Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUSTRISIMO ARELLANO 563 SCRA 181 (2008)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUSTRISIMO ARELLANO 563 SCRA 181 (2008)

Delay in reporting a rape incident renders the charge doubtful only if the delay is unreasonable and unexplained. Four criminal cases, the first three for statutory rape, and the last for simple rape, were filed against appellant Lustrisimo Arellano before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Denying the charges, Arellano surmised that AAA filed the cases against him at BBB‘s instigation because he was very strict with them and did not allow BBB to have a boyfriend as she was still studying The RTC, by a consolidated decision, found the positive testimony of AAA more credible than the denial of Arellano, and convicted Arellano of all four charges, aggravated by relationship. By the decision, the Court of Appeals, to which the Supreme Court forwarded the appeal following People v. Mateo, resolved in the negative the sole issue raised by appellant – whether delay in reporting the incidents of rape affected the credibility of AAA, affirmed the trial court‘s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not AAA‘s delay in reporting the incidents of rape affected the credibility of AAA

HELD:

Indeed, AAA‘s delay in filing the cases against Arellano does not, in light of the attendant facts and circumstances, detract from her credibility. Delay in reporting a rape incident renders the charge doubtful only if the delay is unreasonable and unexplained. In the case of AAA who was only seven years old when the first rape took place and still a minor at the time the fourth rape occurred, her explanation that Arellano threatened to kill her mother if she disclosed what he did to her, coupled with the fact that Arellano is her own father who exercises moral ascendancy over her, reasonably justifies the delay. As in most criminal cases, decision thereof hinges on credibility – of witness and of testimony. This Court appreciates no reason to doubt AAA‘s credibility and that of her testimony vis-à-vis the findings of Dr. Mercado. Arellano‘s bare denial of the charges fails to overcome the evidence against him. In a rape committed by a father against his daughter, his moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter substitutes for violence or intimidation, hence, evidence thereof is unnecessary to secure his conviction.