447 Phil. 517
VITUG, J.:
“That sometimes [sic] between the months of August and October, 1997 at Poblacion Zone IV, Municipality of Villasis, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one AAA being below twelve (12) years old, against the latter’s will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of said AAA.At his arraignment, Saturnino Iluis entered a plea of not guilty.
“Contrary to Art. 335, in relation to R.A. No. 8353 of the Revised Penal Code.”[1]
“External Genitalia: No abrasion, scar noted on pubic/escutchen.According to Dr. Nebril-Ramilo, these findings revealed the “possibility of penetration” of the child’s sex organ by a blunt object.[6]
- Labia Major – Labia Minor gaping, positive rounding fourchette
- Deep healed laceration 1:00 o’clock position hymen.
- Healed laceration 3:00 position
- Admits index finger midway with slight resistance.”[5]
“1. Redness – area between urethra opening and vaginal opening.The redness of the urethra could have been due, he said, to inflammation or infection, and an intact hymen implied that there was no laceration and that no foreign object had been inserted into the vagina. He admitted, however, that the redness between the urethra opening and the vaginal opening could have been caused by an erect penis coming into contact with the vaginal opening.
“2. Vaginal Opening – about 0.3 cm. in diameter
“3. Hymen – intact/no laceration
“4. Pain and tenderness of the vulva.”[7]
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Saturnino Iluis y Jandoc @ `Masong’ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Item No. 4 of the last paragraph of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is hereby accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.The Court finds no sufficient basis for ignoring, let alone overturning, the factual assessment made by the court below. Once again, the Court must reiterate the familiar rule that the task of taking on the issue of credibility is a function properly lodged with the trial court and whose findings are entitled to great weight.[10]
“The accused is further ordered to pay AAA the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as indemnification.”[8]
In this automatic review, appellant would have it that –“I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT SATURNINO ILUIS Y JANDOC BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF STATUTORY RAPE NOTWITHSTANDING THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE.“II.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY BECAUSE THE TRUE AGE OF THE VICTIM, WHICH WAS 6 YEARS OLD AT THE TIME OF THE RAPE, WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION NOR WAS IT DULY PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”[9]
On cross-examination, AAA continued:
“PROS. MAPILI: “Q Between the months of August to October, 1997 do you remember if `Masong’ did something to you Madam Witness? “A Yes, sir. “Q What was that something which `Masong’ did to you? “A He let me smoke, he took off my panty and he put his penis into my vagina, sir. “Q And where were you when `Masong’ put his penis into your vagina? “A In a little `kubo-kubo’ (small nipa hut), sir. “COURT: “Q Where is that little `kubo-kubo’? “A Near our shed, sir. “PROS. MAPILI: “Q That little `kubo-kubo’ is located near the house of your grandma Ana Abriam? “A Yes, sir. “Q Is that `kubo-kubo’ still there at this time? “A Yes sir, it still exists. “Q So [how] did you feel when `Masong’ put his penis into your vagina? “A I felt pain, sir. “Q So what did you do when you felt the pain? “A I remained silent, sir. “Q Why did you not say or do something? “A I was afraid, sir. “Q Why were you afraid at that time? ”A Because of that thing that he did to me, sir. “Q And what did `Masong’ do or tell you if any when he put his penis into your vagina? “A That I will not tell the matter, sir. “Q Now you said that `Masong’ warned you not to tell the matter, did you tell the matter to anyone? “A Yes, sir. “Q To whom did you tell what Masong did to you? “A To my grandma Ana Abriam, sir. “Q And what did you tell to your grandma Ana? “A I told her what he did to me, sir. “Q You are referring [to] what Masong did to you? “A Yes, sir. “COURT: “Q How did you tell your grandma Ana…what did you say to her? “A I only had my left forefinger pointed at the middle of her palm, Your Honor.“PROS. MAPILI:
“Q So that is the sign [of] what Masong did to you? “A Yes, sir. “Q And what was the response of your grandma Ana when you demonstrated to her what Masong did to you? “A She asked me, `what did he do to you?’ “COURT: “Q What was your answer? “A I told her what he did to me, sir (witness turning her head to the place of the accused.) “Q What did he do to you? “A He took off my panty and put his penis into my vagina Your Honor. “Q How many times did Masong do that to you? “A Three (3) times, Your Honor. “Q On different dates? "ATTY. BUMACOD: Your Honor, the accused is charged for only one count. “COURT: Yes. “A Yes, Your Honor. “Q On the same date? “A Different dates, Your Honor. “Q Also in [the] `kubo-kubo’? “A Yes, Your Honor. “Q So 3 times inside the `kubo-kubo’? “A Yes, Your Honor.”[12]
