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
 

   
November-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 122103 November 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO PABILLO

  • G.R. Nos. 138662-63 November 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO A. MADERA

  • G.R. No. 148126 November 10, 2003 - GEORGE T. VILLENA v. SPS. ANTONIO & NOEMI CHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 160261, 160262, 160263, 160277, 160292, 160295, 160310, 160318, 160342, 160343, 160360, 160365, 160370, 160376, 160392, 160397, 160403 & 160405 November 10, 2003 - ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR., ET AL. v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 6139 November 11, 2003 - DOMINADOR L. CABANILLA v. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1521 November 11, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. GREGORIO M. MALLARE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1748 November 11, 2003 - JULIE C. PITNEY v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. No. 126624 November 11, 2003 - OSCAR SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 133250 November 11, 2003 - FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133547 & 133843 November 11, 2003 - HEIRS OF ANTONIO PAEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136397 November 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DAGAMI

  • G.R. No. 138612 November 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERCIVAL GONZA

  • G.R. Nos. 140388-91 November 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 144050 November 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON ANCHETA PUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144134 November 11, 2003 - MARIVELES SHIPYARD CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145431 November 11, 2003 - ROMEO PALOMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147800 November 11, 2003 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. TEOFILO C. RAMOS

  • G.R. Nos. 155560-62 November 11, 2003 - ALEEM AMERODDIN SARANGANI v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1513 November 12, 2003 - SPS. JAIME and PURIFICACION MORTA v. ANTONIO C. BAGAGÑAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119800 November 12, 2003 - FILIPINAS TEXTILE MILLS, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121177 November 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLIE ALMOGUERRA, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 121731-33 November 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARWIN DAVID

  • G.R. No. 138256 November 12, 2003 - CRESENCIANO DUREMDES v. AGUSTIN DUREMDES

  • G.R. Nos. 141724-27 November 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO ORANDE

  • G.R. No. 146094 November 12, 2003 - PHIL. TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. FELIPE D. CORTINA

  • G.R. No. 148407 November 12, 2003 - MA. LUISA OLARTE v. LEOCADIA NAYONA

  • G.R. No. 150633 November 12, 2003 - HEIRS OF DEMETRIO MELCHOR v. JULIO MELCHOR

  • A.M. No. P-03-1733 November 18, 2003 - ONOFRE M. MARANAN v. NECITAS A. ESPINELI

  • G.R. No. 127624 November 18, 2003 - BPI LEASING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 137147-48 November 18, 2003 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CARLOS LEOBRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140513 November 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 141766 November 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER OSPIG

  • G.R. No. 142532 November 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY M. QUIZON

  • G.R. No. 144412 November 18, 2003 - ALLIED BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148401 November 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGINALD M. GUILLERMO

  • G.R. Nos. 148743-45 November 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. FELIX MONTES

  • G.R. No. 148810 November 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. HEVER PAULINO

  • G.R. No. 152154 November 18, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156063 November 18, 2003 - MELECIO ALCALA, ET AL v. JOVENCIO VILLAR

  • O.C. A.M. No. 00-02 November 19, 2003 - ALBERTO V. GARONG v. ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1519 November 19, 2003 - NELSONIDA T. ULAT-MARRERO v. ANTONIO B. TORIO, JR.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1812 November 19, 2003 - PABLITO R. SORIA, ET AL. v. FRANKLYN A. VILLEGAS

  • G.R. No. 125784 November 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DINDO VALLEJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128109 November 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENO ESPERAS

  • G.R. No. 144483 November 19, 2003 - STA. CATALINA COLLEGE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152688 November 19, 2003 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • A.M. No. 2003-5-SC November 20, 2003 - VALENTINO V. RUGA v. EDWIN S. LIGOT

  • G.R. No. 126376 November 20, 2003 - SPS. BERNARDO BUENAVENTURA and CONSOLACION JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135441 November 20, 2003 - ROBERTO P. TOLENTINO v. DOLORES NATANAUAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 141316 November 20, 2003 - CLARA REYES PASTOR, ET AL v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 147589 & 147689 November 20, 2003 - ANG BAGONG BAYANI v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157216 November 20, 2003 - 246 CORP. v. REYNALDO B. DAWAY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1422 November 21, 2003 - NEGROS GRACE PHARMACY v. ALFREDO P. HILARIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1813 November 21, 2003 - ANTONIO D. SELUDO v. ANTONIO J. FINEZA

  • G.R. Nos. 135779-81 November 21, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIANO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 150983-84 November 21, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TALAVERA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1343 November 24, 2003 - ORLANDO T. MENDOZA v. ROSBERT M. TUQUERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135844-45 November 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. DOMINADOR ILUIS

  • G.R. No. 139255 November 24, 2003 - RAYMOND MICHAEL JACKSON v. FLORITO S. MACALINO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 139609 November 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EXEQUIEL MAHINAY

  • G.R. No. 147259 November 24, 2003 - RICARDO ALCANTARA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148191 November 25, 2003 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SOLIDBANK CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 159486-88 November 25, 2003 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1610 November 27, 2003 - RAPHAEL B. YRASTORZA, SR. v. MICHAEL A. LATIZA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1741 November 27, 2003 - NORBERTO LOZADA, ET AL. v. LUIS J. ARRANZ

  • G.R. No. 123298 November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO L. CALPITO

  • G.R. No. 134460 November 27, 2003 - AQUILINA ESTRELLA, ET AL. v. NILA ESPIRIDION

  • G.R. Nos. 136592-93 November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO PANCHO

  • G.R. No. 137366 November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO MOLE

  • G.R. No. 141186 November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL S. PULANCO

  • G.R. No. 149808 November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 151858 November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO T. PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 151942 November 27, 2003 - SPS. GREGORIO GO and JUANA TAN GO v. JOHNSON Y. TONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156567 November 27, 2003 - JOSE RIMANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137598 November 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAYSON BERDIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140227 November 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERWIN T. OTAYDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143435-36 November 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX L. FLORES

  • G.R. No. 148305 November 28, 2003 - SPS. ROGELIO & CONCHITA JALIQUE v. SPS. EPIFANIO & JULIETA DANDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152080 November 28, 2003 - LORETTA P. DELA LLANA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155087 November 28, 2003 - EDUARDO T. SAYA-ANG, SR., ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157249 November 28, 2003 - HOMER T. SAQUILAYAN v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. Nos. 136592-93   November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO PANCHO

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. Nos. 136592-93. November 27, 2003.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MANOLITO PANCHO, Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:


    This is an appeal from the Joint Decision 1 dated June 19, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan, finding appellant Manolito Pancho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape in Criminal Case No. 837-M-96 and attempted rape in Criminal Case No. 838-M-96. In Criminal Case No. 837-M-96, the trial court sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua, while in Criminal Case No. 838-M-96, the penalty of 10 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 12 years, as maximum of prision mayor, was imposed upon him.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Informations in both Criminal Case Nos. 837-M-96 and 838-M-96 read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    For Criminal Case No. 837-M-96 (For Rape):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That in or about the month of August, 1994, in the municipality of Malolos, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, threats and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of said Michelle L. dela Torre, 11 years of age, against her will and without her consent.

    "Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

    For Criminal Case No. 838-M-96 (For Attempted Rape):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That in or about the month of December, 1995, in the municipality of Malolos, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, threats and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of said Michelle L. dela Torre, 11 years of age, against her will and without her consent.

    "Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.

    Thereafter, trial ensued. The evidence for the prosecution shows that complainant Michelle dela Torre was born on April 2, 1984 2 to spouses Exequiela Lacanilao and Eduardo dela Torre. After Michelle’s father passed away, her mother contracted a second marriage with appellant. Michelle and her two (2) brothers live with the couple at Look First, Malolos, Bulacan.

    On August 1, 1994, at around 6:00 o’clock in the morning, Michelle, who was then only ten years old, went home after spending the night at her aunt’s house. While she was about to undress, appellant suddenly dragged her and forced her to lie down on the floor. Although frightened, she struggled by kicking and boxing him. However, he forcibly removed her clothes and underwear. Then he took off his clothing. Appellant started kissing and holding her breast and eventually had carnal knowledge of her. She felt pain when he inserted his organ into her vagina which bled. She tried to resist but he held her both arms. He was on top of her making push and pull movements for four (4) minutes. Then he dressed up, threatening to kill her should she complain or tell anyone about the incident.

