ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 123951 January 10, 2000 - ROMEO RANOLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1360 January 18, 2000 - ELISEO SOREÑO v. RHODERICK MAXINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114683 January 18, 2000 - JESUS C. OCAMPO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118441-42 January 18, 2000 - ARMANDO JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119594 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENZON ONG

  • G.R. No. 125994 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ANDALES

  • G.R. No. 127135 January 18, 2000 - EASTERN ASSURANCE AND SURETY CORP. (EASCO) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129846 January 18, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130944 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALIB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131675 January 18, 2000 - PEDRO C. LAMEYRA v. GEORGE S. PANGILINAN

  • G.R. No. 132378 January 18, 2000 - ROGELIO JUAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 132767 January 18, 2000 - PHIL. VETERANS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134854 January 18, 2000 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO, ET AL. v. EDUARDO F. FIGUERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139465 January 18, 2000 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. RALPH C. LANTION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245 January 19, 2000 - ANTONIO YU-ASENSI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-97-1129 January 19, 2000 - FLAVIANO B. CORTES v. FELINO BANGALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1513 January 19, 2000 - ALFREDO B. ENOJAS v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT

  • G.R. No. 107320 January 19, 2000 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113666-68 January 19, 2000 - GOLDEN DONUTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114761 January 19, 2000 - ALEMAR’S SIBAL & SONS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119217 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL S. LUCBAN

  • G.R. No. 122104 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO ORBITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122297-98 January 19, 2000 - CRESCENTE Y. LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122739 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. PANTORILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123655 January 19, 2000 - ANGEL BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123183 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN SISON

  • G.R. No. 126516 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SHIRLEY ALAO

  • G.R. No. 127572 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR VILLAR

  • G.R. No. 129072 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ABUBU

  • G.R. No. 130957 January 19, 2000 - VH MANUFACTURING v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132152 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132248 January 19, 2000 - ERLINDA C. PEFIANCO v. MARIA LUISA C. MORAL

  • G.R. No. 132657 January 19, 2000 - WILLIAM DIU, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR IBAJAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132779-82 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO BERNALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 134003 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERT NAGUM

  • G.R. No. 134329 January 19, 2000 - VERONA PADA-KILARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134535 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MAGNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137560 January 19, 2000 - MARIA G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4749 January 20, 2000 - SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-00-1241 January 20, 2000 - NAPOLEON S. VALENZUELA v. REYNALDO B. BELLOSILLO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1242 January 20, 2000 - DANIEL DUMO, ET AL. v. ROMEO V. PEREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1522 January 20, 2000 - ROMULO SJ TOLENTINO v. POLICARPIO S. CAMANO

  • G.R. No. 76371 January 20, 2000 - MARIANO TURQUESA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO VALERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87134 January 20, 2000 - PHIL. REGISTERED ELECTRICAL PRACTITIONERS, ET AL. v. JULIO FRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100718-19 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106282 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINCIANO RENDOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108067 January 20, 2000 - CYANAMID PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109376 January 20, 2000 - PANFILO O. DOMINGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110807 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALD T. NARVASA

  • G.R. No. 110929 January 20, 2000 - ABELARDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119652 & A.M. No. P-00-1358 January 20, 2000 - VENTURA O. DUCAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123860 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN NAAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125451 January 20, 2000 - MARCIANA MUÑOZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126151 January 20, 2000 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. SERGIO D. MABUNAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128887 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. EDGARDO AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 130713 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL FLORES

  • G.R. No. 130986 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR PAILANCO

  • G.R. No. 131512 January 20, 2000 - LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE [LTO] v. CITY OF BUTUAN

  • G.R. No. 132368 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACITO GARCES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 133775 January 20, 2000 - FIDEL DABUCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131894-98 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JESUS DOCENA

  • G.R. No. 134167 January 20, 2000 - NASSER IMMAM v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125965 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO GOZANO

