391 Phil. 509
PURISIMA, J.:
"WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused JAIME BALACANO y DALAFU GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH in Criminal Case No. Q-95-62686. The accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the victim Esmeralda Balacano the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos, as moral damages.On August 16, 1995, Esmeralda Balacano, assisted by her mother, Ma. Luisa M. Balacano, lodged subject complaint[3] for rape before Assistant City Prosecutor Wilfredo L. Maynigo, stating thus:
SO ORDERED."
"The undersigned accuses JAIME BALACANO Y DALAFU of the crime of Rape, committed as follows:Upon arraignment on September 20, 1995 with the assistance of Atty. Eranio G. Cedillo, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
That on or about the 9th day of August, 1995, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously put himself on top of said complainant, a minor 14 years old, and thereafter have carnal knowledge with the undersigned complainant against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
"The Court believed the testimony of Esmeralda Balacano which bears an earmark of truthfulness in spite of the fact that she was an illiterate and minor inconsistencies in her testimony, which was corroborated by the findings of the medico-legal and other circumstances rather than the unsubstantiated testimony of Jaime Balacano.Appellant's Brief is anchored on the lone assigned error, that:
Esmeralda was categorical and vivid in narrating the incidents of rape committed by Jaime Balacano on her. She was very straight-forward and honest in answering questions propounded on her even to the point of casting doubt on her credibility .
xxx xxx xxx
The Court cannot cast doubt on the testimony of Esmeralda. There may be some inconsistencies in her testimony but these are minor ones that do not destroy her credibility neither weakens the case of the prosecution. It even impressed on the mind of the Court that the same is not fabricated. It is expected also considering the nightmare she has gone through which some people would like to forget."[5]
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE THAT IN CASE OF DOUBT SUCH DOUBT MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED.Appellant contends that on the basis of the evidence on record, there is a doubt as to his guilt, and the same should be resolved in his favor pursuant to the constitutional provision that "xxx the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved xxx".[6] He theorizes that in criminal cases, the accused is entitled to acquittal in the absence of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[7]
"xxx a term often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined. It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge, a certainty the convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it."[9]In short, it is a state of the mind engendered by insufficient proof.[10]
"xxx xxx xxx that on August 9, 1995 at 7:00 o'clock in the evening, when the alleged rape happened, he was at home and in fact already sleeping; that they are only renting a room in a house in Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City; that on the alleged date of the crime his wife (Ma. Luisa Balacano) was also at their house, the same thing with their two daughters namely Esmeralda and Peñafrancia."[11]As repeatedly pronounced by this Court (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but even more difficult to disprove by the person charged, though innocent; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme 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.[12]
"The Court cannot cast doubt on the testimony of Esmeralda. There may be some inconsistencies in her testimony, but these are minor ones that do not destroy her credibility neither weakens the case of the prosecution. It even impressed of the mind of the Court that the same is not fabricated. It is expected also considering the nightmare she has gone through which some people would like to forget. xxx"[15]As regards the first inconsistency referred to, considering that appellant has been convicted for the fifth rape, which he perpetrated on August 9, 1995, it does not matter whether or not there are proofs on record of the four other rapes he previously committed. The lack of evidence of the four other rapes aforesaid is of no moment.
"PROS. VELASCO: (on direct examination)On August 16, 1995 or seven days after the August 9, 1995 rape, the victim (with the assistance of her mother) was able to formalize her complaint before Asst. Prosecutor Wilfredo L. Maynigo. There was thus no delay in reporting the incident sued upon. Anyway, delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of the complaining witness.[17]
Q - At about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of August 9, 1995, were you at your residence at No. 121 Commonwealth Avenue, Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City?
ANSWER:
.....Yes, Sir.xxx xxx xxx
Q - At that time about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, what were you and Penafrancia doing?
A - We were both laying down in our room, sir.
Q - While you and Penafrancia were lying in your room, was there any unusual incident which transpired?
A - Yes, sir, there was, sir.
Q - And what is this?
A - First, Jaime Balacano asked my sister to go out of the house and then he asked me to remove my dress but I resisted and then he was able to remove my pants and then he put his penis into mine, sir.
Q - Now, after putting his penis inside yours, what transpired next, Madam Witness?
A - When he put his penis inside my vagina, I felt a sticky water came (sic) out and then afterwards, he slept and then I went out of the house to look for my sister and we waited for my mother, sir.
PROS. VELASCO: (on direct examination)
Q - And did your mother arrived?
ANSWER:
.....A - Yes, sir
Q - And what did you do when your mother arrived?
A - I told my mother what happened, sir.xxx xxx xxx
Q -.....In connection with this case, do you remember if you were investigated by the police?
A - Yes, sir.
Q -.....And did you execute a statement at the police station?
Q - Yes , sir."[16]
"Atty. Uy. (on direct examination)Verily, the testimony of the victim, duly corroborated by the medico-legal report, prevails over appellant's plain denial of the charges against him. Dr. Jesusa Nieves-Vergara, the medico legal officer who conducted the medical examination, disclosed:
Q - Now, the evidence for the prosecution discloses, Mr. Witness, as testified to by the complainant and other witnesses that you are charged for rape by the complainant which according to them committed by you on August 9, 1995 at 7:00 o'clock in the evening, what can you say about that testimony?
