People vs. Velasco

A rape conviction may rest solely on the credible, convincing testimony of the victim consistent with human nature, without need for medical proof, and minor inconsistencies, delayed reporting under threat, lack of resistance, or continued cohabitation do not impair credibility. Applied to three successive forced intercourses and a later lewd molestation of a minor stepdaughter, the victim's straightforward testimony sustained guilt beyond reasonable doubt for three counts of simple rape and one count of acts of lasciviousness.

Roberto Velasco was the live-in partner of AAA, mother of private complainant Lisa, a 14-year-old minor who resided with them in Malolos, Bulacan. The Informations invoked appellant's moral ascendancy as stepfather and alleged minority and relationship. No evidence of a valid marriage between appellant and AAA was presented at trial.

Appellant Roberto Velasco lived with AAA and her children, including 14-year-old Lisa, in Malolos, Bulacan. On December 27, 2001 at around 11:00 in the morning, while Lisa was watching television in the sala and her mother and brother were out for work, appellant approached her, removed his shorts and underwear as well as hers, mounted her and inserted his penis into her vagina, warning her not to report or he would kill both Lisa and her mother. The following day, December 28, 2001, at around the same hour and outside the family's bedroom while the mother and brother were again absent, he repeated the same acts of undressing both of them, mounting her and inserting his penis, with a renewed threat against disclosure. On December 29, 2001, again at around 11:00 in the morning while alone with her, he raped her a third consecutive time, with white fluid coming from his penis, accompanied by the same threat.

A year later, on December 21, 2002 at midnight while other family members slept, appellant attempted to insert his penis into Lisa's vagina as she slept on her folding bed. According to the prosecution, Lisa cried, appellant succeeded in touching and kissing her private parts but desisted from consummation for fear of being caught by family members sleeping a few feet away. A medico-legal examination by Dr. Ivan Richard Viray found Lisa in a non-virgin state with shallow healed hymenal lacerations at 2 and 3 o'clock positions and deep healed lacerations at 6 and 7 o'clock positions, although presentation of the doctor was dispensed with after the defense admitted due execution of the certificate and the prosecution stipulated that the cause of the non-virgin state was not determined.

Appellant, for his part, testified that for six days a week in December 2001 and December 2002 he worked as a mason in Barangay Caingin, Malolos, Bulacan, leaving home at 7:00 in the morning and returning at 5:30 in the afternoon. He claimed to have been at work on December 27, 28 and 29, 2001 with his nephew Roderick Palconet and at home on December 21, 2002, asserting the accusations were instigated by Lisa's father who resented his live-in relationship with Lisa's mother. Palconet corroborated that from 8:00 in the morning to 5:00 in the afternoon on those three December 2001 dates he was with appellant, and admitted on cross-examination that the house to Barangay Caingin could be reached by a five-minute ride absent traffic.

• Illegality of Warrantless Arrest: Appellant argued that the court a quo erred in not finding his warrantless arrest illegal.
• Violation of Rights under Republic Act No. 7438: Appellant argued that his rights as a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, and the duties of arresting, detaining and investigating officers, were violated.
• Credibility of Victim: Appellant argued that weight and credence should not have been given to the private complainant's incredible and uniform testimony, which cast doubt on her truthfulness, and that the medico-legal finding of non-virgin state did not prove rape.
• Failure to Resist and Delay in Reporting: Appellant maintained that the victim's failure to resist, to wake her brother and mother, to shout for help to nearby neighbors, to leave the common dwelling, and to immediately report the assaults negated credibility.
• Alibi and Reasonable Doubt: Appellant argued that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because he was elsewhere working as a mason with his nephew at the times of the alleged acts.

• Validity and Waiver of Warrantless Arrest: Whether the alleged illegality of appellant's warrantless arrest warrants acquittal or nullification of proceedings.
• Custodial Rights under Republic Act No. 7438: Whether violation of appellant's rights under Republic Act No. 7438 affects the validity of conviction.
• Credibility of Victim and Sufficiency for Rape: Whether the victim's testimony, despite alleged uniformity, lack of resistance, delay in reporting, continued cohabitation, and medico-legal limitations, proves three counts of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
• Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness: Whether the December 21, 2002 kissing and touching of private parts by force and intimidation establishes acts of lasciviousness.
• Alibi: Whether appellant's alibi, corroborated by his nephew co-worker, overcomes the prosecution evidence.
• Qualification, Penalty and Damages: Whether minority and relationship qualify the rapes and what penalties and civil liabilities properly attach.

• Validity and Waiver of Warrantless Arrest: No. Objection to arrest is deemed waived if not raised before plea, appellant being estopped after entering not-guilty pleas without moving to quash.
• Custodial Rights under Republic Act No. 7438: No. Even a proven invalid arrest would not void a valid judgment rendered upon sufficient complaint after error-free trial.
• Credibility of Victim and Sufficiency for Rape: Yes. Credible, convincing victim testimony consistent with human nature alone sustains rape, with deference to trial court assessment and minor inconsistencies immaterial.
• Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness: Yes. Force and intimidation, lewd kissing and touching of another's private parts, satisfy Article 336, provable by credible lone testimony.
• Alibi: No. Alibi fails absent proof of presence elsewhere plus physical impossibility, and corroboration by an interested close relative in a nearby workplace is insufficient.
• Qualification, Penalty and Damages: Only simple rape established. Reclusion perpetua per count is proper where stepfather relationship was unproven for lack of valid marriage, with adjusted civil, moral and exemplary damages plus interest.

• Validity and Waiver of Warrantless Arrest: The plea came too late to merit consideration because objection involving warrant of arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the person must be made before entry of plea; failure to raise the issue or move to quash before arraignment results in waiver by estoppel.
• Custodial Rights under Republic Act No. 7438: Even assuming invalidity, settled doctrine provides that illegal arrest does not provide salvation where judgment rests on sufficient complaint after trial free from error, so the conviction stands independently of arrest irregularities.
• Credibility of Victim and Sufficiency for Rape: No fact or circumstance warranted reversal of the trial court's credibility finding, the testimony having been candid and straightforward even on extensive cross-examination with no significant discrepancies. A medical certificate and medical examination are not indispensable to prove rape; failure to shout or resist when intimidated does not signify consent; delay under threats of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim nor indicate fabrication; and varied, unpredictable human reactions to sexual assault excuse conduct deviating from usual expectations, including continued residence.
• Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness: The required elements under Article 336 — (1) lewd act, (2) by force or intimidation, deprivation of reason/unconsciousness, or victim under 12, (3) upon another person of either sex — were satisfied by straightforward testimony that on December 21, 2002 appellant forced and intimidated the victim and succeeded in kissing and touching her private parts, with lone credible testimony sufficient for this crime.
• Alibi: The defense failed both prongs because the construction site in Barangay Caingin was only about five minutes by motor vehicle from the house where the crimes occurred, negating physical impossibility, and the sole corroboration came from appellant's nephew and co-worker, not a disinterested and unbiased witness.
• Qualification, Penalty and Damages: Notwithstanding mention of minority and relationship in the Informations, only simple rape was proved because stepfather relationship required proof of valid marriage between appellant and the victim's mother, which was absent. Hence reclusion perpetua per count was proper, with ₱50,000.00 civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 moral damages per rape sustained, exemplary damages increased to ₱30,000.00 per prevailing jurisprudence, and for acts of lasciviousness the indeterminate term of four months of arresto mayor to four years of prision correccional with ₱20,000.00 civil indemnity and ₱30,000.00 moral damages, plus 6% legal interest from finality, with correction that Criminal Cases No. 3580-M-2002, 3581-M-2002 and 145-M-2003 were for rape and No. 3579-M-2002 for acts of lasciviousness.

• Waiver of objection to arrest — Objection to warrant of arrest or to the manner of acquiring jurisdiction over the person must be raised before plea; failure to raise it or to move for quashal of the information before arraignment estops the accused and waives the objection. Applied to reject appellant's belated attack on his warrantless arrest after not-guilty pleas.
• Effect of illegal arrest on valid judgment — Illegal arrest alone is insufficient to set aside a valid judgment rendered upon sufficient complaint after error-free trial. Applied to hold that even a proven invalid arrest would not save appellant.
• Sole testimony of rape victim — An accused may be convicted solely on credible, convincing victim testimony consistent with human nature and normal course of things. Applied to sustain three rape convictions on Lisa's candid testimony.
• Deference to trial court on credibility; minor inconsistencies — Great respect is accorded to trial judge findings on witness demeanor, and only discrepancies establishing innocence beyond doubt warrant acquittal; minor inconsistencies do not diminish a rape victim's credibility. Applied to uphold credibility despite alleged uniform testimony.
• Medical proof not indispensable in rape — A medical certificate is not necessary and medical examination is not indispensable to prove rape. Applied to reject reliance on the limited medico-legal conclusion that the cause of non-virgin state was undetermined.
• Resistance, outcry and delay — Failure to shout, lack of resistance under intimidation, and delay in reporting under threats of physical violence do not negate rape nor indicate fabrication. Applied with the principle that human reactions to sexual assault vary unpredictably, to reject inferences from failure to resist, shout, promptly report, or leave the dwelling.
• Elements of acts of lasciviousness — Under Article 336, the crime requires (1) commission of lewd act, (2) by force or intimidation, or when victim deprived of reason or unconscious, or under 12 years of age, (3) upon another person of either sex; credible lone testimony suffices. Applied to the December 21, 2002 kissing and touching by force and intimidation.
• Alibi and corroboration — For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove presence in another place at commission and physical impossibility of being at the scene, with corroboration from disinterested witnesses. Applied to reject alibi based on a nearby worksite and nephew's interested testimony.
• Qualified vs. simple rape by relationship — Relationship as stepfather requires proof of valid marriage to the victim's mother to qualify rape; otherwise only simple rape with reclusion perpetua lies. Applied to impose simple rape penalties despite Informations alleging minority and relationship.

