SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 133741-42. October 26, 2001]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
LINO VILLARUEL, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
On appeal is the joint decision[1] dated December 19, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court
of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 50, finding appellant Lino Villaruel guilty of
two counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count, and to pay the victim, Jennylinda Pagayona, moral
damages in the amount of P50,000 for each of the offenses charged, and
to pay the costs.
The facts of this case are as
follows:
On April 18, 1994, appellant was
charged and arraigned under two informations which read:
Crim. Case No. 11599
That on or about the 9th day of October, 1993, at Sitio Enojas, Barangay Panacan, Municipality of Narra, Province of Palawan, Philippines the said accused with lewd design and armed with a sharp pointed weapon by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloneously (sic) have carnal knowledge with one JENNYLINDA PAGAYONA, a girl below 12 years old against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Crim. Case No. 11600
That on or about the 10th day of October, 1993, at Sitio Enojas, Barangay Panacan, Municipality of Narra, Province of Palawan, Philippines the said accused with lewd design and armed with a sharp pointed weapon by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one JENNYLINDA PAGAYONA, a girl below 12 years old against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
The appellant entered pleas of not
guilty to both charges.
On March 2, 1995, the prosecution
commenced the presentation of its evidence.
First to testify was the private complainant, JENNYLINDA PAGAYONA. According to her, on October 9, 1993, she
was left alone in their family residence at Panacan, Narra, Palawan, because
her mother went to Cabugan Island to purchase some fish for her business. She slept at around 9:00 P.M. At 11:00 P.M., she woke up and to her
surprise, she saw that her lampshade which she left open before she went to
sleep was turned off. She thought
nothing of it since she assumed that it was probably just a brownout. However, when she turned to her side, she
noticed that there was somebody beside her.
She tried to shout but the person, whom she later identified to be Lino
Villaruel, covered her mouth with his hand.
Appellant then pointed a knife to her neck and stated, “Sige, sumigaw
ka, puputulin ko ang leeg mo.”[4] Appellant then started to kiss her face and lips
while she tried vainly to resist. After
a few moments of kissing, the appellant mounted her and started removing her
panty with his left hand while the right hand was still holding the knife to
her neck. Thereafter, he inserted his
penis into her vagina and made push and pull motions which lasted from 2 to 3
minutes.[5] At this time, she cried because of the intense pain
she felt and tried to push the appellant away.
Appellant then started to kiss her again on her face, lips and nipples
and even moved downwards to lick her private parts. After satisfying himself, he lay down and rested and threatened
her again that he will kill her and her family if she reported what happened to
the authorities.[6]
After resting for some time,
appellant went on top of her again and inserted his male organ into her female
organ and thereafter made push and pull motions.[7] Thereafter, the appellant forced her to turn her body
with her face flat on the bed and forcibly inserted his male organ into her
anus while he elevated her buttocks by holding her belly. She tried to resist and remove his hands but
her efforts proved futile. At this
point, he threatened her again by saying that “o sige sumigaw ka oli.”[8] Appellant then lay down for a while and thereafter
hurriedly wore his clothes and went downstairs to get out of the house through
the kitchen door. It was only at this
time when Jennylinda recognized her abuser to be Lino Villaruel since despite the
appellant’s warnings, she managed to turn the lights on and look at his face as
he was trying to get out of the door.[9]
She immediately went to her Ate
Irma to tell her about her ordeal and to ask her help. Together, they went to the house of
Resurreccion Villaruz,[10] who called the police through his hand radio
requesting police assistance. Five
police officers responded to the said request.
She was then brought to the Narra Emergency Hospital where she was
physically examined by a certain physician, Dr. Perseverando Tangug.[11]
The victim’s mother, ERLINDA
VILLARUZ, also testified. She recalled
that on October 8, 1993, she and her husband went to Cabugan Island and left
her daughter, Jennylinda, alone in their house. She was fetched by her brother-in-law the following Sunday,
October 10, 1993. Upon arriving home,
she learned from her father-in-law that her daughter was raped. When she confronted her daughter, the latter
told her that it was Lino Villaruel who abused her. She also testified on her daughter’s ordeal.[12]
The next prosecution witness was
RESURRECCION VILLARUZ. He testified
that he was awakened early morning of October 11, 1993, at around 12:10 A.M. by
Irma and Jennylinda. Jennylinda told
him that she was raped by Lino Villaruel.
He then used his hand-held radio to call for assistance. In response, SPO1 Abuan, Alili and Castro
came. They all went to the police
station where Jennylinda answered questions.
She was later brought to the Narra District Hospital.[13]
Last to testify was DR.
PERSEVERANDO TANGUG, who conducted the physical examination on Jennylinda at
the Narra District Hospital. He
examined Jennylinda early morning of December 10, 1993. His examinations revealed that the victim
suffered mucosal irritation located at 6 o’clock and 3 o’clock positions
at the vaginal opening. There were no
hymenal lacerations and the vaginal opening admits tip of middle finger with
pain. On cross-examination, he
testified that Jennylinda was still a virgin at the time he examined her.[14]
On March 20, 1996, the defense
started presenting its evidence with the testimony of DR. RUDOLF BALADAD,
SR. Dr. Baladad testified that mucosal
irritation could be caused by many factors, among which are infection,
fungal infection, bacterial infection, tight underwear, harsh soap, etc. He also testified that based on the findings
of Dr. Tangug, Jennylinda was still a virgin at the time she was examined. Her hymen was still intact and there could
have been no penetration by a male sex organ.
Upon cross- examination, he testified that a male sex organ can also
cause mucosal irritation and that the difficulty of penetrating a
woman’s vagina depends upon its elasticity.[15]
The next witness for the defense
was appellant himself, LINO VILLARUEL.
He denied the charges against him.
According to him, the cases were brought about by an incident, when he
slapped private complainant after she cursed him for hitting her dog, which had
bit him. Moreover, he stated that
Resurreccion Villaruz, the grandfather of Jennylinda, held a grievance against
him because of his refusal to accede to a business agreement with him.
He also claimed as an alibi that
on the night of the alleged rape incidents, he was staying in the house of
Elmar Gustilo to sleep since he was not feeling well at that time.[16]
On December 19, 1997, the trial
court rendered its joint decision disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, Premises considered, a joint decision is hereby rendered
finding the accused LINO VILLARUEL guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal
for two (2) counts of rape, and there being no modifying circumstances
appreciated, and not being entitled to the application of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced in CRIMINAL CASE NO 11599 to a penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA and likewise in CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11600 to a penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA, with the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for
life, and perpetual absolute disqualification to pay JENNYLINDA PAGAYONA moral
damages of P50,000.00 for each of the offense charged; and to pay the
costs.
SO ORDERED.[17]
Seasonably, appellant interposed
this instant appeal, alleging that the trial court committed the following
errors:
I. In convicting the accused in spite of lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt;
II. In
upholding the validity of the proceedings in spite of lack of compliance with
the jurisdictional requirement laid down by Article 344 of the Revised Penal
Code.[18]
On his first assigned error,
appellant argues that the testimony of private complainant that she was raped
is hard to believe considering that the medical certificate presented shows
that no sign of any laceration can be found in her vagina nor her anus. Appellant stresses the failure of the
prosecution to present other physical evidence which would support her bare
allegations.
On his second assigned error,
appellant assails the jurisdiction of the court. He contends that the complaint filed by the victim was only for
the purpose of preliminary investigation, not for commencing judicial trial of
the accused.
The Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), for the State, points out that the victim testified that the
penis of the appellant did not entirely penetrate her vagina. Thus, her testimony was consistent with the
medical findings that there were no hymenal lacerations. Furthermore, the OSG adds “that it is highly
inconceivable for a young barrio lass, inexperienced with the ways of the
world, to fabricate a charge of defloration, undergo medical examination of her
private parts, subject herself to public trial and tarnish her family’s honor
and reputation unless she was motivated by a potent desire to seek justice for
the wrong committed against her.”[19] Further, the OSG stresses that the findings of the
trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are generally accorded
great weight and respect on appeal, as the trial court is in the best position
to make an honest determination of the witnesses’ deportment during trial.[20]
On appellant’s allegation that the
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction because of the insufficiency of the
complaint, the OSG argues that the rule requiring that the complaint referred
to in Article 344[21] of the Revised Penal Code be filed with the court has
already been relaxed by more recent cases.
The filing of said complaint mentioned in Article 344 is not what
confers jurisdiction. It is merely a
condition precedent to the exercise of the power to prosecute the guilty
parties. It is the Judiciary Law that
vests jurisdiction on the courts.[22] In any case, the OSG adds, the private complainant in
this case had already initiated the prosecution for rape when she filed a
complaint for purposes of the preliminary investigation against the appellant
before the municipal trial court in Narra, Palawan. She no longer had to file another complaint in the trial court
nor sign the information filed by the public prosecutor for the regional trial
court in Puerto Princesa to acquire jurisdiction over her case.[23]
In his Reply Brief, appellant
reiterates that the physical evidence presented in court belied the allegations
of Jennylinda that her vagina and anus were penetrated by him and thus
inconsistent with the elements of rape.
He also cited People vs. Santos, 101 Phil. 798, 803 (1957), which
held that a complaint for rape should be a complaint filed in court for
purposes of commencing a judicial proceeding and not filed before the public
prosecutor.[24]
The main issues for resolution
here are: (1) whether the complaint filed by the alleged victim in this case
suffices to confer jurisdiction upon the regional trial court; and (2) whether
the prosecution evidence suffices to convict appellant on two counts of rape
beyond reasonable doubt.
On the sufficiency of the
complaint, appellant urges this Court to apply the ruling in People vs.
Santos, 101 Phil 798 (1957), that the complaint filed in court, and
not the “salaysay” filed with the fiscal, commences the criminal
proceedings.[25] But as early as Valdepeñas vs. People, 16 SCRA
871 (1966), this ruling was already modified.
We clarified it more recently in People vs. Bugtong, 169 SCRA 797
(1989), and People vs. Tañada, 166 SCRA 360 (1988), and later cases,[26] that the complaint mentioned in Article 344 of the
Revised Penal Code does not confer jurisdiction upon the trial court. It is the law that confers
jurisdiction. The salaysay or
complaint is merely a condition precedent to the exercise by the proper
authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty parties.[27]
In this case, the complaint
executed by the offended party Jennylinda Pagayona did not only narrate the
facts and circumstances constituting the crime of rape, but it also explicitly
and categorically charged appellant Lino Villaruel with said offense. This is unlike the Santos case where
complainant’s salaysay was a mere narration of how the rape was
committed. In Santos, the fiscal
did not even mention the offended party in the opening statement of the
information. In the present case,
however, the prosecutor expressly stated that the two informations were being
instituted upon the sworn complaint of Jennylinda Pagayona against the
appellant, Lino Villaruel. The
substantial requirements of Article 344 were complied with, and we find the
complaint in this case sufficient to vest jurisdiction on the regional trial
court.
Coming now to the second
issue. In reviewing convictions for
rape, we are guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can
be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is
even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (b)
considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great
caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence
for the defense.[28]
Private complainant in this case
has categorically identified her abuser to be no other than appellant Lino
Villaruel. Although she did not
recognize him at first, because the light was turned off, she categorically
declared that after switching the lights on, she clearly saw his face and
recognized him and his attire as he was dressing up and was about to leave by
the kitchen door of her house. We see
no reason for her to lie about her ordeal and subject herself and her family to
the harrowing experience of a public trial.
No young girl of good repute would allow an examination of her private
parts or subject herself to the shame, embarrassment and humiliation of a
public trial, if she has not in fact been raped.[29]
Appellant avers that the reason
she charged him of rape was that he had slapped the girl for cursing him after
he hit her dog for biting him. No one,
however, corroborated his assertion.
Appellant did not bother to produce any proof that he was indeed bitten
by a dog. No bite mark on his leg or
any part of his body was shown. Neither
did he present another witness to corroborate his story.
Appellant also claims that he was
being framed because of ill feelings harbored by her grandfather, Resurreccion
Villaruz, against him. Again, this
allegation is unsubstantiated.
Appellant did not present any proof to corroborate this self-serving
declaration that he was being forced by Resurreccion to enter into an unfair
business agreement, whose nature remained undisclosed.
In sum, no improper motive was
shown on the part of the private complainant and her witnesses to show why she
allegedly just invented the accusations against appellant. Absent such motive, the testimonies of the
victim and other prosecution witnesses deserve full faith and credence.[30]
Appellant contends that the
medical findings are inconsistent with and do not support the charges of
rape. As admitted by his own expert
witness, Dr. Baladad, the mucosal irritation found in complainant’s
private organ may be attributed to any hard object, including a hard penis
placed on the vaginal opening.[31] He likewise stated that a large penis may not be able
to easily penetrate the sexual organ of a female especially if the vagina is
not sufficiently elastic.[32] This means that a male organ may be able to penetrate
the opening of the labia but may not necessarily cause any laceration to the
vagina and/or the hymen. This could
explain why no lacerations were found on her female organ. This is also consistent with the testimony
of the victim that the penis of the appellant was not able to completely
penetrate her private organ.[33] As law and jurisprudence now stand, however, complete
penetration of the female genitalia is not required for a finding that rape was
committed on a girl. Much less is there
a need to pierce the hymen and thereby destroy her virginity. Penile contact with the female organ’s labia
suffices to consummate rape.[34]
As a rule, factual findings of the
trial court are conclusive upon this Court and its evaluation regarding the
credibility of witnesses are given great weight and respect unless there is a
showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some
fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the
result of the case.[35] Absent any credible evidence to the contrary, we are
constrained to sustain the trial court’s findings regarding the credibility of
the prosecution’s witnesses and the weight or value of their testimonies.
In this case, we agree with the
trial court that appellant is guilty of two counts of rape beyond reasonable
doubt. Pursuant to Article 355 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, there being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstances, he should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each
count. But with regard to the civil
aspect, the decision ought to be modified.
For each count, he should pay to the victim, pursuant to current jurisprudence,
the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral
damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated December 19, 1997, of
the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 50, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Appellant Lino Villaruel
is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape. For each count, he is sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and pay to the victim, Jennylinda
Pagayona, P50,000 as civil indemnity,[36] P50,000 as moral damages[37] and P25,000 as exemplary damages, as well as the
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp.
15-27.
[2] Id. at 4.
[3] Id. at 5.
[4] TSN, March 2, 1995, p.
14. “Go ahead, shout and I will cut your neck.”
[5] Id. at 18-19.
[6] Id. at 10-22.
[7] Id. at 22.
[8] Id. at
22-26. “Oh go ahead, shout again.”
[9] Id. at 26-28.
[10] Also referred to as
Sorik/Surek Villaruz in the Records.
[11] Id. at 32-41.
[12] TSN, March 3, 1995,
pp. 25-31.
[13] TSN, July 7, 1995,
pp. 5-12.
[14] TSN, September 15,
1995, pp. 3-12.
[15] TSN, March 20, 1996,
pp. 3-17.
[16] TSN, August 12,
1996, pp. 4-39.
[17] Rollo, p. 27.
[18] Id. at 42.
[19] People vs. Esguerra,
G.R. No. 117482, 256 SCRA 657, 664 (1996).
[20] Rollo, p. 84.
[21] ART.
344. Prosecution of the crimes of
adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. –
The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon
him. The provisions of this paragraph
shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories
after the fact of the abovementioned crimes.
[22] People vs.
Bugtong, G.R. No. 75853, 169 SCRA 797, 804 (1989); People vs. Cabodac,
G.R. Nos. 93929-31, 208 SCRA 787, 797 (1992).
[23] Rollo, p. 89.
[24] Id. at 100.
[25] People, et al.
vs. Santos, et al., G.R. No. L-8520, 101 Phil. 798, 800 (1957).
[26] People vs. Babasa,
G.R. No. L-38072, 97 SCRA 672, 680 (1980); People vs. Ilarde, G.R. No.
L-58595, 125 SCRA 11 (1983).
[27] People vs.
Cabodac, G.R. No. 93929-31, 208 SCRA 787, 797 (1992).
[28] People vs.
Serrano, G.R. No. 137480, February 28, 2001, p. 8, citing People vs.
Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, 284 SCRA 590, 612 (1998); People vs. Barrientos,
G.R. No. 119835, 285 SCRA 221, 237-38 (1998); People vs. Balmoria, G.R.
Nos. 120620-21, 287 SCRA 687, 698 (1998); People vs. Sta. Ana, G.R. Nos.
115657-59, 291 SCRA 188, 202 (1998); People vs. Perez, G.R. No. 118332,
270 SCRA 526, 531 (1997).
[29] People vs. Tabion,
G.R. No. 132715, 317 SCRA 126, 144 (1999).
[30] People vs.
Hernandez, G.R. No. 108027, 304 SCRA 186, 194 (1999).
[31] TSN, March 20, 1996,
p. 12.
[32] Id. at 13.
[33] TSN, March 2, 1995,
p. 25.
[34] People vs.
Benjamin Fabia, G.R. No. 134764, June 26, 2001, p. 12; citing People vs.
Tirona, G.R. No. 128907, 300 SCRA 431 (1998); People vs. Tagaylo, G.R.
Nos. 137108-09, November 20, 2000, p. 8 citing People vs. Dimapilis, 300
SCRA 279, 305 (1998).
[35] People vs. Ablaza,
G.R. No. L-27352, 30 SCRA 173, 176 (1969); People vs. Carido, G.R. No.
L-32242, 167 SCRA 462, 473 (1988); People vs. Tejada, G.R. No. 81520,
170 SCRA 497, 501-502 (1989).
[36] People vs.
Panique, G.R. No. 125763, October 13, 1999, p. 11.
[37] People vs. Prades,
G.R. No. 127569, 293 SCRA 411, 430 (1998).