|
PEOPLE OF
THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - LEONARDO DEGAY y UNDALOS @
CALDO, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 182526
Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO,
JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: August 25,
2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PEREZ, J.:
This is an
appeal from the Decision[1]
dated P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as
moral damages.
Appellant was charged with
three counts of statutory rape in three Informations all dated 16 June 2004, which
read:
Criminal
Case No. 1849
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor of Mt. Province,
hereby accuses LEONARDO DEGAY, alias CALDO, of the crime of STATUTORY RAPE,
defined and penalized under Arts. 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, committed as follows:
That on or about March 25, 2004, in the afternoon thereof,
inside the at-atowan, XXX, barangay XXX, XXX, Mt. Province and within
the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-name (sic) accused, with
lewd design and with the use of force and intimidation, did then and there[,]
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously remove the pant (sic) and panty of AAA[5]
who is nine (9) years old, and thereafter have carnal knowledge of the
latter, without the consent of and against her will, to the damage and
prejudice of the said victim.[6]
Criminal
Case No. 1850
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor of Mt. Province,
hereby accuses LEONARDO DEGAY, alias CALDO, of the crime of STATUTORY RAPE,
defined and penalized under Arts. 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, committed as follows:
That on or about and sometime [in] the second (2nd) week of
March 2004, at just past mid-day, at Sitio XXX, barangay XXX, XXX, Mt. Province and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, and with the use of
force and intimidation, [brought] to his house AAA who is nine (9) years old
and once inside, accused removed his pant and brief and thereafter forcibly
remove[d] the pant (sic) and panty of the victim, then touch and mash the
vagina and breast of the latter several times and afterwards laid the victim on
the sofa and, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of AAA without her consent and against her will, to the damage
and prejudice of the latter.[7]
Criminal
Case No. 1851
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor of Mt. Province,
hereby accuses LEONARDO DEGAY, alias CALDO, of the crime of STATUTORY RAPE,
defined and penalized under Arts. 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, committed as follows:
That on or about May 8, 2004, in the afternoon thereof at XXX,
barangay XXX, XXX, Mt. Province and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
lewd design, and with the use of force and intimidation, called for and then h[e]ld
the hand of BBB who is four (4) years old and afterwards brought her to a room
inside his house where accused undressed himself, display (sic) his penis, then
remove (sic) the pant (sic) and panty of BBB and then placed himself on top of
her at the same time telling the victim that she (sic) will buy candies later
on coupled with the threat upon the latter not to tell anybody and immediately
thereafter did there and then willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of BBB without her consent and against her will, to the damage and
prejudice of the latter.[8]
When arraigned on the
Their version[10]
of the facts is as follows:
Private complainant AAA is the
first child of the spouses CCC and DDD.
She was born to the couple on P5.00 and warned
her not to tell her mother about what happened.
On
CCC, AAA’s mother, came to know
of what happened to her child from her neighbour, Primitiva Tumayab, to whom
AAA revealed that the accused had sexually molested her. CCC also received related information from
Leticia Bondad and Lonjean Valdez (
On
Regarding her findings on AAA,
Dr. Lusad explained that there was erythema or redness at the area of
the labia majora and labia minora but there were no hymenal
lacerations. According to the doctor,
the erythema or redness could have been caused by an erect penis that
touched the labia.
With regard to her findings on BBB,
Dr. Lusad testified that there was likewise no hymenal laceration but there was
“erythema” of the perihymenal area at the
BBB, the other complainant, is
the four-year old daughter of the spouses EEE and FFF. She is the youngest of their six children. BBB’s mother, EEE, is blind. The family resides at XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX.
In the afternoon of
When BBB’s playmate, Myrna
Isilen (Myrna) saw the accused bring BBB inside his house, she went to tell Lola
Pelaw about it. Myrna also relayed the information
to BBB’s mother, EEE, who was then washing dishes at their house. Myrna and EEE proceeded immediately to the
house of the accused. GGG, BBB’s sister followed
them. They knocked loudly on the door of
the accused but the latter did not open the door. It was only when GGG told Myrna to call the
police that the accused opened the door, whereupon she entered the house and
fetched BBB from the second floor. There
was nobody in the house except BBB and the accused. GGG asked BBB what happened and the child
replied that the accused removed her clothes, undressed himself, went on top of
her, and inserted his penis inside her vagina.
