G.R. Nos. 135976-80 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CLAUDIO

Ruling

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises and considerations, the court finds the accused, Claudio Galeno y Magbanua alias `Oding', guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) counts of rape and he is hereby sentenced to suffer five (5) death penalties. "The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the victim the sum of P250,000.00 with accessory penalties." [4] In his appeal to this Court, the convicted accused assigned a lone but encompassing error - "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT CLAUDIO GALENO Y MAGBANUA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF FIVE (5) COUNTS OF RAPE AND IN SENTENCING HIM TO SUFFER FIVE (5) DEATH PENALTIES" [5] - bewailing his conviction and the imposition of the penalty of death by the trial court. Appellant would have it that the coitus between him and his daughter were all consensual. She never had once resisted, he argued, in any of the incidents of rape complained of. No weapon was used, nor was force or intimidation employed, in their sexual intercourse. The complainant had all the opportunity to report the matter to her mother, brothers or sisters, or to the police, but she instead kept mum and only mentioned it for the first time when she was discovered to be pregnant. The element of force or intimidation, expressed in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, could not be substituted, appellant would claim, by the mere moral ascendancy or influence he might have had on his daughter. In any event, he averred, he could only be held guilty of simple rape, the prosecution having failed to conclusively establish that Jenny was under 18 years of age at the time the acts complained of were committed. Thus, like in most cases of this nature, it is the word of the complainant pitted against that of the accused. This issue, being one of credibility or that which bears on the veracity of conflicting testimony, this Court would be rightly bound by the evaluation made by the trial judge before whom the declarants have been seen, heard and observed during the oral testimony. The Court finds no cogent reason to discard the assessment made by the court a quo giving full credence to the testimony of the complainant and rejecting that of appellant who, in fact, has given a dissonant defense, at first claiming denial and alibi and then ultimately asseverating consensuality in the incest relationship. There is no valid justification, upon the other hand, for disbelieving Jenny Galeno whose testimony, the trial court has aptly described, appears to be "spontaneous, unflinching and straightforward." Thus: "QUESTION: Awhile ago, Miss Witness, you testified that you were raped by your father for the first time sometime in August, 1995, could you please narrate to this Honorable Court what particular day in August, 1995 you were raped by your father? "ANSWER: There was no class at that day. "QUESTION: What day of the week? "ANSWER: I cannot recall what day but I can only remember that there was no class. "QUESTION: What time of the