ANSWER:
.....I don't know anything about that, sir.
Q - The charge against you, is there any truth to it, Mr. Witness?
A - That is not true, sir.
Q - By the way, do you recall where you were on August 9, 1995 at 7:00 o'clock in the evening?
A - It could be that I was at home sleeping, sir."[20]
"ATTY. CEDILLO:It bears stressing here that the victim was only fourteen years old when she lodged the complaint against her stepfather. It has been held that no woman, especially one of tender age, would contrive a complaint for rape, allow a gynelogic examination and permit herself to be subjected to a public trial if she is not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[22] In fact, the prevailing rule is that the testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence.[23] No young girl would expose herself to humiliation and public scandal unless she is impelled by a strong desire to seek justice.[24]
.....For the accused, your Honor.
PROS. VELASCO:
.....For the prosecution. May we call on Dr. Vergara.
COURT:
.....Swear in the witness.xxx xxx xxx
WITNESS:
.....I am JESUSA NIEVES VERGARA, 32 years old, married, medico-legal officer, c/o PNP-CLS, Camp Crame, Quezon City.
PROS. VELASCO:
.....Our witness your Honor please conducted (sic) physical examination upon the person of Esmeralda Mendoza Balacano and on her examination, the subject is on a non-virgin state.xxx xxx xxx
PROS. VELASCO:
.....Madam Witness, do you remember if you personally examined the person of one Esmeralda Mendoza?
ANSWER:
.....Yes, Sir.
Q .....When did you conduct said examination.
A .....August 14, 1995 at around 2:15 P.M., sir.
Q .....What was the result of your examination.
A.....The result is - the victim is in a non-virgin state physically.
Q .....What is the basis of your conclusion.
A.....My findings on the hymen - deep healed lacerations positioned at 3, 6 and 9 o'clock.
Q.....How about any signs of application of violence. Did you find this signs in the body of the victim?
A .....None, sir.
Q.....Did you reduce your findings in the written form?
A .....Yes, sir.xxx xxx xxx
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. JESUSA VERGARA, WITNESS, CONDUCTED BY -
a ATTY. CEDILLO: (sic)
.....Madam witness, in Exh. "B", Medico Legal Report, you stated the purpose of laboratory examination as to determine physical signs of sexual abuse, am I correct?
A.....Yes, sir
Q.....And the conclusion was that subject is in non-virgin state. Question! The purpose was not being answered in the conclusion, am I correct? Whether or not there was a sexual abuse. You merely state that the victim is in non-virgin state, am I correct?
A.....Yes, sir.
Q .....Why is it so?
A.....My basis for saying that the victim is in a non-virgin state physically are my findings on the genital particularly on the hymen revealing alterations positioned at 3, 6 and 9 o'clock.
ATTY. CEDILLO:
.....So stated otherwise, other than your conclusion that the subject is in non-virgin state, there were no physical signs of sexual abuse.
ANSWER:
.....I think sir the alterations on the hymen is one indication that there was sexual abuse.xxx xxx xxx
Q.....What were the exceptions if you know.
A.....There are other factors that cuase (sic) laceration of the hymen. Like the passage of blood during menstruation, a fall on a hard, sharp object with the genital hitting that object, instrumentation is another.
ATTY. CEDILLO:
.....So to recapitulate, there were at least three (3) instances whereby the victim will be in a non-virgin state and yet she is not a victim of sexual assault, am I correct?
A.....Yes, sir.
ATTY. CEDILLO:
.....Namely, passage of clotted blood, fall on a sharp object and instrumentation.
A.....Those were among the factors, sir.
Q.....When you said among, aside from these three (3), there were others?
A.....Yes, sir.
ATTY. CEDILLO: (on cross)
.....What were those others.
ANSWER:
.....Disease called diptheria (sic), forcible entry of a hard blant (sic) object.
Q.....So far as you remember, there were five (5) exceptions.
A.....Yes, sir.
ATTY. CEDILLO:
.....That will be all, your Honor.
COURT:
.....How about horseback riding and by bicycle.
A......No, your Honor, unless there is direct trauma on the hymen."[21]
"While Republic Act No. 7659 did not give a legal designation to the crime of rape attended by any of the seven new circumstances introduced in Article 335 on December 31, 1993, this Court has referred to such crime as qualified rape in a number of its decisions. However, with or without a name for this kind of rape, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender give a different character to the rape defined in the first part of Article 335. They raise the imposable penalty upon a person accused of rape from reclusion perpetua to the higher and supreme penalty of death. Such an effect conjointly puts relationship and minority of the offended party into the nature of a special qualifying circumstance.Consequently, the lack of allegation of relationship between the appellant and his victim in the Information for rape, precludes the imposition of the death penalty since relationship, in this particular form of rape, is qualifying and not just a generic aggravating circumstance. Having been informed of the crime of simple rape only, appellant can just be convicted of simple rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua prescribed therefor.
As this qualifying circumstance was not pleaded in the information or in the complaint against appellant, he cannot be convicted of qualified rape because he was not properly informed that he is being accused of qualified rape. The Constitution guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. This right finds amplification and implementation in the different provisions of the Rules of Court. Foremost among these enabling provisions is the office of an information. (underscoring supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
To be more precise, we declared in Garcia that it would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and, consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form punishable with death although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in capital punishment was not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned."