GR 177779; (December, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177779; December 14, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. FELIPE NACHOR y OMAYAN, Appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Felipe Nachor, was charged with two counts of rape against his 14-year-old daughter, “AAA.” The prosecution alleged that on May 9, 2001, and again in the first week of June 2001, the appellant, armed with a bolo, dragged “AAA” to a room, threatened her, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will. The victim, fearing the appellant’s threats to kill her and her family, initially kept silent. Her pregnancy was later discovered, leading to the revelation of the assaults and the subsequent birth of a child. The appellant denied the accusations, claiming alibi for the first incident and alleging that the victim was working elsewhere during that period. He further insinuated that his son was responsible for the pregnancy and that the case was fabricated by his wife.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction. The Court emphasized that the credibility of the young victim’s testimony is accorded great weight. The victim provided a clear, consistent, and candid narration of the two traumatic incidents, detailing the use of a bolo, the threats, and the sexual acts. Her testimony was found to be natural and credible, especially given her age and the inherent difficulty in disclosing such a violation by a parent. The Court ruled that her initial silence, prompted by grave threats, did not undermine her credibility but was a natural reaction of fear.
The appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi were rejected for being inherently weak and uncorroborated. Alibi must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the accused was physically impossible to be at the crime scene, which the appellant failed to establish. His alternative theory implicating his own son was deemed a mere fabrication. The Court held that the positive identification by the credible victim prevails over such unsubstantiated defenses. Consequently, the elements of rape through force and intimidation were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The qualifying circumstance of the victim being under eighteen and the offender being a parent was also established, warranting the imposition of the supreme penalty. However, in line with prevailing law, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.