Myline Cordial

People of the Philippines vs. Mario Castro
G.R. No. 172874, December 17, 2008
574 SCRA 244

FACTS:
The accused had carnal knowledge of his fourteen-year-old sister-in-law. The trial court found him guilty for the crime of rape.

Accused-appellant assails the credibility of the complainant because she did not particularly describe the details of the alleged rape as to whether she was forced to lie down or whether they were standing when he inserted a part of his organ into her vagina. Neither did she state that accused-appellant succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina, thus undermining her allegation of consummated rape.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimony of the witness was credible.

RULING
The Court held that the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect since it has the opportunity to examine their demeanor on the witness stand. Unless shown that the trial court overlooked or misunderstood some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that could affect the result of the case, its findings on questions of facts will not be disturbed on appeal. Based on the record of the case and the Court found nothing which would warrant a reversal of the trial court’s findings.

In the crime of rape, courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and have the offender apprehended and punished.

NOTES:

Rape
Complainant’s statement that not all of accused-appellant’s organ was inserted simply means that there was no full penetration. There can be no doubt, however, that there was at least a partial entry, so as to make the crime consummated rape. As we have said in unnumbered cases, full or deep penetration is not necessary to consummate sexual intercourse; it is enough that there is the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ. The mere touching by the male organ of the labia of the pudendum of the woman’s private part is sufficient to consummate rape. [ ] It was therefore consummated rape which accused-appellant committed

Accused-appellant likewise claims that the trial court erred in convicting him of the crime of consummated rape despite the prosecution’s failure to present the testimony of the examining physician. We find accused-appellant’s contention on this point untenable. The commission of rape against complainant cannot be negated simply because of the absence of the testimony of the doctor who examined the victim. It is well entrenched in our jurisprudence that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. In fact, a doctor’s certificate is merely corroborative in character and not an indispensable requirement in proving the commission of rape .

Alibi
For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime at the time.  Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi will not hold water.  Clearly in this case, the physical impossibility of accused-appellant’s presence at the scene of the crime on the date and time of its commission, has not been sufficiently established.

Qualified rape
We, thus, sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of consummated simple rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was likewise correctly imposed as the special qualifying circumstance of relationship had not been specifically alleged in the information. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, qualified rape is committed when, among others, “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.” It is well-settled that these attendant circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender are special qualifying circumstances which must be specifically alleged in the information and proved with certainty in order to warrant conviction for the crime of qualified rape and the imposition of the death penalty.

Right to be informed
We have previously held that if the offender is merely a relation – not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, or guardian or common-law spouse of the mother of the victim – it must be alleged in the information that he is “a relative by consanguinity or affinity (as the case may be) within the third civil degree.” Thus, in the instant case, the allegation that complainant is the sister-in-law of accused-appellant is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship . It is necessary to specifically allege that such relationship was by affinity within the third civil degree. Consequently, due to the defect in the information charging accused-appellant of rape , he can only be held liable for simple rape and meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Full text: People vs Castro G.R. No. 172874, December 17, 2008