Minor and collateral inconsistencies

This is the tragic story of an 11-year-old girl, Leticia, resulting from an act of depravity by the common law husband of her biological mother, Charo, from a previous relationship.

The culprit here is Nardo, then 50 years old, who is the common law spouse of Charo. Nardo was a farmer who tilled the rice field while Charo collected shrimps and shells at the nearby beach from 4 to 7 p.m.

The unfortunate incidents happened when Charo was out of their house picking shells and shrimps. Leticia was repeatedly threatened and forced by Nardo to have sexual congress with him. Nardo succeeded in forcing her to lie down on the floor and warned her that he would kill her and her mother if she called for help. Thus, Nardo succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Leticia, who cried and pleaded with him to stop. She grew fearful as she saw a knife within Nardo’s reach. Then Nardo threatened Leticia that he would kill her and her mother if she tells her mother about what happened.

The same incident occurred again a week after. Nardo told Leticia to lie down, penetrated her vigina and then went outside while Leticia stayed in the room upstairs, crying, until Charo came home later that evening. For the succeeding months Nardo continued to rape Leticia, who kept silent out of fear.

Five months later, Charo observed some changes in her daughter’s body. Leticia’s breast had swollen, she had lost her appetite and was always sleeping. Then after two months, Leticia’s belly had become noticeably bigger. She was brought to the dispensary for a pregnancy test, which showed that she was indeed pregnant.

Fearing for her life, Leticia refused to reveal the identity of the father of her child. Neighbors suspected that Nardo got her pregnant. When Charo asked Nardo, Nardo admitted to her that he was the father of Leticia’s child. Later on, Nardo and Charo went to Charo’s brother Danny to confess the crime that he had committed against Leticia. According to Danny, Nardo felt remorseful and even told Danny to kill him to avenge Leticia. Thus, Danny immediately reported the matter to the police as Leticia subsequently gave birth to a baby boy.

So Nardo was charged with two counts of qualified rape under the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 8353 for willfully, unlawfully and feloniously having carnal knowledge of Leticia, who was 11 years old and daughter of his common law wife Charo through threat, intimidation and actuated by lust.

During the trial, the prosecution presented Leticia’s birth certificate, the laboratory report of her pregnancy test and four witnesses, namely, Leticia herself, her mother Charo, the doctor who administered the pregnancy test and Danny, all of whom confirmed the above narrated incidents.

Only Nardo testified for the defense and claimed that he could not have raped Leticia as he was often in the rice field from 5 a.m to 6 p.m. He also refuted the confession to Danny that he raped Leticia and contested the supposed inconsistent statement of Leticia on the time when the first and second rape happened and whether she was awake or asleep before the sexual molestation.

But the RTC found Nardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each rape, to pay indemnity of P50,000 and moral damages of P10,000 for each crime. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

But Nardo still appealed to the Supreme Court (SC), contending that Leticia’s testimony had so many inconsistencies and that she failed to resist the sexual aggression.

The SC, however, ruled that the RTC and the CA are correct in convicting Nardo. According to the SC, the alleged inconsistencies are collateral and minor matters which do not at all deal with the commission of the crime nor affect Leticia’s credibility. Rape victims are not expected to cherish in their memories an accurate account of the dates, the number of times and the manner they were raped.

Her failure to resist the sexual aggression and to immediately report the incidents to the authorities or to her mother do not undermine her credibility. The silence of the rape victim does not negate her sexual molestation or make her charge baseless, untrue or fabricated. A minor cannot be expected to act like an adult or a mature and experienced woman who would have the courage and intelligence to disregard the threat to her life and complain immediately that she had been sexually assaulted.

Raping a daughter destroys the purity of a father-daughter relationship. It shatters her dignity and destroys her ability to trust her elder in charge of her. In view of the depravity of the acts of Nardo, the amount awarded to Leticia for civil indemnity is increased to P100,000 moral damages and P100,000 exemplary damages. (People vs. Entrampas G.R. No. 212161, March 29, 2017.)