That on or about the 23rd day of January 2005[,] at more or less 8:00 o'clock in the evening[,] [in] Barangay Nasuje, municipality of Bulan, province of Sorsogon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused[,] with lewd designs, by means of force and intimidation and taking advantage of the tender age of the victim, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one AAA, a minor, 12 years of age, who cannot take care of herself, without her consent and against her will, which acts likewise constitute child abuse as it debases, demeans and degrades the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.
The commission of the crime is qualified by the fact that the victim is only 12 years of age and the offender is the father of the victim.5
Private complainant AAA was born on August 30, 1992. She is the third among the four children of appellant and his wife BBB.
AAA resides with her father and siblings at Nasuje, Bulan, Sorsogon while her mother works in Metro Manila (TSN dated March 13, 2006, p. 4). However, sometime before January 23, 2005, AAA, then 12 years old, stayed in Manila with her mother for more than one month.
In the afternoon of January 23, 2005, AAA arrived at their residence in Nasuje from Manila. After a while, appellant left home and went to Costanera, which was about a half (1/2) kilometers away from Nasuje (TSN dated May 10, 2005, p. 4). Around 6:00 o' clock in the evening, appellant returned to their house, drunk (TSN dated May 17, 2005, p. 19).
Upon his arrival, appellant asked AAA who brought her to Manila. AAA replied that her mother requested someone to accompany her (TSN dated May 17, 2005, p. 4). Appellant then chastised her by whipping her back with his shirt (TSN dated May 17, 2005, p. 6 and TSN dated March 13, 2005, p. 5).
After whipping her, appellant dragged her to a grassy portion outside their house. AAA could not do anything because appellant was carrying a bladed instrument (TSN dated May 17, 2005, pp. 14 and 20). At the grassy area, appellant kissed her neck and breast. Thereafter, appellant removed his pants and while AAA was lying down, removed her short pants and underwear (TSN dated Ma[y] 3, 2005, p. 13). Appellant then mounted her and inserted his penis into [her] vagina (TSN dated May 3, 2005, p. 14). After raping her, appellant brought her to Costanera, where they slept at the grassy area (TSN dated May 17, 2005, p. 6).
Meanwhile, around 12:00 o'clock in the morning of January 24, 2005, Brgy. Tanod DDD received a report that appellant was being chased by some barangay tanod for chastising AAA and her brother CCC (TSN dated May 10, 2005, pp. 3-4). Around 4:00 o'clock in the morning of the same day, Brgy. Kagawad EEE woke him up and informed him that he saw appellant sleeping with AAA at Sitio Costanera. (TSN dated May 10, 2005, p. 4). Together with Brgy. Tanods DDD and FFF, EEE immediately proceeded to Sitio Costanera. There, they saw appellant holding AAA by wrapping his right arm around her body (TSN dated May 10, 2005, p. 6). Brgy. Kagawad EEE also talked to appellant and convinced him to go with them to the office of the Barangay Captain. Appellant heeded the request and went to the Barangay Captain. He was detained at the barangay jail (TSN dated July 5, 2005, p. 5).
On the other hand, the Brgy. Tanods DDD and FFF brought AAA to her co-member in Iglesia ni Cristo who lives in Nasuje. Subsequently, her fellow members in Iglesia ni Cristo, a certain GGG and HHH accompanied her to the police station in Poblacion to report the incident. At the police station, they were instructed to go to a doctor for AAA's physical examination (TSN dated May 17, 2005, p. 11).6
Multiple abrasions on the neck, on the right linear of the victim and the right face; lateral, confluent;
Lacerations on both sides of the vagina behind the hymen. The hymen was intact. Menarche was still negative because the victim does not menstruate yet.7
On January 24, 2005, at around 5:00 o'clock in the morning, AAA arrived in Bulan alone from Manila. [Appellant] asked her why she was permitted by her mother, who was in Manila working at the (sic) time, to travel alone. AAA answered that she was sent off by her mother at Philtranco terminal in Manila.
[Appellant] wanted to know from AAA who brought her from Bulan to Manila without his permission. She did not answer, so he whipped her with his shirt three (3) times. She cried out of pain. [Appellant] then tried to pacify AAA by asking her to accompany him to the place of her kuya HHH at Barangay Costanera, Bulan, Sorsogon. [Appellant] wanted to go fishing with HHH by "palutang" or fishnet at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning of January 24, 2005.
[Appellant] wanted to keep an eye on AAA, lest she might leave the house again. So, he ask[ed] her to accompany him. They were sitting along the seashore waiting for HHH, when the group of DDD arrived. The latter informed him [appellant] that he was being invited by the barangay captain to his house. AAA was taken away from him by another person. [Appellant] was subsequently detained at the barangay jail, where he was told by III, a sister of his wife that a rape charge was filed against him. (TSN, pp. 2-10, March 13, 2006).8
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused ANACITO DIMANAWA'S GUILT having been established beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of RAPE (Art. 266-A) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Article III, Section 5 of RA 7610, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indivisible penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. To indemnify the offended party AAA in the amount of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another Php50,000.00 as moral damages. With costs de oficio.
The period of detention already served by the accused during his preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of his sentence, pursuant to the provision of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
SO ORDERED.9
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE HIGHLY INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF RAPE DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.III
THE FINDINGS AS CONTAINED IN THE MEDICO-LEGAL REPORT DOES (sic) NOT SHOW AND/OR IS (sic) NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFENSE OF RAPE, CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT.10
WHEREFORE, the trial court's Decision dated January 12, 2007 finding accused-appellant Anacito Dimanawa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape is affirmed, subject to the modification that the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages are increased to P75,000.00 each, and accused-appellant is further ordered to pay AAA exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.
SO ORDERED.12
As an element of rape, force or intimidation need not be irresistible; it may be just enough to bring about the desired result. What is necessary is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose that the accused had in mind. In People v. Mateo, we held:It is a settled rule that the force contemplated by law in the commission of rape is relative, depending on the age, size, or strength of the parties. It is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great and of such character as could not be resisted; it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.
Intimidation, more subjective than not, is peculiarly addressed to the mind of the person against whom it may be employed, and its presence is basically incapable of being tested by any hard and fast rule. Intimidation is normally best viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time and occasion of the crime.
An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped, and a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.
In People v. Gabayron, we sustained the conviction of accused for rape even though the victim's hymen remained intact after the incidents because medical researches show that negative findings of lacerations are of no significance, as the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. It was noted that many cases of pregnancy had been reported about women with unruptured hymens,and that there could still be a finding of rape even if, despite repeated intercourse over a period of years, the victim still retained an intact hymen without signs of injury.
In People v. Capt. Llanto, citing People v. Aguinaldo, we likewise affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim's hymen since medical findings suggest that it is possible for the victim's hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse. We elucidated that the strength and dilatability of the hymen varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse; on the other hand, it may be so resistant that its surgical removal is necessary before intercourse can ensue.
In People v. Palicte and in People v. Castro, the rape victims involved were minors. The medical examination showed that their hymen remained intact even after the rape. Even then, we held that such fact is not proof that rape was not committed.25
Endnotes:
* Vice Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Raffle dated April 20, 2009. Justice Peralta inhibited himself from taking part in the deliberation of the case, as his spouse, CA Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, is the ponente of the assailed Decision.
1 People v. Bawang, 396 Phil. 311, 314 (2000).
2 Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 2-14.
3 CA rollo, pp. 58-68.
4 The real name of the victim is withheld per R.A. No. 7610 and R.A. No. 9262. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
5 Records, p. 1.
6 CA rollo, pp. 134-136.
7 Exhibit B; records, p. 8.
8 CA rollo, pp. 44-45.
9 Records, p. 107.
10 CA rollo, p. 39.
11 Id. at 78-106.
12 Rollo, p. 13.
13 Id. at 21-22.
14 People v. Baldo, G.R. No. 175238, February 24, 2009, 580 SCRA 225, 233.
15 TSN, May 17, 2005, pp. 14, 20.
16 G.R. No. 170360, March 12, 2009.
17 People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 175836, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 465, 473.
18 TSN, May 3, 2005, p. 13.
19 Id. at 14.
20 People v. Bejic, G.R. No. 174060, June 25, 2007, 525 SCRA 488, 502-503.
21 Id. at 503.
22 People v. Quiñanola, 366 Phil. 390, 410 (1999).
23 People of the Philippines v. Benjie Resurreccion, G.R. No. 185389, July 7, 2009.
24 G.R. No. 177822, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 706.
25 Id. at 725-726. (Citations omitted.)
26 Exhibit "A," records, p. 67.
27 People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Malibiran, G.R. No. 173471, March 17, 2009.
28 SEC. 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of the law, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. (R.A. No. 9346)