FIRST
DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. 116060
July 31, 1997
-versus-
CLEMENTE
DE LA PEÑA alias "AYAG",
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Clemente de la
Pena alias Ayag, a 56-year
old bachelor, was convicted of rape for having carnal knowledge of
10-year
old Janet Bajao on 19 April 1991. The trial court sentenced him to
reclusion
perpetua and ordered him to indemnify his victim P50,000.00 for moral
damages
and another P50,000.00 for exemplary damages, and to pay the costs.[1]
By the victim's account, while she was alone gathering firewood at
about
1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 19 April 1991 in the coconut
plantation
of Catalino Ipanag in Sitio Min-abaca, Barangay South Poblacion,
Medina,
Misamis Oriental, accused Clemente de la Peña suddenly came from
behind and without saying a word forcibly dragged her to a nearby hut.
Once inside he undressed her and placed himself on top of her. He
masturbated
and then pushed his penis into her vagina. There was no
penetration.
Afterwards he handed her a P2 coin.
Since it was
already lunch time Rosalie, older
sister of Janet, followed her to the plantation to fetch her. Rosalie
heard
some conversation coming from the hut. From a distance of about three
[3]
meters she saw Janet lying down with face up while the accused was on
top
of her, making push-and-pull[2]
movements of his hips and at the same time masturbating. He inserted
his
penis into the vagina of Janet. When Ayag noticed the presence of
Rosalie,
he stopped and the latter ran away and reported the matter to her
mother.cralaw:red
At 7:00 o'clock
that evening the victim was examined
by the Municipal Health Officer. The examination revealed that her
hymen
was intact but there was penetration. The hymenal tags were no longer
visible
due to constant rubbing of a hard object probably an erectile penis and
the edges of the labia minora were already gaping with redness
which
could have been caused by an erectile penis forced into the vagina.cralaw:red
The accused
disavowed any knowledge of the crime
but admitted that at the time of the incident he was masturbating
inside
his hut while the victim was outside about two [2] arms length away. He
now prays for exoneration claiming that the crime of rape was not
proved.
He capitalizes on the testimony of the victim that he did not insert
his
penis into her vagina hence there was no penetration. Considering this
statement of the victim, the question now is whether accused-appellant
is still liable for statutory rape.cralaw:red
While the victim
may have so testified, it should
be remembered that she was only ten [10] years old at the time,
guileless
and innocent in the ways of the world. She must have thought that the
penis
of appellant merely touched her vagina and nothing more. Indeed, she
was
captive of her own innocence. But We consider significant the following
narration of the witness:
Q: Can you demonstrate [to] the Honorable
Court
how [did] he masturbate (sic)?
A: Yes, sir {witness demonstrating
with the
use
of her left index finger representing the penis of Clemente de la
Peña
and with her right close (sic) fist inserted [her] left finger
[into
her] right close (sic) fist}[3]
Apparently her
sexual awareness was still that of
a child as she entertained the notion that when appellant put his penis
into her vagina that was also masturbation. At any rate, her testimony
on mere touching is just one side of the narrative. Accused-appellant
conveniently
disregarded the testimony of the expert witness. The examining
physician
categorically stated that there was penetration since the edges of the
labia minora were already gaping with redness. This
condition
in
her opinion could have been caused by an erectile penis driven into the
vagina. Moreover, the hymenal tags were no longer present due to
constant
rubbing of a hard object, probably an erect penis. The medical finding
that only the labia minora was penetrated since the hymen was still
intact
may thus provide another explanation for the victim's perception that
there
was no penetration.
Some years back
this Court was faced with a similar
attack on the testimony of a rape victim. In People v. Castillo[4]
a five-year old girl, after having been undressed by her family's
houseboy,
was asked to lie on top of him. He then made a push-and-pull movement.
She felt his private part touch her vagina but there was no
penetration.
The accused harped on this testimony to dispute his conviction for
rape.
But the Court, as in the present case, was totally unconvinced. It
reasoned
out that when the physician's finding of penetration is corroborated by
the testimony of the victim that the appellant's private part touched
her
vagina, it is sufficient to establish the essential requisite of carnal
knowledge.cralaw:red
More so in this
case when Janet's sister "saw
the accused on top of her, making a push-and-pull movement of his hips
and at the same time masturbating." Clearly, the essential requisite of
carnal knowledge has been adequately established. Statutory rape as
defined
in Art. 335, Par. [3], of the Revised Penal Code is committed by having
carnal knowledge of a woman under twelve [12] years of age. The
penetration,
no matter how slight, or mere introduction of the male organ into the labia
of the pudendum constitutes carnal knowledge.cralaw:red
We however
clarify that reclusion perpetua entails
imprisonment of at least thirty (30) years. The statement in the
dispositive
portion of the decision of the trial court that the penalty is
equivalent
to thirty [30] years gives the impression that after that period the
convict
is to be immediately set free. This is not so; rather, he only becomes
eligible for pardon.[5]
WHEREFORE, the
judgment appealed from finding
accused-appellant CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA alias Ayag guilty
of
statutory rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, to pay Janet
Bajao
moral damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos [P50,000.00] is AFFIRMED.
However,
the amount of exemplary damages awarded by the court a quo is reduced
to
Twenty Thousand Pesos [P20,000.00].cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Padilla, Vitug,
Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr.,
JJ., concur.cralaw:red
_______________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Decision penned by Judge Vivencio A. Galon, RTC-Br. 26, Misamis
Oriental;
Records, pp. 114-115.
[2]
"Dugno-dugno."
[3]
TSN, 14 October 1992, pp. 12-13.
[4]
G. R. No. 84310, 29 May 1991, 197 SCRA 657.
[5]
People v. Penillos, G.R. No. 65673, 30 January 1992, 205 SCRA 546. |