The unflinching testimony of the child victim notwithstanding, appellant would insist that her statement that “he (appellant) put his penis into my vagina” was inadequate to warrant conviction for the crime of rape. The trial court correctly brushed aside this argument. Granting that there was no complete penetration of the vagina, even just the briefest contact of the pudendum by the phallus, however, would be enough to consummate the crime of rape.[14] In People vs. Balgos,[15] the six-year old victim testified that the penis of the appellant did not penetrate her vagina but only touched its “hole.” The Court considered that testimony as being sufficient and a “tell-tale sign” of the victim’s “honesty and candor in relating her unsavory experience.” Considering her age, AAA’s failure to give the gory details on the sexual debasement would be understandable and typical of an innocent child whose virtue had unexpectedly been violated and her chastity abused.[16] Ample margin of inaccuracies should be accorded to a child witness who obviously had been gripped with tension on the witness stand.[17] Most significantly, no plausible reason was given by the defense why AAA would fabricate the charges.
“ATTY. BUMACOD: “Q From whom did you learn how to make that sign of pointing your left forefinger at the middle of the palm of your grandmother? “A From Masong, sir. “Q What did Masong tell you about that sign? “A He taught me to do that, sir. “Q You want to impress the Honorable Court AAA that Masong made or pointed his forefinger at your palm or at his palm? “A In my palm, sir. “Q And did he tell you what is that sign? “A No, sir. “Q So if Masong did not tell you Madam Witness what is that sign, what do you mean then to tell your grandmother when you pointed at [sic] your left forefinger at the middle of her palm? “A I only did that act, sir. “x x x x x x x x x “ATTY. BUMACOD: “Q So you told her, I’m referring to your grandma, what Masong did without your grandma asking you anything? “A She asked me, sir. “Q What did she ask you? “A That thing that he did to me, sir. “Q And what is that that you told her? “A The thing that Masong did to me, sir. “Q What is that that Masong did to you? “A That same thing that he did to me, sir. “COURT: “Q What did Masong do to you? “A That same thing, Your Honor. “Q Can you tell the Court what is that same thing that Masong did to you? “A He took off my panty, Your Honor. “Q What else? “A He put his penis into my vagina, Your Honor. “ATTY. BUMACOD: Madam Witness, you said that Masong put his penis into your vagina. How long in time did he put his penis in your vagina, if you remember? “A Long ago [sic], sir.”[13]
“Article 335. When and how rape is committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:While the age of the victim, i.e., of being barely six years old at the time of the rape, is supported by the Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit “A”), showing that AAA was born on 23 September 1991, and the testimony of Maritess Raguindin (the sister of AAA’s mother[20]), in order, however, to warrant the imposition of the death penalty, it is required that the qualifying circumstance of the rape victim being “below seven years of age” should be aptly alleged in the Information. The Court has made it explicit that qualifying circumstances, which would increase the penalty by a higher degree, “must be properly pleaded in the information consistent with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him.”[21] Mindful, indeed, of the entitlement of an accused to this fundamental right, the Court has now provided for in Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, made effective on 1 December 2000, thusly:“x x x x x x x x x.“3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.“x x x x x x x x x.
“The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.“The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:“x x x x x x x x x.“4. when the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.”
“SEC. 8. Designation of the offense. – The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.The allegation in the Information that the victim is “below twelve (12) years old,” an age indication that would only call for the penalty of reclusion perpetua, cannot suffice to warrant the imposition of the extreme penalty of death.
“SEC. 9. Cause of accusation. – The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.”