; rape is usually not remembered in detail. The SC applied this to reject appellant’s claim that complainant’s inconsistencies destroyed her credibility, especially since she was fourteen.
• Victim’s testimony as sufficient basis for conviction — When an alleged rape victim says she was violated, she says all that is necessary to show rape; if her testimony meets the credibility test, the accused may be convicted. The SC applied this to affirm the conviction.
• Deference to trial court’s credibility findings — The SC generally defers to the trial court’s assessment of credibility because the trial court heard the witnesses and observed their deportment. The SC found no reason to depart from the RTC’s findings.
• Corroboration by medical findings of penetration — When the victim’s testimony of violation is corroborated by physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation for concluding carnal knowledge. The SC applied this to the NBI finding of a healed hymenal laceration.
• Affidavit of desistance — An affidavit of desistance has no evidentiary weight when pitted against positive evidence; courts do not attach persuasive value to it, especially when executed as an afterthought, and a pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal action. The SC applied this to disregard Suzette’s affidavit of desistance.
• Special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship — Under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the concurrence of the victim’s minority and her relationship to the offender must be both alleged in the Information and proved with certainty; otherwise the death penalty cannot be imposed. The SC applied this to reduce the penalty to reclusion perpetua because the Information did not allege the victim’s age.
• Appeal throws the whole case open for review — An appeal in a criminal proceeding opens the entire case for review and imposes on the SC the duty to correct errors even if not specifically assigned. The SC applied this to award moral and exemplary damages despite no assignment of error.
• Moral damages in rape — A conviction for rape carries the award of moral damages to the victim without need of further proof. The SC awarded P50,000 as moral damages.
• Exemplary damages when relationship is proven — Exemplary damages may be imposed when the relationship between the offender and the victim is proven. The SC awarded P20,000 as exemplary damages.

• “Minor lapses in a witness’ testimony should be expected when a person recounts the details of an experience so humiliating and so painful to recall as rape, for rape, as a harrowing experience, is usually not remembered in detail.” — The SC used this to reject appellant’s claim that the complainant’s testimony was inconsistent and lacked spontaneity.
• “The long-standing rule is that when an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted thereof.” — The SC used this to affirm that a credible victim’s testimony can sustain a rape conviction.
• “This Court has held in a number of cases that under said provision, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance which must be both alleged and proved with certainty, otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed.” — The SC used this to modify the penalty because the Information did not allege the victim’s age.
• “An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the duty of this Court to correct such errors it may find in the appealed judgment, even if they have not been specifically assigned.” — The SC used this to justify awarding moral and exemplary damages despite the absence of a specific assignment of error.

• People vs. Igat, 291 SCRA 100, 107 — Followed; held that an affidavit of desistance or pardon cannot justify dismissal of a rape complaint because the pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal action.
• People vs. Dumaguing, 340 SCRA 701, 709 — Cited in support of the rule that a credible rape victim’s testimony is sufficient to sustain conviction.
• People vs. Navida, 346 SCRA 821, 830 — Cited in support of deference to the trial court’s credibility findings.
• People vs. Segui, 346 SCRA 178, 186 — Cited in support of the rule that medical findings of penetration corroborate the victim’s testimony.
• People vs. Quilatan, 341 SCRA 247, 255 — Cited in support of rejecting the claim that the mother’s jealousy motivated the rape charge.
• People vs. Baltazar, 343 SCRA 250, 265 — Cited in support of the rule that the special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship must be alleged and proved.
• People vs. Alipayo, 324 SCRA 447 — Cited in support of the rule that an appeal opens the whole case for review.
• People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001 — Cited in support of the award of exemplary damages.

• Section 11, R.A. No. 7659 — Provides the death penalty for rape 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 the common-law spouse of the parent. Applied: the death penalty was not imposed because the victim’s age was not alleged in the Information.
• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, second paragraph — Provides the penalty for rape. Applied: reclusion perpetua was imposed after the death penalty was found improper.