  • G.R. No. 133477 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAFALES

  • G.R. No. 135904 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN TAN

  • G.R. Nos. 89591-96 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 100518 January 24, 2000 - ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU), ET AL. v. OSCAR N. ABELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101932 January 24, 2000 - FRANCISCO H. ESCAÑO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111285 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE VALLA

  • G.R. No. 116066 January 24, 2000 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124715 January 24, 2000 - RUFINA LUY LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125031 January 24, 2000 - PERMEX INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129693 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY CORTES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1525 January 25, 2000 - MARTIN D. PANTALEON v. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. 80129 January 25, 2000 - GERARDO RUPA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 102706 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON LUMILAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107427 January 25, 2000 - JAMES R. BRACEWELL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113518 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ARLEE

  • G.R. No. 113684 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GALLARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116332 January 25, 2000 - BAYNE ADJUSTERS AND SURVEYORS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119595 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO BARONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120267 January 25, 2000 - CLARA ESPIRITU BORLONGAN, ET AL. v. CONSUELO MADRIDEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121439 January 25, 2000 - AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (AKELCO) v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129246 January 25, 2000 - GREENFIELD REALTY CORP., ET AL. v. LORETO CARDAMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131633-34 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO ENOLVA

  • G.R. No. 133132 January 25, 2000 - ALEXIS C. CANONIZADO, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER P. AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135874 January 25, 2000 - SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-12-192-MTC January 26, 2000 - HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ISSUED BY ACTING JUDGE ANICETO L. MADRONIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1524 January 26, 2000 - LUCIA F. LAYOLA v. BASILIO R. GABO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 107395 January 26, 2000 - TOURIST DUTY FREE SHOPS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126115 January 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BALGOS

  • G.R. No. 131374 January 26, 2000 - ABBOTT LABORATORIES PHIL. v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133842 January 26, 2000 - FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133969 January 26, 2000 - NEMESIO GARCIA v. NICOLAS JOMOUAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102961-62, 107625 & 108759 January 27, 2000 - JESUS P. LIAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117040 January 27, 2000 - RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130843 January 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOILO BORROMEO

  • Adm. Case No. 1474 January 28, 2000 - CRISTINO G. CALUB v. ABRAHAM SULLER

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1246 January 28, 2000 - HEIRS OF JUAN and NATIVIDAD GERMINANDA v. RICARDO SALVANERA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211 January 28, 2000 - ZENAIDA S. BESO v. JUAN DAGUMAN

  • A.M. No. P-93-985 January 28, 2000 - MARTA BUCATCAT v. EDGAR BUCATCAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112177 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO ZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112329 January 28, 2000 - VIRGINIA A. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115824 January 28, 2000 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125279 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS TANAIL

  • G.R. No. 124129 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BRIGILDO

  • G.R. Nos. 124384-86 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMENCIANO "OMENG" RICAFRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125671 January 28, 2000 - CONDO SUITE CLUB TRAVEL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000 - JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG) v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 126802 January 28, 2000 - ROBERTO G. ALARCON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127568 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO BACULE

  • G.R. Nos. 129756-58 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN DEEN ESCAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131520 January 28, 2000 - ESTELITA AGUIRRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131778 January 28, 2000 - HERMAN TIU LAUREL v. PRESIDING JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132138 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROMEO LLAMO

  • G.R. No. 133486 January 28, 2000 - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 133987 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. 136805 January 28, 2000 - DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. v. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORP.

  • G.R. No. 137537 January 28, 2000 - SMI DEVT. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137718 January 28, 2000 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139545 January 28, 2000 - MAIMONA H. N. M. S. DIANGKA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226 January 31, 2000 - GLORIA LUCAS v. AMELIA A. FABROS

  • G.R. Nos. 88521-22 & 89366-67 January 31, 2000 - HEIRS OF EULALIO RAGUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105827 January 31, 2000 - J.L. BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112139 January 31, 2000 - LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL DEVT. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115045 January 31, 2000 - UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116729 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON LERIO

  • G.R. No. 120706 January 31, 2000 - RODRIGO CONCEPCION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123094 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO PAGLINAWAN

  • G.R. No. 125440 January 31, 2000 - GENERAL BANK AND TRUST CO., ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127797 January 31, 2000 - ALEJANDRO MILLENA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128536 January 31, 2000 - ROQUE G. GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128607 January 31, 2000 - ALFREDO MALLARI SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129071 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MILLIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129505 & 133359 January 31, 2000 - OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II v. PACITA DE LOS REYES PHILLIPS

  • G.R. No. 130104 January 31, 2000 - ELIZABETH SUBLAY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130666 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO JOSE

  • G.R. No. 134437 January 31, 2000 - NATIONAL STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139758 January 31, 2000 - LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGHIA v. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 126115   January 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BALGOS

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 126115. January 26, 2000.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALFONSO BALGOS, Alias "Lupog", Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    In a criminal Complaint, dated 9 November 1995, Alfonso Balgos, alias "Lupog," was accused by Crisselle Ilanga Fuentes, a six (6) year old child, of the crime of rape. The complaint 1 reads:chanrobles.com : red

    The undersigned complainant accuses ALFONSO BALGOS, alias "LUPOG", a resident of Brgy. Libas, Roxas City, Philippines, of the crime of RAPE, defined and penalized under Article 335, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That on October 8, 1995 at about 2:00 o’ clock in the afternoon, in the City of Roxas, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction (sic) of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had (sic) carnal knowledge with the undersigned who is six (6) years old, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant in such amount as may be awarded to her under the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

    CONTRARY TO LAW.

    Upon arraignment on 21 February 1996, the accused-appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged.

    The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On the fateful day of 8 October 1995, at around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Crisselle Fuentes went to the house of the accused-appellant to play with Michelle and Waday, both surnamed Balgos and nieces of the Accused-Appellant. 2 Since the house of the accused-appellant abuts a river, the three girls played near the window so they could watch the small crabs (calamangi) wallowing in the said river. While they were playing, the accused-appellant went up to Michelle and asked her to go outside and buy cheese curls. When Michelle left the house, the accused-appellant directed her attention towards Crisselle. He opened the zipper of his pants. 3 He then took Crisselle by the right forearm and made her hold his penis for a short time. 4 When Michelle came back, the accused-appellant asked her and Waday to go outside and buy more cheese curls. The two girls acceded and left Crisselle with the Accused-Appellant. Whereupon, he closed the door and locked the same. He then removed Crisselle’s shorts and underwear, took off his own pants and brief and laid her down on the mat. 5 The accused-appellant next went on top of Crisselle and used his hand to direct his penis towards the opening of her vagina. 6 He made a push and pull movement with his penis into Crisselle’s vagina which caused her to feel pain. 7 However, the accused-appellant could not penetrate Crisselle’s vagina and was only able to push his penis against the opening of the same. 8 Because of this, he re-positioned his penis and tried again to penetrate Crisselle’s organ. 9 Despite the effort, he still failed. 10 The accused-appellant stopped his bestial act when he noticed through the window that Michelle and Waday were returning and were about to unlock the door. He then put on his pants, covered Crisselle with a blanket and had her put on her underwear. When Michelle and Waday entered the house, Crisselle was still covered with a blanket.

    Crisselle did not tell anybody about the incident. However, on 12 October 1995, Crisart Fuentes, the older brother of Crisselle, told his mother, Criselda Fuentes, that Michelle and Waday had informed him that Crisselle was raped by the Accused-Appellant. 11 Criselda then asked Crisart to call Michelle and Waday to confirm his story. Upon being asked if Crisselle was raped by the accused-appellant, Michelle and Waday answered in the affirmative. 12 Thereupon, Criselda informed her husband, Arturo Fuentes, about the incident. 13 The spouses Fuentes asked Crisselle if the story was true. Crisselle cried and confirmed that she was raped by the Accused-Appellant. 14 Thereafter, Crisselle and her parents went to their Barangay Captain, Loreto Araw-araw, to report the incident. 15 The Barangay Captain, together with two of his tanods, picked up the accused-appellant and brought him to the Barangay Hall for questioning. Asked if he indeed raped Crisselle, the accused-appellant denied the accusation. 16 The Barangay Captain then asked Crisselle about the incident. Crisselle recounted her harrowing experience at the hands of the Accused-Appellant. 17 After finishing his inquiry, the Barangay Captain brought Crisselle, her parents and the accused-appellant to the police station for further investigation. 18

    The following day, Criselda brought Crisselle to the Roxas Memorial General Hospital for medical examination. Crisselle was attended to by Dr. Ma. Lourdes B. Lañada, a gynecologist-obstetrician, who, after her examination, issued a medical certificate 19 which states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Physical Examination: No bruises, hematoma noted

    I.E. Vagina - Introitus - admit one index finger with ease

    Hymen - + 0.2 CM. Lacerated wound at 3 o’clock position (-)

    bleeding noted

    Discharges - Negative

    Spermatozoa Determination - Negative 20

    In his defense, the accused-appellant denied raping Crisselle but claimed that he only inserted his left index finger into her vagina because he was sexually aroused at that time. 21 In support of this contention, the accused-appellant testified that if his penis, with a circumference of 3 inches, 22 had entered the vagina of Crisselle, the laceration of her hymen would have been bigger and not just 0.2 cm. 23 On cross-examination, the accused-appellant admitted that on 8 October 1995, he asked Michelle and Waday to go outside to buy food 24 but he was never left alone with Crisselle since his first cousin, Enecito Dalton, and his uncle, Rogelio Manalo, were also inside the house and listening to the radio. 25 He also admitted that he covered Crisselle with a blanket, but claimed that it was not only Crisselle who was under the blanket but also himself and his two (2) nieces, Michelle and Waday.

    In its Decision, dated 19 July 1996, the trial court believed what it described as the "straightforward, clear and convincing" open court declarations of Crisselle as against the uncorroborated testimony of the Accused-Appellant. 26 It debunked the defense of the accused-appellant that he merely inserted his finger inside the vagina of Crisselle, saying that this was merely a last ditch effort to save himself from criminal responsibility. 27 The trial court also noted four circumstances that pointed towards the criminal culpability of the Accused-Appellant. First, his admission that he asked Michelle and Waday to buy food and leave the house showed his intention to create an opportunity to commit his "beastly act" against Crisselle. 28 Second, his disposition to play with young girls revealed his "libidinal predilection" which he wanted gratified even on young girls like Crisselle. 29 Third, his admission that he was sexually aroused exposed his lustful desire for flesh. 30 Fourth, his failure to show that Crisselle was motivated by ill-will in fabricating her accusation lent credence to the testimony of his victim. 31 In the light of these observations, the trial court convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of rape and imposed the supreme penalty of death, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, finding accused Alfonso Balgos alias "Lupog" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and punished under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, judgment is hereby rendered imposing upon him the supreme penalty of death. He is likewise, ordered to indemnify private complainant Crisselle Fuentes fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as civil damages. 32

    In accordance with Section 10, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, the case is now before us for automatic review.

    In his lone assignment of error, the accused-appellant contends that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF RAPE AND NOT OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM HERSELF AND THE ACCUSED APPELLANT. 33

    The accused-appellant again plays up the fact that Dr. Lañada’s medical examination showed that the hymen of Crisselle only had a 0.2 cm. laceration. 34 On this score, the accused-appellant admits that something was indeed inserted in Crisselle’s vagina. However, he points out that it was only his finger that inflicted the said laceration and not his penis with a 3 inch circumference. 35 He insists that if his penis was the one inserted in the victim’s vagina, the laceration would have been more severe and she would have died from hemorrhaging. 36 The accused-appellant, likewise, asserts that since the prosecution claimed that there was an actual penetration, it must prove, therefore, that the small laceration in the victim’s hymen was caused by the accused-appellant’s sex organ. Considering the physical evidence adduced in the case, the accused-appellant claims that he should have only been convicted of acts of lasciviousness and not rape.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