• "Jurisprudence tells us that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment, thus, any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived." — States the waiver rule that barred appellant's belated challenge to his warrantless arrest after arraignment and not-guilty pleas.
• "the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error." — States the doctrine preserving an error-free conviction independently of any arrest irregularity.
• "a medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape, as even a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape." — States the rule rejecting appellant's reliance on limitations in the medico-legal findings to negate rape.
• "for alibi to prosper, it must be proved that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene." — States the two-pronged test that appellant's mason-work alibi failed given the five-minute proximity and interested corroboration.

• Miclat, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 176077, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 539, 549 — Cited as authority for waiver and estoppel on failure to challenge arrest or move to quash before arraignment.
• People vs. Trestiza, G.R. No. 193833, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 407, 443-444 — Cited to hold illegal arrest insufficient to set aside valid judgment after error-free trial.
• People vs. Viojela, G.R. No. 177140, October 17, 2012, 684 SCRA 241, 251 — Cited for conviction on credible, convincing victim testimony alone in rape.
• People vs. Estoya, G.R. No. 200531, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 376, 383 — Cited for deference to trial judge on witness credibility and demeanor.
• People vs. Laurino, G.R. No. 199264, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 612, 619 — Cited for rule that only inconsistencies proving innocence affect credibility.
• People vs. Colorado, G.R. No. 200792, November 14, 2012, 685 SCRA 660, 673 — Cited for medical certificate and examination not indispensable in rape.
• People vs. Basallo, G.R. No. 182457, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 616, 641 — Cited that failure to shout and lack of resistance under intimidation do not negate rape.
• People vs. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 177357, October 17, 2012, 684 SCRA 260, 279; People vs. Condes, G.R. No. 187077, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 312, 330 — Cited that delay in reporting under threats does not indicate fabrication.
• People vs. Dumadag, G.R. No. 176740, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 535, 546 — Cited that varied human reactions excuse non-conforming victim behavior.
• People vs. Banan, G.R. No. 193664, March 23, 2011, 646 SCRA 420, 434; Garingarao vs. People, G.R. No. 192760, July 20, 2011, 654 SCRA 243, 252 — Cited for elements of acts of lasciviousness and sufficiency of lone credible testimony.
• People vs. Batula, G.R. No. 181699, November 28, 2012, 686 SCRA 575, 587; People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011, 645 SCRA 590, 613 — Cited for alibi's physical-impossibility requirement and need for disinterested corroboration.
• People vs. Lomaque, G.R. No. 189297, June 5, 2013 — Cited as prevailing jurisprudence to increase exemplary damages for simple rape to ₱30,000.00.
• People vs. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 [2006] — Cited for use of alias Lisa and non-disclosure of victim identity.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code — Defines and punishes rape by force and intimidation; applied to the three December 2001 carnal knowledge charges, resulting in simple rape liability.
• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Defines acts of lasciviousness by lewd acts under force or intimidation or other stated circumstances upon another person; applied to the December 21, 2002 kissing and touching.
• Republic Act No. 7438 — Defines rights of persons arrested, detained or under custodial investigation and duties of officers; invoked by appellant but held not to void conviction on the facts and waiver.
• Section 13, Article VIII, Constitution — Requires certification of consultation before assignment of opinion; complied with by certification of the Chief Justice.

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Chief Justice, Chairperson; Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice; Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Associate Justice; Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice.