Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 174535 : February 02, 2009] LT. COL. RIZALDY C. RAGITAL V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 02 February 2009:

G.R. No. 174535 (Lt. Col. Rizaldy C. Ragital v. People of the Philippines). - The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City found appellant Rizaldy Ragual guilty of raping the sixteen (16) year-old niece of his live-in partner.^[1] The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC's decision.^[2]

The victim positively identified appellant as the perpetrator of the horrendous crime. On the day of the rape, the victim was left alone with the appellant by her aunt. While the victim was cooking breakfast, appellant approached her and pointed a gun at her right temple. Appellant pulled the victim towards the room of her aunt when she refused to undress. Inside the room, appellant succeeded in inserting his penis inside her vagina for two minutes.

On the other hand, appellant denied having committed the rape and gave the alibi that he was at Clark Air Base in Pampanga on 3 February 2000 and on the day of the rape while the victim was staying at Villamor Air Base in Pasay City. He claimed that the victim begrudged him for she thought that he was benefiting financially from her aunt.

Appellant's denials and alibi, which are merely self-serving evidence, cannot prevail over the positive, consistent and straightforward testimony of the victim. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the accused must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed^[3] In appellant's case, it was not physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at the time the rape was committed. Considering the available means of transportation and the fact that national highways connect the two places, there is no physical impossibility for appellant to be at the locus criminis; hence, the second requisite for alibi to prosper is absent.

The alleged inconclusiveness of the medical findings of the medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation as to whether there was sexual intercourse between the appellant and the victim is immaterial in rape. Time and again, the Court has ruled that hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.^[4] The victim need not sustain genital injuries, for even the slightest penetration of the labia by the male organ is equivalent to consummated rape.^[5] Besides, the fact that the victim's hymen was distensible would satisfactorily explain the absence of lacerations on her genitalia. The medico-legal officer further elucidated that the victim's hymen orifice is 2.5 centimeters in diameter and it allows complete penetration by an average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing hymenal injury.  In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's candor is the single most important issue. If a complainant's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the sole basis thereof.^[6] Thus, absent any credible imputation of ill motive on the part of the victim to falsely accuse the appellant of a heinous crime, her candid and consistent testimony should be given full faith and credit.^[7]

Finding no reversible error in the assailed decision, the Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its 27 March 2006 Decision with modification on the amount of the damages awarded. Since the qualifying circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon was present in the commission of the rape, the Court awards exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. Exemplary damages are justified under Article 2230 of the Civil Code if there is an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying.^[8]

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the 27 March 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00340 finding Rizaldy Ragual guilty of rape with the MODIFICATION that he is further ordered to pay the victim P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against appellant.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 116. The 26 April 2002 Decision was penned by Judge Lilia Lopez. The dispositive portion reads as follows:

In view of all the foregoing evidences., the Court opines that the prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt when at the point of a gun accused Rizaldy Ragual raped minor complainant [AAA] at his quarters at Villamor Air Base, Pasay City and hereby sentences him to RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the complainant civil liability in the amount of P50.000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.

 SO ORDERED.

 
^[2] Id. at 95. The 27 March 2006 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo Cruz and Sesinando Villon. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the above premises, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto,
 
 SO ORDERED.

 
^[3] See People v. Ejandra, G.R. No. 134203, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 364,379.

^[4] People v. Escober, 346 Phil. 513, 522 (1997); People v. Zaballero, 30 June 1997, 274 SCRA 627; People v. Garcia, 351 Phil. 624 (1998), People v. Tirona, 360 Phil. 611 (1998).

^[5] People v. Borja, 335 Phil. 48, 56 (1997).

^[6] People v. De Guzman y Pascual, 388 Phil. 943 (2000).

^[7] See People v, Abrecinoz, 346 Phil. 37 (1997); People v. Escober, supra.

^[8] People v. Limos, G.R. Nos. 122114-17, 20 January 2004 citing People v.  Silverio Montemayor, G.R. "Nos. 124474 & 139972-78, 28 January 2003.