G.R. No. 144034 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARIO MASCARIÑAS, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly an Information for rape was filed against accused-appellant. [3] The Information was amended with the supplementary allegation that private complainant Marie Mascariñas was " his (accused-appellant's) daughter who is a minor. " [4] Shortly after, accused-appellant was apprehended. The defense of accused-appellant was sheer denial. He swore that no unusual incident transpired on that fateful night sometime in July 1994 and attributed the charge for rape to his daughter's avenging nature. According to him, Maries was a stubborn child whom he and his wife would often chastise as part of their filial obligation. Maries though took it against them and ran away. He averred that the story of sexual abuse offered by Maries should not be taken as conclusive in view of the fact that he has another teenage daughter, Iosa, who has not charged him with rape. [5] His wife Jesusa echoed his sentiments against Maries. According to Jesusa every time Maries was scolded the latter would secretly leave home and stay with one of their neighbors. As her husband was working, she was tasked with the twin duties of fetching her and admonishing her for her unruly behavior. This brought her endless grief and humiliation such that when Maries left home for Pagadian City she did not follow her anymore. She saw her daughter in Iligan City sometime in 1996 and with the assistance of a neighbor persuaded her to come home. But before leaving, Maries asked her permission to return to Pagadian City so that she could get her salary from her employer. Maries never returned. When Jesusa learned that Maries had filed a complaint for rape against her husband she immediately confronted her. But Maries was unflinching and even justified her actions. [6] After trial, the court a quo sustained the prosecution and found accused-appellant Mario Mascariñas guilty of raping his minor daughter Maries Mascariñas. As Maries was only eleven (11) when she was raped, accused-appellant was sentenced to death and to indemnify private complainant P75,000.00. [7] Upon automatic review, accused-appellant assails his conviction by insisting on his innocence. He reiterates his contention that Maries instituted this complaint for rape because she harbored deep resentment against his quick and heavy hand. Further, he avers that it strains credulity for him to have raped only Maries and not his other daughter Iosa. Such conduct, he argues, would be contrary to human nature and could only invite disbelief. Lastly, assuming arguendo that he indeed raped his daughter, the trial court erred in imposing upon him the penalty of death inasmuch as the Information failed to allege the exact age of Maries at the time of the rape. [8] We find the motive imputed by accused-appellant against his daughter Maries highly outrageous. Indeed, mere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino family invent a charge that would not only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their