G.R. No. 139787, September 17, 2002
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Randolph Jaquilmac, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The complainant, Ma. Hazel L. Micabalo, was seven years old in August 1981 when she and her younger brother lived in the house of their uncle, accused-appellant Randolph Jaquilmac, and his wife, Daylinda, in Cagayan De Oro City. On August 26, 1981, after coming home early from school, she was taking a nap when she was awakened by accused-appellant removing her underwear. He was kneeling in front of her, wearing only an undershirt. He covered her mouth, warned her not to shout, and forced her to masturbate him. He then pinned her down, spread her legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing excruciating pain. He withdrew before ejaculation, wiped his penis, and then inserted it into her mouth. Afterward, he threatened to kill her if she told anyone. The complainant kept the incident secret for 15 years out of fear for her life and fear that her military father would kill her uncle. She finally revealed the rape to her mother in November 1996 after learning that an 11-year-old cousin was to be entrusted to the accused-appellant’s care, fearing the cousin might suffer the same fate. A medico-legal examination revealed old, healed hymenal lacerations compatible with the alleged date of the rape, though the hymenal orifice was small. The accused-appellant was charged with statutory rape. He denied the accusation, claiming the complaint was fabricated due to jealousy over a cousin’s allowance and ill feelings from the complainant’s mother. His wife and neighbors testified in his defense regarding his good moral character and the complainant’s alleged reputation as a liar and “tomboy.” The trial court convicted him.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of statutory rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the complainant’s testimony to be credible, spontaneous, clear, straightforward, and honest. The inconsistencies cited by the defense were minor and did not damage the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence. The delay in reporting the rape was sufficiently explained by the complainant’s fear of the accused-appellant’s threats and fear of her father’s violent reaction. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. The crime committed was statutory rape, as the complainant was under twelve years of age at the time. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court modified the damages awarded, ordering the accused-appellant to pay the complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.