G.R. No. 215790.  March 12, 2018.*

 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
MAURICIO CABAJAR VIBAR, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Rape; Guiding Principles in Reviewing Rape

Cases.—Rape is a peculiar crime in that it is shrouded in mystery.
More often than not, the victim is left alone at the hand of the
assailant with no one to corroborate her claims; sometimes
physical evidence to suggest she was defiled is even lacking. It
becomes a battle of credibility where the courts are left to decide
whether to believe in the victim’s narration of her harrowing
experience or to accept the abuser’s plea of innocence. Thus, in
deciding rape cases, the Court is guided by the following well-
established principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with
facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even
more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2)
considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are
usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the
complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the
evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits
and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense. The Court is duty-bound to

_______________

*  THIRD DIVISION.

 
 

231

VOL. 858, MARCH 12, 2018 231

People vs. Vibar

conduct a thorough and exhaustive evaluation of a judgment

of conviction for rape considering the grave consequences for both
the accused and the complainant.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Credibility of Witnesses;
The Supreme Court (SC) has consistently observed the rule that
the assessment by the trial courts of a witness’ credibility is
accorded great weight and respect.—The Court has consistently
observed the rule that the assessment by the trial courts of a
witness’ credibility is accorded great weight and respect. This is
so as trial court judges have the advantage of directly observing a
witness on the stand and determining whether one is telling the
truth or not. Such findings of the trial courts are generally upheld
absent any showing that they have overlooked substantial facts
and circumstances which would materially affect the result of the
case.
Same; Same; Testimonial Evidence; Medical Reports; Medical
reports are merely corroborative in character and are not essential
for a conviction because the credible testimony of a victim would
suffice.—Vibar also laments that there was no physical evidence
of penetration to support AAA’s claims of defilement, noting that
there were no medical reports that indicated even the slightest of
penetration. It must be remembered, however, that medical
reports are merely corroborative in character and are not
essential for a conviction because the credible testimony of a
victim would suffice.
Same; Same; Documentary Evidence; Private Documents;
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that in order
for any private document offered as authentic to be admitted as
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(1) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (2) by
evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
maker.—Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that
in order for any private document offered as authentic to be
admitted as evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved either: (1) by anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or (2) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker. The authentication of private
document before it is received in evidence is vital because during
such process, a witness positively identifies that the document is
genuine and has been duly executed or that the

 
 

232

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Vibar
  

document is neither spurious nor counterfeit nor executed

by mistake or under duress.
Criminal Law; Rape; Under Article 266-A(1) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), Rape is committed by a man
who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances: (a) Through force, threat or
intimidation; (b) When the offended party is deprived of
reason or is otherwise unconscious; (c) By means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (d)
When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or
is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above is present.—The Court agrees that all the
elements of rape are present in the case at bar. Under
Article 266-A(1) of the RPC, Rape is committed by a man
who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances: (a) Through force, threat or
intimidation; (b) When the offended party is deprived of
reason or is otherwise unconscious; (c) By means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (d)
When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age
or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above is present. Here, AAA categorically
testified that Vibar had carnal knowledge with her after
the latter lay on top of her and inserted his penis into her
vagina. In addition, force and intimidation were present
because in incestuous rape, the father’s abuse of moral
ascendancy and influence coerced his daughter to bend his
will.
Same; Same; Penalties; Civil Indemnity; Damages; The
Supreme Court (SC) in People v. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331
(2016), set the award of damages for the crime of rape
wherein it stated that when the penalty imposed is death
but reduced because of Republic Act (RA) No. 9346, the
victim is entitled to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages.—On the other hand, the Court in
People v. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331 (2016), set the award of
damages for the crime of rape wherein it stated that when
the penalty imposed is death but reduced because of R.A.
No. 9346, the victim is entitled to P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00
as exemplary damages. In conformity with the said ruling,
all damages awarded to AAA should be increased
accordingly.

 
 
 233

VOL. 858, MARCH 12, 2018 233

People vs. Vibar

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

 
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
 
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

MARTIRES,  J.:
 
This is an appeal from the 14 March 2014 Decision1 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05989,
which affirmed the 12 December 2012 Judgment2 of the
Regional Trial Court, x  x  x Camarines Norte (RTC), in
Criminal Case No. 12249, finding accused-appellant
Mauricio Cabajar Vibar (Vibar) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Rape defined and penalized under
Article 266-B(1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
 
The Facts
 
In an Information dated 23 December 2004, Vibar was
charged with the Crime of Rape committed against his very
own daughter, AAA.3 The accusatory portion reads:
 
1  Rollo, pp. 2-10; penned by Associate Justice Franchito
N. Diamante, and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia
C. Librea-Leagogo and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
2    Records, pp. 148-154; penned by Acting/Assisting
Judge Arniel A. Dating.
3   The true name of the victim has been replaced with
fictitious initials in conformity with Administrative
Circular No. 83-2015 (Subject: Protocols and Procedures in
the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites
of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using
Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances). The
confidentiality of the identity of the victim is mandated by
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 (“Special Protection of
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act”); R.A. No.
 
  

234

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Vibar

That on or about 11:00 in the morning of August 4, 2002

at Barangay Macatong, Municipality of San Lorenzo,
Province of Camarines Norte, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused, with lewd design, motivated by bestial lust and by
means of force and intimidation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge
with his own daughter AAA, 15 years old, against her will
and to her damage.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4

During his arraignment on 7 March 2005, Vibar, with

the assistance of his counsel, pleaded “Not Guilty.”5
 
Evidence for the
Prosecution

 
The prosecution presented AAA and Dr. Raul Alcantara
(Dr. Alcantara) as witnesses. Their combined testimonies
tended to establish the following:
On 4 August 2002, at around 11:00AM, while AAA was
cooking lunch outside their nipa hut in Camarines Norte,
Vibar came and asked her to get his gloves from inside the
house. When AAA refused to do so, he carried her inside
and laid her on the floor,6 removed her shorts and panty,
zipped open his pants, placed himself on top of her, and
made push and pull movements.7 During this time, AAA
felt Vibar’s penis enter her vagina causing her pain.8

_______________

8508 (“Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998”);  R.A. No.
9205  (“Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”); R.A. No. 9262 (“Anti-
Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004”); and R.A. No.
9344 (“Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”).
4  Rollo, p. 1.
5  Id., at p. 24.
6  TSN, 5 July 2005, pp. 6, 8.
7  Id., at pp. 9-11.
 8  TSN, 24 January 2006, p. 13.

 
 
235

VOL. 858, MARCH 12, 2018 235

People vs. Vibar

 
That same day, AAA reported the incident to the police.
After executing an affidavit at the police station, she
appeared before the judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court (MCTC) of San Lorenzo Ruiz for preliminary
investigation.9 AAA’s first complaint for rape, however, was
dismissed because she refused to speak during that time.
She did not cooperate with the preliminary investigation
because she was afraid of her father who had threatened to
kill her.10 Further, AAA was hesitant because she did not
have the support of her mother, who initially chose to side
with Vibar.11
After the incident, AAA left Camarines Norte and went
to Antipolo to work. On 7 July 2004, she returned to
Camarines Norte to study. Unfortunately, AAA was
constantly harassed by Vibar; he would touch her breast
and kiss her. This prompted her to file anew the complaint
for rape against her father.12 On 20 August 2004, AAA was
subjected to a medical examination where it was discovered
that she had an elastic hymen that could be penetrated by
a penis without causing any lacerations.13
 
Evidence for the Defense
 
The defense presented Vibar as its lone witness, whose
testimony sought to prove the following:
On 4 August 2002, at around 11:00AM, Vibar went
home after attending Sunday worship. Once home, he
asked AAA why she did not prepare lunch, and the latter
retorted in a disrespectful manner. Because he was hungry
and had an earlier misunderstanding with his wife BBB,
Vibar scolded her and uttered other unsavory remarks.
After the verbal

_______________

9   Id., at pp. 5-6.

10  Id., at p. 14.
 11  TSN, 5 July 2005, pp. 12-13.
12  TSN, 24 January 2006, pp. 8-10.
13  TSN, 25 January 2011, pp. 10-11.

 
 

236

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Vibar

 
confrontation, AAA went to the police station and accused
him of attempted rape.14
In 2004, however, AAA refiled the case against Vibar
with the prodding of BBB, Arlene Rosinto (Arlene), and a
certain Shirley: Arlene and Shirley belonged to the same
religious sect as Vibar. They conspired against him and
used AAA to exact vengeance upon him: BBB had a
paramour and wanted to elope with him but could not do so
because she was still living with Vibar; Arlene had an axe
to grind against him after he did not vote for her husband,
a candidate chosen by their sect, during the elections;
Shirley got mad at Vibar when he distanced himself from
the sect after refusing to vote for Arlene’s husband.15
While in detention, Vibar received a letter16 from AAA
in 2006 wherein she alleged that she was merely coerced to
refile the complaint for rape and that she regretted her
decision to do so. Relevant portions of the letter read:

Papa patawarin mo po ako. Hindi ko po kagustuhan ang

pangyayaring ito. Natakot lang po ako at ang sabi po nila
Ate Arlene na taga DSWD na humahawak sa kaso mo,
kapag hindi ko raw pinanindigan ang kasong isinampa nila
sa yo at ikaw ay nadismiss at nakalaya, ako raw po ang
ipapalit nila sa kulungan.
x x x x
Papa gulong-gulo na po ang isip ko, hindi ko na po alam kung
ano ang gagawin ko para makalaya ka, naisip ko na lang Papa
ang magpakalayo-layo na lang ako, wag po kayong malungkot sa
paglayo ko, ito na lang po ang naisip kong paraan, at ito na rin po
ang huling sulat ko sa yo.

_______________

14  Records, pp. 137-138.

15  Id., at pp. 136-137.
 16  Id., at p. 142.

 
 
237

VOL. 858, MARCH 12, 2018 237

People vs. Vibar

 
The RTC’s Ruling
 
In its 12 December 2012 judgment, the RTC found Vibar
guilty of rape. The trial court ruled that the prosecution
was able to prove that AAA was indeed sexually abused
x x x noting that AAA’s straightforward testimony trumped
Vibar’s defenses of denial and alibi. The RTC averred that
no family member would fabricate a case of rape against
another family member and undergo public prosecution if it
were untrue. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proven the guilt

of accused Mauricio Vibar y Cabajar beyond reasonable
doubt for the crime of Rape, he is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of
parole and to pay offended party the following:
a. P75,000.00 by way of civil indemnity;
b. P75,000.00 by way of moral damages;
c. P30,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.
with interest of 6% per annum on all the aforesaid damages
from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
With costs.
SO ORDERED.17

Aggrieved, Vibar appealed before the CA.

 
The CA’s Ruling
 
In its assailed decision, the CA affirmed the RTC’s
judgment. The appellate court upheld AAA’s testimony,
which was found credible by the trial court after having
directly observed her demeanor and behavior on the
witness stand. It highlighted that the physical evidence
corroborated her testimony.

_______________

17  Id., at pp. 153-154. 

  
 
238

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Vibar

 
The CA brushed aside Vibar’s imputation of conspiracy for
being self-serving. Finally, the appellate court disregarded
AAA’s purported letter for lack of authentication. It ruled:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant

appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Judgment dated
December 12, 2012 of the Daet, Camarines Norte RTC,
Branch 40, in Criminal Case No. 12249 for Rape is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.18

Hence, this appeal raising the following:

 
Issue
 
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF RAPE.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The appeal has no merit.
Rape is a peculiar crime in that it is shrouded in
mystery. More often than not, the victim is left alone at the
hand of the assailant with no one to corroborate her claims;
sometimes physical evidence to suggest she was defiled is
even lacking. It becomes a battle of credibility where the
courts are left to decide whether to believe in the victim’s
narration of her harrowing experience or to accept the
abuser’s plea of innocence.
Thus, in deciding rape cases, the Court is guided by the
following well-established principles: (1) an accusation of
rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is
difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused,
though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the
nature of things,

_______________

18  Rollo, p. 10.
  
 
239

VOL. 858, MARCH 12, 2018 239

People vs. Vibar

 
only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape,
the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized
with great caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution
must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed
to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense.19 The Court is duty-bound to conduct a thorough
and exhaustive evaluation of a judgment of conviction for
rape considering the grave consequences for both the
accused and the complainant.20
 
Credible and categori-
cal testimony of the vic-

tim sufficient to convict

accused for rape

 
The Court has consistently observed the rule that the
assessment by the trial courts of a witness’ credibility is
accorded great weight and respect. This is so as trial court
judges have the advantage of directly observing a witness
on the stand and determining whether one is telling the
truth or not.21 Such findings of the trial courts are
generally upheld absent any showing that they have
overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which
would materially affect the result of the case.22
Vibar bewails that the courts a quo erred in lending
credibility to AAA’s testimony claiming that it was against
human nature for a young girl to fabricate a story that
would expose herself to ridicule and place a family member
behind bars. Truly, the Court in past rulings has held that
testimonies of

_______________

19  People v. Salidaga, 542 Phil. 295, 301; 513 SCRA 306, 312 (2007).
20  People v. Celocelo, 653 Phil. 251, 261; 638 SCRA 576, 584 (2010).
21  People v. Albalate, Jr., 623 Phil. 437, 447; 608 SCRA 535, 545-546
(2009).
22  Id.
  
 

240

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Vibar

 
female or child victims should be given full weight and
credence because when they say they have been raped, they
are saying in effect all that is necessary to show that rape
has indeed been committed.23
In People v. Amarela,24 however, the Court cautioned
against the over reliance on the presumption that no
woman would spin a tale of sexual abuse if it were untrue
because it would tarnish her honor:

More often than not, where the alleged victim survives to tell
her story of sexual depredation, rape cases are solely decided
based on the credibility of the testimony of the private
complainant. In doing so, we have hinged on the impression
that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly
admit that she has been sexually abused, unless that is the
truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor.
However, this misconception, particularly in this day and age, not
only puts the accused at an unfair disadvantage, but creates a
travesty of justice.
x x x x
This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitor.
And while the factual setting back then would have
been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to
be reluctant in disclosing sexual assault; today, we
simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype
of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. We, should
stay away from such mindset and accept the realities of a
woman’s dynamic role in society today; she who has over
the years transformed into a strong and confidently
intelligent and beautiful person, willing to fight for her
rights.

_______________

23  People v. Ogarte, 664 Phil. 642, 661; 649 SCRA 395, 412-413 (2011),
citing People v. Tayaban, 357 Phil. 494, 508; 296 SCRA 497, 510 (1998).
24  G.R. Nos. 225642-43, January 17, 2018, 852 SCRA 54.

 
 
 
241

VOL. 858, MARCH 12, 2018 241

People vs. Vibar

In this way, we can evaluate the testimony of a private

complainant of rape without gender bias or cultural
misconception. It is important to weed out these
unnecessary notions because an accused may be
convicted solely on the testimony of the victim,
provided of course, that the testimony is credible,
natural, convincing and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things. (Emphases
and underscoring supplied)

    Nevertheless, when AAA’s testimony is taken in a

vacuum and examined devoid of any preconceptions or
presumption, it stands sufficient to convict Vibar of Rape,
thus:
 
Direct Examination
FISCAL MANLAPAZ:
Q:  You will agree with me that it is normal to your
father to enter the nipa hut during that time?
A:  I was outside the nipa hut that time because our
kitchen is outside.
Q:   So, what is this untoward incident that happened?
A:  He came and then he asked me to get his glo[v]es but
I do not want to enter the house, so what he did is he
forced me to enter and he almost carried me and put
me on the floor.
Q:   When you say he forced you and almost carried you,
can you describe it to me?
A:   He carried me up in going inside.
x x x x
Q:    So, after he managed to carry you and laid you to
the floor, what happened next?
A:  He removed my shorts and panty and then he   
opened up his zipper and place[d] himself on top of
me.
Q:   What happened next?
A:   I felt something touched my vagina.
 
 
 242

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Vibar

 
Q:   You just felt it?
A:   Yes sir.
Q:   What is that?
A:   His penis.
x x x x
Q:  While the accused was doing all of these from the
time that he grabbed you and brought you inside the
house and then he opened his zipper and he mounted
you and he touched your vagina, what did he say to
you?
A:   None, sir.
Q:   Can you describe to us his appearance while he was
on top of you?
A:   He was lying and he was on top of me and pressing
my vagina.
Q:  While the accused was on top of you, what did the
accused do if any?
A:   He was trying to insert his penis.
Q:   So, what movement did he make?
A (Witness is making a push and pull    movement) 25
 
Redirect
Q:   After he removed your shorts what happened next?
A:   He opened the zipper of his pants and laid on top of me,
sir.
Q:   After that what else happened?
A:   I felt his penis touched my vagina, sir.
Q:   Touched only?
A:   It penetrated my vagina, sir.
Q:   For how long?
A:   It was for a short time only, sir.
Q:   And after he finished what did you notice, if any?
A:   I felt pain, sir.

_______________

25  TSN, 5 July 2005, pp. 8-11.

 
 
243
 VOL. 858, MARCH 12, 2018 243
People vs. Vibar

 
Q:   You were hurt?
A:   Yes, sir.26
 
AAA was straightforward and categorical in narrating
how Vibar had forcibly taken her inside the house and
mounted her while she was lying on the floor and then
inserted his penis into her vagina. It did not matter that
the penetration lasted only for a short period of time
because carnal knowledge means sexual bodily connection
between persons; and the slightest penetration of the
female genitalia consummates the crime of rape.27
Moreover, it is noteworthy that AAA immediately
sought help from the authorities when she was defiled x x x
in August 2002. Unfortunately, the case was dismissed
during the preliminary investigation stage due to her
reluctance to speak before the investigating MCTC judge.
AAA’s hesitation, nonetheless, was caused by the initial
lack of support of her mother, who sided with Vibar, and
the threats of the accused towards her. It should not
diminish her urgency to report the gruesome incident to
the police. If the delay in reporting incidents of rape may
cast doubt upon the courts as to the veracity of the alleged
crime,28 then the swift desire to achieve justice should
strengthen the victim’s claims. In this case, AAA’s minority
coupled with her immediate action to seek redress for the
wrong committed against her, tend to support her
testimony that indeed she was raped by her very own flesh
and blood.

_______________

26  TSN, 24 January 2006, p. 13.

27  People v. Butiong, 675 Phil. 621, 630; 659 SCRA 557, 566 (2011).
28  People v. Relorcasa, 296-A Phil. 24, 31; 225 SCRA 59, 64 (1993).

 
 
244

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Vibar

 
Medical reports corrobo-
rative evidence in rape.
 
Vibar also laments that there was no physical evidence
of penetration to support AAA’s claims of defilement,
noting that there were no medical reports that indicated
even the slightest of penetration. It must be remembered,
however, that medical reports are merely corroborative in
character and are not essential for a conviction because the
credible testimony of a victim would suffice.29
Nevertheless, in the case at bench, the findings from
AAA’s medical examination actually support her testimony.
Dr. Alcantara explained the findings as follows:
 
FISCAL BOADO:
Q:  Doctor, in the conclusions of Dr. Jane Perpetua F.
Fajardo, she states, “hymenal orifice wide (measure 2.5
cm wide) as to allow complete penetration by an average
sized adult Filipino organ in full erection without
producing hymenal injury.” What does she mean by
that, can you interpret?
A:  Taking into consideration the shape of the hymen and 
as mentioned by Dr. Fajardo, as I said that the hymen is
elastic and has a diameter of 2.5 cm., that means fully
elastic male organ can easily visible to the examining
physician.
Q:   So you are saying Doctor, that although the hymen is
still intact it is still possible that there was sexual
intercourse? I will rephrase, Your Honor. You said
Doctor, that although the hymen is intact the allegations
of AAA that his father, the accused in this case, had
intercourse with her [is] inconsistent with her
testimony?
A:   It is possible.

_______________

29  People v. Ferrer, 415 Phil. 188, 199; 362 SCRA 778, 788 (2001).

 
 
245

VOL. 858, MARCH 12, 2018 245

People vs. Vibar

 
 Q:    So, it means Doctor that even though the minor in
this case was a victim of sexual abuse, healed hymen
can still be considered intact?
A:   Yes, ma’am.
Q:   What is the layman’s term of this hymen intact but
distensible?
A:    Elastic.
x x x x
Q:  So, even if the incident transpired on August 4, 2002
if there is a penetration by a penis, adult penis, inside
the vagina of AAA because the hymen is elastic it can
no longer be determined whether there is a
laceration?
A:   The characteristic of the hymen is elastic. If there is
a penetration then the hymen will just distense and
accommodate the male organ and it is possible that no
laceration.30
 
Thus, it is clear that AAA’s medical report did not
discount the fact that intercourse occurred even if her
hymen was intact. As characterized by Dr. Alcantara,
AAA’s elastic hymen made it possible for an erect adult
penis to penetrate her vagina without causing lacerations
or rupture of the hymen.
 
Lack of authentication of
private documents ren-
ders them inadmissible.
 
As a last-ditch effort to convince the courts of his
innocence, Vibar claimed that he received a letter from
AAA sometime in 2006 wherein the latter explained that
she was merely coerced to refile the complaint for rape and
she very much regretted doing so. He stated the while it
was not AAA herself who gave the letter, he was sure that
it was AAA who

_______________

30  TSN, 25 January 2011, pp. 6-7, 11.

 
 
246

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Vibar
  
wrote it because no one else by AAA’s name would call her
“papa” and that he was familiar with her handwriting.31
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that
in order for any private document offered as authentic to be
admitted as evidence, its due execution and authenticity
must be proved either: (1) by anyone who saw the
document executed or written; or (2) by evidence of the
genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
The authentication of private document before it is received
in evidence is vital because during such process, a witness
positively identifies that the document is genuine and has
been duly executed or that the document is neither
spurious nor counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under
duress.32
In order to bolster his claim of innocence, Vibar testified:
 
Cross-examination
FISCAL BOADO:
Q: You also presented, Mr. witness, a letter allegedly
written by AAA the private complainant in this case
addressed to you, is that correct?
A:   Yes, ma’am.
Q:  But you do not have any proof to substantiate your
claim that this letter was really prepared by your
daughter AAA aside from your bare allegation?
A:   She is the one, ma’am, because no other AAA would
call me “papa” and all the contents of the letter speak
[to] all the incidents involving our case, ma’am.
Q:  But you cannot present any documents written by
AAA to prove that this penmanship belongs to AAA,
is that correct?
A:   I do not have, ma’am.

