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
 

   
October-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137841 October 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 117512 October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN

  • G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001 - RUBY L. TSAI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS EVER TEXTILE MILLS

  • G.R. No. 124037 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 126592 October 2, 2001 - ROMEO G. DAVID v. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129900 October 2, 2001 - JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001 - PATRICIA NATCHER petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO-LETICIA DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001 - ZENAIDA M. SANTOS v. CALIXTO SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135522-23 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMORSOLO G. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 137777 October 2, 2001 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 - GRACE J. GARCIA v. REDERICK A. RECIO

  • G.R. No. 138929 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. 139050 October 2, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AGFHA

  • G.R. No. 142877 October 2, 2001 - JINKIE CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS v. THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON

  • G.R. No. 125081 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 - ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YULEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO LEONES

  • G.R. Nos. 142602-05 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

  • A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC October 5, 2001 - Request To Designate Another Judge To Try And Decide Criminal Case No. 3713

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1610 October 5, 2001 - ATTY. EDGAR H. TALINGDAN v. JUDGE HENEDINO P. EDUARTE

  • G.R. No. 124498 October 5, 2001 - EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO Presiding Judge

  • G.R. No. 127441 October 5, 2001 - DOROTEO TOBES @ DOTING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 130499 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ "NOEL QUIMSON

  • G.R. No. 130962 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE REAPOR y SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131040 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA

  • G.R. No. 132044 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY

  • G.R. No. 132718 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CASTILLON III and JOHN DOE

  • G.R. Nos. 135452-53 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO M. ALCOREZA

  • G.R. No. 139760 October 5, 2001 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 144189 October 5, 2001 - R & M GENERAL MERCHANDISE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121948 October 8, 2001 - PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO FABURADA

  • G.R. No. 123075 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN

  • G.R. No. 129926 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE

  • G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE

  • G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 141297 October 8, 2001 - DOMINGO R. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC October 9, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 138886 October 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SP01 WILFREDO LEAÑO SP01 FERDINAND MARZAN SPO1 RUBEN B. AGUSTIN SP02 RODEL T. MADERAL * SP02 ALEXANDER S. MICU and SP04 EMILIO M. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 141182 October 9, 2001 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CUETO Represented by ASUNCION CUETO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION) and CONSOLACION COMPUESTO

  • A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC October 10, 2001 - RE: INITIAL REPORTS ON THE GRENADE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT ABOUT 6:40 A.M. ON DECEMBER 6, 1999

  • G.R. No. 129313 October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge

  • G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 136258 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FELICIANO

  • A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001 - DOROTEO IGOY v. GILBERT SORIANO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485 October 11, 2001 - TEOFILO C. SANTOS v. JUDGE FELICIANO V. BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. 80796 & 132885 October 11, 2001 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001 - MARCELO LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION and HON. JAIME T. HAMOY

  • G.R. Nos. 123913-14 October 11,2001

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO CALLOS

  • G.R. No. 130415 October 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN YRAT y BUGAHOD and RAUL JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130562 October 11, 2001 - Brigida Conculada v. Hon. Court Of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 - STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 122710 October 12, 2001 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS and REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION

  • G.R. Nos. 134769-71 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BATION

  • G.R. No. 137843 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 139904 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 136470 October 16, 2001 - VENANCIO R. NAVA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO T. AGLIDAY

  • A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ October 17, 2001 - RE: RELEASE BY JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, RTC, BRANCH 54 MANILA, OF AN ACCUSED IN A NON-BAILABLE OFFENSE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1419 October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 & AM RTJ-98-1411 October 17, 2001 - ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS v. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

  • G.R. No. 124513 October 17, 2001 - ROBERTO ERQUIAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127540 October 17, 2001 - EUGENIO DOMINGO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127830 October 17, 2001 - MANOLET LAVIDES v. ERNESTO B. PRE

  • G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO R. RECTO

  • G.R. No. 129236 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 129389 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORICO UBALDO

  • G.R. Nos. 132673-75 October 17, 200

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR C. GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. 136291 October 17, 2001 - LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136869 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS MAZO

  • G.R. No. 141673 October 17, 2001 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY/AUGUSTO B. SUNICO v. NLRC (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142726 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 143190 October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

  • G.R. No. 143990 October 17, 2001 - MARIA L. ANIDO v. FILOMENO NEGADO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 October 18, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 132869 October 18, 2001 - GREGORIO DE VERA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143486 October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA

  • G.R. No. 144735 October 18, 2001 - YU BUN GUAN v. ELVIRA ONG

  • G.R. No. 116285 October 19, 2001 - ANTONIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and the .C.C.P

  • G.R. Nos. 121201-02 October 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee v. GIO CONCORCIO @ JUN

  • G.R. No. 129995 October 19, 2001 - THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN v. HON. PEDRO VILLAFUERTE

  • G.R. No. 130730 October 19, 2001 - HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 133002 October 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM

  • G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001 - PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)

  • A.M. No. 99-12-497-RTC October 23, 2001 - REQUEST OF JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • G.R. No. 121267 October 23, 2001 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124036 October 23, 2001 - FIDELINO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124295 October 23, 2001 - JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

  • G.R. No. 125193 October 23, 2001 - MANUEL BARTOCILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 130846 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO

  • G.R. No. 131841 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA

  • G.R. No. 132373 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIRSO ARCAY @ "TISOY" and TEODORO CLEMEN @ "BOY

  • G.R. No. 134740 October 23, 2001 - IRENE V. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 135481 October 23, 2001 - LIGAYA S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136105 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PAREDES y SAUQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 136337 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG

  • G.R. No. 139114 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

  • G.R. No. 139274 October 23, 2001 - QUEZON PROVINCE v. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE

  • G.R. No. 139329 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

  • G.R. Nos. 140934-35 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 October 25, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 102367 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABUNDIO ALBARIDO and BENEDICTO IGDOY

  • G.R. No. 126359 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 127465 October 25, 2001 - SPOUSES NICETAS DELOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133102 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DINDO AMOGIS y CRINCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 134449-50 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA

  • G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001 - FERNANDO SANTOS v. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES

  • G.R. No. 135822 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PIO DACARA y NACIONAL

  • G.R. Nos. 137494-95 October 25, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO REYES alias "TURING"

  • G.R. Nos. 142741-43 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MANAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-01-1474 October 26, 2001 - ANTONIO C. REYES v. JOSEFINA F. DELIM

  • G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA

  • G.R. Nos. 121492 & 124325 October 26, 2001 - BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K.H. UY

  • G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANICO NUEVO @ "SANY

  • G.R. No. 133741-42 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LINO VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO Z. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 135920 October 26, 2001 - ENCARNACION ET AL. v. SEVERINA REALTY CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 140719 October 26, 2001 - NICOLAS UY DE BARON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140912 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO DIAZ Y SEVILLETA

  • G.R. No. 141540 October 26, 2001 - EDUARDO TAN v. FLORITA MUECO and ROLANDO MUECO

  • G.R. No. 143231 October 26, 2001 - ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 144237 October 26, 2001 - WINSTON C. RACOMA v. MA. ANTONIA B. F. BOMA

  • G.R. Nos. 146319 & 146342 October 26, 2001 - BENJAMIN E. CAWALING v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 146593 October 26, 2001 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 139329   October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 139329. October 23, 2001.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERLINDO MAKILANG, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:


    Appeal from the decision 1 dated December 28, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 25), Biñan, Laguna, in Criminal Case No. 9624-B, finding Erlindo Makilang guilty of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay the victim, his 12-year old daughter Evelyn Makilang, P100,000.00 by way of moral damages.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Information 2 against accused Erlindo Makilang reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That on or about July 30, 1996, in the Municipality of Biñan, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Accused Erlindo G. Makilang, with lewd design and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of said Evelyn Makilang y Corino, a twelve (12) years old, against her will and consent.

    "CONTRARY TO LAW."cralaw virtua1aw library

    When arraigned, Accused pleaded "not guilty." 3 Thereafter, trial commenced. The prosecution presented as evidence the testimony of Evelyn Makilang and the NBI Medico-Legal Report.

    The version of the prosecution as summarized by the Solicitor General in the appellee’s brief is reproduced hereunder:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "On July 29, 1996, Evelyn Makilang, daughter of appellant, grade six in the elementary school and twelve years old at that time, accompanied her mother, Salve (appellant’s live-in partner) to Biñan, Laguna. Appellant’s family maintained their residence in Parañaque, but since appellant was employed in the Olivarez Tri-Cinema construction project in Biñan, Salve, who was engaged in selling cooked food, decided to do business there for a few days. Evelyn went along to help her cook and sell food (pp. 9-10, 29 33, tsn, June 10, 1997).

    "Evelyn and Salve, just like in their past visits with appellant, stayed with him in the construction ‘barracks’. The barracks is a small sleeping quarter for workers who were temporarily working there. Except for appellant and his family, there were no other persons inside the structure on the day of the incident (pp. 10, 33, Ibid). They slept on the floor, with Salve in the middle of appellant and the victim (p. 43, Ibid).

    "It had been the appellant’s habit, when he goes home to Parañaque, to transfer to his daughter’s side, after his wife (who is it an early riser) leaves their sleeping quarters. Appellant would then embrace Evelyn. This behavior was not lost to Salve, who was always worried whenever appellant goes home. Evelyn’s maternal grandmother likewise noticed appellant’s action. She had warned Evelyn and Salve that something untoward might happen. Still trusting at that time, Evelyn simply ignored her (pp. 34, 3840, Ibid).

    "In the morning of July 30, 1996 at around five o’clock, Evelyn awoke when she felt someone was going on top of her. It was appellant and he was naked (p. 12, tsn, June 10, 1997). She realized that she no longer had her cycling shorts and underwear which she had worn the night before. Her bra, which opens in front and not at the back, was already opened, exposing her breasts. With one hand, appellant mashed her breasts, with the other, he fingered her vagina (pp. 11-15, tsn, June 20, 1997; pp. 48-55, June 17, 1997). Evelyn felt appellant’s finger on her vagina for 9-10 seconds (p. 2, tsn, June 17, 1997). She felt pain. She tried to fight appellant off by pushing him with her hands. Appellant simply tightened his grip on her hands (pp. 6-13, tsn, June 17,1997).

    "Appellant then held his penis with his hand to insert it inside Evelyn’s vagina. She felt pain at the entrance of her vagina. After subsiding for a while, a more severe pain was felt by her, when appellant once more tried to insert his penis (pp. 12-14, tsn, June 17, 1997). At this point, Evelyn was able to summon her strength and gave a hard push to appellant who was thrown off to his side. Seizing the chance, Evelyn hurriedly put her cycling shorts, but without her panties, on (p. 13, tsn, June 10,1997).

    "Evelyn slipped away from the barracks and ran towards her mother who was about 20 meters away. Salve had already been up since four in the morning preparing the food she would sell (pp. 4143, tsn, June 10, 1997). Evelyn told her mother what appellant had done to her. Salve scolded appellant. Mother and daughter immediately went back to Parañaque (p. 11, tsn, June 17, 1997)." 4

    The results of the medico-legal examination conducted by Dr. Annabelle L. Soliman of the NBI Medico-Legal Division disclosed the following findings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "General Physical Examination:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Fairly nourished, conscious, coherent, cooperative, ambulatory. Breast, developed, hemispherical, doughy. Areolae, brown, measures 3.5 cm. in diameter. Nipples, brown, protruding, measures 0.5 cm. in diameter. No extragenital physical injury noted.

    Genital Examination:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Pubic hair, fine, short, scanty. Labia majora and minora, coaptated. Fourchette, tense. Vestibular mucosa, pinkish. Hymen moderately thick, moderately tall, intact. Hymenal orifice, measures 2.0 cm. in diameter. Vaginal walls, tight. Rugosities, prominent.

