G.R. No. 146468 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROQUE ABELLANO, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing the accused to suffer the extreme penalty of death. Having committed the crime with graver perversity, he is hereby ordered to indemnify the minor victim the amount of P75,000.00 pursuant to recent jurisprudence; to pay the amount of P50,000.00 for moral damages for the trauma and mental sufferings undergone by the minor victim and to pay the minor victim the additional amount of P20,000.00 representing exemplary damages, to serve as an example for the public good. [9] Thus, this automatic review. In his Appellants Brief, appellant posits only one assignment of error, to wit: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. In support of said assignment of error, appellant [1] points to contradictions in the testimony of Analyn, [2] bewails her long delay in reporting the rape case, and [3] demands that the rape victim must show that she has been bodily violated, forcibly and against her will, and has brought the matter to the authorities out of righteous indignation. [10] We affirm the conviction. I More specifically, appellant contends that Analyn gave two (2) different versions of the distance between her and her two (2) younger sisters while she was being raped. In her direct examination, she said her sisters were beside her; on clarificatory question by the trial judge, she answered that her sisters were quite far ... hence, she could not elbow them to call their attention when she was being raped. Appellant is clutching at straws. The answer of Analyn that her two sisters were quite far from her should be understood in its proper context. She gave that distance to explain why she could not elbow her sisters to awaken them while she was being sexually assaulted by the appellant. Hence, quite far from her means they were not within the reach of her elbow and that is not inconsistent with her prior answer that her sisters slept beside her. Moreover, the exact distance between Analyn and her sisters is trivial and will not disprove the charge of rape committed by the appellant. II Appellant also argues that the long delay in reporting the rape should have created a doubt on the credibility of Analyn. He contends that Analyn was not always under his watchful eyes as she went to school everyday. Allegedly, she should have informed her brothers and sisters earlier about the rapes. We are not persuaded. The one or two-month delay [11] by Analyn in reporting the rapes should not be taken against her. She testified that her father threatened to kill her everytime she was abused. [12] Beyond doubt, the threats compelled her silence. She was only fourteen (14) years old and without any protection from the appellant. She lived in the house of appellant with neighbors at a far distance. [13] Her fear is understandable. III Appellant further argues that because