When GGG, who was carrying BBB, came out of the house, EEE asked BBB
what the accused did to her. BBB replied
that the accused removed her shorts and that the latter undressed himself and
went on top of her. Upon hearing this, EEE
went to report the matter to the police who took her and BBB’s sworn
statements.
The defense presented seven
witnesses: Antonio Bolinget, Asuncion Galleo, Eugenia L. Roux, Nenita Daling,
Felomina Gonzaga, Pablo Gogo (Gogo) and the accused himself. Based on their testimonies, the defense
version[11]
of the facts is as follows:
On the last week of February,
2004, the accused went to Caboan, Capangdanan, Sabangan and stayed there up to
the first week of April, 2004, before he returned to Poblacion, Sabangan. The accused worked on his ricefields,
preparing them for planting. He called
fifteen people to help him work thereon.
The accused stayed in his house which was made of wood and G.I. sheets. Pablo Gogo (Gogo) testified that he stayed at
his farm in Caboan from 2 March 2004 to 4 April 2004, and likewise stayed in
his “ab-abong” which is five meters from the shanty of the accused. Gogo declared that the shanties were made of cogon and not G.I. sheets. Caboan is about
three kilometers from Poblacion, Sabangan, and it can be hiked in less than an
hour. The testimony of Gogo likewise
shows that some farmers work in their fields and then go back home to Sabangan
at day’s end. They do not spend the
night there. Gogo avers that the accused
was one of those who stayed at Caboan.
On
Eugenia L. Roux testified that
she was the teacher of complainant AAA in grade III at the
The accused denied knowing the
complainants and avers he came to know them only when he was detained at the
Bauko Municipal Jail.
On
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Leonardo Degay
alias Caldo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of STATUTORY
RAPE, a Consolidated Judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to suffer –
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and
ordering him to pay AAA the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) PESOS as civil
indemnity and another Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) PESOS as moral damages for each
count of STATUTORY RAPE in Crim. Cases No. 1849 and 1850.
2. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and
ordering him to pay the private complainant BBB, the sum of Fifty Thousand
(P50,000.00) PESOS as indemnity ex delicto and another Fifty Thousand
(P50,000.00) PESOS as moral damages in Crim. Case No. 1851 for Statutory Rape.[12]
On
Before this Court now on appeal,
the parties opted to no longer file supplemental briefs, manifesting that they
had exhaustively discussed their arguments in the briefs they filed before the
Court of Appeals.[14]
In
his Brief,[15] the
accused assigns the following errors:
I.
THE COURT A
QUO, GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT FOR THREE (3) COUNTS OF STATUTORY RAPE.
II.
THE COURT A
QUO, OVERWHELMED BY THE NUMBER OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES GRAVELY ERRED IN
FINDING THE ACCUSED CULPABLE FOR THREE (3) COUNTS OF STATUTORY RAPE.
III.
THE COURT A
QUO, GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE PLAUSIBLE ALIBI OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOT
WORTHY OF CREDENCE.[16]
Did the Court of Appeals err in
affirming the RTC decision convicting the accused of three counts of statutory rape?
The accused argues that his
acts of showing his penis to BBB and the touching of AAA’s vagina, mashing of her
breasts and letting his penis touch her vagina constitute lascivious conduct
and not statutory rape, citing Section 2(h) of the Rules and Regulations on the
Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases, Republic Act No. 7610,[17]
which defines lascivious conduct as “the intentional touching, either directly
or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or
buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth,
of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse,
humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals on
pubic area of a person.” He cites that the
lascivious conduct is supported by the medico-legal findings on AAA and BBB,
when it was found that there was no hymenal laceration on their organs. The accused further faults the RTC for not
giving credence to his plausible alibi that he was in another place on
On the other hand, the
prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General, in its brief[18]
argues that it had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed
statutory rape and not just acts of lasciviousness. It cited the categorical and straightforward
testimonies of AAA and BBB as corroborated by the medical findings showing both
victims suffered erythema or redness in the areas of their labias
minora and majora. It pointed
out that this Court had held in People v. De la Cuesta,[19] that
absence of hymenal lacerations on the private organs of the victims does not
negate rape. It stressed that the RTC
correctly convicted the accused of three counts of statutory rape since the
accused had sexual intercourse with the victims who are both under 12 years of
age. It finally argued that the accused
cannot exculpate himself from liability by alleging that from the last week of
February, 2004 to the first week of April, 2004, he was in Caboan, Capangdanan
because Caboan is only three kilometers away from Sabangan and could be
traversed in an hour or less. It was
therefore not physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scenes.
After review, we uphold the
rulings of the appellate court and the RTC.
As correctly assessed by the
Court of Appeals:
Dr.
Alma Lusad testified that erythema or redness of the labia minora
and labia majora shows that there is an inflammation or infection in
said areas, as the normal color thereof is pinkish, which could have been
caused by the rubbing of [a] hard object, like an erect penis, on the
area. In People v. Pruna,[20]
it was held that the absence of hymenal laceration does not preclude the finding
of rape, especially when the victim is of tender age. Rape is consummated by the slightest penile
penetration of the labia or pudendum of the female. The presence of hyperemia in the vaginal
opening is a clear indication that the penis of the accused indeed touched the labia
or pudendum of the complainants.
As
explained in People v. Boromeo:[21]
Proof
of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. An intact hymen does not negate a finding
that the victim was raped. To sustain a
conviction for rape, full penetration of the female genital organ is not
necessary. It is enough that there is
proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the
female organ. Penetration of the penis
by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is
enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed
rape. As long as the attempt to insert
the penis results in contact with the lips of the vagina, even without rupture
or laceration of the hymen, the rape is consummated. x x x.
The
defense of alibi interposed by accused-appellant cannot prevail over the
positive identification by AAA and BBB that he was the one who raped them. Accused-appellant admitted that Caboan,
Capangdanan, where he allegedly stayed from the last week of February 2004
until the first week of April, 2004, is only about three (3) kilometers away
from Sabangan, while Kaaligan, where he stayed from morning until evening of
May 8, 2004, is only one (1) kilometer away from Sabangan. Pablo Gogo, who was allegedly with
accused-appellant in Caboan from
In line with recent jurisprudence, however, the awards of moral and
exemplary damages are increased to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00,
respectively.[23]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral
damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. No pronouncement as to costs.
|
SO ORDERED. JOSE Associate Justice |
|
|
WE
CONCUR: RENATO C.
CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
[2] Penned by Presiding Judge Joseph A. Patnaan. Records, Criminal Case No. 1849, pp. 143-154.
[3] 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 is otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
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.
2) By any person who, under any
of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of
sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal
orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person.
[4] ART. 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a 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 reclusion perpetua to death.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution;
3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity.
4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime.
5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old.
6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immune-Deficiency Virus (HIV) / Acquired Immune-Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim.
7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime.
8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability.
9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed by any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article.
[5] Pursuant to Section 44 of Republic
Act No. 9262, otherwise known as The
Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, and Section 63,
Rule XI of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9262, the
real names of the victims are withheld to protect their privacy. Fictitious
initials are used instead to represent them. Likewise, the personal
circumstances or any other information tending to establish or compromise their
identities, as well as those of their family members shall not be disclosed. (see People
v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[6] Records, Criminal Case No. 1849, p. 20.
[7] Records, Criminal Case No. 1850, p. 19.
[8] Records, Criminal Case No. 1851, p. 18.
[9] Records, Criminal Case No. 1849, p. 37; Criminal Case No. 1850, p. 21; and Criminal Case No. 1851, p. 22.
[10] Records, Criminal Case No. 1849, pp. 145-148.
[11]
[12]
[13] CA rollo, p. 99.
[14] Rollo, pp. 27, 32-33.
[15] CA rollo, pp. 32-48.
[16]
[17] The Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, approved on
[18] CA rollo, pp. 67-85.
[19] 396 Phil. 330, 337 (2000).
[20] 439 Phil. 440, 462-463 (2002).
[21] G.R. No. 150501,
[22] Rollo, pp. 8-10.
[23] People v. Sia, G.R. No. 174059, 27 February 2009, 580 SCRA 364, 367 citing People v. Abellera, G.R. No. 166617, 3 July 2007, 526 SCRA 329, 343.