    Conclusions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. No evident sign of extra genital physical injury noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination.

    2. Hymen intact and its orifice small (2.0 cm. in diameter) as to preclude complete penetration by an average-sized adult male organ in full erection without producing hymenal injury." 5

    Erlindo Makilang denied committing the crime charged, claiming that he could not have raped his daughter in the morning of July 30, 1996 at Biñan, Laguna because he was then at the construction site of a project in Tagaytay City. 6 It was only later, or on August 10, 1996, after the completion of the Tagaytay project, when he transferred to Biñan. 7 On that day, he visited his family in Parañaque and gave money to his children. Without his knowledge, his wife Salve and daughter Evelyn followed him to Biñan to confront Beng, his live-in partner. Evelyn attacked Beng with scissors, so he pushed her (Evelyn) by hitting her buttocks with a piece of wood. Enraged, Salve shouted at him, uttering "we will not stop until and unless you are incarcerated." He surmised that this incident could have motivated Salve and Evelyn to file the instant complaint against him. 8

    Gemma Makilang, Accused’s sister-in-law, testified that he worked as a mason in a construction project in Tagaytay City from March 1995 to August 1996. During that period, he lived with her at the barracks near the project site. On July 29, 1996, the accused spent the night there. 9 Then, at six o’clock the next morning, she asked money from the accused because her youngest daughter was sick. 10 It was only on August 10, 1996 when they transferred to Biñan, Laguna. 11 On December 28, 1998, the trial court rendered a decision, 12 the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "WHEREFORE, finding accused ERLINDO MAKILANG GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, without any mitigating and aggravating circumstance, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to pay the victim the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS as moral damages.

    "No pronouncement as to costs.

    "The Provincial Warden is hereby directed to commit the person of accused Erlindo Makilang to the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, immediately upon receipt hereof.

    "SO ORDERED." 13

    Appellant now interposes the instant appeal, assigning to the trial court the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "I. THE COURT A QUO ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO DISCREDIT THE TESTIMONY AND QUESTION THE CREDIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINANT, EVELYN MAKILANG; and

    "II. THE COURT A QUO ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO APPLY THE PROVISION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE THAT PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY IS ONE OF THE WAYS OF BARRING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION." 14

    After a meticulous and thorough evaluation of the records of this case, we find no compelling reason to depart from the trial court’s finding on appellant’s culpability of the crime charged.

    Evelyn’s testimony is plausible in its entirety, narrating chronologically how appellant committed the dastardly act complained of, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Now, at that point in time while you were sleeping at Olivarez Tri-cinema with your father, where was your mother?

    A She was cooking the rice, sir.

    Q Where was she cooking at the time?

    A The place where she was cooking was far from the barracks, sir.

    x       x       x


    Q Now, aside from your father and you, was there any other person inside the barracks at 5:00 o’clock in the morning of July 30, 1996?

    A None, sir.

    Q Now, you said you were sleeping at that time. Do you recall if there was any unusual incident that happened while you were at the barracks on July 30, 1996 at about 5:00 o’clock in the morning?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q What was that unusual incident?

    A When I was sleeping, I felt somebody was on top of me, sir.

    Q Now, when you felt that there was somebody on top of you, what did you do?

    A I looked at it, sir.

    Q What did you see after you looked?

    A I saw my father with his hands mashing my breasts, sir.

    Q Why, what were you wearing at the time Madam witness when you felt that somebody was on top of you?

    A I was wearing a blouse, sir.

    Q What about your lower portion, what were you wearing?

    A None, sir.

    Q You mean to say you do not have panty at the time you felt that somebody was on top of you?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q You said that you saw your father on top of you mashing your breasts. What was he wearing at that time while she was mashing your breasts while on top of you?

    A None, sir.

    Q When you said he was mashing your breast, what did you do next, if any?

    A I pushed him, sir.

    Q Why did you push him?

    A Because, he was mashing my breast and he wanted to insert his organ to my organ, sir.