    Sometime in December, 1995 at the family’s new residence at Bayugo, Meycauayan, Bulacan, appellant arrived from work. When Michelle opened the door and saw him, she got scared. While he was approaching her, she managed to hit him. Then she attempted to jump out of the window, but he dragged her by her feet. At that instance, her uncle (Tito Onio) suddenly arrived. 3 Immediately, appellant stopped, thus thwarting his bestial desire.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    After sometime, Michelle mustered enough courage to report the incidents to her mother, but the latter casually ignored her. So, she turned to her grandmother Natividad Lacanilao, who brought her, sometime in February, 1996, to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for examination by a medico-legal officer. 4 Thereafter, they proceeded to the Malolos Police Station where she executed a sworn statement. 5

    Dr. Ida P. Daniel, a Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI, testified that she conducted a medico-genital examination of Michelle dela Torre. Her findings, 6 which she confirmed on the witness stand, are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Height: 132.0 cms

    Weight: 78.0 cms

    Normally developed, fairly nourished, conscious, coherent, cooperative, ambulatory subject.

    Breasts, developing, conical, firm. Areolae, brown, 2.5 cms in diameter. Nipples, brown, protruding, 0.5 cm in diameter.

    No sign of extragenital physical injury noted.

    "GENITAL EXAMINATION:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Pubic hair, fine, scanty. Labia majora and minora, coaptated. Fourchette, tense. Vestibular mucosa, pinkish. Hymen, moderately tall, moderately thick, intact. Hymenal orifice, annular, admits a tube 2.0 cms in diameter with moderate resistance. Vaginal walls, tight. Rugosities, prominent.

    "CONCLUSIONS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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

    2. Hymen, intact and its orifice small (2.0 cms in diameter) as to preclude complete penetration by an average sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any genital injury."cralaw virtua1aw library

    For his part, appellant strongly denied the charges, contending that it was impossible for him to commit the crimes considering that during the incidents, his wife and her two sons were also inside the house. 7 Moreover, the charge of rape is totally belied by the finding of the NBI Medico-Legal Officer that Michelle’s hymen has remained intact with no sign of extra-genital or genital injuries.

    After trial, the lower court rendered a Joint Decision dated June 19, 1998, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In view of all the foregoing and by proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. With respect to Criminal Case No. 837-M-96, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and hereby sentences accused MANOLITO PANCHO to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    2. With respect to Criminal Case No. 838-M-96, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Rape, and hereby sentences accused MANOLITO PANCHO to suffer an imprisonment of TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to TWELVE (12) YEARS.

    3. To indemnify the victim Michelle dela Torre the amount of P20,000.00 — each case.

    "The period of the accused’s detention is credited in his favor.

    "SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In this appeal, appellant ascribes to the trial court the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    "I


    THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES OF RAPE AND ATTEMPTED RAPE, DESPITE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

    "II


    THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE PUT UP BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT."cralaw virtua1aw library

    As alleged in the Informations, the crimes charged were committed sometime in August, 1994 and December, 1995. Thus, the governing law is Article 335 8 of the Revised Penal Code which, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law), 9 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ART. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. By using force or intimidation;

    2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

    3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

    "The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

    x       x       x


    "The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime or rape is committed with any of the following attendant 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.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    2. . . .."cralaw virtua1aw library

    A. — G.R. No. 136592 for rape:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Rape under the above provisions is either simple or qualified. It is qualified when the age of the victim (below 18) and her relationship with the appellant are both alleged in the Information and proved. 10 In this case, the prosecution failed to allege in the Information the qualifying circumstance that appellant is the victim’s step-parent. Thus, he may only be convicted of simple rape.

    Simple rape is committed under any of the following circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. By using force or intimidation;

    2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

    3. When the woman is under twelve years of age (statutory rape) or is demented.

    In the Information, appellant is being charged of statutory rape considering that Michelle was then below 12 years old.

    The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. 11 In statutory rape, force, intimidation or physical evidence of injury is immaterial. 12 Where the girl is below 12 years of age, violence or intimidation is not required, and the only subject of inquiry is whether carnal knowledge took place. 13

    As shown by her Certificate of Live Birth, 14 Michelle was born on April 2, 1984. Thus, on August 1, 1994 when the incident took place, she was only 10 years and 3 months old.

    Michelle identified appellant in open court as the culprit who raped her. She testified as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "FISCAL:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q: Ms. Witness, you claim in your testimony that you were raped by your step father Manolito Pancho last August 1, 1994, will you please tell this Honorable Court how Manolito Pancho raped you?

    A: About 6:00 o’clock in the morning I went home, sir.

    Q: And where is your home located?

    A: I went home at Look First, Malolos, Bulacan.

    Q: And what happened when you went home at Look, Malolos, Bulacan?

    A: Manolito Pancho dragged me and forced me to lie on the floor.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Q: And what happened when after Manolito Pancho lay you on the floor?

    A: He took off all my clothes.

    Q: And what clothes you are wearing at that time, Ms. witness?

    A: I was wearing a t-shirt and short, sir.

    Q: What else Manolito Pancho removed?

    A: My clothes, short and panty, sir.

    Q. And what was your appearance after these clothes were removed by Manolito Pancho?

    A: I was naked, sir.

    Q: How about Manolito Pancho, what did he do after he removed your dress?

    A: He also took-off his clothes, sir.

    Q: What clothes did he remove?

    A: His t-shirt, short and brief, sir.

    Q: After Manolito removed all these: his short, brief and t-shirt, what did he do?

    A: He placed himself on top of me.

    Q: And what happened after he placed himself on top of you?

    A: He inserted his penis on my vagina.

    Q: Were you able to see his organ when he inserted it on your vagina?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: What happened when he inserted his organ on your vagina?

    A: He was kissing me and touching my body, sir.

    Q: What particular parts of your body did Manolito Pancho kiss and touch, Ms. witness?

    A: My both breasts, sir.

    Q: And what did you feel when Manolito Pancho inserted his organ on your vagina?

    A: It hurts, sir.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Q: What motion did he do if you can still remember when Manolito Pancho was on top of you?

    A: He was kissing me, touching me and then I tried to struggle against him but he was holding my both hands so that I could not struggle.

    Q: And what happened to your vagina after he inserted his penis?

    A: It bled, sir.

    Q: How long did Manolito Pancho stay on top of you?

    A: Four (4) minutes, sir.

    Q: And after four (4) minutes, what did Manolito Pancho do?

    A: I already dressed up because he already dressed-up, sir.

    Q: And what did Manolito Pancho tell you, if any?

    A: He said, do not complain because if you do so, I am going to kill you.

    Q: How are you related with Manolito Pancho, Ms. witness?

    A: My step father, sir.

    Q: At the time you claimed that you were raped by Manolito Pancho, will you please tell this Honorable Court, how young were you then?

    A: Ten (10) years old, sir.

    Q: Do you have evidence to show Ms. witness that you are ten (10) years old at that time?

    A: My birth certificate, sir.

    Q: Do you have with you your birth certificate?

    A: Yes, sir. (The grandmother is producing the Live Birth Certificate of the complainant Michelle dela Torre.)

    Q: Will you please tell this Honorable Court what is your date of birth, Ms. witness?

    A: April 2, 1984.

    Q: And you claimed that you were 10 years old when you were raped by Manolito Pancho?

    A: Yes, sir.

    x       x       x." 15

    Michelle’s testimony is straightforward, unflawed by significant inconsistency, and unshaken by rigid cross-examination. It deserves full faith and credence. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the rape victim if her testimony is credible, natural, and convincing. 16

    When a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape had been committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. 17 It bears stressing that Michelle, a girl of tender years, innocent and guileless, cannot be expected to brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape to her step-father if it were not true.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Appellant vigorously denied the charge, contending that per the Medical Report of Dr. Ida Daniel, Michelle’s hymen has remained intact. 18

    We are not persuaded.

