GR 143002; (July, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 143002-03; July 17, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. CHARMIE SERVANO y GAOR, appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Charmie Servano was charged with two counts of rape committed against his 12-year-old daughter, Ailyn Servano, on June 13, 1998, in Lagonoy, Camarines Sur. The prosecution evidence established that in the morning, while Ailyn was alone, appellant sexually assaulted her. Afterward, Ailyn performed household chores. Appellant returned approximately two hours later and assaulted her a second time. Ailyn subsequently reported the incidents to relatives and the barangay captain. A medical examination revealed hymenal lacerations consistent with recent sexual intercourse. The defense presented appellant as its sole witness, who claimed he mistakenly touched his daughter’s private part, thinking she was his paramour, and immediately desisted upon realizing his error.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the credibility of the victim’s testimony, which was found to be categorical, straightforward, and consistent. The Court emphasized that when the victim is a young daughter accusing her own father, her testimony is accorded greater weight, as no young woman would fabricate such a grave charge against a parent unless it were true. The victim’s conduct of performing chores after the first assault did not undermine her credibility, as different people react to trauma in different ways; there is no standard behavioral response for rape victims. The medical findings corroborated her account. Appellant’s defense of mistaken identity was rejected as a mere pretense, being inherently improbable and contrary to human experience. However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for each count, as the informations failed to allege the victim’s exact age or her minority relative to the offender with the requisite specificity to justify the death penalty under the law at the time. Appellant was ordered to pay civil indemnity and moral damages.