_______________

31  TSN, 22 November 2012, pp. 13-15.

32    Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corporation, 554 Phil. 343, 349; 527
SCRA 465, 472 (2007).

 
 
247

VOL. 858, MARCH 12, 2018 247

People vs. Vibar
  
x x x x
Court
Q  : Mr. witness, when did you receive the letter
allegedly coming from AAA?
A:   On May 2006, Your Honor.
Q:   Can you not remember the date of May?
A:   More or less May 24, 2006, Your Honor.
Q:   And when you received the said alleged letter, AAA
[had] already testified in court?
A:   Yes, Your Honor.
Q:   Who handed to you the letter?
A:   It was given to me by the one who visited me in jail,
he said that it was given to him by AAA, Your
Honor.33
 
A plain reading of Vibar’s testimony immediately
reveals that he miserably failed to comply with the
authentication requirement set forth under the Rules.
Neither was there any witness who could testify that the
alleged letter was voluntarily and personally made by AAA
nor was there any document from which her handwriting
could have been compared. Curiously, the person who
purportedly handed to Vibar AAA’s letter was not
presented in court to testify as to the genuineness of the
document.
Vibar merely relies on his self-serving testimony that he
was sure that the letter was AAA’s doing. Such hollow
assurance, however, in no way proves that AAA had indeed
voluntarily executed the said document. He could have
easily fabricated the letter and feigned that it was made
x x x. As such, AAA’s professed letter is but a mere scrap of
paper with no evidentiary value for lack of proper
authentication.
With this in mind, the Court agrees that all the
elements of rape are present in the case at bar. Under
Article 266-A(1) of

_______________

33  TSN, 22 November 2012, pp. 13-15.

 
 
248

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 People vs. Vibar

 
the RPC, Rape is committed by a man who shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances: (a) Through force, threat or intimidation; (b)
When the offended party is deprived of reason or is
otherwise unconscious; (c) By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority; and (d) When the
offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above is present. Here, AAA categorically
testified that Vibar had carnal knowledge with her after
the latter lay on top of her and inserted his penis into her
vagina. In addition, force and intimidation were present
because in incestuous rape, the father’s abuse of moral
ascendancy and influence coerced his daughter to bend his
will.34
 
Modification of dam-
ages to conform to

recent jurisprudence

 
In convicting Vibar, the RTC ordered that he pay AAA
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral
damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Under
Article 266-B of the RPC, the penalty of death shall be
imposed when the victim is under eighteen (18) years old
and the offender is a parent. In view of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9346,35 however, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall
be imposed in lieu of the death penalty when the law
violated uses the nomenclature of the penalties under the
RPC.
On the other hand, the Court in People v. Jugueta36 set
the award of damages for the crime of rape wherein it
stated that when the penalty imposed is death but reduced
because of

_______________

34    People v. Dominguez, Jr., 650 Phil. 492, 519; 636 SCRA 134, 159
(2010).
35  An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
36  G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.

 
 
249
 VOL. 858, MARCH 12, 2018 249
People vs. Vibar

 
R.A. No. 9346, the victim is entitled to P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00
as exemplary damages.37 In conformity with the said
ruling, all damages awarded to AAA should be increased
accordingly.
WHEREFORE, the 14 March 2014 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05989 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant
Mauricio Vibar y Cabajar is ordered to pay AAA
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral
damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages with
interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum
computed from the finality of this judgment until fully
paid.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Leonen and

Gesmundo, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—Notarization by a notary public converts a

private document into a public document, making that
document admissible in evidence without further proof of
its authenticity. (Angeles, Jr. vs. Bagay, 743 SCRA 464
[2014])
The Supreme Court (SC) has already concluded that a
medical report is not even material for purposes of proving
rape as it is merely corroborative in character and, thus,
can be dispensed with accordingly. (People vs. Prodenciado,
744 SCRA 429 [2014])

 
——o0o——

_______________

37  Id., at pp. 382-383.

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.