    Appellant heavily relies on the virgo intacta theory. 19 He disregards Dr. Daniel’s testimony that there are two types of hymen: (1) one that remains intact even though there is penetration; (2) the other is lacerated after penetration. 20 We have ruled that in rape cases the absence of fresh lacerations does not preclude the finding of rape, 21 especially when the victim is of tender age. 22 Moreover, laceration of the hymen is not an element of the crime of rape. 23 Hymenal rupture or any indication of vaginal laceration or genital injury is not necessary for the consummation of rape. 24 Its absence does not negate a finding of forced sexual coitus. 25 For the rule is well settled that rape is consummated by the slightest penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum of the female organ. 26 Indeed, the evidentiary weight of the medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction for rape. 27

    Appellant’s denial is an inherently weak defense. It has always been viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted. 28 Inherently weak, denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the accused, as in this case. The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution’s evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 29 Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters. 30

    B. — G.R. No. 136593 for attempted rape:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Appellant also contends that his conviction of attempted rape in Criminal Case No. 838-M-96 is not supported by evidence.

    Michelle testified that when appellant "was coming near me, I hit him and I saw that our door was opened. I tried to jump and that was the time he dragged and he held my feet." 31 Appellant and Michelle were in this snap situation when his Tito Onio arrived. 32 Her testimony regarding this incident is quoted as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "FISCAL:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    Q: And what happened in that place at Bayugo, Meycauayan, Bulacan?

    A: When the door opened I thought it was my mother and when I saw him I was scared, sir.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Q: And what happened when you saw Manolito Pancho?

    A: I closed the door, sir.

    Q: Thereafter, what happened?

    A: When he was coming near me, I hit him and I saw that our door was opened. I tried to jump and that was the time he dragged and he held my feet.

    Q: And what happened after Manolito Pancho held your feet?

    A: When he was holding my feet I was not able to jump from the window and that’s the time the door opened and then I saw my uncle that is why the rape was not committed.

    x       x       x." 33

    Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code, rape is attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. 34

    In this second case, the prosecution failed to prove that appellant started to rape the victim and had commenced the performance of acts of carnal knowledge. He did not force her to lie down or remove her garment. In short, there was no showing that he did commence at all the performance of any act indicative of an intent or attempt to rape the victim. What he did was to "drag" her and hold her feet. At this juncture, we can not safely conclude that he was attempting to rape her.

    In People v. Campuhan, 35 we held that the thin line that separates attempted rape from consummated rape is the entrance of the male organ into the labial threshold of the female genitalia. In that case, the accused was caught by the mother of the victim kneeling on top of her. The victim testified that the accused’s organ merely touched but did not penetrate her vagina. We held that he could not be convicted of statutory rape but only attempted rape.

    In the instant case, appellant was merely holding complainant’s feet when her Tito Onio arrived at the alleged locus criminis. Thus, it would be stretching to the extreme our credulity if we were to conclude that mere holding of the feet is attempted rape.

    Anent the award of damages in G.R. No. 136592, we observed that the trial court only awarded the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P20,000.00. This must be corrected. We have consistently ruled that upon a finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity is mandatory. If the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity ex delicto should be P75,000.00. Where, as here, the death penalty is not decreed, the victim should be entitled to P50,000.00 only. 36

    In line with current jurisprudence, we also award the victim moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof. 37 The anguish and pain she has endured are evident.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 19, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 837-M-96, convicting appellant Manolito Pancho of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that he is ordered to pay the victim, Michelle dela Torre, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

    In Criminal Case No. 838-M-96, the trial court’s judgment convicting the appellant of attempted rape is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and a new one is entered ACQUITTING him of the crime charged.

    Costs de oficio.

    SO ORDERED.

    Vitug, Corona and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Judge Carlos C. Ofilada (retired, now deceased), Rollo at 18–26.

    2. Certificate of Live Birth, Exhibits "B" and "B-1," Records at 71.

    3. TSN, January 29, 1997 at 4–5.

    4. TSN, March 12, 1997 at 3–4.

    5. TSN, February 19, 1997 at 5–6.

    6. Records at 73.

    7. TSN, October 28, 1997 at 5–6.

    8. Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which took effect on October 22, 1997, providing that rape is a crime against persons (Articles 266-A, 266-B, 266-C, and 266-D, RPC).

    9. Which took effect on December 31, 1993, People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555, 569.

    10. People v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 133987, January 28, 2000, 323 SCRA 836.

    11. People v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 133926, August 6, 2003, citing People v. Libeta, G.R. No. 139231, April 12, 2002, 381 SCRA 21; People v. Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, March 5, 2003.

    12. People v. Ligotan, G.R. No. 119219, September 30, 1996, 262 SCRA 602, citing People v. Palicte, G.R. No. 101088, January 27, 1994, 229 SCRA 543.

    13. People v. Lerio, G.R. No. 116729, January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 76.

    14. Supra; TSN, January 29, 1997 at 3–4; TSN, February 19, 1997 at 2–3; TSN, September 9, 1997 at 8.

    15. TSN, January 29, 1997 at 1–3.

    16. People v. Sale, G.R. Nos. 137978–79, November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 490; People v. Alicante, G.R. Nos. 127026–27, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA 440.

    17. People v. Bation, G.R. No. 123160, March 25, 1999, 305 SCRA 253; People v. Ayo, supra; People v. Balmoria, G.R. Nos. 120620–21, March 20, 1998, 287 SCRA 687. See People v. Penaso, G.R. No. 121980, February 23, 2000, 326 SCRA 311; People v. Loriega, G.R. Nos. 116009–10, February 29, 2000, 326 SCRA 675.

    18. Rollo at 57–58.

    19. See People v. Sampior, G.R. No. 117691, March 1, 2000, 327 SCRA 31.

    20. Rollo at 21, 95; Decision at 4; TSN, September 9, 1997 at 4–5.

    21. People v. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002, citing People v. Geraban, G.R. No. 137048, May 24, 2001, 358 SCRA 213.

    22. People v. Pruna, supra, citing People v. Ayo, G.R. No. 123540, March 30, 1999, 305 SCRA 543 and People v. Bation, G.R. No. 123160, March 25, 1999, 305 SCRA 253. See People v. Lomibao, G.R. No. 135855, August 3, 2000, 337 SCRA 211.

    23. People v. Esteves, G.R. No. 140392, September 27, 2002, citing People v. Llamo, G.R. No. 132138, January 28, 2000, 323 SCRA 791; People v. Sapinoso, G.R. No. 122540, March 22, 2000, 328 SCRA 649.

    24. People v. Deauna, G.R. Nos. 143200–01, August 1, 2002, citing People v. Lerio, supra.

    25. Id., citing People v. Almacin, G.R. No. 113253, February 19, 1999, 303 SCRA 399.

    26. People v. Pruna, supra, citing People v. Rafales, G.R. No. 133477, January 21, 2000, 323 SCRA 13. See People v. Briones, G.R. No. 140640, October 15, 2002, citing People v. Barredo, 329 SCRA 120 (2000); People v. Balgos, G.R. No. 126115, January 26, 2000, 323 SCRA 372.

    27. People v. Lerio, supra; People v. Baltazar, 329 SCRA 378 (2000). See People v. Auxtero, G.R. No. 118314, April 15, 1998, 289 SCRA 75; People v. Venerable, G.R. No. 110110, May 13, 1998, 290 SCRA 15.

    28. People v. Watiwat, G.R. No. 139400, September 3, 2003.

    29. People v. Colisao, G.R. No. 134526, December 11, 2001, 372 SCRA 20.

    30. People v. Musa, G.R. No. 143703, November 29, 2001, 371 SCRA 234.

    31. TSN, January 29, 1997 at 4–5.

    32. Id.; Tito Onio is the brother of her mother. See TSN, February 19, 1997 at 3.

    33. TSN, January 29, 1997 at 4–5.

    34. People v. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000, 329 SCRA 270.

    35. Id.

    36. People v. Dalisay, supra, citing People v. Armando Tagud, Sr., G.R. No. 140733, January 30, 2002; People v. Poñado, 370 Phil. 558 (1999); People v. Maglente, 366 Phil. 221 (1999); People v. Olarte, G.R. Nos. 129530–31, September 24, 2001, 365 SCRA 635; People v. Elpedes, G.R. Nos. 137106–07, January 31, 2001, 350 SCRA 716.

    37. Id., citing People v. Salalima, G.R. Nos. 137969–71, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 193; People v. Agustin, G.R. Nos. 132524–25, September 24, 2001, 365 SCRA 667.

    G.R. Nos. 136592-93   November 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO PANCHO


    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