    Q Why did you say that your father was trying to insert his penis to your vagina?

    A I felt it, sir.

    Q What did you feel when you say you felt it?

    A I just felt pain, sir.

    Q When you said organ, Madam witness, you are referring to your private part or vagina?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q How long your father tried to insert his penis to your vagina?

    A At around five (5) minutes, sir.

    Q Now, when this incident was happening, what was the light condition at that time inside the barracks?

    A There was light, sir.

    x       x       x


    Q You said that you pushed him after your father was trying to insert his penis to your vagina. What happened to him when you pushed him?

    A He went to the side, sir.

    Q What did you do after pushing your father?

    A I wore my shorts even though it is not a panty, sir.

    Q After that what happened next, Ms. Witness?

    A I went downstairs and looked for my mother, sir." 15 (Emphasis ours)

    From the foregoing testimony of Evelyn, there was indeed no full penetration of appellant’s penis into her vagina. Nonetheless, appellant, undoubtedly, tried to gain penile penetration at the entrance of her vagina for "around five (5) minutes." That explains why Evelyn complained of having "felt pain" in her private part. She repeatedly complained of this pain, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "FISCAL

    Q Just one question your honor. You said Lady Witness, that your father was trying to insert his penis in your vagina, my question is, what did you feel?

    A I felt pain sir because he was forcing his penis into my vagina, sir.

    Q On what part of your body you felt pain when your father was trying to insert his penis to your vagina?

    Atty. ARELLANO

    We Object your honor. That is improper to redirect your honor.

    This should have been done during the examination in chief.

    COURT

    Witness may answer.

    A At the entrance of my vagina, sir.

    COURT

    Q How many times did you feel the same?

    A Twice your honor.

    Q Are you telling this Court that your father attempted to insert his penis inside your vagina for two (2) times?

    A What I mean to say your honor is that, in the first instance that he wanted to insert his penis to my vagina we were in the position that he was holding my right hand by his left hand and he was trying to insert his penis, then I felt pain. And then the pain was gone, and then again, I felt pain when he tried again to Insert his penis into my vagina, sir.

    Q And when your father was trying to insert his penis inside your vagina for the second time, that was the time when you pushed him very hard?

    A Yes your honor.

    Q Because you felt pain once more?

    A Yes your honor." 16 (Emphasis ours)

    The intense pain Evelyn suffered could be nothing but the result of penile penetration "into the labia of her pudendum," or "the bombardment of the drawbridge" sufficient to consummate rape. 17 Jurisprudence abound that full or complete penetration of the vaginal orifice is not required to consummate rape, for what is essential is the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, no matter how slight. 18

    In People v. Villanueva, 19 this Court emphasized: "In order that the crime of rape may be consummated, the successful penetration by the rapist of the female’s genital is not indispensable. Penile invasion, it has often been held, necessarily entails contact with the labia and even the briefest of contacts under circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Coming now to the first assigned error, appellant maintains that the rape story was merely concocted by Evelyn and her mother, who both despise him for being a womanizer. To discredit the value of Evelyn’s testimony, he questions her moral character claiming that her daughter "is not a young ordinary lass whose story no one could doubt." 20 He cited the following testimony of Evelyn:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ARELLANO (appellant’s counsel):chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    Q Now, immediately after you woke up and you felt your father was on top of you, what was your father doing immediately after you woke up?

    A He was mashing my breasts and he fingered my vagina, sir.

    Q How did you learn this ‘fingering my vagina’ at your tender age?

    A I heard that word from adults especially from men, sir.

    Q You were telling us, you were mingling with men talking about fingering?

    FISCAL:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Misleading your honor.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Witness may answer.

    WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A I have male friends but they were not the ones talking about fingering, sir. I have male friends because we are playing basketball." 21 (Emphasis ours)

    x       x       x


    ARELLANO

    Q Because of that, you hated your father?

