ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 132138. August 8, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. ROMEO LLAMO y BOLIVAR

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 8 2000.

G.R. No 132138 (People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Liamo y Bolivar.)

On January 28, 2000, the Court rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision, dated November 14, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Branch 8, finding accused-appellant Romeo Liamo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape against his 12-year-old daughter Arlyn Liamo, and sentencing him to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH as defined and penalized under Section 11 of Republic Act 7659 is hereby AFFIRMED. In line with recent jurisprudence, accused-appellant is, likewise, ordered to pay the victim in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) by way of civil indemnity damages, and the additional amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, with costs.

In accordance with Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of RA. 7659, upon finality of this decision, let the Records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of his pardoning power.

SO ORDERED ¹ Supreme Court Decision dated January 28, 2000, Rollo, pp 105-106.

On February 29, 2000, accused-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision on the following ground

ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEGS THE KIND INDULGENCE OF THIS HONORABLE COURT TO TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT THE MEDICAL FINDINGS OF DR VENUS TAGARDA UPON PRIVATE COMPLAINT (sic). ² Motion for Reconsideration of accused-appellant, Id, at 108.

Accused-appellant alleges that the medical findings of Dr Tagarda ³ The medical examination was conducted on October 21, 1996.regarding the healed lacerations on the hymen of the victim, Arlyn Liamo, does not jibe with the testimony of prosecution witness Dionisio Lora who testified that he caught the accused in the act of raping the victim on October 18, 1996 Accused-appellant asseverates that if it were true that the rape was committed on said date, then the lacerations should have been fresh and not totally healed at the time of examination.

The contention is without merit.

The same issue has already been passed upon by this Court in its decision, dated January 28,2000. We reiterate our ruling on the matter, thus:

x x x. Well-settled is the rule that in rape cases, the absence of fresh lacerations in complainant's hymen does not prove that she was not raped A freshly-broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Healed lacerations do not negate rape.

xxx

The case of People vs. Erardo is another case in point. In that case, as with the one at bar, the physician who examined the victim three (3) days after the commission of rape, found old hymenal lacerations. Accused-appellant therein contended that since the medical examination was conducted only three (3) days after the alleged rape, this implies that the hymenal lacerations already existed prior to the date of the rape.

The Court found this contention unavailing. It ruled that the claim that another person is responsible for the old healed hymenal lacerations prior to the date of the examination does not negate the commission of rape by accused-appellant when this has been demonstrated in vivid detail by complainant herself. ⁴ Supreme Court Decision dated January 28, 2000, supra, pp. 98-99.

In the case at bar, accused-appellant's argument must fall flat in the face of his daughter's positive assertion, as corroborated by an impartial eyewitness and supported by medical findings of her non-virgin state, that he indeed raped her

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIEDWITH FINALITY. Bellosillo, J., abroad on official business.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE