370 Phil. 84; 96 OG No. 29, 4548 (July 17, 2000); 96 OG No. 48, 7689 (November 27, 2000)
PER CURIAM:
That on or about the 10th day of May, 1996, in the Municipality of Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one HAZEL RAMIREZ Y ABING, who is a child below seven (7) years old, against her will and consent.Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and stood trial, resulting in a judgment of conviction, accordingly disposing:
CONTRARY TO LAW.
(p. 7, Rollo.)
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused, Jimmy Mijano y Tamora GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of raping Hazel Ramirez y Abing, a child below 7 years of age, which is punished under Art,. 335 (No. 4) of the Revised penal Code, as amended, with death, and in view of Article 63 of the same Code, accused Jimmy Mijano y Tamora is sentenced to die and such accused be put to death by the method or means prescribed by law; to indemnify the victim, Hazel Ramirez, the sum of P100,000.00, and to pay the costs.The prosecution's version of the events is based principally on the testimony of victim Hazel Ramirez, her mother Dina Ramirez, and a neighbor by the name of Arnulfo Valiente. The Office of the Solicitor General adopted the summarization by the trial court of its findings, to wit:
SO ORDERED.
(p. 65, Rollo.)
Dina Ramirez is the mother of five-year old Hazel Ramirez who was born on 02 April 1991. In the morning of 10 May 1996, she washed clothes while one of her neighbors, Jimmy Mijano, was having a drinking session with some friends. Hazel was then playing together with other children. The children were later brought by the accused to their house at Helen Catral Street. Dina later in the afternoon became suspicious and started looking for Hazel and asked the playmates of Hazel where she was. She was told that the accused was playing with her. She went out to the street but was not able to find her daughter. Instead, she saw one Arnulfo Valiente who informed her that he saw Hazel together with Jimmy at Helen Catral Street. Arnulfo Valiente and Dina proceeded to the said place which was a grassy area beside a river and near Bacoor, Cavite. They reached the said place at around 5 o'clock in the afternoon. It was Arnulfo who first saw Hazel already pale and her vagina was profusely bleeding. She was wearing a dress but her panty and skirt were gone. Hazel also had an abrasion on her right hip. Dina first brought Hazel to the Las Piñas Police Station to report the incident but the police suggested that Hazel be brought to the NBI. The Medico Legal Officer advised them to bring Hazel to the PGH because they cannot examine her vagina which was bleeding profusely. Accused has a reputation for molesting women and even raping them whenever he is drunk. Dina identified the accused in open court. (TSN, July 22, 1996, pp. 2-5).The defense is based on the testimony of its sole witness, accused-appellant. He denied the charges and testified that on May 10, 1996 at around 2 o'clock in the afternoon, he was at home quaffing alcoholic drinks with his friends. However, he could not recall how many they were and neither could he give their names. According to him, while they were having a drinking spree, he was suddenly arrested, for what reason he was not aware. Likewise, he could not remember who arrested him and what time he was brought to jail because he was too drunk, and he failed to inquire from the arresting officer why he was jailed (tsn, November 4, 1996, pp. 2-3).
Arnulfo Valiente corroborated the testimony of Dina Ramirez.
The third witness for the prosecution was the victim herself. Five-year old Hazel Ramirez herself confirmed that the penis of Jimmy Mijano was inserted into her vagina. Hazel identified the accused in open court. (TSN, July 29, 1996, pp. 2-4).
(p. 64; pp. 79-81, Rollo.)
Accused-appellant attempts to discredit the victim's testimony by assailing her attitude and behavior during cross-examination. However, it must be borne in mind that the victim is an innocent, wholesome, and naïve 5-year old girl that this Court, or anyone for that matter, can not expect to articulate and verbalize answers to all the questions thrown at her. Being a child and a victim of rape, her testimony should be expected to be accompanied by emotional overtures. Verily, it is not right to judge the actions of a child who has undergone a traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected under the circumstances from normal and mature people (People vs. Tadulan, 271 SCRA 233 [1997]). In fact, when victim Hazel was asked to illustrate how accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, she could no longer give an answer and instead cried aloud. She was then forthwith cross-examined by the defense, and Hazel was just too dazed and shaken up, due probably to having to recall her traumatic experience, to answer the questions. She just continued to cry. Such scenario evidently strengthens the claim of the victim that she was sexually abused by accused-appellant, and not otherwise. Hazel cannot be expected to remember every ugly detail of the appalling outrage, especially so since she might in fact have been trying not to remember them and to erase them from her mind (People vs. Butron, 272 SCRA 352 [1997]). She cannot be expected to mechanically keep and narrate an accurate account of the horrifying experience she had undergone (People vs. Rabosa, 273 SCRA 142 [1997]). When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed (People vs. Cabayron, 278 SCRA 78 [1997]). Thus, Hazel's testimony is given full weight and credit.
Q: Do you know this person who is the accused in this case by the name of Jimmy Mijano? A: (Witness nodding her head.)
Q: What do you mean by nodding your head, Hazel? A: No answer.
Q: Now, Hazel, if I say that you know Jimmy Mijano and he is inside the courtroom, please stand up and point to him?
A: That person, sir. (Witness crying as she points to a person inside the courtroom who, when asked by the interpreter, answered by the name of Jimmy Mijano) Q: Why are you crying? Are you angry to Jimmy Mijano?
