PEOPLE V SISTOSO

G.R. Nos. 131867-68 | July 31, 2002 | J. Bellosillo

Facts:

Laureano Sistoso alias Yayan who was convicted by the trial court of qualified rape on two (2) counts, sentenced to death for each count and ordered to indemnify complaining witness Rosita Gomonit, his stepdaughter, P100,000.00 in damages seeks a reversal of his conviction in the case at bar.

The first rape happened in the morning of November 13, 1995 in Bohol when Rosita looked after her two younger siblings while her mother, Aniceta Sistoso, went to the market for their weekly provisions. Her stepfather Laureano Sistoso kept them company while Aniceta was away.

At around 9AM while Rosita was putting her siblings to sleep, Laureano suddenly approached her from behind and with a scythe on hand ordered her to take off her clothes. She pleaded to her stepfather to stop molesting her but she could not deter him from successfully having sexual intercourse with her and threatening to hurt her and her whole family if she reported the incident to anyone. Rosita then secretly tried to leave for grandmother’s house in Tagbilaran City but was stopped by her mother and Laureano. Laureano then threatened her again if she squealed.

Sometime in January 1996 or almost a month after, Rosita finally confided to her mother but the latter refused to believe her and sided instead with Laureano prompting Rosita to keep her ordeal to herself.

In the early Monday morning in February 1996, the rape was repeated.

On September 1996 when Laureano who was drunk, he chased everyone in the family with a slingshot. Perhaps realizing that what her daughter earlier told the truth, Aniceta finally accompanied her daughter to the municipal hospital for medical examination and filed two (2) criminal complaints for rape against Laureano in behalf of her minor daughter Rosita. Pending preliminary investigation, Laureano was arrested.

The sight of Laureano in prison however changed Aniceta’s mind prompting her to recant her testimony and file an affidavit of desistance. Before Rosita could sign the affidavit of desistqnce from her mother, the DSWD intervened, took the child under its protective custody and sent her to live with her maternal grandmother Consorcia Aniniput.

Aniceta, however, kept hounding Rosita to withdraw the charges against Laureano and even threatened her with a bolo. Undeterred, Rosita pursued the cases. Sistoso denied the accusations and claimed that the charges were his wife’s plan to falsely accuse her husband to stop him from leaving. Aniceta admitted such claim and even accused her own mother Consorcia of sexually abusing Rosita and had Rosita’s younger sister claim that Rosita’s defloration was caused by own masturbation.

Issue:
W/N the court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of rape

Held:
No. In this appeal, accused-appellant Laureano Sistoso argues that Rosita’s accusations of rape should not be taken as conclusive in the face of the testimonies offered by her mother Aniceta and her sister Rosario.

However, nothing is better settled in our jurisprudence than that the conclusions of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses are generally not disturbed on appeal unless the court a quo is perceived to have overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted certain facts or circumstances of weight which if properly assessed would warrant a reversal of the questioned decision.

Certainly, Rosita’s testimony is straightforward, categorical and convincing compared to the implausible declarations by her mother and flaccid explanation of her stepfather. It is indeed implausible that for a petty quarrel, a mother would concoct a tale of sexual abuse, bring her family into a lifelong grief and embarrassment and imperil her daughter’s honor and future. Besides, courts generally look with disfavor upon recanted testimonies.

However, the trial court erred in imposing upon accused-appellant the supreme penalty of death. To warrant the death penalty, the minority of the victim and her relationship with the accused must be both alleged and proved.

Although the minority of the victim and her relationship with accused-appellant in these cases were alleged in the Informations, they were not sufficiently proved at the trial. The prosecution did not present Rosita’s birth certificate to establish her age and filiation as well as the marriage certificate of Aniceta and Laureano to establish private complainant’s relationship with accused-appellant, although this may not be absolutely necessary as common law relationship between them may be enough. The admission of accused-appellant that Rosita was his minor stepdaughter, he being married to her mother, did not meet the required standard of proof. Since it is the concurrence of the victim’s minority and her relationship to the accused which qualifies the rape as a heinous crime that warrants the imposition of the death penalty, accused-appellant can only be convicted of simple rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Judgment affirmed with modification as to penalty.