Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

172874 December 17, 2008

PEOPLE OF T E P ILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. M!RIO C!STRO, accused-appellant. DECISION LEON!RDO"DE C!STRO, J.# On appeal is the decision1 dated February 15, 200 of the !ourt of "ppeals #!"$ in !"-%.R. !R&.!. 'o. 0012 (hich affir)ed in toto an earlier decision 2 of the Re*ional +rial !ourt of Pasi* !ity, ,ranch 1 2 in !ri)inal !ase 'o. 11-50 -&, findin* accused-appellant *uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri)e of Rape and i)posin* upon hi) the penalty of reclusion perpetua. !onsistent (ith our decision in People v. Cabalquinto,. the real na)e of the rape victi) in this case is (ithheld and instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her. "lso, the personal circu)stances of the victi) or any other infor)ation tendin* to establish or co)pro)ise her identity, as (ell as those of her i))ediate fa)ily or household )e)bers, are not disclosed in this decision. /n the court of ori*in, accused-appellant (as char*ed (ith the cri)e of rape in an /nfor)ation 0 dated February 2, 2000. +he cri)e (as alle*ed to have been co))itted as follo(s1 On or about 'ove)ber 11, 1222, in +a*ui*, Metro Manila and (ithin the 3urisdiction of this &onorable !ourt, the accused, by )eans of force and inti)idation, did then and there (illfully, unla(fully and feloniously have se4ual intercourse (ith his sister-in-la(, 5"""6, a )inor, fourteen #10$ years of a*e, a*ainst her (ill and consent. #7ord in brac8et ours$ !O'+R"R9 +O :"7. 7hen arrai*ned on ;uly 12, 2000, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded not *uilty to the cri)e char*ed. +hereafter, trial on the )erits ensued, in the course of (hich the prosecution presented the testi)ony of the victi) herself. +he testi)ony of ;urita Olvido (as dispensed (ith after both parties a*reed to stipulate on the follo(in*1 #1$ that she is a social (elfare officer of the <epart)ent of =ocial 7elfare and <evelop)ent> #2$ that she assisted the victi) in filin* a co)plaint due to her )inority> and #.$ that the due e4ecution of her state)ent is ad)itted. 5 For its part, the defense presented Mar*arita =alan*san* as its lone (itness. "ccused-appellant opted not to testify. +he prosecution?s version of the incident is succinctly su))ari@ed by the Office of the =olicitor %eneral in its "ppellee?s ,rief, to (it1 Private co)plainant 5"""6, is a fourteen #10$ year old lass havin* been born on ;uly A, 12A5. "ppellant Mario !astro is the husband of 5,,,6, elder sister of 5"""6.

On 'ove)ber 11, 1222 at about 11100 in the evenin*, appellant fetched 5"""6 fro) her "unt?s house at P'R !o)pound, +a*ui* Metro Manila. &e said that her elder sister, 5,,,6, collapsed and (as in the clinic. ,elievin* the story, 5"""6 (ent (ith appellant. "s events turned out, appellant brou*ht 5"""6 - - not in the clinic - - but near +BM/! Factory, (hich is an old abandoned buildin* located at 7estern ,icutan, +a*ui*, Metro Manila. "s they reached a dar8 narro( alley, appellant suddenly stopped and held 5"""6?s left ar). =tartled and fri*htened, 5"""6 screa)ed for help but nobody see)ed to have heard the outcry. 7astin* no ti)e, appellant stran*led her, (ith a threat to 8eep Cuiet lest he (ould 8ill her. 5"""6 (as co(ed into silence. =he felt helpless as she 8ne( that appellant had 8illed so)eone before. "ppellant hurriedly pulled 5"""6 to the side of a buildin* and told her to undress. 7hen she refused, appellant undressed her, after (hich, he undressed hi)self. 5"""6 could not run a(ay as appellant pressed her a*ainst the (all of the buildin* and bloc8ed her (ay. 7hen both of the) (ere already na8ed, appellant 8issed her on the different parts of her body and, in an instant, forced his penis into her va*ina until he satisfied his lust. Once satiated, appellant told 5"""6 to dress up and (arned her not to tell anybody. "ppellant initially brou*ht her to the bus and 3eepney ter)inal but he later chan*ed his )ind. &e told 5"""6 that they have to *o to Duya Manny?s (or8 place. =till over(hel)ed (ith shoc8 and fear, 5"""6 could not resist. 7hen appellant learned that Duya Manny (as not at (or8, he brou*ht 5"""6 a*ain to the dar8 narro( alley beside +e)ic Factory. +his ti)e, ho(ever, they passed by a different route (hich is near EPepsi.E "s before, appellant as8ed 5"""6 to undress. 7hen she refused, he hi)self re)oved her clothes F includin* her inti)ate *ar)ents. &e li8e(ise undressed hi)self. &e then 8issed her on the different parts of her body and forced her do(n. "ll the (hile, she (as so fri*htened and helpless. "ll she could do (as to plead1 E7a* na po Duya Mar.E Bn*ulfed by his bestiality, appellant i*nored her please> he too8 liberties on her body as he ra))ed his penis into her va*ina. "*ain, he satisfied his lust. "ppellant eventually told 5"""6 to dress up. &e brou*ht her to the ter)inal of the 3eep and allo(ed her to *o ho)e. 7hen 5"""6 reached her residence, she i))ediately too8 a bath. "s she could not contain her *rief and )isery, she told her aunt 5!!!6 and her *rand)other 5<<<6 that she (as raped. "fter her relatives learned of the incident, they brou*ht her to the ,aran*ay +anod and, later to !a)p !ra)e for )edical e4a)ination. +hey also proceeded to the Police =tation located at the Municipal &all of +a*ui* to *ive her state)ent. #7ords in brac8et ours$ On the other hand, the defense relied on the testi)ony of Mar*arita =alan*san*, a lessee of accused-appellant?s )other at =i*nal Gilla*e in +a*ui*. =he testified that at around 21.0 in the evenin* on 'ove)ber 11, 1222, accused-appellant (as in her house for her birthday celebration. "ccused-appellant did not leave the house at any ti)e fro) the )o)ent he arrived at 21.0 in the evenin* until he finally left around )idni*ht. =he 8ne( that accused-appellant (ent ho)e strai*ht after the party because she even sa( hi) at his house (hen she returned the pans she borro(ed fro) accused-appellant?s )other. Mar*arita declared that her house (as located 3ust at the bac8 of accused-appellant?s house./n a decisionA dated =epte)ber 22, 2000, the trial court rendered its decision convictin* accusedappellant of the cri)e of rape, the dispositive portion of (hich reads1

7&BRBFORB, the !ourt finds the accused Mario !astro, *uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri)e of Rape co))itted under para*raph 1#a$ of "rticle 2 -" of the Revised Penal !ode #as a)ended by R.". A.5.$, and hereby sentences hi) to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. "ccused Mario !astro is li8e(ise ordered to inde)nify private co)plainant, 5"""6, the a)ount of fifty thousand pesos #P50,000.00$ as civil inde)nity and the a)ount of fifty thousand pesos #P50,000.00$ by (ay of )oral da)a*es (ith cost de oficio. =O OR<BRB<. Pursuant to People v. Mateo,2 accused-appellant appealed his conviction to the !" via a notice of appeal on =epte)ber .0, 2000, 10 (hereat it (as doc8eted as !"-%.R. !R-&! 'o. 0012 . On February 15, 200 , the !" upheld the conviction of accused-appellant and affir)ed in toto the R+! decision.11 Fro) the !", the case (as then elevated to this !ourt upon filin* by accused-appellant of a notice of appeal on March 10, 200 . 12 /n its Resolution1. of "u*ust 2, 200 , the !ourt resolved to reCuire the parties to sub)it their respective supple)ental briefs, if they so desire. ,oth parties, ho(ever, )anifested that they (ere dispensin* (ith the filin* of a supple)ental brief as their ar*u)ents have already been substantially discussed in their respective briefs filed before the appellate court. 10 /n this appeal, accused-appellant assi*ns the follo(in* errors1 / +&B +R/": !OHR+ %R"GB:9 BRRB< /' %/G/'% FH:: 7B/%&+ "'< !RB<B'!B +O +&B &/%&:9 /'!RB</,:B +B=+/MO'9 OF +&B PR/G"+B !OMP:"/'"'+. // +&B +R/": !OHR+ %R"GB:9 BRRB< /' !O'G/!+/'% +&B "!!H=B<-"PPB::"'+ OF R"PB /'=+B"< OF +&B !R/MB OF "!+= OF :"=!/G/OH='B==.15 /nsistin* that the prosecution failed to prove his *uilt beyond reasonable doubt for the cri)e of rape, accused-appellant assails the credibility of the co)plainant brandin* her testi)ony as hi*hly i)probable and contrary to co))on hu)an e4perience. &e contends that co)plainant did not particularly describe the details of the alle*ed rape as to (hether she (as forced to lie do(n or (hether they (ere standin* (hen he inserted a part of his or*an into her va*ina. "ccused-appellant also asserts that co)plainant failed to cate*orically state that accused-appellant succeeded in insertin* his penis into her va*ina, thus under)inin* her alle*ation of consu))ated rape. "ccused-appellant?s contentions relate to the credibility of the testi)ony of co)plainant. 7e have ti)e and a*ain said that the findin*s of the trial court pertainin* to the credibility of (itnesses are entitled to *reat respect since it has the opportunity to e4a)ine their de)eanor on the (itness stand.1 Hnless sho(n that the trial court overloo8ed or )isunderstood so)e facts or circu)stances of (ei*ht and substance that could affect the result of the case, its findin*s on Cuestions of facts (ill not be disturbed on appeal.1- 7e have revie(ed the record of the instant case and found nothin* (hich (ould (arrant a reversal of the trial court?s findin*s.

"ccused-appellant )aintains that co)plainant failed to )ention any pu)pin* )otion and (hether she (as standin* or lyin* do(n (hen she (as alle*edly raped. +hese )atters, ho(ever, have no bearin* on the principal Cuestion of (hether accused-appellant had carnal 8no(led*e of the victi). ,esides, contrary to appellantIs contention, co)plainant testified in no uncertain ter)s durin* crosse4a)ination that she did not (illin*ly lie do(n but (as forced to do so by accused-appellant1 "++9. ;"'<H="91 J. ". J. " =o are you sayin* Miss 7itness, that you (illin*ly laid do(n (ith the accusedK 'o, Ma?a). 7hat did he do, did he force you do(nK 9es, Ma?a).1A

Further, the co)plainant?s narration of ho( accused-appellant perpetrated the se4ual assault upon her (as consistent, spontaneous and strai*htfor(ard, thus1 PRO=. !R/=O:O%O1 J. ". J. ". J. ". J. ". J. ". 7hile you (ere at the side of the buildin*, (hat else happened, if anyK &e as8ed )e to undress, =ir. <id you undress, Mada) (itnessK 'o, =ir. 7hat else happened (hen you refused to undressK &e undressed )e, =ir. <id you resist his act of undressin* you, Mada) 7itnessK 9es, =ir. <id he succeed in undressin* youK 9es, =ir.

J. 7hen you said he undressed you, do you )ean that he (as able to undress everythin* includin* your under(earK ". J. ". 9es, =ir. 7ould this )ean that you (ere totally na8ed after he (as able to undress youK My panty (as pulled do(n to the 8nee, =ir.

J. ". J. ". J. ".

"nd after he succeeded in undressin* you, (hat else happened, if anyK &e 8issed )e at different parts of )y body, =ir. "fter 8issin* the different parts of your body, (hat else happened, if anyK &e (as forcin* his or*an to insert into )y or*an, =ir. <id he succeed, Mada) 7itnessK 'ot all, =ir.

J. 7hen you said not all so)eho( a part of his or*an (as inserted, (ould that be correct, Mada) 7itnessK ". 9es, =ir.12

!ourts usually *ive *reater (ei*ht to the testi)ony of a *irl (ho is a victi) of se4ual assault, especially a )inor, as in this case, because no (o)an (ould be (illin* to under*o a public trial and put up (ith the sha)e, hu)iliation and dishonor of e4posin* her o(n de*radation (ere it not to conde)n an in3ustice and have the offender apprehended and punished. 20 'or is there any Cuestion that accused-appellant in this case co))itted rape by )eans of threat and inti)idation. ,ein* .0 years old and the brother-in-la( of co)plainant, accused-appellant e4ercised not only physical superiority, but also )oral ascendancy over his 10-year old victi) such that his threat to inflict physical har) on her effectively co(ed her into sub)ittin* to his lustful desi*ns. /n fact, co)plainant (as a(are that accused-appellant had 8illed so)eone before 21 (hich all the )ore en*endered fear in her F fear that if she did not yield to accused-appellantIs de)ands, he (ould carry out his threat to 8ill her. "ccused-appellant ar*ues that he cannot be held liable for consu))ated rape follo(in* the rulin* in People v. Campuhan.22 For this purpose, he cites the testi)ony of co)plainant that Enot allE of accused-appellantIs or*an (as inserted into her va*ina. +he ar*u)ent is )isplaced. /n Campuhan, it (as held that the cri)e (as )erely atte)pted rape because all that the victi) said in that case (as that accusedIs penis Etouched her or*an but did not penetrate it.E2. &ence, this !ourt concluded1 5+he6 testi)ony alone should dissipate the )ist of confusion that enshrouds the Cuestion of (hether rape in this case (as consu))ated. /t has foreclosed the possibility of Pri)oIs penis penetratin* her va*ina, ho(ever sli*ht. !rysthel )ade a cate*orical state)ent denyin* penetration. 444. 'or can it be deduced that in tryin* to penetrate the victi)Is or*an the penis of the accused touched the )iddle portion of her va*ina and entered the labia of her pudendu) as the prosecution failed to establish sufficiently that Pri)o )ade efforts to penetrate !rysthel. !ora@on did not say, nay, not even hint that Pri)oIs penis (as erect or that he responded (ith an erection. On the contrary, !ora@on even narrated that Pri)o had to hold his penis (ith his ri*ht hand, thus sho(in* that he had yet to attain an erection to be able to penetrate his victi).20 ,ut, in the case at bar, the above-Cuoted testi)ony of the co)plainant herself established the consu))ation of the cri)e of rape.

!learly, co)plainantIs state)ent that not all of accused-appellantIs or*an (as inserted si)ply )eans that there (as no full penetration. +here can be no doubt, ho(ever, that there (as at least a partial entry, so as to )a8e the cri)e consu))ated rape. "s (e have said in unnu)bered cases, full or deep penetration is not necessary to consu))ate se4ual intercourse> it is enou*h that there is the sli*htest penetration of the )ale or*an into the fe)ale se4 or*an. 25 +he )ere touchin* by the )ale or*an of the labia of the pudendu) of the (o)an?s private part is sufficient to consu))ate rape.2 /t (as therefore consu))ated rape (hich accused-appellant co))itted. "ccused-appellant li8e(ise clai)s that the trial court erred in convictin* hi) of the cri)e of consu))ated rape despite the prosecution?s failure to present the testi)ony of the e4a)inin* physician. 7e find accused-appellant?s contention on this point untenable. +he co))ission of rape a*ainst co)plainant cannot be ne*ated si)ply because of the absence of the testi)ony of the doctor (ho e4a)ined the victi). /t is (ell entrenched in our 3urisprudence that a )edical e4a)ination of the victi) is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inas)uch as the victi)?s testi)ony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the cri)e. 2- /n fact, a doctor?s certificate is )erely corroborative in character and not an indispensable reCuire)ent in provin* the co))ission of rape.2A 7e are also constrained to a*ree (ith the appellate court?s observation that there (as nothin* i)probable and preposterous in co)plainant?s testi)ony. =aid the !"1 +his !ourt finds nothin* incredible or fantastic in 5"""?s6 narration of the events surroundin* the rape co))itted a*ainst her by accused-appellant !astro. +he details of her story fail to sho( any telltale indications of falsehood, inconsistency or i)probability, and (ere all perfectly consistent (ith the rape of a youn* innocent *irl. !onsiderin* her relatively tender a*e and )inority, it is (ell ni*h inconceivable for her to have concocted such a serious accusation and bra@enly i)pute such a cri)e to her o(n brother-in-la(, if it (ere not true. +he evidence on record is bereft of any sho(in*, (hich (ould so)eho( indicate that the private co)plainant (as induced by any ill-)otive in filin* the case a*ainst accusedappellant !astro.22 "ccused-appellant?s defense of alibi is unavailin*. Mar*arita =alan*san*, the lone defense (itness, clai)ed that accused-appellant (as in her house fro) 21.0-11105 in the evenin* of 'ove)ber 11, 1222. &o(ever, this does not ne*ate the possibility that he )i*ht be present at the +BM/! factory (here the cri)e (as co))itted, since Mar*arita?s house and the +BM/! factory are both located (ithin +a*ui*. /n fact, Mar*arita herself declared that the distance bet(een the t(o places can easily be ne*otiated by foot (ithin ten #10$ )inutes and by tricycle (ithin five #5$ )inutes. For alibi to prosper, the accused )ust establish by clear and convincin* evidence #a$ his presence at another place at the ti)e of the perpetration of the offense and #b$ the physical i)possibility of his presence at the scene of the cri)e at the ti)e..0 7here there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the cri)e scene, the defense of alibi (ill not hold (ater. .1 !learly in this case, the physical i)possibility of accused-appellant?s presence at the scene of the cri)e on the date and ti)e of its co))ission, has not been sufficiently established. 7e, thus, sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for the cri)e of consu))ated si)ple rape under "rticle 2 -", para*raph 1#a$ of the Revised Penal !ode. +he penalty of reclusion perpetua (as li8e(ise correctly i)posed as the special Cualifyin* circu)stance of relationship had not been specifically alle*ed in the infor)ation. Hnder "rticle 2 -, of the Revised Penal !ode, as a)ended by R.". 'o. A.5.,.2 Cualified rape is co))itted (hen, a)on* others, Ethe victi) is under ei*hteen #1A$ years of a*e and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, *uardian, relative by consan*uinity or affinity (ithin the third civil de*ree, or the co))on-la( spouse of the parent of the

victi).E /t is (ell-settled that these attendant circu)stances of )inority of the victi) and her relationship to the offender are special Cualifyin* circu)stances (hich )ust be specifically alle*ed in the infor)ation and proved (ith certainty in order to (arrant conviction for the cri)e of Cualified rape and the i)position of the death penalty. .. /n the present case, the infor)ation char*in* accused-appellant of the cri)e of rape alle*ed that the accused, Eby )eans of force and inti)idation, did then and there (illfully, unla(fully and feloniously had se4ual intercourse (ith his sister-in-la(, 5"""6, a )inor, fourteen #10$ years of a*e, a*ainst her (ill.E.0 +he prosecution (as able to prove that at the ti)e she (as raped, co)plainant (as only 10 years old, havin* been born on ;uly A, 12A5, as evidenced by her birth certificate. .5 +he prosecution li8e(ise proved accused-appellant is the brother-in-la( of co)plainant, bein* the husband of co)plainant?s elder sister. "ccused-appellant, therefore, is co)plainant?s relative by affinity (ithin the third civil de*ree. &o(ever, (e have previously held that if the offender is )erely a relation F not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, or *uardian or co))on-la( spouse of the )other of the victi) F it )ust be alle*ed in the infor)ation that he is Ea relative by consan*uinity or affinity #as the case )ay be$ (ithin the third civil de*ree.E. +hus, in the instant case, the alle*ation that co)plainant is the sister-in-la( of accused-appellant is not specific enou*h to satisfy the special Cualifyin* circu)stance of relationship. /t is necessary to specifically alle*e that such relationship (as by affinity (ithin the third civil de*ree..- !onseCuently, due to the defect in the infor)ation char*in* accused-appellant of rape, he can only be held liable for si)ple rape and )eted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. !onsistent (ith prevailin* 3urisprudence on si)ple rape, the a)ounts of P50,000.00 as civil inde)nity andP50,000.00 as )oral da)a*es (ere correctly a(arded by the trial court. .A $ EREFORE, the decision dated February 15, 200 of the !" in !"-%.R. !R-&! 'o. 0012 is hereby!FFIRMED. "ccused-appellant Mario !astro is found GUILT% beyond reasonable doubt of the cri)e of =i)ple Rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. &e is also ordered to pay co)plainant, civil inde)nity in the a)ount of P50,000.00 and )oral da)a*es in the a)ount of P50,000.00. SO ORDERED. TERESIT! &. LEON!RDO"DE C!STRO "ssociate ;ustice 7B !O'!HR1 RE%N!TO S. PUNO !hief ;ustice !NTONIO T. C!RPIO "ssociate ;ustice
LL L

MINIT! V. C ICO"N!'!RIO "ssociate ;ustice

PRES(ITERO &. VEL!SCO, &R. "ssociate ;ustice

CERTIFIC!TION

Pursuant to =ection 1., "rticle G/// of the !onstitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above <ecision (ere reached in consultation before the case (as assi*ned to the (riter of the opinion of the !ourt. RE%N!TO S. PUNO !hief ;ustice

Foo)*o)e+
L

"dditional )e)ber in lieu of ;ustice Renato !. !orona as per =pecial Order 'o. 501. "dditional )e)ber in lieu of ;ustice "dolfo =. "@cuna as per =pecial Order 'o. 502.

LL

Penned by "ssociate ;ustice Re)edios ". =ala@ar-Fernando, (ith "ssociate ;ustice &a8i) =. "bdul(ahid and "ssociate ;ustice Bstela M. Perlas-,ernabe, concurrin*> rollo, pp. 2-10.
1 2

<ecided by ;ud*e Brlinda Pinera Hy> !" Rollo, pp. 15-2 . %.R. 'o. 1 - 2., =epte)ber 12, 200 , 502 =!R" 012. !" Rollo, p. 2. Records, p. 100. !" Rollo, pp. -- 2.

+=', February 5, 200., pp. .- . =upra note 2. %.R. 'os. 10- -A-A-, ;uly 0, 2000, 0.. =!R" 00. !" Rollo, p. 2-. =upra note 1. Rollo, p. 1. /d., at 15. /d., at 21-22> 2--2A. "ppellant?s ,rief, !" Rollo, p. 02. People v. Hl*asan, %.R. 'os. 1.1A20-2 , ;uly 11, 2000, ..5 =!R" 001, 002. /d., at 00A

10

11

12

1.

10

15

1-

1A

+=', March 2A, 2001, p. .1. /d., at 10-11. People v. <e %u@)an, %.R. 'os. 100...-.0, <ece)ber 11, 2001, .-2 =!R" 25, 10--10A. +=', March 2A, 2001, p. .2. %.R. 'o. 1220.., March .0, 2000, .22 =!R" 2-0. /d., at 2A0. /d., at 2A0-2A5. People v. Puertollano, %.R. 'o. 12202., ;une 1-, 1222, .0A =!R" .5 , . 5. People v. Mahinay, %.R. 'o. 1220A5, February 1, 1222, .02 =!R" 055, 0-2. People v. ,arin*, ;r., %.R. 'o. 1.-2.., ;anuary 2A, 2002, .-0 =!R" 2 , -05. People v. %abon, %.R. 'o. 12-00., 'ove)ber 1 , 2001, . 2 =!R" 1 0, 1-0. Rollo, pp. 2-10. People v. %on@ales, %.R. 'o. 101522, ;une 22, 2000, 0.. =!R" 102, 11 . People v. :ope@, %.R. 'o. 102A0A, 'ove)ber 2-, 200., 01 =!R" 502, 50-. Other(ise 8no(n as the "nti-Rape :a( of 122-. People v. Ma*lente, %.R. 'os. 120552=upra note 0. Records, p. 1 2. People v. MiMon, %.R. 'os. 10A.2--000, ;uly -, 2000, 0.. =!R" -1, AA. /bid. People v. "lvare@, %.R. 'os. 100.AA-21, 'ove)ber 11, 200., 015 =!R" 52., 5.A-5.2. , "pril .0, 1222, .0 =!R" 50 , 5- .

12

20

21

22

2.

20

25

2-

2A

22

.0

.1

.2

..

.0

.5

.-

.A