A: Yes, sir. Q: You said you saw the titi of Kuya Jimmy Mijano, what did he do with his titi to you? A: Ipinasok niya sa pekpek ko. Q: What happened to your pekpek when Kuya Jimmy Mijano inserted his penis to your vagina? A: It was bleeding. Q: When Jimmy Mijano inserted his penis into your vagina, what did you feel? A: I felt very painful, napakasakit po. Q: Will you please elucidate before this Court, I withdraw. Will you please illustrate how Jimmy Mijano inserted his penis into your vagina? A: (No answer. Instead, witness cries aloud.) (tsn, pp. 2-4, July 29, 1996))
Valiente's account of the incident finds support in Dina Ramirez' story recounting her daughter's horrifying experience -
q And who was the companion if any of Hazel in that area? a She was with other children and Jimmy Mijano. q What else did you see? a Hazel was embraced, sir.
q By whom? a Jimmy, sir. q Could you please stand up and demonstrate before this Honorable Court how Jimmy Mijano embraced Hazel? May we ask the mother supposed she is Hazel? a Jimmy Mijano embraced the child while the child was facing her back towards the accused and the hands of Jimmy Mijano was pressed at the nipple of Hazel Ramirez. x x x x x x x x x
q Where did you find the second time Jimmy Mijano the accused in this case? a At the grassy area, sir. q And tell this Honorable Court what was Jimmy doing in that grassy portion of Helen Catral? a He as on top of the child and has no pants. q You are telling us that Jimmy Mijano was also naked? a Yes, sir.
q And you saw him with your two eyes on top, with naked buttocks? a Yes, sir. q Did you see if the body of Jimmy Mijano was moving sidewards or up and down? a I did not notice I saw only he was on top of the child. (tsn, pp. 10-11, July 22, 1996)
Prosecution witness Dr. Stella Guerrero Manalo confirmed the claim of victim Hazel Ramirez that she was raped, to wit:
q If this Jimmy Mijano y Tamora is inside the court room, please point at him? a There, sir. (Witness pointing to a person in yellow T-shirt who stood up and answered to the name of Jimmy Mijano, the accused in this case).
q You stated a while ago accused is your neighbor will you please tell us what place are you a neighbor of Jimmy Mijano? a Inside the Carnival Park - Looban we are neighbors, sir. q Let me take you back on May 10, 1996, in the afternoon, Madam Witness?
a Yes, sir.
q In the afternoon, could you tell this Honorable Court what were you doing? a In the morning of May 10, 1996 I was then washing clothes while accused Jimmy Mijano together with his friends was having a drinking session under our house. My child was then playing and then my child together with her children was brought by Jimmy away from our house called the Helen Castral St.q Then what happened when you came to know your daughter Hazel was with other children with the accused at Helen Catral?
a It was like this in the afternoon it was drizzling. I asked my child's playmates the whereabout of Hazel who told me that Jimmy was playing with them and then I became suspicious and started looking for my child. I went out of the street but I was unable to see my child and saw one Arnulfo Valiente standing on the street and asked him if he saw my child and answered "Yes I saw her together with Jimmy at Helen Catral St."q Did you go to the place where you described as Helen Catral? a Yes, sir. q Who was your companion in going to Helen Catral? a Arnulfo Valiente, sir. q When you reached Helen Catral what did you observe if any? a The place is a grassy area and near Bacoor and there is a river. q When you went to the said Helen Catral where you able to see your daughter Hazel?
a I was not able to see her but it was Arnulfo Valiente who first saw her. q And when was the time you saw your daughter? a At around 5 o'clock in the afternoon. q In what place did you see Hazel? a At Helen Catral St., sir. q Will you tell this Honorable Court. Let me clarify Madam witness when you went there after a few minutes also in the place of Helen Catral? a Yes, sir. q Will you please tell this Honorable Court what was the condition of your daughter when you saw her? a When I saw my daughter she was pale and when Arnulfo Valiente lifted her we saw her vagina was bleeding. q What else did you see, if any? a She was bleeding profusely and her vagina was injured. q How about her clothing? a We were not able to see her clothes except her blouse which she was wearing and she has no panty and skirt. q How about the other part of the body did you observe any injury or contusion? a She has abrasion on the right hip, sir. q You stated a while you brought your daughter to the police station hereafter you brought your daughter to this police station of Las Pinas, what happened next? a The police suggested that my daughter be brought to the hospital because of the profuse bleeding and we went directly to the NBI. q What happened at the NBI Madam Witness? a We were advised to bring the child to the PGH. They cannot examine the vagina because of the profuse bleeding.
(TSN, pp. 3-4, July 22, 1996)
Furthermore, the examination of the victim's underwear gave positive result for seminal stains.
Q On your own medical and professional opinion, based on the physical examination you conducted on the person of the victim, what would have caused this laceration? Would it have been caused by a penis?A It is highly probable with the history given. And on the basis of the history that I gathered from the child, I would say that it was a case for rape. (TSN, p. 5, Sept. 2, 1996)
x x xApparently, as it should be, the death penalty law makes no distinction. It applies to all persons and to all classes of persons - rich or poor, educated or uneducated, religious or non-religious. No particular person or classes of persons are identified by the law against whom the death penalty shall be exclusively imposed.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
x x x
4. When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.
x x x