G.R. No. 131847 September 22, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARMELITO S. ABELLA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Carmelito S. Abella was accused by his 15-year-old daughter, Violeta Abella, of rape. The complaint alleged that on December 12, 1996, in Cebu City, the accused, by means of force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of his daughter. When arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s case established that on the night of the incident, Violeta was left alone in their house with her father and two younger sisters. While she was sleeping in the lone room, separated from the sala by a curtain, her half-naked father entered around midnight, held her by the shoulders, forced her to lie down, removed her underwear and dress, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her for about an hour despite her shouts and struggle. He threatened her with death if she told anyone. The next day, Violeta reported the incident to her teacher, who brought her to the Department of Social Welfare and Development. A medico-legal examination confirmed she was in a non-virgin state, with shallow healing hymenal lacerations. The defense claimed the accused consumed a bottle of Tanduay rhum and a cigarette given by a stranger, felt like floating, and had no recollection of the alleged incident, only remembering going to sleep with his two younger daughters while Violeta slept in the other room. The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and, due to the attendant circumstances of paternity and the victim being under 18, sentenced him to death and ordered him to pay civil indemnity of P100,000. The accused appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
2. Assuming arguendo that the accused committed the crime, whether the trial court erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death.

RULING

1. The trial court did not err in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. The prosecution’s evidence sustains his guilt with moral certainty. The defense’s assertion that Violeta did not mention sustaining external injury or bodily harm is unavailing, as the accused’s moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter substitute for physical violence or intimidation in rape. The absence of external injury does not negate rape, as proof of injury is not an essential element. The claim that rape was improbable due to the presence of the victim’s younger sisters is also untenable, as rape can be committed even in places near other family members. The victim’s normal behavior the morning after the incident does not discredit her testimony, as it is understandable for a rape victim to conceal the incident initially due to apprehension or the accused’s moral ascendancy; notably, she reported it to her teacher the next day. No improper motive was shown for the victim to falsely accuse her own father of such a heinous crime.
2. The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. While the circumstances of paternity and the victim being under 18 were present, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible penalty. Therefore, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The decision of the Regional Trial Court is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant is guilty only of simple rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. He shall indemnify the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.