370 Phil. 180
PER CURIAM:
"That on or about the first week of February 1994, at Barangay Masoc, Municipality of Bayombong, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, taking advantage of superior strength, by means of force, violence, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant Marisol Flores y Canapi, who is his daughter and under 12 years of age, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice including her parents.After accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the above indictments, joint trial ensued leading to his conviction by the trial court in a decision[1] dated May 27, 1997, the decretal portion of which reads:
CONTRARY TO LAW."Criminal Case No. 3117
"That on or about the third week of December 1995 at Barangay Masoc, Municipality of Bayombong, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd designs, taking advantage of superior strength, by means of force, violence, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant Marisol Flores y Canapi, who is his daughter and under 12 years of age, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice including her parents.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
"WHEREFORE, the Prosecution having proved that the accused committed the offenses of statutory rape in Crim. Case No. 3117 and incestuous rape in Crim. Case No. 3116 beyond reasonable doubt, the accused, Ramon Flores y Reyes, is found GUILTY thereof and is hereby sentenced as follows:The pertinent facts, as borne by the records, are as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 3116, the accused shall suffer DEATH by lethal injection and to indemnify the victim in the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 exemplary damages and to pay the costs of suit;
In Criminal Case No. 3117, the accused shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and shall indemnify the victim in the sums of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED."
"Result of Physical, Pelvic and Rectal Examination conducted upon the person of Marisol Flores.Defending himself, accused-appellant denied the acts imputed to him by his daughter. On the dates that these acts were supposedly committed, he claimed that he was working as a tricycle driver, usually at night. He then argued that these accusations against him were made upon the instigation of his estranged wife who constantly had quarrels with him, especially when he abandoned the family to live with his wife's youngest sister, Elena. His wife, allegedly a troublemaker, vowed to pursue these cases against him if he would not live with her, such that when he opted to live with Elena, his wife induced Marisol to continue prosecuting him. To prove that his wife was such a troublemaker, he claimed that his wife even set their house on fire in Masoc, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya and tried to put the blame on him.[10]
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:
-No signs of external physical injury
PELVIC EXAMINATION:
-Mons pubis with no pubic hair
-Labia majora with no lacerations
-Labia minora with superficial abrasion, left
-Hymen is not intact with no laceration
-I.E.: Vagina hardly admits tip of right index finger
RECTAL EXAMINATION:
-No surrounding anal lacerations
-Positive pararectal tenderness
-Positive fecal material on tactating finger and negative for blood
(Sgd.) Dr. Nestor V. Domingo
Municipal Health Officer"
We shall address these issues seriatim.
- THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RENDERING A VERDICT OF CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3116 DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH APPELLANT'S GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
- THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF RAPE IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3117 IN GROSS VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM.
On account of the above-cited testimony, accused-appellant submits, thus:
"Q: You said earlier that he inserted his penis to your anus, is there any occasion during that night that he inserted his penis to your vagina? A: None, sir. Q: Now, Mirasol, is there an occasion also whereby your father inserted his penis to your vagina, your sex organ afterwards? A: None, sir. xxx"[12] [Underscoring supplied].
"Private complainant's foregoing testimony that appellant did not insert his penis into her vagina was categorical, firm, spontaneous and straightforward. Inasmuch as the aforequoted material points were initially asked of her, and even repeatedly asked by the prosecutor, her testimony should have been regarded as gospel truth as she had no more time to concoct. Private complainant's admission even bolster the testimony of appellant to the effect that during the confrontation in the Prosecutor's Office, the former claimed that she was not raped (TSN, March 5, 1997, p. 3). Since no rebuttal witness was presented by the prosecution, the same is deemed admitted. Likewise, the aforequoted testimony of private complainant lend credence to the testimony of Social Worker Dionita Osio who testified that the former could not even specify how she was allegedly raped (TSN, April 22, 1997, pp. 4-5).Accused-appellant's arguments fail to persuade us.
Accordingly, private complainant's sudden change of heart at the resumption of trial which took place almost two (2) months after the initial presentation of prosecution's evidence was clearly shrouded with doubt. Private complainant's claim thereafter that she was raped was an afterthought. Worse, such incredible claim emanated from a polluted source. Withal, the possibility of private complainant being coached to supply lacking details in her direct testimony to pindown (sic) appellant for allegedly inserting his penis into her vagina which she initially denied in the first place is not far-fetched. Realizing that appellant could only be possibly held liable for acts of lasciviousness as clearly reflected in private complainant's direct testimony quoted above the latter had to adopt a different stance. And the opportunity to concoct lies was presented to her after the prosecution sought for continuance of the trial. The prosecution cannot claim that private complainant is too naïve to comprehend the meaning of "rape" because when she was asked about it during trial, she said she understood the same (TSN, November 19, 1996, p. 5). What is more, the claim of rape is of doubtful veracity in view of the considerable period of delay in reporting the same to the authorities."[13]
Secondly, accused-appellant's insinuation that the victim had been coached and instigated by her mother when she resumed testifying two months after the first time she took the witness stand, is merely speculative and conjectural. Had accused-appellant seriously doubted the victim's credibility, he should have been able to demonstrate the same through the extensive and rigorous cross-examination conducted by his counsel on several hearings. Clearly, accused-appellant failed to show that the victim perjured herself. Instead of her credibility being impeached, the victim held steadfast to her testimony on direct examination that her father indeed inserted his penis into both her anus and vagina. In fact, defense counsel's line of questioning during the cross-examination assumed this fact. Thus:
"Q: Marisol during the last hearing, you testified on this Hon. Court and you were asked and you testified that your father in one of the occasion inserted his penis on your private part or penis in your anus, do you remember that?
