|
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee, – versus – BERNARDO RIMANDO, JR. Y BASILIO, alias “JOJO,” Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 180921 Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, BRION, ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: August
27, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Caught in flagrante by his own mother and
police authorities of molesting his own minor daughter AAA,[1]
the Court of Appeals, by Decision[2]
of June 14, 2007, affirmed with modification the January 19, 2006 Decision of
Branch 67 of the Regional Trial Court in Bauang, La Union convicting Bernardo
Rimando, Jr. y Basilio alias “Jojo” (appellant) of rape.
The accusatory
portion of the Information filed against appellant reads:
That on or about the 31st day of
October, 1999, in the Municipality of Naguilian, Province of La Union,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation and actuated by lust,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
intercourse with his daughter [AAA], a 10-year old minor, against
her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
(Underscoring supplied)
Through the
testimonies of AAA, her paternal grandmother DDD, and P03 Judy Calica, the prosecution proffered
the following version:
AAA, who was
born on
When AAA was
in Grade 2, appellant, on several occasions, removed her underwear and let her
sit on his penis. Every time he did this, she felt pain as his penis partly
penetrated her vagina. He would later place himself on top of her and try to insert
his penis into her vagina during which she would merely cry in helplessness as
he threatened to kill her and her sisters if she revealed to anyone about what
he had been doing to her.[7]
In the early
evening of
On entering
the room, AAA lied down on bed and covered her body with a blanket. Appellant followed
her, lied down beside her and removed her blanket. As he began removing her short pants and panties,
she cried as she uttered “huwag, pa.”
He warned her, however, not to create any
noise, threatening to slap her. After he
removed her short pants and panties, he pulled his short pants down to his
knees, placed himself on top of her, held his penis and tried many times to
insert it into her vagina.
When appellant
was able to place a portion of his penis into AAA’s vagina, he started pushing
up and down. As she felt pain in her
vagina, she continued crying. She was scared to shout for help, however, “because
he said if I will be noisy, he will kill us.” He continued the act for quite
sometime and stood up only when policemen and her grandparents entered their
room.[8]
The policemen,
P03 Judy Calica, P03 Elesio Mosuela and P02 Christopher Buslay of the Naguilian
Police Station, repaired to the house on
the request of AAA’s grandfather CCC, he and his wife DDD having suspected that
their son-herein appellant was molesting AAA when they heard her cry and utter “huwag, pa.”
On arriving
at the house, as the policemen heard someone crying, AAA’s grandmother DDD led
them to appellant’s room and slowly opened the unlocked door. There they saw on the bed the naked appellant mounted
between the legs of AAA who was lying without any panties and crying, her left
hand being held by him as his right hand was holding his penis which he was trying
to insert into her vagina.
As DDD switched
on the light of the room, appellant immediately jumped out of bed and put on
his short pants, while AAA held her private organ, telling the policemen and DDD
that it was painful.
Appellant was
thereupon arrested and brought to the
Denying the
accusation, appellant gave the following version:
After
arriving home from work on the night in question, while his three daughters
including AAA and his parents were watching television at the sala, he went to
sleep. While lying inside his room, he heard somebody knocking at his door. Later
becoming aware of the presence of policemen, he woke up AAA whose presence in
the room he could not explain. The policemen at once brought him out of the
room without telling him the reason why, and took him to the
Appellant ventured
that his indictment could have been triggered by his having berated his mother DDD
for telling other people that he is a drunkard and had been maltreating his
children.
By Decision
of
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Bernardo
Rimando, Jr. y Basilio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified
rape defined in and penalized by Article 226-B, of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH by lethal
injection.
The
accused is further ordered to pay the victim [AAA] the amount of Seventy Five
Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00)
Pesos as moral damages and to pay the costs.
SO
ORDERED.[10]
Per People v. Mateo,[11]
the records of the case were forwarded to the Court of Appeals for review by
Order dated
The
appellate court, by Decision of P75,000.00
and additionally awarding AAA P25,000.00 as exemplary damages,
consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[14]
It thus disposed:
WHEREFORE, the DECISION DATED
The accused is ORDERED to pay to AAA
the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages;
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and the costs of suit.
SO
ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original)
In his
Brief, appellant faults the trial court
I
… IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE
TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
II
. . . IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
RAPE DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.[15]
Appellant assails
AAA’s credibility, citing her “quite unbelievable” conduct of failing to call for
help from her grandparents and siblings who were just at the sala, adjacent to
the room where she claimed to have been raped.[16]
Appellant’s argument does not persuade.
Forthright
victims of rape are not immune from fear. The threats AAA received stilled her from “shouting”
for help. She did utter “huwag, pa,” however, and was crying, audible
enough to have been heard by her grandparents, setting them to believe that appellant
was doing something wrong to her and to thus seek police assistance.
In any
event, that appellant is AAA’s own father who exercises moral ascendancy on her
should reasonably explain her obedience and submission to his threat.[17]
Appellant goes
on to argue that “if [she] was really raped, how come [her] hymen was still intact?,”[18]
citing the Certification dated November 3, 1999[19]
issued by Dr. Anne Nerissa Sanchez, who examined AAA on
PELVIC EXAMINATION
Genitalia: no pubic hair; labia majora well
opposed; labia minora seen upon separation of the labia majora which was
erythematous. Hymen – oval, intact. (Underscoring supplied)
That AAA’s
hymen was still intact despite the acts complained of does not negate the commission
of rape by appellant.[20]
The rupture or laceration of the hymen is not an essential element of rape, nor
is full penetration of the male penis into the woman’s vagina. Proof of the slightest penetration of the
penis with the labia or pudendum of the woman’s organ suffices.[21]
As found by the trial court,
x x x x
. . . although the doctor found that the
hymen of the complainant was oval, intact, the labia minor which is found
upon separation of the labia majora was ‘erythematous’, which means it
had a superficial blotchy redness of its skin which is indicative of a
possible contact of the labia minora with a foreign object. x x x. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
That the
Court entertains no doubt on appellant’s culpability, it quotes the following
observations of the appellate court which merit its approval:
x x x, [T]he
accused was caught in flagrante
delicto by the arresting officers and his own mother, DDD,
he being still on top of AAA, naked and committing rape, when they opened the
room. More decisively, AAA clearly and unwaveringly detailed
the shameless act of her father, to wit:
Pros. Bernabe:
And
after you said he [appellant] pulled down his shorts down to his knees, what did
he do next?
A: He went on top of me, Ma’am.
Q: After he went on top of you, what did he
do next?
A:
[He] was holding his penis and tried to insert it into my vagina, Ma’am.
Q: And
how many times did he try to insert his penis into your vagina?
A: Many
times, Ma’am.
Court:
That
evening was he able to insert his penis into your vagina?
A: Yes,
sir.
Pros. Bernabe:
Was
he able to insert the whole penis or part of it?
A: Part
only, Ma’am.
Court:
After inserting his penis into your vagina,
what did he do next?
A: He moved, your Honor.
Q: How
did he move after inserting his penis into your vagina?
A: He was pumping, sir.
Q: Did you feel anything coming out from
his penis?
A: None,
sir.
Q: What
did you feel, madam witness, when he was inserting his penis in your
vagina and pumping?
A: Painful, Ma’am.
Q: And the whole time you were crying?
A: Yes,
Ma’am. (TSN, April 28, 2004, pp. 16-17)
That the accused had carnal knowledge of AAA,
his own minor daughter, was competently established. x x x.
The aforecited testimony of AAA indicated
that the slightest penetration of the penis into the lips of the female genitalia
was achieved because she felt pain. Such penetration suffices for conviction. x x x.[22]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Appellant’s
challenge to the assailed decision having failed, his conviction must be
upheld.
WHEREFORE, the
appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02029 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ARTURO D. BRION 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.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] The real name of the victim is withheld to protect her privacy; instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her, pursuant to Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262 (the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). Likewise, the personal circumstances or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her family members shall not be disclosed.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe; CA rollo, pp. 127-145.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] The mother’s real name is not disclosed; instead, fictitious initial is used pursuant to R.A. No. 9262.
[5] Exhibit “A,” records, p. 169.
[6] Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN),
[7]
[8]
[9] TSN,
[10] Records, p. 364.
[11] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[12] CA records, p. 31.
[13] “An Act Prohibiting The Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,” signed into law on June 24, 2006; People v. Bidoc, G.R. No. 169430, October 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 481, 502.
[14] People v. Bidoc, id. at 503-504, citing People v. Sambrano, 398 SCRA 106, 117 (2003).
[15] Accused-Appellant’s Brief, CA rollo, p. 38.
[16]
[17] Vide
People v. Arellano, G.R. No. 176640,
[18] Accused-Appellant’s Brief, supra at 55.
[19] Exhibit “B” and Exhibit “1,” cited in the RTC Decision, records, p. 359.
[20] See People
v. Bernabe, G.R. No. 141881,
[21]
[22] Rollo, pp. 11-13.