    After a meticulous review of the evidence in this case, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. The evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

    Prefatorily, we note the well-established rule that the trial court’s evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses is given great respect by the appellate court in the absence of proof that it was arrived at capriciously or that the trial court disregarded material facts which might affect the outcome of the case. 37 The rationale behind this rule is that the credibility of a witness can best be determined by the trial court since it has the opportunity to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses. 38

    In the present case, the trial court is correct in giving credence to Crisselle’s testimony over that of the Accused-Appellant. Crisselle’s testimony was simple, concise and cohesive.

    Q When Michele (sic) and Waday left the house what did Alfonso Balgos do, if there were any?

    A He closed the door and then locked it and then he undress (sic) me and he also undress (sic) himself and took off his brief.

    Q When you said undress you meaning Alfonso Balgos removed your entire clothing?

    A I have (sic) my clothes on only the short (sic) and panty were taken off.

    Q When your panty and short (sic) was (sic) already removed by Alfonso Balgos and he already removed his pants and briefs (sic), what did Alfonso Balgos do, if any?

    A He lay (sic) on top of me and his penis he put it on my organ.

    Q Where did you lay (sic) down?

    A On the mat without a pillow.

    Q You said Alfonso Balgos while you were lying down on the mat without a pillow placed himself on top of you, did he placed (sic) his penis in your organ?

    ATTY. POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Objection, leading.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Already testified.

    PROSECUTOR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q When Alfonso Balgos placed his sex organ into your vagina, what was Alfonso Balgos doing?

    A His organ, he pushed it in and out of my organ.

    Q When Alfonso Balgos placed his organ into your vagina in and out, what did you feel?

    A Pain.

    Q About how long did Alfonso Balgos placed (sic) his organ into your vagina in and out about how long?

    A For a short period.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Did his organ enter your vagina?

    A No sir.

    PROSECUTOR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q But you can feel that it touched your vagina?

    ATTY. POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Objection, leading.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Sustained.

    PROSECUTOR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q When Alfonso Balgos stopped placing his organ into your vagina but having it in and out what did Alfonso Balgos do?

    A He again put his penis and push (sic) it in and out motion.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q What happened to your vagina if anything happened to it?

    A Nothing.

    Q You said that the accused pushed his again in and out of your vagina, how long did he do that?

    A For a short period.

    PROSECUTOR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q When did Alfonso Balgos stop placing his organ into your vagina?

    A When Michele (sic) and Waday arrived.

    Q How did you know that Michele (sic) and Waday arrived already?

    A Because they were coming and they can be seen through the window and Alfonso Balgos out on his pants.

    Q How about you?

    A He covered me with a blanket and he he (sic) let me put on my panty because Michele (sic) and Waday were unlocking the door.

    Q Was (sic) Michele (sic) and Waday able to enter the house?

    A Yes sir.

    Q When Michele (sic) and Waday was (sic) already inside the house you were still covered with a blanket?

    ATTY. POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Objection, question is leading.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Let her answer.

    A Yes sir.

    PROSECUTOR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q What did Alfonso Balgos tell you if there was any?

    ATTY. POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Objection, question is leading.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    No basis.

    PROSECUTOR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Did you report of what Alfonso Balgos did to you in the afternoon of October 8, 1995 to your parents?

    ATTY. POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Objection, question is leading.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    No basis.

    PROSECUTOR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Did you meet your mother and father in the afternoon of that day?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q Did you tell your parents about what happened to you?

    ATTY. POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Objection, leading.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Did you have any conversation with your father and mother?

    A Yes sir.

    PROSECUTOR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q What was your conversation with your parents?

    A As to what Alfonso Balgos did to me that he wrestled me (gin dumog).

    Q If Alfonso Balgos is inside the court room now, will you point to the Honorable Court where he is?

    A There (witness pointing to a person sitting on the side bench wearing orange t-shirt when asked of his name answered Alfonso Balgos.)

    PROSECUTOR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That would be all.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Cross.

    CROSS EXAMINATION BY ATTY. ALBERTO POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    Q Now you also testified that Alfonso Balgos placed his sexual organ inside your vagina and push (sic) it in and out, is that correct?

    A Yes sir.

    Q Did you feel the sexual organ of Alfonso Balgos inside your vagina?

    A No sir.

    Q You mean it never touched your vagina, the sexual organ of Alfonso Balgos never touched your vagina?

    A It touched the top.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q On what part of your vagina did the penis of Alfonso Balgos touches (sic)?

    A In the hole.

    Q But it did not enter the hole of the vagina.

    A No sir.

    ATTY. POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Now you said that Alfonso Balgos was on top of you, was it not?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q So, you could not see what was actually touching your vagina because he was on top of you?

    A No sir.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q How did you come to know that it was the organ of the accused which touches (sic) the hole of your vagina?

    A I know because with his hand he held his organ and put it in my vagina.

    ATTY. POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q But as you have stated he was on top of you and you could not see what was touching your vagina whether it was a sex organ, the sex organ of Alfonso Balgos or the finger of Alfonso Balgos, is it not?

    A No sir.

    Q Have you ever felt before, prior to this incident in question, ever felt the touch of a male organ to your vagina?

    A No sir.

    Q So, you cannot distinguish whether what touched your vagina was a male organ or a finger to your vagina?

    A While we were watching TV in our neighbor’s house, it was his finger that he put inside my vagina.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q When did the accused place his finger in your vagina while watching TV, was it before the incident in question?chanrobles.com.ph : red

    A No sir.

    Q How many times before the incident in question did he place his finger in your vagina?

    A Only ones (sic).

    Q In what place did he did (sic) that?

    A In our neighbor’s house.

    Q Was it inside your neighbor’s house or outside?

    A Inside our neighbor’s house.

    ATTY. POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Were there people inside the house of your neighbor at that time?

    A Yes sir.

    Q There were people watching?

    A Yes sir.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Watching what?

    A Watching power ranger in (sic) the TV.

    x       x       x


    ATTY. POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q During the incident in question you could not definitely tell whether the accused placed his sexual organ in your vagina or just his finger, am I correct?

    A His organ.

    Q Did you see his sexual organ actually placed in your vagina, by the accused?

    A No sir.

    ATTY. POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That’s all your Honor. 39

    As shown in the above testimony, the trial court is correct in observing that the victim recounted her ordeal in a "straightforward, clear and convincing" manner. 40 Her testimony is very typical of an innocent child whose virtue has been violated. 41

    On the other hand, Accused-appellant’s assertion that he merely put his finger into the victim’s vagina is incredible and contrary to the evidence. If this was all that he did, why did he have to pull down the zipper of his pants, put his penis out, lay himself on top of her, put his organ into hers, move it in and out of her organ, meaning doing a push and pull movement? And while he was doing this, Crisselle said she felt pain. On top of this, the medical examination conducted on her showed a lacerated wound in her organ positioned at 3 o’clock. If Crisselle’s story was the product of her imagination, as the accused-appellant would like this Court to believe, she would have painted for the court a more dastardly and gruesome picture of her ordeal. But true to her innocence and coyness, being only six years old, the words she used on cross-examination were mild. She mentioned that his penis did not penetrate her vagina 42 but that it only touched its "hole," 43 that the attempt of the accused-appellant to satisfy his lust for flesh was only for a short period, 44 that nothing happened to her vagina after the accused-appellant tried to insert his penis with an "in and out" motion, 45 and that she did not actually see the penis of the accused-appellant enter her vagina. 46 These are telltale signs of the victim’s honesty and candor in relating her unsavory experience at the hands of Accused-Appellant. It has been stressed often enough that the testimony of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence. 47

    In any case, even if his organ merely touched the "hole" of Crisselle’s vagina, this already constitutes rape since the complete penetration of the penis into the female organ is not necessary. 48 The mere introduction of the penis into the aperture of the female organ, thereby touching the labia of the pudendum, already consummates the crime of rape. 49 Since the labia is the outer lip of the genital organ, 50 accused-appellant’s act of repeatedly placing his organ in the "hole" of Crisselle’s vagina was rape.

    Accused-appellant compounded the incredibility of his defense when he, through his collaborating counsel, Atty. Benjamin R. Perez, filed a supplemental brief putting up an inconsistent story. 51 He now asserts that he was earlier persuaded by his lead counsel, Atty. Albert I. Potato, to admit that what he did to the victim was to insert her finger into her vagina so as to characterize his crime merely as acts of lasciviousness. He claims that he could not have possibly raped Crisselle since he was then at sea engaged in deep sea fishing on 6 October 1995 and it was only on 8 October 1995, at around three o’clock in the afternoon, when he returned to shore. He was the last one to leave the boat since he was tasked to properly store their fishing equipment. Upon his arrival at his house, he listened to the radio with Enecito Dalton and Rogelio Manalo, then took his dinner and went to sleep. He further avers that it was only upon his arrival from another fishing expedition on 13 October 1995 that he learned from the Barangay Captain of the accusations against him.

    The Court is not persuaded. Accused-appellant’s new defense of alibi is the weakest of all defenses. 52 It cannot prevail over his positive identification by the victim whose testimony on the events that happened on that ill-fated day was direct and convincing. 53 Moreover, his shift of theory, upon realizing the futility of his earlier defense, rather than help his cause, only further damaged his credibility. 54

    The trial court is correct in imposing the supreme penalty of death on the Accused-Appellant. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, 55 the penalty of death shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed against a child below seven (7) years of age. In the present case, there is no dispute that the victim was six (6) years of age when the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with her. The victim’s age was duly established by the prosecution, through the testimony of the victim’s mother, Criselda Fuentes, and further corroborated by Crisselle’s Certificate of Live Birth. 56 Criselda Fuentes testified as follows:chanrobles.com : virtuallawlibrary

    DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR VICTOR POSADAS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    FISCAL POSADAS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Criselda Fuentes, do you know a certain Crisselle Fuentes?

    A Yes sir, my daughter.

    Q How old is your daughter Crisselle Fuentes?

    A 7 years old.

    Q Do you know when is the date of birth of your daughter?

    A November 24, 1988.

    Q Do you have any documents to show that Crisselle Fuentes is your daughter and that your daughter Crisselle Fuentes was born on November 24, 1988?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q Now, I am showing to you a Certificate of Live Birth, will you please go over this if this is the document which you said?

    A Yes, sir.

    FISCAL POSADAS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I request, Your Honor for the purpose of comparison, I am showing this certified original of the Birth Certificate of Crisselle Fuentes to be compared with the machine copy, You Honor I request Atty. Potato to compare the original with the machine copy.

    ATTY. POTATO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Admitted, your honor.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Noted. 57

    With respect to the award of damages, we have recently held that if the commission of rape is effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the penalty of death may be imposed, 58 the civil indemnity for the victim shall not be less than Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00). 59 Based on the foregoing judicial prescription, the trial court’s award of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity 60 should be increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00). Moreover, the victim is entitled to moral damages under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, 61 without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis thereof. 62 In line with current jurisprudence, Accused appellant’s victim is entitled to moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). 63

    Four members of the Court maintain their position that Republic Act No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional; nevertheless they submit to the ruling of the Court, by a majority vote, that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should be accordingly imposed.

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant Alfonso Balgos, alias "Lupong", guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant is ordered to indemnify the victim in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages.

    In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this Decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of executive clemency or pardoning power.

    No pronouncement as to cost.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, p. 5.

