G.R. No. 122246 March 27, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BOBBY LUSA y GERVACIO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The complainant, Michelle Lusa, was fourteen years old and the eldest of six children. Sometime in the second week of September 1993, while she was sleeping with her siblings, she felt her father, accused-appellant Bobby Lusa, touching her private parts; she removed his hand and kicked him. In the first week of October 1993, at around 3 a.m., the accused-appellant, smelling of liquor, again entered the room, ordered her to be quiet, forcibly removed her shorts and panty, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her against her will. He threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident. These sexual assaults were repeated approximately ten times, with the last occurring on March 28, 1994. On March 31, 1994, complainant disclosed the rapes to her aunt after being questioned about her growing abdomen. She executed a sworn statement (Sinumpaang Salaysay) on April 1, 1994. A medical examination on April 4, 1994, confirmed her hymen was not intact and that she was approximately 24 weeks pregnant. She gave birth to a baby boy on July 21, 1994, whom she later gave up for adoption. An information for rape was filed against the accused-appellant. The trial court convicted him of rape and sentenced him to “reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,” ordering him to pay indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages. The accused-appellant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Bobby Lusa of the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. The Court held that the alleged minor inconsistencies between the complainant’s sworn statement and her court testimony did not affect her credibility, noting that affidavits are often incomplete and subordinate to open court declarations. The entry of a different name on the child’s birth certificate did not exonerate the accused-appellant, as it was explained by the complainant’s shame and the volunteer act of another’s family. The Court found the complainant’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent with human nature, emphasizing that testimonies of child-victims of incestuous rape are given full weight. The Court rejected the defense that rape could not have occurred in a room with other occupants, stating that lust respects no place. The prosecution’s failure to present a corroborating witness (complainant’s brother) did not weaken its case, as the victim’s testimony alone can sustain a conviction if credible. The delay in reporting was satisfactorily explained by the complainant’s fear due to the accused-appellant’s death threats. The accused-appellant’s denial and his alternative accusations against others (the househelp Ramil Estrada and instigation by his father-in-law) were found to be uncorroborated, incredible, and preposterous. His flight upon seeing police officers was indicative of guilt. However, the Court convicted the accused-appellant only of one count of rape, as the prosecution failed to establish all other alleged instances. The Court corrected the penalty, stating that reclusion perpetua is not the same as life imprisonment, with the latter imposed only under special laws. The accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim P50,000.00, plus P25,000.00 for moral damages and P10,000.00 for exemplary damages.