G.R. No. 122097 June 22, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERMIN IGAT, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On December 10, 1990, between 6:30 and 7:00 PM, in Bry. Dangkalan, Malinao, Aklan, accused-appellant Fermin Igat scolded his son Richard for coming home late from a basketball game. When his wife Openiana defended Richard, Fermin got a bolo, causing Openiana and Richard to flee the house. Their daughter, 14-year-old Gresilda Igat, retired to her room and fell asleep. Later that night, she was awakened by someone mashing her breasts and sexual organ. In the dark, she asked who it was, and the person replied, “I, ne,” in a familiar voice—her father, Fermin. He threatened to kill her if she made a false move, covered her mouth, removed her panties, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her, causing excruciating pain. Afterward, he warned her not to tell anyone or he would kill her and her family. The next morning, Gresilda noticed blood on her torn panties, which she later saw her father washing. She did not immediately report the incident due to fear. On January 12, 1991, Fermin raped her again. On April 26, 1991, Gresilda went to Manila with her sister Teresa. During the trip, she revealed the rapes to Teresa. In Manila, they consulted their eldest sister Susan and an aunt, Bernardita Igat. On May 8, 1991, Gresilda was medically examined by Dr. Simeon A. Arce, Jr., who found a fresh hymenal tear. A criminal complaint was filed, and an Information for rape was lodged against Fermin Igat. The prosecution presented Gresilda, her siblings Teresa and Richard, and Dr. Arce. The defense relied on denial, with Fermin claiming he spent an uneventful night with his family and suggesting the rape was improbable due to the sleeping arrangements. Defense witnesses included Noel Vargas, Juanito Iscala, and Primilin Narciso, who presented class records to show Gresilda was not absent on December 11, 1990. The trial court convicted Fermin Igat of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with an order to indemnify Gresilda P50,000.00.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Fermin Igat beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape.
2. Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be applied with a duration of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

1. Yes, the prosecution proved Fermin Igat’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s findings, giving credence to the testimony of Gresilda Igat, which was direct, positive, straightforward, and candid. She positively identified her father as the rapist in open court and provided a detailed account of the assault. The Court found no ill motive for Gresilda to falsely accuse her own father, and her testimony was consistent with the medico-legal report showing a fresh hymenal tear. The defense’s arguments were rejected: (a) The alleged contradiction in Gresilda’s testimony about the bolo was nonexistent, as she clarified during cross-examination that she did not know if her father was carrying something when he entered the room due to darkness; (b) Dr. Arce’s description of the hymenal tear as “fresh or within a week” did not imply the rape occurred while Gresilda was with Junior Trasmil, as the phrase was used to differentiate between fresh and old tears; (c) Teresa Igat’s testimony was corroborative and credible, and her later suggestion to withdraw the complaint did not undermine the prosecution’s case. The defense’s denial was deemed weak and self-serving, especially in light of Fermin’s flight from Aklan after learning of the charges, which indicated guilt. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the testimony of the victim is credible when she has no motive to testify falsely, and inconsistencies in harrowing experiences are natural.
2. No, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is not subject to a duration of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years. The crime was committed on December 10, 1990, before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659 on December 31, 1993. At that time, reclusion perpetua was an indivisible penalty under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, which provided that a person sentenced to a perpetual penalty could be pardoned after thirty years, unless deemed unworthy by the Chief Executive. Thus, the trial court’s imposition of reclusion perpetua as an indivisible penalty was correct.
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision in its entirety, including the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to Gresilda Igat. Costs were imposed on accused-appellant.