A: Yes, sir.Q: And when asked the question, is there an occasion that your father inserted his penis in your private part or vagina you answered none, do you remember that?A: Yes, sir.Q: Now, will you please explain to the Court if that answer of yours is true or not?A: True, sir.Q: What is the true?A: It is true that he did that to me, sir.
Q: What is that your father did to you which is true?A: That he inserted his penis in my vagina and in my anus, sir.Q: Why is that when you were asked that question on one occasion your father had inserted his penis to your vagina and you answered "no", will you explain to the Hon. Court why you answered that way?A: Because what you said before is pagkakataon what I mean by that is pagbabago I did not understand the word occasion (pagkakataon), sir." [Underscoring supplied].[16]
It is, therefore, indubitable that accused-appellant could not have been held liable only for acts of lasciviousness. The victim's testimony, delivered in a straightforward and spontaneous manner, without contradiction as to any material point, clearly demonstrates that accused-appellant indeed succeeded in consummating his bestial acts upon the hapless victim. Corroborating such testimony is the medical finding itself that the victim is already in a non-virgin state. Dr. Domingo's testimony is enlightening at this point:
"ATTY. ESPINO:
Q: On that night that you were already sleeping you felt that somebody was on top of you while you were lying facing down inserting his penis inside your anus? A: Yes, sir. Q: You also said that your panty was already removed? A: Yes, sir. Q: Who?
A: (witness is pointing to the accused). Q: Why do you know that he removed your panty? A: Because he was the one who was on top of me, sir.
xxx xxx xxxQ: What were the movements done by your father in doing that kind of act? A: He was forcing to insert his private part to my anus, sir. xxx xxx xxxQ: When did your father insert his private part to your vagina? A: After he inserted his private part to my anus he also inserted his penis to my vagina, sir. [Underscoring supplied].[17]
Needless to say, it has been held by this Court often enough that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped.[18]
"Q: You mentioned in your medical report particularly in the pelvic examination that the hymen is not intact with no laceration, please examine what --- please explain what do you mean by hymen is not intact with no laceration?A: I said the hymen is not intact because when I examined the victim the normal configuration of the thin elastic membrane covering the vaginal orifice is no more visible, that is the hymen. The thin elastic vulva seems like plastic, sir.Q: What else, please elaborate on your findings? A: This one with no laceration, I am entertaining it as a fresh laceration. The victim came to me one year after the alleged rape. If ever there is hymenal laceration, it is difficult to differentiate it from the normal configuration of the hymen, sir.COURT: Q: It seems that you are familiar with the hymen; in the examination you conducted, would that be a normal hymen, the one you found in the victim's vagina or private part?A: Yes, sir. Q: What I mean normal is that it has not suffered any injury yet, do you still say that it is a normal hymen? A: No, sir because it was already not intact, it was torn."
"PROS. CALIP:That the court adopted a liberal attitude with respect to such defect in the information is not without basis. Although the defect therein was with respect to the lack of allegation as to the mental retardation of the victim, we nonetheless held in People v. Rosare[23] that there was already substantial compliance with the constitutional mandate that an accused be informed of the nature of the charge against him. In that case, we took cognizance of the fact that the resolution of the investigating prosecutor which formed the basis of and was attached to the information clearly stated that the victim was suffering from mental retardation.[24] We do not find any reason why the same reasoning should not apply to the case at bar.
Actually, your honor, may we put on record that based on the sworn statement in addition to the testimony of the witness on the witness stand, it appears that the sworn statement was made as the basis of the complaint. The date June 8, 1995 and it is highly impossible that the act or the complaint in Crim. Case No. 3117 was committed in December 1995, your honor.
COURT:
Well, anyway, if we go to the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the Criminal complaint signed by this victim is a part of the Information. I think between the Information and the Criminal complaint, the criminal complaint will have to be followed because the criminal complaint is supposed to be part of the information. Under the rules on private offenses, it is the victim who should sign the complaint. And since the criminal complaint was not signed by the Prosecutor, I think we will have to be governed by those stated in the criminal complaint and not in the Information." [Underscoring supplied].
"ART. 335. When and how rape is committed.-There is no doubt here that the instant case falls squarely under the foregoing provision it being proved that accused-appellant is the victim's father and that at the time the rape was committed in February 1994, the victim was still below the age of eighteen.
xxx xxx xxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
- When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. xxx" [Underscoring supplied].