FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 130205. July 5, 2000]
PEOPLE of the
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PETRONILLO CASTILLO, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is a case of a 9-year old child who was
not believed by her mother that she was raped by the latter’s second live-in
partner, appellant herein. This notwithstanding, appellant was charged,[1] convicted and sentenced to suffer reclusion
perpetua by the trial court.[2]
The facts narrated in the People’s Brief are
as follows:
At the time of the
commission of the rape, complainant, Michelle Robles, was nine years old,
having been born on December 21, 1981. She was then living with her mother,
Olivia Flores, in Medalva Village, Phase II, Angono, Rizal. Appellant
Petronillo Castillo was the common-law husband of Michelle’s mother. Michelle
has two (2) siblings by her mother’s previous relationship.
On the night of
May 1991, Michelle was sleeping in the sala of their home. Her mother and two
sisters were sleeping in the bedroom. Momentarily, Michelle was awakened when
she felt someone tugging at her panty. She was shocked and was about to scream
upon seeing her stepfather, herein appellant, removing her panty. Appellant,
however, promptly covered her mouth with the palm of his hand. He then poked a
knife at her and threatened to kill her two sisters if she raised a fuss or
told anyone. Thereafter, he place himself on top of Michelle and inserted his
penis into her vagina. Michelle felt intense excruciating pain. After a while,
appellant stood up and left.
Subsequently,
Michelle informed her mother what appellant did to her. Her mother refused to
believe her and even accused Michelle of fabricating a story. Frustrated,
Michelle informed her aunt, Maria Corazon Flores, about the incident when the
latter came to visit at their house. Maria Corazon told her sister the
deplorable act committed by appellant against Michelle. Still Michelle’s mother
refused to believe. Finally, Maria Corazon decided to bring Michelle to the
Philippine National Police Headquarters in Camp Crame, Quezon City, for medical
examination.
Dr. Vladimir V.
Villaseñor, PNP Medico-Legal Officer, Camp Crame, examined the victim. Dr.
Villaseñor issued a Medico-Legal Report stating, to wit:
"FINDINGS
GENERAL AND
EXTRAGENITAL:
Fairly developed,
fairly nourished and coherent female child subject. Breasts are undeveloped.
Abdomen is flat and tight.
GENITAL:
There is absence
of growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated with the
pinkish brown labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same is
disclosed an elastic, fleshy-type and congested hymen, with shallow healed
lacerations at 4 and 8 o’clock. External vaginal orifice admits the tip of the
examining index finger.
x x x....x
x x....x x x
CONCLUSION:
Subject is in
non-virgin state physically.
There are no
external signs of recent application of any form of violence.
REMARKS:
Vaginal and
peri-urethral smears are negative for gram-negative diplococci and for
spermatozoa."[3]
In this appeal, appellant raises a lone
assignment of error:
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE.
The appellant contends that the testimony of
private complainant "reveals glaring inconsistencies and allegations that
are improbable and contrary to human experience, resulting in the failure of
her case to meet the test of moral certainty and guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt." According to appellant, complainant testified that he
got a knife which he allegedly used to threaten her from telling anybody about
the incident, whereas she did not mention about a knife in her affidavit of
complaint.
Appellant’s contention lacks merit. Although
she did not mention a knife in her affidavit, such omission did not diminish or
affect her credibility as a witness. Notably, ex-parte affidavits are
generally considered incomplete and inaccurate and will thus not prevail over a
witness’ statements on the stand.[4]
The gravamen of the evil act of rape, at the
time of the commission of the crime, is the sexual congress of a woman by force
and without her consent.[5] Mere contact by the male’s sex organ of the female’s
sex organ consummates rape. However, if the victim is below twelve years of age
at the time her honor was violated, proof of force, intimidation or consent is
absolutely unnecessary,[6] not only because force is not an element of statutory
rape, but the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the woman
is below the age of twelve.
From the victim’s own testimony, she openly
narrated in court her nightmare in the maniacal hands of appellant:
"FISCAL
SANTOS:
Q....You
stated that you resided at Medalva Village, Phase II, Angono, Rizal. With whom
did you reside during that time on May 1991, Ms. Robles?
A....With
my mother, sir.
Q....You
stated you resided with your Mama, what is the name of your Mama?
A....Maria
Olivia Flores, sir.
Q....Will
you please tell this court if your Mama was living with somebody else during
that time, Michelle?
A....Yes,
sir.
Q....And
who was that person with whom your mother was living with, is he presently in
court and can you identify him?
A....Yes,
sir.
Q....Will
you please look around and see and point to him?
....(The witness is pointing to a man wearing a white
t-shirt and long pants who when asked by the Court identified himself as
Petronillo Castillo).
Q....Now,
Michelle, on the night of May 1991, do you remember of any unusual event that
happened?
A....My
stepfather removed my blanket.
Q....Now,
you stated that your stepfather removed your blanket. After your stepfather
removed your blanket, what else, if any, transpired, Michelle?
A....He
also removed my pants and panty, sir.
Q....Now,
after your step-father Petronillo Castillo has (sic) removed your pants and
panty, what else, if any, transpired?
A....He
placed himself on top of me, sir.
Q....After
Castillo placed himself on top of you, what if any, did Castillo do afterwards?
FISCAL SANTOS:
....May we place on record, Your Honor, that the witness
is crying.
Q....Again,
Michelle, may I repeat the questions. After Castillo had placed himself on your
top, what, if any, did he do?
A....He
got a knife, sir and he told me not to tell this to anybody.
Q....When
you stated that Castillo got a knife and told you not to tell anyone, what
happened when Castillo did not want anybody to know about it, Michelle?
A....He
raped me, sir, and he threatened to kill me and my two sisters.
Q....You
stated that Castillo raped you, in what manner did Castillo rape you?
A....He
inserted his penis inside my vagina.
Q....When
Castillo inserted his penis inside your private organ, what if any, did you
feel, Michelle?
A....It
was painful, sir.
Q....And
how long did Castillo remain on your top during that time, Michelle?
A....Just
for a short while, sir.
Q....And
did you inform anybody of this incident, Michelle?
A....My
mother, sir.
Q....And
what did your Mama do if ever your Mama did anything about the incident?
A....She
did not believe me, sir, because she thought I was just lying.
Q....Aside
from your mother, Michelle, did you inform anybody about this incident?
A....My
aunt, sir.
Q....You
said your aunt, what is the name of your aunt, Michelle?
A....Maria
Corazon Flores, sir.
Q....Where
and when did you inform your aunt about the incident?
A....In
our house, in front of my mother.
Q....When
your aunt was informed of this incident, what, if any, did your aunt do about
it?
A....My
aunt told my mother about it but my mother did not also believe her, so my aunt
decided that I would be sent for a medical examination.[7]
Subjected to questioning by the trial court,
the victim did not retract from her testimony:
COURT:....And
while on top of you, what did the accused do to you?
A....He
inserted his sex organ into my sex organ.
Q....You
claimed that the accused inserted his penis into your vagina because you felt
pain in your vagina?
A....Yes,
Sir.
Q....But
it could be, that could be a finger instead of his penis that he inserted in
your vagina, is that correct?
A....No,
sir.
x x x....x
x x....x x x
COURT:....Then
after he inserted his sex organ to your sex organ what did the accused do?
A....He
stood up afterward.
COURT:....You
mean to say, when he inserted his sex organ you did not do anything?
A....He
threatened me, sir.[8]
It is clear from the foregoing that there
was sexual intercourse. The victim could not cry for help because her mouth was
covered and she was threatened with a knife which impelled her into submission.
It has been held that the act of holding a knife by itself is strongly
suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a
knife is sufficient to bring the woman to submission.[9] At any rate, force or intimidation is immaterial in
statutory rape.
The victim’s testimony that appellant
inserted his organ into her vagina is further corroborated by the medical
findings of the Medico-Legal Officer who examined her, to wit:
"GENERAL AND
EXTRAGENITAL:
Fairly developed,
fairly nourished and coherent female child subject. Breasts are undeveloped.
Abdomen is flat and tight.
GENITAL:
There is absence
growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated with the
pinkish brown labia minor presenting in between. On separating the same is
disclosed an elastic fleshy-type and congested hymen, with shallow healed
lacerations at 4 and 8 o’clock. External vaginal orifice admits the tip of the
examining index finger.
CONCLUSION:
Subject is in
non-virgin state physically.
There are no
external signs of recent application of any form of violence.
REMARKS:
Vaginal and
peri-urethral smears are negative for gram-negative diplococci and for
spermatozoa."[10]
The absence of spermatozoa in the victim’s vagina
is not fatal to her cause. Her credible testimony alone suffices to establish
appellant’s guilt. Besides, in rape, the important consideration is not the
emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ[11] and the slightest penetration is considered as
equivalent to consummated sexual intercourse.[12] In fact, the mere touching by the male’s organ or
instrument of sex of the labia of the pudendum of the female’s private parts is
sufficient to consummate rape.[13]
Appellant further contends that he could not
have possibly raped the victim because the place where the crime occurred is
small and there were at least 20 persons therein. Against such contention,
however, the Court had consistently ruled that rape can be committed even in
places where people congregate, in parks along the roadside, in school
premises, in a house where there are other occupants,[14] in the same room where other members of the family
are also sleeping[15] and even in places which to many would appear
unlikely and high-risk venues for its commission.[16] There is no rule that rape can be committed only in
seclusion.[17]
Appellant argues that the information is
"too general in terms" since it alleges that the crime occurred
"sometime in May 1991," whereas in the victim’s sworn statement the
sexual violation continued until February 1992."[18]
The argument is likewise without merit. The
information charges only one offense – that committed in May 1991. Besides,
there is no variance between the time proved and the time alleged in the
information. It cannot be said that appellant was deprived of the opportunity
to prepare for his defense.[19] The information alleged that the crime occurred in
May 1991, only that the victim cannot remember the exact day of the month when
it happened. It is sufficient if the time averred is near the actual date as
the information of the prosecuting officer will permit, and since that was done
in this case, it was not shown that the time proved did not surprise or
substantially prejudice the defense.[20] Besides, in a rape case, the date or time is not an
essential element of the crime and therefore need not be accurately stated.[21] Assuming that there were several rapes committed
between May 1991 up to February 1992, appellant was only charged and convicted
of one crime of rape. He is not, as he cannot, be convicted of other rapes of
which he was not charged even if the same were proven during trial, otherwise,
it would violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
Finally, the issue boils down to credibility
of witness. Time and again, this Court has repeatedly ruled that matters
affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique
opportunity of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the
witness’s deportment on the stand while testifying, an opportunity denied to
the appellate courts[22] which usually rely on the cold pages of the silent
records of the case.
In the case at bar, it was not convincingly
shown that the court a quo had overlooked or disregarded significant
facts and circumstances which when considered would have affected the outcome
of the case[23] or justify a departure from the assessments and
findings of the court below. The absence of any improper or ill-motive on the
part of the principal witness for the prosecution all the more strengthens the
conclusion that no such motive exists.[24] Besides, the tender age of complainant when she was
raped (9 years old), and at the time she testified (12 years old), further lends
to her credibility.[25] Apparent in this Court’s decision in rape cases
where the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve
to sixteen is the considerable receptivity on the part of this Tribunal to lend
credence to their vision of what transpired, considering not only their
relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which such a
gruelling experience as a court trial, where they are called upon to lay bare
what perhaps should be shrouded in secrecy, did expose them to. This is not to
say that an uncritical acceptance should be the rule. It is only to emphasize
that skepticism should be kept under control.[26]
The avalanche of revelation, notwithstanding
the threats on her life and that against her half-siblings, did not deter the
victim from revealing to her mother what appellant did to her. The most painful
part of her agony is that she was not believed by no less than her own mother
but she was lucky to have an aunt who came to her rescue. Rape victims would usually
first seek help from their own mothers before they call on other relatives.
Unfortunately for complainant, she was not believed by her mother whom she
expected to be the first to come to her aid.
Statutory rape committed in 1991 is
punishable by reclusion perpetua.[27] Although under the present law, the rape of a child
below 18 years old with the offender being a common law spouse of the parent of
the victim carries the mandatory penalty of death, the same cannot be applied
to appellant because its retroactive application would be unfavorable to him.[28] On the civil indemnity, the award of P50,000.00
given by the trial court is proper. However, in addition thereto, victims of
rape are also entitled to moral damages of P50,000.00 without need of proof
other than the fact of rape, and exemplary damages of P20,000.00.[29]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 70 in Criminal Case No. 1780-B, convicting appellant
of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, is AFFIRMED subject to the MODIFICATION that in ADDITION to
the P50,000.00 indemnity awarded by the trial court, appellant is also ordered
to pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 plus exemplary
damages of P20,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno,
Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.
[1] "On
the basis of the Affidavit/Complaint, signed by the complainant Michelle Robles
and assisted by her guardian Corazon S. Flores, the undersigned hereby accuses Petronillo
Castillo of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:
That sometime in the month
of May, 1991, in the Municipality of Angono, Province of Rizal, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by
means of force, violence, threats and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one Michelle
Robles, a girl 10 years of age, inside their house, against the latter’s will
and consent.
Contrary to law."
(Records, p. 1).
[2] WHEREFORE,
finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape of her
(sic) step-daughter below 12 years of age as defined and penalized in Article
335, par. 3, Chapter two of the Revised Penal Code, the accused Petronillo Castillo
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the
offended party in the sum of P50,000.00; and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. (Decision
dated February 24, 1997 of RTC Binangonan, Rizal penned by Judge Herculano
Tech, p. 6; Rollo, 21)
[3] Rollo, pp. 88-90.
[4] People v. Salazar, 277 SCRA 67, August 11,
1997.
[5] People v. Philip Tan. Jr., 264 SCRA 425 (1996)
[6] People v. Lagrosa, Jr., 230 SCRA 298 (1994);
People v. Andres, 253 SCRA 751 (1996)
[7] Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), December 12,
1994, pp. 4-9.
[8] TSN, January 25, 1995, p. 11.
[9] People v. Reynaldo, 191 SCRA 701 (1990)
[10] Medico-Legal Report No. M-0866-92 of Dr. Vladimir V.
Villaseñor completed 1130H, May 19, 1992, Records, p. 223.
[11] People v. Galleno, 291 SCRA 761 (1998)
[12] See People v. Ligotan, 331 Phil. 98 (1996);
People v. Lazaro, 249 SCRA 234 (1995)
[13] People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)
[14] People v. Ulili, 44 SCAD 213; People v.
Viray, 164 SCRA 135 (1988) cited in People v. Tan, Jr., 332 Phil. 465
(1996)
[15] People v. Villorente, 10 SCRA 647 (1964)
[16] People v. Dado, 314 Phil. 635 (1995); People v.
Rafanan, 182 SCRA 811 (1990)
[17] People v. Papa Talaboc, 326 Phil. 451 (1996)
[18] Appellant’s Brief, p. 7; Rollo, p. 46.
[19] U.S. v. Bongasil, 34 Phil. 835 (1916)
[20] U.S. v. Dichao, 27 Phil. 421 (1914)
[21] People v. Pagpaguitan, G.R. No. 116599, September 27,
1999; People v. Garcia, 346 Phil. 475 (1997)
[22] People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999) citing
People v. Tan. Jr, 264 SCRA 425 (1996)
[23] People v. Dio, 44 SCAD 559; People v.
Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613 (1992)
[24] People v. Ravanes, 284 SCRA 634 (1998)
[25] People v. Tan, Jr., 332 Phil. 465 (1996)
[26] People v. Molina, 53 SCRA 495 (1973)
reiterated in People v. Egot, 130 SCRA 134 (1984) and in People v.
Quidilla, 166 SCRA 778 (1988)
[27] Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) before
its amendment by R.A. 8353.
[28] Article 22, RPC. R.A. No. 7659 took effect on
December 31, 1993.
[29] People v. Batoon, G.R. No. 134194, October 26, 1999.