    A I have forgiven my father, sir, because it is natural for a man to have concubine as long as he will not neglect his family." 22 (Emphasis ours)

    Appellant argues that Evelyn’s familiarity with lustful and immoral acts like "fingering" of the vagina and maintaining a "concubine" as being "natural for a man," unveiled her corrupted morals. 23 As such, appellant submits that the court a quo erred in giving credence to Evelyn’s testimony.

    We disagree.

    The victim was a hapless twelve-year old girl when her father raped her. She was not the loose and promiscuous girl appellant wants this Court to believe. Antithetically, Evelyn was an intelligent lass as shown by her sharp recollection of her harrowing experience. Unfortunately, she was already exposed to the dark realities of life at a tender age. And this she sadly learned and saw from her very own father. As aptly observed by the Solicitor General:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Moral depravity cannot be imputed against Evelyn simply because her juvenile though intelligent mind recognizes and adopts societal tolerance for men who maintain mistresses.

    "That young children are aware of this social phenomenon should not exactly be a source of great wonder, certainly, not in the face of late twentieth century more. Appellant himself is the major contributor to his daughter’s untimely encounter with reality. He admitted that he has concubine (p. 13, TSN, July 19, 1997). From the records, he seems to have two or three more (p. 43, TSN, June 16,1997).

    "He is not yet even married to Evelyn’s mother, nor does he appear to be married to anyone at all (p. 7, TSN, July 19, 1997). All these were not hidden from Evelyn. It is thus perplexing as to how appellant could expect convent-bred innocence from his daughter when he is a regular destabilizer of conventional marital norms." 24

    That Evelyn spoke of ‘’fingering’’ and "concubines" in the course of her testimony is not fatal so as to tarnish her credibility as victim-witness of her father’s bestiality. To our mind, her being vocal about these matters portrays candid, albeit bold, admission of her flamboyant mind which all the more strengthens the veracity and spontaneity of her testimony. She could have deliberately veiled this personality if only to generate and ensure sympathy from the trial court. Yet, Evelyn remained sincere and outspoken on any question propounded to her. We note, with sadness and disdain, the proliferation of rape cases where fathers molest and defile the innocence of their own flesh and blood. Worse, they still have the audacity to malign and slight their daughter’s reputation if only to exonerate themselves from their unspeakable deed, as in the case at bench.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    We likewise reject appellant’s theory that Evelyn and her mother fabricated the rape story. This Court has consistently held that no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape, particularly against her father, if such were not the truth. 25 Courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, and particularly in cases of incestuous rape, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial, along with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation, were it not to condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished. 26 Even when consumed with revenge, it would take a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman, like Evelyn, to concoct a story which would put her own father for most of his remaining life in jail, if not put him to his death, and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame. 27 Too, it is highly unnatural for a mother, virtuous or not, 28 to use her own daughter as "an engine of malice, especially if it will subject her daughter to embarrassment and even stigma." 29

    Neither are we persuaded by appellant’s alibi. We have consistently held that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed, but he must also demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. 30 Further, alibi must be supported by the most convincing evidence since it is an inherently weak defense which can easily be fabricated. 31

    Here, appellant utterly failed prove the physical-impossibility requirement of alibi. He insists that he was working at the project site in Tagaytay City when the crime was committed in Biñan, Laguna. But this fact does not preclude his presence at the locus criminis as revealed by his very own corroborating witness, Gemma Makilang. On cross-examination, she declared that appellant’s employer also owned another project in Biñan, Laguna, 32 and that he was one of the workers frequently transferred to the Biñan project site when there were rush jobs to be done. 33 Significantly, she said that the distance between these two project sites can easily be negotiated in a matter of only over an hour by a public transportation, and when the company truck is used to transport the workers, the trip would only take one (1) hour. 34 Thus, it was not physically impossible for appellant to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. His defense of alibi becomes completely worthless for he was positively identified by the victim as the author of her defloration.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Anent the second assigned error, appellant argues that assuming he committed the crime, he should nonetheless be entitled to an acquittal since Evelyn herself categorically declared that she had already forgiven her father. 35 Suffice it to state that in cases where the offended party is a minor, the pardon must be given by both the parents and the offended party. 36 Here, while it appears that Evelyn forgave appellant, the records are bereft of any similar act from her mother. Thus, appellant’s plea that he was effectively pardoned must fail.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    We will not disturb the trial court’s imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua against appellant. The concurrence of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance which must be both alleged in the Information and proved during the trial with certainty. 37 True, the prosecution was able to establish the fact of minority of the victim as well as her relationship to the offender. However, while the circumstance of minority was specifically alleged in the Information, this was not so with respect to the fact of relationship between the offender and the offended party. Such defect in the Information is fatal and effectively bars conviction of the appellant for rape in its qualified form which is punishable with death. 38

    Finally, we rectify the error committed by the court a quo with respect to the award of damages. The victim was awarded P100,000.00 by way of moral damages. That is not in line with the prevailing jurisprudence, 39 which fixed the award of moral damages to P50,000.00. In addition, an amount of P50,000 should be awarded Evelyn as indemnity ex delito. 40 Since the fact of relationship between the offender and the victim is an aggravating circumstance, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is also in order. 41 In People v. Catubig, 42 the Court, speaking through Justice Jose C. Vitug, clarified that an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.

    WHEREFORE, the appealed decision convicting Erlindo Makilang of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA is hereby AFFIRMED. Insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, the appealed decision is MODIFIED. Appellant is ordered to PAY the victim, Evelyn Makilang, P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delito; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against the appellant.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Vitug, J., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Judge Hilario F. Corcuera.

    2. Rollo, p. 7.

    3. Records of the RTC, p. 24.

    4. Appellee’s Brief, pp. 3-5; Rollo, pp. 78-80.

    5. Exhibit "C", records of the RTC, p. 11.

    6. Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), August 19, 1997, pp. 3, 9.

    7. Ibid, p. 6.

    8. Ibid, pp. 10-13.

    9. TSN, August 17,1998, p. 10.

    10. Ibid, p. 7.

    11. Ibid, p. 56.

    12. Records of the RTC, pp. 176-186.

    13. Appealed Decision, Rollo, p. 26.

    14. Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 43.

    15. TSN, June 10, 1997, pp. 9-14.

    16. TSN, June 17, 1997, pp. 12-13.

    17 People v. Campuhan, 329 SCRA 270, 282 (2000), citing People v. Escober, 281 SCRA 498 (1997) and People v. Quiflanola, 306 SCRA 710 (1999).

    18. People v. Bali-balita, G.R No. 134266, September 15, 2000.

    19. 339 SCRA 482 (August 31, 2000).

    20. Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 45.

    21. Ibid., p. 44, citing TSN, June 10, 1997, pp. 50-51.

    22. Ibid., p. 45.

    23. Ibid., p. 44.

    24. Appellees Brief, Rollo, pp. 96-97

    25. People v. Tabanggay, 334 SCRA 575, 597 (2000).

    26. People v. Diasanta, 335 SCRA 218, 226 (2000).

    27. People v. Alcala, 307 SCRA 330 (1999).

    28. People v. Deleverio, 289 SCRA 547, (1998).

    29. People v. Galleno, 291 SCRA 761, (1998).

    30. People v. Reduca, 301 SCRA 516, (1999).

    31. People v. Cantere, 304 SCRA 127 (1999).

    32. TSN, August 17, 1998, pp. 13-15.

    33. Ibid., p. 23.

    34. Ibid., pp. 18-20.

    35. Appellant’s Brief, p. 9; Rollo, p. 49.

    36. People v. dela Cruz, 224 SCRA 506, 522 (1993) and People v. Tudulan, 271 SCRA 233, 245 (1997).

    37. People v. Acala, 307 SCRA 330, (1999).

    38. People v. Ambray, 303 SCRA 697 (1999).

    39. People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411 (1998); People v. Alba, 305 SCRA 811 (1999).

    40. People v. Poñado, 311 SCRA 529 (1999).

    41. People v. Tabion, 317 SCRA 126, 147 (1999).

    42. G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001.

    G.R. No. 139329   October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG


    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