SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 104948 March 7, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMMANUEL ESPINO y COBE, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.chanrobles virtual law library

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

PUNO, J.:

This is an appeal by Emmanuel Espino y Cobe from the Judgment, dated February 27, 1992, of the RTC, Third Judicial Region, Br. 58, Angeles City, ¹in Crim. Case No. 12290, where he was convicted for the Rape of Felisa Gaerlan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Accused-appellant was charged with Rape in a Criminal Complaint, dated March 5, 1990, which reads:

The undersigned Complainant, under oath accuses EMMANUEL ESPINO Y COBE of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:

That on or about the 28th day of February, 1990, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by taking advantage of the tender age and innocence of the complainant, FELISA A. GAERLAN, who is below 12 years of age, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will and consent.

ALL CONTRARY TO LAW.

When he was arraigned, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Two eyewitnesses were presented by the prosecution to prove the rape charge against accused-appellant: complainant FELISA GAERLAN, born on March 10, 1979, ²student, and a resident of Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga; and RUBEN AQUINO of the Angeles City Police Department.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Felisa related that around noon on February 26, 1990, she was in front of the Golden City Market, selling plastic bags and playing ³when she was approached by accused-appellant. He expressed his desire to buy all of the bags which Felisa was peddling, ⁴and offered her thirty (P30.00) pesos to carry some onions for him. She agreed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Felisa then voluntarily went with accused-appellant so they could get the onions. ⁵When they arrived at the place called Sunrise-Sunset, a cogonal area inside the Sunrise Farm located in Barangay Cutcut, Angeles City, accused-appellant commanded Felisa to undress ⁶He, too, stripped down to his underwear. Accused-appellant made Felisa lie down on her clothes, took off his brief, and then mounted her. He inserted his penis into her vagina, and made push-and-pull movements while he was inside her. ⁷This lasted only for a short while, ⁸as the molestation was chanced upon by witness Ruben Aquino and two other policemen who were then conducting surveillance operations in connection with a series of rapes committed on children aged seven (7) to eleven (11) years old in the area. ⁹chanrobles virtual law library

Upon seeing accused-appellant, naked, on top of Felisa doing push-and-pull movements, ¹⁰the three policemen immediately tried to accost the former, who ran away. ¹¹After a brief chase, the three caught up with and arrested accused-appellant. He was brought to the police station where he was identified by Felisa as her rapist. ¹²chanrobles virtual law library

On cross-examination, Felisa admitted that she did not see accused-appellant insert his penis into her vagina. ¹³She did, however, see accused-appellant's organ after he removed it from her private part. She further admitted that the insertion of accused-appellant's penis did not cause her to bleed. ¹⁴chanrobles virtual law library

Also presented by the prosecution was the physician who examined Felisa at the Angeles City General Hospital at around four o'clock in the afternoon of February 26, 1990, ¹⁵DR. EUGENIO R. YOSUICO. He reiterated to the court his findings from that examination, as embodied in his certification (Exh. "C"), dated March 1, 1990, viz.:

Conscious, coherent, ambulatory.
HEENT - essentially normal.
C/L - essentially normal.
Breast - flat.
Abdomen - flat, soft, (-) palpable mass.
Pubic Hair - (-)
Hymenal Opening with old healed laceration wound at 3�, 9� position.
- admit 2 fingers with ease.
Ext. - essentially normal.
GC & Sperm smear - both negative.

He testified that the lack of fresh laceration wounds on, and the absence of semen in, Felisa's sexual organ were incompatible with her alleged raped on February 26, 1990. ¹⁶He further testified that Felisa's hymenal opening easily admitted two fingers, ¹⁷although he said that Felisa's healed wounds could have been caused by masturbation, and not by previous sexual intercourse. ¹⁸chanrobles virtual law library

On both direct and re-direct examination, Dr. Yosuico, admitted, however, that it was possible for the rape of Felisa to have occurred even in the absence of lacerations to her hymenal opening and semen in her vagina, if the perpetrator of the act had a small penis and did not ejaculate. ¹⁹chanrobles virtual law library

After the prosecution submitted its case, accused-appellant file with the trial court a Motion To Dismiss/Demurrer to Evidence ²⁰on February 4, 1992. Accused-appellant was allowed by the lower court to present witnesses in his behalf, ²¹but he refused. ²²chanrobles virtual law library

On February 27, 1992, accused-appellant was found guilty, and was sentenced as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years of age, penalized as rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal code, the accused
Emmanuel Espino y Cobe is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. He is also hereby ordered to indemnify the victim Felisa Gaerlan in the sum of P30,000.00 and to pay the cost of suit. ²³chanrobles virtual law library

Accused-appellant's lone assignment of error states;

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
OF HAVING CARNAL KNOWLEDGE WITH A WOMAN UNDER 12 YEARS OLD PENALIZED AS STATUTORY RAPE UNDER ARTICLE 335 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.

He argued that his convictions erroneous in the face of the findings of
Dr. Yosuico, and the alleged contradictions in the testimonies of complainant and Ruben Aquino.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The appeal is unmeritorious.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

As a general rule, rape is committed against a woman only if carnal knowledge of her is done either by using force or intimidation, or when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. ²⁴However, when the woman is under twelve years of age, the mere fact of sexual intercourse with her constitutes said crime. This is statutory rape as defined under Art. 335(3) of the Revised Penal Code.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The gravamen of statutory rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age. ²⁵Violence or intimidation is not required. ²⁶In fact, even the consent of the minor below twelve to the sexual intercourse is not a defense in this offense ²⁷for the law does not consider that kind of consent voluntary. ²⁸A child less than twelve years of age cannot be considered to have a will of her own. ²⁹chanrobles virtual law library

In the case at bench, it is uncontroverted that complainant Felisa Gaerlan was born on March 10, 1979. She was, thus, only ten (10) years, eleven (11) months and sixteen (16) days old on February 26, 1990. Therefore, a showing of use of force or intimidation against complainant is not needed to establish the guilt of accused-appellant. A conclusive showing that he had sexual intercourse with Felisa on the specified date would justify his conviction.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

A review of the records of the case reveals that the prosecution was able to make such showing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Dr. Yosuico opined that the lack of fresh laceration wounds on, and the absence of semen in, complainant's sexual organ is incompatible with the commission of rape against her on February 26, 1990. The opinion is incorrect.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

At most, the absence of any new laceration in Felisa's hymenal opening merely shows that there was no force committed on her by accused-appellant when he penetrated her. It does not, however, negate the commission of the crime of rape against Felisa. Accused- appellant was charged with statutory rape, which does not require force or intimidation as an element of the offense. Neither can accused-appellant's innocence be concluded from the absence of sperm in complainant's vagina. Our ingrained jurisprudence is that the presence of sperm cells in the private part of the victim is not indispensable to prove the offense of rape. ³⁰chanrobles virtual law library

Dr. Yosuico himself admitted the possibility that rape occurred on February 26, 1990 when he stated on re-direct examination by Fiscal Teilo Quiambao, that:

Q Is it possible if the child was raped by a man whose penis is small and who did not ejaculate because there was somebody coming and he pulled his penis, the hymenal opening would not have any laceration?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.

(TSN of April 12, 1991, p. 8)

In sum, we agree with the lower court that the findings of Dr. Yosuico do not preclude the possibility that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of complainant on February 26, 1990. Indeed, his findings are consistent with the guilt of accused-appellant. Firstly, the testimony of Felisa that accused-appellant was inside her only for a short time ("Sandali lang, po."), as well as the testimony of Ruben Aquino that the police caught accused-appellant in the middle of the sexual act and caused him to stop and run away, explain why no sperm was found inside complainant's vagina. As the sexual act was cut short, accused-appellant was unable to ejaculate before he exited complainant's private part.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Secondly, Dr. Yosuico's findings that complainant's hymenal opening could easily admit two fingers provides a reason for the absence of either bleeding or fresh lacerations in Felisa's vagina. As the doctor himself stated, if accused-appellant's penis is small enough, he could have penetrated complainant without causing any tearing in her hymenal opening.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The findings of Dr. Yusuico, therefore, cannot form the basis of
accused-appellant's acquittal. This is more so in light of the testimony of the two principal prosecution witnesses as to the commission of the rape, and their positive identification of accused-appellant as the author thereof. Complainant Felisa Gaerlan testified:

PROSECUTOR:chanrobles virtual law library

Q Where did this accused bring you?chanrobles virtual law library

A Sunrise-sunset, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What is this Sunrise-sunset?chanrobles virtual law library

A It is a place where there are many "talahib" (cogon grass), sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q When he brought you there, what did he do to you?chanrobles virtual law library

A He raped me, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q When you said raped you, what did the accused actually do to you?chanrobles virtual law library

A he removed my panty, sir. . . .chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q After removing your panty, what did he do next?chanrobles virtual law library

A He placed himself on top of me, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q While he was on top of you, what did he do?chanrobles virtual law library

A He inserted his penis in me, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What part of your body did he insert his penis in?chanrobles virtual law library

(WITNESS POINTING TO HER VAGINA)chanrobles virtual law library

Q What did you feel when he inserted his penis in your vagina?chanrobles virtual law library

A I was hurt, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q While his penis was inside your vagina, was he performing the push and pull movement?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir, he was doing the push and pull movement.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

COURT:chanrobles virtual law library

Q How long was the penis of the accused inside your vagina?chanrobles virtual law library

A Just a few moments, sir. Sandali lang, po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q You, what were you doing when he was raping you?chanrobles virtual law library

A I was crying, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Will you please point to the person who according to you raped you at Sunset?chanrobles virtual law library

Go nearer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

(WITNESS POINTED TO MAN WHEN ASKED GAVE HIS NAME AS EMMANUEL ESPINO.)chanrobles virtual law library

Q You said that you saw the accused at that time. Is his haircut the same as his present haircut or present look when you first saw him?chanrobles virtual law library

A His hair is a little bit longer, sir.

(TSN of November 13, 1990, pp. 4-5.)

on the other hand, Ruben Aquino stated:

PROSECUTOR:chanrobles virtual law library

Q Do you know the accused Emmanuel Espino?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q If you will see again the accused, will you be in a position to identify him?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Will you please point to him if he is inside the courtroom.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

(WITNESS POINTING TO A SMALL MAN WHEN ASKED GAVE HIS NAME AS EMMANUEL ESPINO.)

xxx xxx xxx

Q Will you please tell us the circumstances that led to your surveillance and investigation on February 26, 1990.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

A We were tasked by the division chief, Ramos, to conduct a
follow-up investigation regarding a series of rapes committed and perpetrated on school children ages 7 to 11 years old, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q When you were directed to conduct surveillance and investigation regarding minor children 7 to 11 years old, what did you do, if any?chanrobles virtual law library

A We chanced upon Emmanuel Espino while sexually abusing Felisa Gaerlan inside Sunrise Farm, Friendship, Cutcut, Angeles City, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q When you chanced upon the accused raping or abusing Felisa Gaerlan, what did your do, if any?chanrobles virtual law library

A We tried to chase him and he tried to run away. And after a brief chase, we caught him and brought him to our station for investigation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What transpired at the police precinct when you brought the accused there?chanrobles virtual law library

A We brought along the victim Felisa Gaerlan and she told us that she was sexually abused by the accused Emmanuel Espino.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q When you said that you chanced upon the accused abusing Felisa Gaerlan, what actually did you see when you said you chanced upon him and saw him abusing Felisa Gaerlan?chanrobles virtual law library

A We saw the accused in naked body and he was in the act of abusing Felisa Gaerlan, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q You said that you chanced upon the accused abusing Felisa Gaerlan, what actually was he doing?chanrobles virtual law library

A He was on top of the girl Felisa Gaerlan, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q When he was on top of the girl Felisa Gaerlan, was he already naked?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q How about the girl?chanrobles virtual law library

A She was also naked, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What action was he doing when he was on top of the girl?chanrobles virtual law library

A He was performing the sexual act, sir. He was performing the push and pull movement.

xxx xxx xxx

(TSN of December 17, 1990, pp. 3-4.)

We cannot patronize accused-appellant's posturing that the testimonies of complainant and Ruben Aquino are inconsistent and contradictory. The lower court found the prosecution witnesses to be credible, and it is elementary that, generally, findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses are given great weight and must be accorded high respect by appellate courts. In the instant case, we find no reason to depart from the general rule since no facts of substance or value were overlooked by the lower court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

We find the purported inconsistencies or contradictions in and between the testimonies of Felisa and Ruben to be minor. They do not negate the sexual intercourse between accused-appellant and complainant, or the identification of the former as the rapist of the latter. The two testimonies interlocked for the most part, and, in fact, complement each other. As corroborative testimonies, it is not required that they coincide on all aspect in order to be considered credible.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Furthermore, there is no showing that either of the two principal witnesses had reason to falsely accuse Emmanuel Espino of committing the dastardly crime of rape. Thus, the lower court did not err in giving the respective testimonies of complainant and Ruben Aquino full faith and credit, there being no evidence of improper motive on their part.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the court, a quo, finding accused-appellant EMMANUEL ESPINO Y COBE guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE under Art. 335(3) of the Revised Penal Code is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1 Presided by Judge Eliezer R. De Los Santos.chanrobles virtual law library

2 As evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth (Exh. "B"), RTC Records, p. 146.chanrobles virtual law library

3 TSN of November 13, 1990, pp. 3-4.chanrobles virtual law library

4 Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library

5 Ibid., at p. 12.chanrobles virtual law library

6 Id., at p. 13.chanrobles virtual law library

7 Id., at pp. 4-5.chanrobles virtual law library

8 Id., at pp. 5-6.chanrobles virtual law library

9 TSN of December 17, 1990, p. 5.chanrobles virtual law library

10 Ibid., at p. 4.chanrobles virtual law library

11 Id.chanrobles virtual law library

12 Id.chanrobles virtual law library

13 TSN of November 13, 1990, p. 14.chanrobles virtual law library

14 Ibid., at pp. 14 and 17.chanrobles virtual law library

15 Exh. "C"; RTC Records, p. 147.chanrobles virtual law library

16 TSN of April 12, 1991, p. 6.chanrobles virtual law library

17 Ibid., at p. 8.chanrobles virtual law library

18 Id., at p. 6.chanrobles virtual law library

19 Id., at p. 8.chanrobles virtual law library

20 RTC Records, pp. 115-118.chanrobles virtual law library

21 TSN of April 12, 1991, pp. 11-12.chanrobles virtual law library

22 This is evidenced by the lower court's order, dated November 18, 1991, which reads:

"When this case was called for reception of defense's evidence,
Atty. Antonio Yao for the accused moved that he be given 20 days from today within which to file his demurrer to evidence. According to said Counsel if the motion is denied, he would be submitting the case for decision.chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED."

23 Judgment in Crim. Case No. 12290, dated February 27, 1992, p. 4; Rollo,
pp. 39-42.chanrobles virtual law library

24 See Article 335, Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtual law library

25 People vs. De la Cruz, 56 SCRA 84 (1974).chanrobles virtual law library

26 See People vs. Bacani, 181 SCRA 393 (1990); People vs. Gonzales, 58 SCRA 265 (1974); People vs. Celis, 35 SCRA 129 (1970).chanrobles virtual law library

27 R.C. AQUINO, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. III, 395 (1988).chanrobles virtual law library

28 L.B. REYES, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, 853 (1981).chanrobles virtual law library

29 Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library

30 See People vs. Goles, 192 SCRA 663 (1992).