G.R. No. 102018 August 21, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JERRY GABAYRON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Jerry Gabayron, was charged with the rape of his daughter, Summer Gabayron, who was under twelve years old at the time of the alleged incidents in November 1987. The prosecution’s evidence established that after Gabayron and his wife separated, Summer and her sister lived with their father. The incident occurred when Gabayron, arriving home drunk, entered Summer’s bedroom, undressed her, and attempted to have sexual intercourse, causing her pain. Summer testified that this abuse was repeated on multiple occasions up to 1989. She did not immediately report the incidents due to threats from her father, only disclosing them to her mother more than a year later. Despite the execution of an affidavit of desistance by Summer and her mother, the trial court proceeded with the trial, considering the nature of the crime.
The defense presented a different narrative, with Gabayron denying the accusations and claiming the charges were fabricated due to familial discord, particularly his wife’s resentment over his relationship with another woman. He presented witnesses, including his mother and sister, who testified they never witnessed any abuse and that Summer had recanted her story to them. The trial court, however, found the testimony of the victim credible and convicted Gabayron of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay moral damages.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that in cases of rape, the credibility of the victim’s testimony is paramount. Summer’s detailed and candid account of the sexual assaults, including the pain she endured and the specific circumstances, was found to be credible and consistent. The Court noted that her failure to report the crime immediately was satisfactorily explained by her fear of her father, which is a common reaction in incestuous rape cases. The defense of denial and alibi was deemed weak and insufficient to overcome the positive identification and testimony of the victim.
The Court further ruled that the affidavit of desistance was correctly disregarded. In crimes against chastity, such desistance does not automatically negate the commission of the crime, especially when, as here, it appears to have been procured through familial pressure or a desire for reconciliation. The trial court was justified in proceeding to trial to ascertain the truth. The Court also modified the award of moral damages, increasing it to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence, recognizing the profound psychological trauma inflicted by the incestuous nature of the crime. The decision of the trial court was thus affirmed with modification as to the indemnity.