    2. TSN, 1 March 1996, pp. 4-5.

    3. Id., at 9.

    4. Id., at 17-18.

    5. Id., at 10.

    6. Id., at 19.

    7. Id., at 11.

    8. Id., at 18-19

    9. Id., at 12.

    10. Id.

    11. TSN, 5 March 1996, p. 6.

    12. Id., at 6-7.

    13. Id., at 7.

    14. Id.

    15. TSN, 6 March 1996, p. 6.

    16. Id.

    17. Id., at 6-9.

    18. Id., at 11.

    19. TSN, 29 February 1996, pp. 4-5, 11.

    20. Exhibit A, Records, p. 61.

    21. TSN, 3 May 1996, p. 3.

    22. Id., at 7.

    23. Id., at 3.

    24. Id., at 5.

    25. Id., at 5-6.

    26. Decision, Records, p. 107.

    27. Id., at 112.

    28. Id.

    29. Id., at 112-113.

    30. Id., at 113.

    31. Id.

    32. Supra, note 26 at 117.

    33. Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 44.

    34. Id., at 47.

    35. Id., at 48.

    36. Id.

    37. People v. Larena, G.R. Nos. 121205-09, 29 June 1999, p. 12; People v. Akhtar, G.R. No. 130640, 21 June 1999, p. 10; People v. Sandico, G.R. No. 128104, 18 May 1999, p. 6; People v. Manggasin, G.R. Nos. 130599-600, 21 April 1999, pp. 10-11; People v. Cantos, G.R. No. 129298, 14 April 1999, p. 6.

    38. People v. Reñola, G.R. Nos. 122909-12, 10 June 1999, p. 8.

    39. TSN, 1 March 1996, pp. 9-23.

    40. Supra, note 26.

    41. People v. Jose, G.R. No. 128789, 24 May 1999, p. 7.

    42. TSN, 1 March 1996, p. 19.

    43. Id., at 18-19.

    44. Id., at 11-12.

    45. Id., at 11.

    46. Id., at 19-20.

    47. People v. Carullo, G.R. No. 129289, 29 July 1999, p. 9; People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 118312-13, 28 July 1999, p. 11.

    48. People v. Peurtollano, G.R. No. 122423, 17 June 1999, p. 10; People v. Quiñanola, G.R. No. 126148, 5 May 1999, p. 23; People v. Almaden, G.R. No. 112088, 25 March 1999, p. 8.

    49. People v. Silvano, G.R. 127356, 29 June 1999, p. 9; People v. Ablog, G.R. No. 124005, 28 June 1999, p. 8.

    50. People v. Ayo, G.R. No. 123540, 30 March 1999, p. 12.

    51. Rollo, pp. 87-90.

    52. People v. Carullo, 289 SCRA 481, 496 (1998); People v. Nang, 289 SCRA 16, 31 (1998); People v. Azugue, 268 SCRA 711, 723 (1997).

    53. People v. Lozano, 296 SCRA 403, 415 (1998).

    54. People v. Trimor, 243 SCRA 129, 132 (1995).

    55. Further amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law."cralaw virtua1aw library

    56. Exhibit B, Records, p. 62.

    57. TSN, 5 March 1996, p. 3.

    58. Under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime is committed with any of the following attending circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. 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.

    2. When the victim is under the custody of police or military authorities.

    3. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.

    4. When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.

    5. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.

    6. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency.

    7. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation.

    59. People v. Losano, G.R. No. 127122, 20 July 1999, p. 17; People v. Aquino and Catap, G.R. Nos. 123550-51, 19 July 1999, p. 24; People v. Alitagtag, G.R. Nos. 124449-51, 29 June 1999, p. 11.

    60. Supra, note 26 at 117.

    61. Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous case:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    (3) seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts;

    x       x       x


    The parents of the female seduced, abducted or raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this Article, may also recover moral damages.

    x       x       x


    62. People v. Mijano, G.R. No. 129112, p. 17, 23 July 1999.

    63. People v. Flores, G.R. No. 130546, p. 13, 26 July 1999.

    G.R. No. 126115   January 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BALGOS


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED