PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - EDGAR TRAYCO y MASOLA, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 171313
Present:
*CARPIO, J., **carpio MORALES, Acting Chairperson, BRION, ABAD, JJ.
Promulgated: August 14, 2009 |
x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
BRION, J.:
We
review in this appeal the November 2, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00004,[1] affirming
with modification the November 20, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73,
ANTECEDENT FACTS
The prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC with the crime of rape under an Information that states:
x
x x
That on or about the 30th day of July,
1998, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a bladed weapon, by
means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one [AAA],[3] a minor,
who is eleven (11) years of age, against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.[5] The prosecution presented the following witnesses in the trial on the merits that followed: AAA; Rufino Almodiel (Rufino); BBB; CCC; and Dr. Tomas Suguitan (Dr. Suguitan). The appellant, Reynilda Naprada (Reynilda), and Arnold Naprada (Arnold) took the witness stand for the defense.
AAA testified that at around
Thereafter, the appellant ordered AAA to lie on the hood of the car that was parked inside the garage. The appellant took off AAA’s shorts and then inserted his penis inside her vagina. AAA felt pain but did not tell the appellant to stop because she felt scared. Afterwards, the appellant ordered AAA to stand and place his penis inside her mouth. AAA obliged because she was scared. Immediately after, the appellant told AAA to put back her shorts and pick up her bag. He told AAA to go to school as they went out of the garage.
AAA
arrived in school at around
On
cross-examination, AAA confirmed that she had executed an affidavit at the
police station on
On re-direct, AAA explained that the appellant’s face was not anymore covered when he started kissing her. On re-cross, AAA confirmed that the appellant’s face was also not covered when he ordered her to lie on the hood of the car.[8]
Rufino,
the over-all chief tanod of Barangay Bagong Nayon, testified that AAA
and BBB arrived at the barangay hall at
AAA, BBB, and the victim’s father, CCC, returned to the barangay hall the next morning and reported that AAA saw the appellant at Phase 2, Road 28. The barangay tanod, AAA and her parents all went to this place; AAA saw the appellant and pointed to him as the person who had raped her. Immediately after, the tanod approached the appellant and invited him to the barangay hall. At the barangay hall, AAA again identified the appellant as the person who had raped her.[9]
On cross-examination, Rufino testified that the house beside the garage was owned by a certain Colonel Ruiz who was seldom home. He explained that the appellant was delivering water when he (Rufino) approached him and invited him to the barangay hall.[10]
BBB
stated that AAA was 11 years old on
On
cross-examination, BBB testified that the house of Gertrudes was near the
garage where AAA had been raped. She confirmed that AAA was interviewed at
CCC
narrated that he went to the Land Transportation Office at around
CCC further testified that in the early morning of the next day, AAA informed him that she saw the appellant deliver water to a neighbor. AAA answered in the affirmative when asked if the appellant was the person who had raped her. He immediately went to the barangay hall and sought the assistance of the barangay tanod. They proceeded to Road 28 and saw the appellant delivering water to another neighbor. The chief barangay tanod invited the appellant to the barangay hall where they questioned him. There, AAA identified the appellant as the person who had raped her.[13]
On
cross-examination, CCC stated that he only saw one car in the garage. He added
that he tried to talk to the occupants of the nearby houses but they refused to
cooperate. At the barangay hall, the
chief tanod took the appellant’s
clothes. CCC brought these clothes to
Dr.
Suguitan, the Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory,
FINDINGS:
GENERAL
AND EXTRAGENITAL:
Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female
subject. Breasts are conical with pale brown areola and nipples from which
secretions could be pressed out. Abdomen is flat and soft.
GENITAL:
There is scanty growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are
full, convex and coaptated with the congested labia minora presenting in
between. On separating the same disclosed a congested and abraded posterior
fourchette and an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with deep fresh lacerations at 3
and
CONCLUSION:
Findings
are compatible with recent loss of virginity.
There are no external signs of application of any form
of trauma.
REMARKS:
Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for gram
negative diplococci and for spermatozoa.[15]
According to Dr.
Suguitan, the lacerations could have been caused by a
blunt object like an erect male penis.[16]
The defense presented a different version of the events.
Reynilda testified that the appellant
worked for her as a “water-delivery helper.” At around
The appellant declared on the witness
stand that he left his house in
The next day, the appellant went to
work at
On cross-examination, the appellant testified
that he had stayed in Cogeo for only two weeks prior to
He reiterated that he left his house
at
In its decision of P50,000.00.[21]
The records of this case were originally transmitted to this Court on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[22] we endorsed the case and the records to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.[23]
In
its decision[24] of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The CA held that AAA’s testimony was candid, straightforward, and free from inconsistencies. AAA positively identified the appellant as the person who had raped her using force and intimidation, and her testimony was corroborated by the medico-legal report of Dr. Suguitan. According to the CA, when the victim’s testimony is corroborated by the physician’s finding of penetration, sufficient basis exists to conclude that carnal knowledge took place.
The CA further ruled that mere carnal knowledge with AAA, even without force and intimidation, already constituted rape as the prosecution proved that AAA was only 11 years old when she was sexually abused.
As its final point, the CA held that the appellant’s denial cannot overcome AAA’s positive identification that he was her rapist.
In his brief,[25] the appellant essentially argued that the RTC erred in convicting him because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
THE COURT’S RULING
We
resolve to deny the appeal for lack
of merit but modify the amount of the awarded indemnities.
Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
The Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,[26] defines and penalizes Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, as follows:
ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed
-
1) By a
man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a) Through
force, threat or intimidation;
b) When
the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By
means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When
the offended party is under twelve (12)
years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
x
x x x
Thus, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force, threat, or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.[27] Sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old is statutory rape.[28]
AAA,
while recounting her ordeal, positively identified the appellant as the person
who had raped her. Her testimony dated
FISCAL
MARIO CLUTARIO, JR.:
Q: On
[AAA]:
A: Yes.
sir.
Q: What
time did you leave your house?
A:
Q: Who was
your companion when you left your house in order to walk on your way to school?
A: None,
sir.
Q: Do you
usually leave for school alone, without any companion?
A: Sometimes
I have a companion and sometimes none.
x x x
Q: You
said you were alone when you walked to your school on
x x x
A: Something
happened, sir.
Q: What do
you mean something happened?
A: When I
was raped.
Q: Where
were you raped.
A: Inside
a garage.
Q: You
said you were walking on your way to school, how did you happen to be inside a
garage?
A: I was
brought there.
Q: Who
brought you inside the garage?
A: Edgar
Trayco.
Q: How far
is that garage from the place where you were walking?
A: Just
near, sir.
Q: And how
did you meet Edgar Trayco?
A: While I
was walking, he placed his arm on my shoulders.
Q: Can you
describe to the Court the position of Edgar Trayco relative to you when he
placed his arm over your shoulders?
A: He was
on my right side.
Q: And
where did he come from when he was on your right side and he placed his arm
over your shoulder?
A: He came
from behind.
Q: After
he came from behind and placed his arm over your shoulders, what happened next?
A: He
poked something on me.
Q: Did you
see what was that something that was poked on you?
A: No,
sir.
Q: What
part of your body did he poke that object to you?
A: On my
neck.
Q: What
did you feel when he poked something on your neck?
A: It was
painful.
Q: What,
if anything, did you say when Edgar Trayco came from behind to place his arm
over your shoulders and poked something that was painful in your neck? [sic]
A: He said
I should not make a noise.
x x x
Q: After
that, what happened next?
A: We went
to the garage.
x x x
Q: After
you were brought to the garage, what happened next?
A: He started raping me.
Q: What
was your position when you said he started raping you?
A: At
first, I was standing, sir.
Q: When
you said you were standing, are you telling the Court that you were raped while
standing?
A: No,
sir, he first kissed me.
x x x
Q: When he
kissed you, did you say anything to him?
A: I told
him I don’t want it.
x x x
Q: After
he kissed you, what happened next?
A: He directed me to hold his penis.
Q: Was his
penis already out when he asked you to hold it?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x
Q: When he
asked you to hold his penis, did you obey as he ordered you?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Why did
you obey him?
A: Because
he ordered me to, and I told him I don’t want to but he said if I will not obey
him, he will kill me. [sic]
Q: What is
the position of Edgar Trayco and your position when he asked you to hold his
penis?
A: We were
standing, sir. He was on my side.
Q: Which
side was he?
A: He was
on my right side.
Q: What hand did you use in holding his penis?
A: My right hand.
Q: How long did you hold his penis?
A: Only
for a while. He touched my vagina.
Q: While
you were standing side by side?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: How was
he able to touch your vagina?
A: He just held my vagina. He just put his
hand under my shirt and inside my shorts.
Q: Did you say anything when he placed his
hand inside your shorts and held your vagina?
A: Yes,
sir. I said I did not want it.
Q: Did he
say anything when you said you did not want it?
A: Yes,
sir. He said he will kill me.
Q: After
he touched your vagina, what happened next?
A: He
ordered me to lie on a car.
Q: What
part of the car were you asked to lie down?
A: The
front, sir.
Q: You
mean to say the part of the car which covers the engine?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Did you
lie down on the hood of the car?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Then
what happened next?
A: He
took off my shorts.
x x x
Q: After
he took off your shorts, what happened next?
A: “Pinagdikit.”
He touched my vagina with his penis.
Q: Did you feel anything when his penis
touched your vagina?
A: Yes,
sir. I felt something. I felt pain.
Q: For how long did you feel that pain when
his penis was touching your vagina?
A: For quite some time.
x x x
Q: You
did not tell him to stop?
A: I
became scared.
COURT:
The
Court would like to be clarified, when you said “nakadikit,” you mean to say that his penis was not inserted in your
vagina?
AAA:
A: He inserted his penis inside my vagina but
it is “natatanggal.”
FISCAL MARIO CLUTARIO, JR.:
Q: Was
his penis hard at that time?
AAA:
A: “Medyo po.”
Q: After
that, what happened next?
A: He
ordered me to stand up.
x x x
Q: And
after coming down from the car and you were already sanding up, what happened
next?
A: He told me to put his penis inside my
mouth.
x x x
Q: Did you insert his penis inside your mouth?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why did
you obey him when he asked you to insert
his penis inside your mouth?
A: Because
I was already scared during that time.
Q: How
long was his penis inside your mouth?
A: Only for a while.
Q: After
that, what happened next?
A: He
ordered me to put on my shorts.
Q: Did
you put on your shorts as he ordered?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: After
you put on your shorts, what happened next?
A: He
ordered me to get my bag.
Q: After
that, what happened next?
A: We
went out.
x x x x[29] [Emphasis ours]
We view this testimony to be clear, convincing and credible, considering especially the corroboration it received from the medico-legal report and testimony of Dr. Suguitan. The records do not contain any evidence that would inject doubt into AAA’s testimony or give rise to any suspicion that she had any ulterior motive in charging and testifying against the appellant. We have held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature, as in this case, deserve full credence considering that no young woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and subject herself to a public trial if she had not been motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[30]
The prosecution positively established the elements of rape under Article 266-A. First, the appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge with the victim. AAA initially testified that the appellant’s penis merely touched her vagina, but later clarified that the appellant’s penis was inserted into her vagina. Whether the appellant’s penis merely touched AAA’s private part, or fully penetrated it is of no moment. Jurisprudence firmly holds that full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary, to conclude that carnal knowledge took place; the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis that is capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge.[31]
Our ruling in People v. Bali-Balita[32] is particularly instructive:
We have said often enough that in
concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal
orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen
necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia by the
penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal
knowledge. But the act of touching
should be understood here as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the
labias of the female organ and not
mere touching alone of the mons pubis
or the pudendum.
x x x x Thus, touching when applied to
rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal
contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis
on the external layer of the victim’s vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the
external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape.
As the labias,
which are required to be “touched” by the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to
touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the
surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape.[33] [Emphasis and italics
supplied]
There was, at the very least, touching of the labia as AAA testified that the appellant’s penis touched her vagina, as a result of which “she felt pain.” She also testified that the pain lasted for some time. More importantly, Dr. Suguitan testified that there were fresh hymenal lacerations on AAA’s private part. To quote Dr. Suguitan’s examination:
FISCAL MARIO CLUTARIO, JR.:
Q: Can you
tell the Honorable Court what your findings are?
DR. TOMAS SUGUITAN:
A: The hymen has fresh lacerations at 3 and
Q: During
the interview did you find out when this incident occurred?
A: According
to her, at
Q: It was
on the same day of examination?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x
Q: You mentioned that you found on the
genitals lacerations. [W]here in the genitals were you able to find these
lacerations?
A: On the hymen.
Q: Can you
tell the Honorable court what could have caused these lacerations?
A: Probably
caused by insertion of a blunt object.
Q: Would you consider an erect male penis as
blunt object?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: These lacerations that you found can you
tell the Court when could have these inflicted? [sic]
A: Since the laceration is still fresh, within
24 hours.
Q: So, the
lacerations that you found is consistent with the statement of [AAA] that the
incident happened on the same day of lacerations inflicted? [sic]
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x[34] [Emphasis supplied]
Second,
the prosecution established AAA’s minority during the trial through the
presentation of her birth certificate (Exh.
“C”) showing that she was born on
What the law punishes in statutory rape is
carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force,
intimidation, and physical evidence of injury are immaterial; the only subject
of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The
law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on
account of her tender years; the child’s consent is immaterial because of her
presumed incapacity to discern evil from good.[37]
The Appellant’s Defenses
In his defense, the appellant invoked denial
and alibi. He denied raping the victim, and insisted that he went to the house
of Reynilda at
To be believed, denial must be supported by strong evidence of innocence; otherwise it is regarded as a purely self-serving testimony. Alibi, on the other hand, is one of the weakest defenses in a criminal case and is rejected when the prosecution sufficiently establishes the identity of the accused. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused should prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Physical impossibility refers to distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. He must demonstrate that he was so far away and could not have been physically present at the scene of the crime and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed.[38]
In the present case, the defense completely
failed to show the required physical
impossibility. According to the appellant,
he left his house in Agora Complex, Cogeo at
The appellant tried to explain the discrepancies in time by stating that he was not wearing any watch when he left his house on July 30, 1998; he also admitted that the time of his arrival was a mere estimate. Rather than favor his case, however, his attempt to explain only stressed that he was not certain of the time he left his residence and the time he arrived at Reynilda’s house. Considering AAA’s undisputed testimony that their house is also located in Road 28, and that her school was a mere five-minute walk from her house, it was not physically impossible for the appellant to have been at Road 28 between 4:45 and 5:30 a.m. on July 30, 1998 to commit the crime charged.
The fact that Reynilda and Arnold
testified that the appellant went to their house at around
As aptly explained by the CA:
In the instant case, the victim was raped in the early
morning of
The Proper Penalty
The
applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
8353 (effective
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is
committed:
1) By a man who
shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
x x x
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
x x x x
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of
the next preceding article shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua.
x x x x
The lower courts therefore are correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the appellant.
Proper Indemnity
The
award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon
the finding of the fact of rape. Thus, this Court affirms the award of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity based on prevailing jurisprudence.[40]
Similarly,
moral damages are awarded to rape victims without need of
proof other than the fact of rape under the assumption that the victim suffered
moral injuries from the experience she underwent.[41] Pursuant
to current rules, we affirm the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages to
AAA.[42]
In addition, we award exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.[43]
The award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil
Code to set a public example and serve as deterrent against elders who
abuse and corrupt the youth.[44]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the
(a) appellant Edgar Trayco y Masola is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape as defined and penalized in Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code; and
(b)
he is further ORDERED to
PAY the victim the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES Associate Justice Acting Chairperson |
|
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONCHITA
CARPIO-MORALES
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Designated additional Member of the Second
Division per Special Order No. 671 dated
** Designated
Acting Chairperson of the Second Division per Special Order No. 670 dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, and concurred in by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao and Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of this Court); rollo, pp. 3-42.
[2] Penned by Executive Judge Mauricio M. Rivera.
[3] This appellation is pursuant to our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, wherein this Court has resolved to withhold the real name of the victim-survivor and to use fictitious initials instead to represent her in its decisions. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the victims-survivors or any other information tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed.
[4] Records, p. 1.
[5]
[6] TSN,
[7] TSN,
[8]
[9] TSN,
[10]
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15] Records, p. 13.
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN,
[19] TSN,
[20] TSN,
[21] CA rollo, p. 32.
[22] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[23] Per our Resolution dated
[24] Rollo, pp. 3-42.
[25] CA rollo, pp. 50-67.
[26] The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
[27] People
v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 177294,
[28] See People
v. Jusayan, G.R. No. 149785,
[29] TSN,
[30] See People
v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90,
[31] See People
v. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433,
[32] G.R. No. 134266,
[33]
[34] TSN,
[35] TSN,
[36] See People
v. Escultor, G.R. Nos. 149366-67,
[37] G.R. No. 182057,
[38] See People
v. Limio, G.R. Nos. 148804-06,
[39] Rollo, p. 38.
[40] See People
v. Begino, G.R. No. 181246,
[41] People
v. Nieto, G.R. No. 177756,
[42] People v. Valenzuela, supra.
[43] See People
v. Sia, G.R. No. 174059,
[44] See People
v. Tormis, G.R. No. 183456,