People vs Dedace : 132551 : March 22, 2000 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 132551. March 22, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE DEDACE, accused-appellant. Sl-xsc

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Rape is consummated when the penis touches, no matter how slightly, the victim's sexual organ. Full or complete penetration is not necessary. In this case, we affirm appellant's conviction, because the victim credibly testified that the appellant's organ "touched" hers, and the medical report showed lacerations in her hymen and abrasions in her external genitalia. Sc-slx

The Case

Jose Dedace appeals the October 30, 1997 Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Hilongos, Leyte, Branch 18, in Criminal Case No. H-630, in which he was convicted of rape.

In an Amended Complaint[2] dated March 11, 1995, Joyce Marie D. Mojado accused Jose Dedace of rape. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rodolfo E. Rubio treated the Complaint as the Information and filed it in the aforementioned court on June 9, 1995. The accusatory portion thereof reads as follows:

"That on or about 10:00 o'clock [o]n the morning of Saturday, March 4, 1995, in San Antonio St., Poblacion, Inopacan, Leyte, and within the preliminary jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused entered the house of spouses Medardo Mojado and Inocenta D. Mojado and once inside held Joyce Marie D. Mojado, 7 years old and a Grade 1 pupil and who was then and there alone in the living room and by means of force and intimidation drag[ged] her to the bedroom and willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Joyce Marie D. Mojado.

"CONTRARY TO ART. 335 of the R.P.C. in relation [to] heinous crime under RA No. 7659."

Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by Counsel Joaquin Viterbo, pleaded not guilty. After due trial, the lower court rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: Sl-xm-is

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused JOSE DEDACE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby SENTENCES him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. In addition, the accused shall pay the victim JOYCE MARIE MOJADO and/or her parents the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), Philippine Currency as moral damages.

"In the service of his sentence, accused is hereby credited with the full time of his preventive imprisonment if he agreed to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, he will only be entitled to 4/5 of the same.

"With costs against the accused.

"SO ORDERED."

Hence, this appeal.[3]

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution's version of the facts, as summarized by the solicitor general in the Appellee's Brief,[4] reads as follows:

"Shortly before 10:00 o'clock in the morning of March 4, 1995, seven-year-old Joyce Marie Mojado was watching a television show with others at the house of their neighbor whom she called Manang Eva in the immediate vicinity of San Antonio Street, Poblacion, Inopacan, Leyte. While watching the TV, Joyce was called by appellant Jose Dedace and when she approached him, he gave her P2.00 and then told her to enter the house of her parents where she was living. Joyce knew Dedace as they were neighbors and she obeyed his instruction and innocently went inside their house. M-issdaa

"Once they were inside the house, Dedace further told Joyce to go inside the room of her Manang Annie whose full name is Anecita Cabargada. Annie is the housemaid of Medardo Mojado and his wife. When Joyce Marie and appellant went inside the room of the housemaid, Annie was washing clothes at the well in the yard of Mojado's house.

"While they were in Annie's room, appellant removed the short pants and panty of the child victim Joyce Marie Mojado, leaving on her body the t-shirt she was wearing that day. On the bed in Anecita Cabargada's room, Dedace then spread the two legs of Joyce Marie and made her sit on his lap, after which he partly removed his own short pants and started making sexual intercourse with the child.

"While appellant was [i]n the act of ravishing the little girl, the latter saw white liquid substance coming from the penis of appellant and some drops of it were scattered on the floor. She also saw some of the white substance on her vagina.

"At this juncture, housemaid Anecita Cabargada or Annie entered the room. She had not finished washing the dirty clothes as there were many of them to wash that day. Instead, she went to the kitchen to prepare the meals for lunch, it being already 10:00 o'clock in the morning when she looked at the clock inside the house of the Mojados. She, however, went first to her room.

"When Annie entered her room she immediately saw the child and appellant in an embarrassing situation. Annie saw Dedace facing towards the window and quickly putting back his short pants. Joyce also put on her short pants. Annie promptly asked them what they were doing in her room, but there was no answer. Upset with the thought that something bad had happened in her room between appellant and Joyce who had been placed under her care as the housemaid of the Mojado spouses, Annie went to the kitchen to drink water. When she returned to her room, Dedace was no longer there and Joyce was already outside.

"When Annie again asked Joyce what they were doing in her room, the latter naively replied that Dedace made sexual intercourse with her. On hearing this, Annie shouted and started looking for appellant. She went to the house of appellant's father and she was informed that appellant was not there. So, she brought Joyce to the house of the Mayor of Inopacan, Leyte where Joyce and Annie were interrogated, [after] which, a policeman was called to look for Dedace.

"That same day, March 4, 1995, Anecita Cabargada, accompanied by a certain Nita Villaruel, brought Joyce Marie Mojado to the Western Leyte Provincial Hospital, Baybay, Leyte for examination. Annie did this because Joyce's parents were not in Inopacan, at that time and the child was entrusted to her care.

"As a result of the bestial sexual assault perpetrated by appellant on the child Joyce Marie Mojado, she sustained the following injuries enumerated in the Medico-legal Certificate issued by Dr. Azucena Polo-Mirambel who examined her on March 4, 1995, to wit: Sd-aad-sc

‘Pelvic Examination:

External Genitalia - Multiple abrasions at the perineal area;

- abrasions and inflammation on both labia minora and labia majora;

- Healed hymenal lacerations at 3:00 o'clock and 6:00 o'clock position[s].’"

Version of the Defense

Resorting to denial, appellant[5] views the facts as follows:

"The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses at the trial, namely: (1) Joyce Marie Mojada, the victim and offended party; (2) Anecita Cabargada, a housemaid and (3) Dr. Azucena Polo Mirambel.

"The first witness, Joyce Marie Mojado, the victim herein testified that on March 4, 1995 at more or less 10:00 o'clock in the morning while she was watching T .V. at her neighbor's house, Jose Dedace called her up and gave her P2.00. Then she was ordered by the accused to enter their house and told to enter the room of Annie, the housemaid. While she and the accused were inside the room, the latter took off her short pants and her panty while said accused partly opened his shorts. After [which] accused spread her legs and told her to sit on his lap. Accused then started making sexual intercourse with her. That the penis of accused did not penetrate her vagina but was touched by it. Thereafter she saw white liquid coming from the penis of accused. When their housemaid arrived in the room, accused stood up putting on his short pants. The housemaid, asked the accused what he was doing but he did not answer [and] instead went out of the house. She told the housemaid that Jose Dedace had made sexual intercourse with her. That she was brought to the hospital for check up. Rtc-spped

"The second witness, Anecita Cabargada, the housemaid, testified that at around 10:00 o'clock a.m. of March 4, 1995 while washing clothes outside the house of the Mojados, she did not notice anybody entering the house nor were there any persons in the sala of the same. Without finishing her work, she went to the kitchen to prepare their meals. When she entered her room, she saw Jose Dedace, the accused hurriedly putting on his short pants and [so was] Joyce Mojado. She asked what they were doing but nobody answered. Because of what she saw, she felt upset and went out of the room to drink water. When she returned to her room, the accused was not around anymore and she found Joyce Marie outside the room. She asked the child, Joyce, what the accused did to her and the latter told her that accused made sexual intercourse with her. She immediately went out to seek x x x help, brought the child to the mayor and later brought her to the hospital for check up.

"The third witness, Dr. Azucena Polo-Mirambel, testified that she physically examined the victim in the afternoon of that same day and found fresh abrasions at the perineal area, fresh abrasion and inflam[m]ation of the labia minora and labia majora, and healed laceration[s] at 3 and 6:00 o'clock position[s]. That the three abrasions and inflam[m]ation could have been caused by an erect penis or hitting x x x the floor .

"To prove the innocence of the accused, the defense presented him as the only witness. In his testimony, he testified that he did not commit the crime as charged. That he was just masturbating when the offended party appeared and in order that she could not tell Anecita Cabargada of what he was doing until he finished masturbating, he grabbed her by her vagina and let her sit on his lap."

Assignment of Errors

In his Brief, appellant imputes to the trial court this error:

"The trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of rape despite the fact that appellant had no sexual intercourse with the complainant."[6]

Otherwise stated, appellant questions the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is devoid of merit. Scl-aw

Main Issue: Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence

Appellant is charged with statutory rape as defined and penalized in paragraph 3 of Article 335[7] of the Revised Penal Code. The gravamen of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years of age. It is well-settled that complete or full penetration of the complainant's private part is not necessary to consummate rape. What is essential is that there be penetration of the sexual organ, no matter how slight.[8] The Court in People v. Bacani[9] elucidated thus:

"The law may now be considered as settled that complete, or total penetration of complainant's private organ is not necessary to consummate the crime of rape. The slightest penetration will suffice. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential for the offense of consummated rape. It is enough that there is proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum. Therefore, it is unnecessary to show to what extent penetration of the woman's body has been made. It is adequate if the woman's body is entered."[10]

That sexual intercourse had not been complete was apparent from the testimony of the complainant herself, who admitted that the penis of the accused had not entered her vagina. However, she maintained that it touched her organ. We thus agree with the trial court's affirmation of the victim's declaration. Sc-lex

As a general rule, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is a matter that peculiarly falls within the authority of the trial court, as it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand. For this reason, appellate courts accord its assessments of witnesses with great weight and even finality, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[11]

After a thorough review of the records, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the complainant's answers, as well as her manner of answering, were without any hesitancy or prevarication. The salient portion of Joyce's testimony is reproduced below:

"Q. So you were inside the room of Manang Annie together with Jose Dedace?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, while you were inside the room of Manang Annie together with Jose Dedace, what did Jose Dedace do to you?

A. He took off my panty and short pants.

Q. By the way Joyce, could you still remember what kind of dress you were wearing on that day?

A. Short pants and T -shirt.

Q. You said your shorts [were] removed. Who took off your shorts and panty?

A. Jose Dedace.

Q. Did Jose Dedace remove your T -shirt?

A. No, sir.

Q. After removing your shorts and panty, what did Jose Dedace do next if any?

A. He spread my 2 legs and he made me sit on his lap.

Q. And where did this happen, Joyce, where you were put on his lap, in what part of the room of Manang Annie? x-sc

A. In the bed.

Q. Could you still remember what kind of dress was Jose Dedace wearing, short pants or long pants?

A. Short pants, sir.

Q. And what did he do to his short pants referring to Jose Dedace?

A. He partly removed his short pants.

Q. After partly removing his short pants, what did you see if any?

COURT:

Reform.

ATTY .VITERBO:

May I make it of record, Your Honor, that the witness failed to answer the question propounded by counsel.

COURT:

Q. After he removed his short pants[,] what did he do?

A. He made a sexual intercourse with me.

PROSECUTOR RUBIO:

Q. Did the penis of Jose Dedace enter into your vagina?

A. No, sir.

Q. But did it touch your organ or your vagina?

A. Yes, sir. xl-aw

Q. Do you know the reason why his penis was not inserted into your vagina?

A. Because Manang arrived.

Q. Who is this Manang you are referring to?

A. Manang Annie.

Q. When Manang Annie arrived[,] what did Jose Dedace do next?

A. He faced towards the window.

Q. While facing towards the window, what was he doing?

A. He put back his shorts.

Q. How about you, what did you do next if any?

A. I put [my panty] up also."[12]

The credibility accorded by the trial court to the complainant was bolstered by the Medico- Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Azucena Polo-Mirambel, who examined her after the incident. The Certificate showed that the victim suffered the following injuries:[13]

"External Genitalia -Multiple abrasions at the perineal area;

-- abrasions and inflammation on both labia minora and labia majora;

-- healed hymenal lacerations at 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock position[s]."

It is a truism that when an alleged victim of rape says that she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[14] This is so in the instant case, in which the trial court found that the complainant, despite being only eight (8) years old and a Grade 2 pupil when presented on the witness stand, testified in a simple, candid and straightforward manner. Sc

Failure of the Defense to Overturn the Prosecution Evidence

Denying that coitus took place, appellant failed, however, to present any substantial evidence or argument to convince us to modify or reverse the findings of the trial court. In fact, after a careful reading of his testimony, the Court is inclined to agree with the trial court that the "foregoing story of the accused is highly dubious for being contrary to human nature and experience."

It is axiomatic that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must also be credible in itself, such that common experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the circumstances.[15] Testimonies that do not adhere to this standard are necessarily accorded little weight or credence.[16] The Court finds the narration of the accused improbable and beyond belief for being contrary to human experience. He testified as follows:

"Q. Tell us, inside the room what did you do?

A. I peeped.

Q. Whom did you peep [at]?

A. Annie.

Q. And what did you see when you peeped at Annie?

A. The panty because she was washing the clothes like this. (The witness demonstrated by parting his legs ).

Q. Was she standing or sitting while washing clothes?

A. Sitting.

Q. And you said you saw the panty. Seeing the panty what did you do?

A. I masturbate[d]. Scmis

Q. What were you wearing at that time? Were you wearing long pants or short pants?

A. Short pants.

Q. Did you remove your short pants when you masturbated?

A. No, sir, I only opened the zipper.

Q. While you were masturbating what transpired if there was any?

A. When I was masturbating, sir, this Joyce suddenly entered.

Q. And when Joyce entered the room where you were masturbating, did she see you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did she say if any?

A. When she entered the room she said, uncle [is] masturbating.

Q. And what did you do?

A. I tried to grab her.

Q. Now, why did you grab her?

A. So that she [could] not report to Annie.

Q. Grabbing her, what was her position?

A. She was in the position like this. (The witness demonstrated by going downward from the chair and make an act of masturbating with his left hand showing the act of grabbing), and said Joyce was here (the witness demonstrated by putting his left hand on his left lap).

Q. You mean that Joyce was sitting on your lap?

A. Yes, sir. Missc

Q. Since you were grabbing, where was you hand placed in the body of Joyce?

A. Somewhere here. (Witness demonstrated by putting [an] extended finger of his left hand in the vagina).

Q. While Joyce was in your lap and your finger was in her vagina, did you continue your masturbation?

A. I finished it, sir.

Q. Were you able to ejaculate?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that substance that ejaculated from your penis where [did] it fall?

A. On the floor.

Q. After the ejaculation what transpired next?

A. I released Joyce.

Q. And what else transpired?

A. When Joyce was released, when she walked away, Annie saw me when she opened the curtain, and she saw me there."[17]

The Court notes that it would have been difficult for the appellant to simultaneously masturbate and perform a series of acts purportedly meant to prevent the complainant from running away and informing on him. These acts consisted of grabbing the child, removing her short pants and underwear, and forcing her to sit on his lap. Ordinarily, the simultaneous execution of such acts would have necessitated the use of both hands. Granting that he had sufficient agility for such physical coordination, his acts revealed an intent to ravish her. Otherwise, why did he have to remove her clothes and hold on to her vagina while he was masturbating? He would have simply grabbed her and covered her mouth.

We stress that the narration of the appellant is improbable. Moreover, we find no reason to doubt the credibility of the complainant who unequivocally testified that the penis of the appellant had touched her vagina. Likewise, other than to bring justice to the person who wronged her, no other motive could be attributed to her for instituting this case. Misspped

Damages

We sustain the award of P50,000 as moral damages in favor of the victim. In People v. Ignacio, the Court held that "the fact that complainant has suffered the trauma of mental, physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the bases for moral damages is too obvious to still require the victim's recital thereof at the trial x x x."[18]

Appellant, however, should also be ordered to pay the victim P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto, in line with existing jurisprudence.[19] This is awarded without need of proof, other than the fact that the accused committed the crime.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court AFFIRMED, with the modification that appellant is ordered to pay the victim the amount of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto, in addition to the trial court's grant of P50,000 as moral damages. Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

[1] Rollo, pp. 16-22. It was penned by Judge Abraham B. Apostol.

[3] The case was deemed submitted for resolution on July 8, 1999, when this Court received the Appellee's Brief. The filing of a reply brief was deemed waived, as none was submitted within the reglementary period.

[4] Signed by Sol. Gen. Ricardo P. Galvez, Asst. Sol. Gen. Rodolfo G. Urbistondo, and Sol. Evelyn C. Balgas-Guballa.

[5] Appellant's Brief, pp. 3-4; it was signed by Atty. Pedro B. Baguilat Jr. of the Public Attorney's Office.

[7] Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, reads as follows:

"ART.335. When and how rape committed. --Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.

When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be likewise death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.

xxx xxx xxx"

[8] People v. Soan, 243 SCRA 627, April 21, 1995, per Puno, J.; People v. Castro, 196 SCRA 679, May 6, 1991; People v. Bacalzo, 195 SCRA 557, March 22, 1991; People v. Castillo, 197 SCRA 657, May 29, 1991; People v. Genores, 193 SCRA 263, January 24, 1991.

[10] See also People v. Ayo, 305 SCRA 543, March 30, 1999; People v. Oliva, 282 SCRA 470, December 5, 1997; People v. dela Pena, 276 SCRA 558, July 31, 1997.

[11] People v. Perucho, GR No. 128869, April 14, 1999; People v. Morin, 241 SCRA 709, February 24, 1995; People v. Sumbillo, GR No. 105292, April 18, 1997; People v. Ombrog, GR No. 104666, February 12, 1997; People v. Fabro, GR No. 95089, August 11, 1997; People v. Cogonon, 262 SCRA 693, October 4, 1996.

[12] TSN, October 25, 1995, pp. 6-8. Underscoring supplied.

[14] People v. Borja, 267 SCRA 370, 379, February 3, 1997; and People v. Ramirez, 266 SCRA 335, 348, January 20, 1997.

[15] People v. Diaz, GR No. 130652, June 21, 1999; People v. Manambit, 271 SCRA 344, April 18, 1997; People v. Dayag, 56 SCRA 439, March 29, 1974; People v. Salazar, 272 SCRA 481, May 14, 1997.

[16] People v. Perucho, supra.; People v. Fabro, supra; People v. Escalante, 238 SCRA 554, December 1, 1994; Tuason v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 695, February 23, 1995.

[18] 294 SCRA 542, August 24, 1998, per Romero, J. See also People v. Lampaza, GR No. 138876, November 24, 1999.

[19] People v. Albao, 287 SCRA 129, March 6, 1998; People v. Sumalpong, 284 SCRA 464, January 20, 1998.