April 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > April 2016 Decisions >
G.R. No. 214349, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEO MENDOZA, Accused-Appellants.:
G.R. No. 214349, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEO MENDOZA, Accused-Appellants.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 214349, April 20, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEO MENDOZA, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
On appeal is the June 27, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01048-MIN which affirmed with modification the April 16, 2012 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 12, finding appellant Leo Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.3
The appellant was charged in an Information4 dated May 31, 2005, whose accusatory portion reads as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"That on or about December 3, 2004, in the City of Davao, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused LEO MENDOZA, who is the grandfather of complainant-victim [AAA],5 a nine (9) year old minor, by means of force and intimidation and taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over the herein victim, [AAA], did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of her, against her will.On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty. During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated, among others, that: (1) AAA was the granddaughter of the appellant; (2) AAA was nine (9) years old at the time of the alleged incident of rape; (3) AAA was at appellant's house on the day of the incident; and (4) AAA's step-grandmother, YYY, confronted the appellant on December 7, 2004 about the vaginal pain of AAA.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued with the prosecution presenting the following witnesses: the victim herself, AAA; her mother, XXX; her step-grandmother, YYY; and the examining physician, Dr. Vita P. Ogatis (Dr. Ogatis).
AAA testified that she was nine years old and that the incident happened at around 1:00 p.m. of December 3, 2004 at the appellant's house. During that time, YYY was at the public market6 and only AAA and the appellant were left at the house.7 AAA recounted that while inside the bedroom, the appellant quickly undressed her and mounted her. Using his hand to open AAA's vagina, the appellant inserted his penis into her private part. The forced sexual intercourse caused AAA to cry out in pain but was ordered by the appellant to keep her mouth shut.8 AAA was also warned by the appellant not to tell anyone about the incident.9 In spite of the warning, AAA related her misfortune to YYY after the latter noticed that she was sick.10 When YYY confronted the appellant, he denied having done anything to AAA and even mauled her for lying.11 On cross-examination, AAA stated that when she was made to hold the appellant's penis, it was soft12 and that it touched the side of her vagina.13
YYY began her testimony by stating, in open court, that she was the live-in partner of the appellant and that XXX, who was residing someplace else, is the daughter of the appellant from his first wife. XXX has a daughter, AAA, who was then living with YYY and the appellant in the latter's house. AAA is, therefore, the granddaughter of the appellant.
YYY narrated that in the morning of December 6, 2004, she saw AAA going back and forth to the comfort room. This prompted her to ask AAA what had happened to her and if she was suffering from stomach ache. AAA disclosed that her vagina was painful and that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her.14 In the evening of that same day, AAA developed a fever. As AAA still had fever on the following day, December 7, 2004, YYY had her panty removed. Upon closer inspection, YYY observed that AAA's vagina was swollen. YYY confirmed that when she confronted the appellant about AAA's claim of molestation, he got angry, accused AAA of lying and physically hurt the child-victim. Due to her own poor state of health and kidney trouble, it was only in February 2005 that YYY reported the rape incident to the police and had AAA medically examined.15
Dr. Ogatis, who was then a resident physician of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Davao Medical Center, conducted an anogenital examination on AAA on February 16, 2005. She issued the corresponding medical certificate16 bearing the following conclusions:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Anogenital Exam
Genitalia Crescentic hymen. (+) Partial healed laceration at 7 o'clock position of the hymen.