G.R. No. L-47675-76 January 31, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. MARCIANO DOMEN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Marciano Domen was charged with two counts of rape committed against his 16-year-old daughter, Eleanor, on February 15 and March 31, 1977, in Aloran, Misamis Occidental. The informations alleged force, intimidation, and the aggravating circumstances of relationship and nighttime. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from Eleanor’s testimony, detailed that on the first occasion, after she attended a dance, her father entered the room where she slept with her sisters, forcibly removed her underwear, and had carnal knowledge with her despite her resistance and protests, covering her mouth to prevent her from shouting. Her sister Florita awoke and witnessed part of the incident. On the second occasion, while Eleanor slept on the floor between her younger sisters, her father again sexually assaulted her after moving the other children aside.
The defense interposed denial. For the February incident, Domen claimed Eleanor was not at home but studying in Oroquieta City. For the March incident, he alleged he was with his wife, Maria, engaging in sexual intercourse, and that Eleanor was not present. His testimony was uncorroborated.

ISSUE

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

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Eleanor, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. In rape cases, the accused’s conviction can rest solely on the victim’s testimony if it is credible and meets the test of moral certainty. Here, Eleanor’s detailed account of the forcible assaults, including her resistance and the appellant’s use of threats and physical force to subdue her, was convincing.
The Court rejected the appellant’s defenses as unsubstantiated and implausible. His claim that Eleanor was absent in February was uncorroborated and belied by the prosecution’s evidence. His alibi for the March incident—that he was with his wife—was directly contradicted by his wife’s testimony that she was at her official station on that date. The absence of physical injuries on the victim does not negate rape, especially given the significant lapse of time before her medical examination and the inherent intimidation from a father’s authority. The trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances of relationship and nighttime. The appealed decision was affirmed.