EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
145995
March 20, 2003
-versus-
SATURNINO ILUIS
Y JANDOC,
Accused-Appellant
D E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In Criminal Case No. V-0786,
the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch 50, found Saturnino
Iluis
y Jandoc alias "Masong" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape "defined
and penalized under Item No. 4 of the last paragraph of Article 335 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended," and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty
of death, as well as to pay civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00)
to the victim, Juliene M. Abriam, for the crime.
The Information that
Juliene Abriam, assisted by her grandmother, caused to be filed in
court
on 23 June 1998, read:
"That sometimes [sic]
between the months of August and October, 1997 at Poblacion Zone IV,
Municipality
of Villasis, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force,
violence
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
have sexual intercourse with one Juliene Abriam y Motea being below
twelve
(12) years old, against the latter's will and consent, to the damage
and
prejudice of said Juliene Abriam y Motea.cralaw:red
"Contrary to Art. 335,
in relation to R.A. No. 8353 of the Revised Penal Code."[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At his arraignment,
Saturnino Iluis entered a plea of not guilty.cralaw:red
The evidence adduced
by the prosecution, upon which the trial court based its finding of
guilt,
tended to show that -
Juliene Calaunan Mutia[2]
was born on 23 September 1991 in Siniloan, Laguna,[3]
to a single parent, Julieta Calaunan Mutia, who, unfortunately, would
not
live long enough to see her daughter pass through her formative
years.
Juliene was barely four years old when her mother died. She was
left
to the care of Maritess Raguindin, Julieta's sister, who had several
children
of her own. Ultimately, Maritess gave the child to Ana Abriam for
"adoption." Maritess gave Ana the birth certificate of Juliene
that
she had taken from Julieta's wallet. With her husband Dominador
Raguindin,
Maritess executed a document in the dialect, dated 13 October 1993,[4]
to confirm that the couple had entrusted Juliene to the custody of Ana.
Two days after giving the custody of Juliene to Ana, Maritess received
from Ana dollars equivalent to P10,000 "as a sort of help." Ana would
also
give some sums to Maritess whenever she would come around and visit
Juliene,
also called Jing, at the Abriam residence.cralaw:red
Ana Abriam, 71, named
Rosita Abriam at birth, decided for reasons of her own to call herself
Ana when she had started to become sickly. She turned American citizen
in 1981. In October 1993, Juliene became her taraken or "adopted"
child.
In school, Juliene was thought to have been legally adopted and was
made
to use the surname Abriam. Whenever Rosita would go to the United
States, she would entrust Juliene to the custody of Saturnino Iluis,
his
sister-in-law Teresita Iluis or Tessie and his mother Basilia, in
Rosita's
house at No. 80, San Geronimo Street, Zone IV, Poblacion, Villasis,
Pangasinan.cralaw:red
In August 1997, Rosita
left for the United States; she returned on 18 November 1997. A
few
days later, on the early evening of 21 November 1997, Rosita was
viewing
a television show with Juliene when the latter held Rosita and
meaningfully
pressed the middle of Rosita's palm. Realizing that the gesture
conveyed
something that was "not a nice act," Rosita told Juliene, "Whoever did
that thing to you tell me his name because that man might kidnap and
kill
you." When Juliene refused to talk, Rosita "threatened" Juliene
that
she would not give the girl the things that had been bought for
her.
Juliene uttered, "I am afraid, Grandma, but I will tell his name. He is
Uncle Masong." Rosita called Tessie and her nephew so that they
could
also hear what the child was saying. Once again when asked,
Juliene
disclosed that Masong molested her. He would embrace, kiss, touch
her private part, and then garawen her. When Rosita asked Juliene what
she meant by garawen, Juliene said that Masong would put his penis into
her vagina.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rosita decided to have
Juliene medically examined. Since it was a Friday, Rosita waited
for Monday before she brought Juliene to Dr. Hiam Kiat Dy for
examination.
Not satisfied with the findings of Dr. Dy, Rosita brought Juliene to
the
Don Amadeo J. Perez, Sr., Memorial General Hospital in Urdaneta,
Pangasinan.
Dr. Jeanna Nebril-Ramilo who examined Juliene on 28 November 1997 made
her findings thusly:
"External Genitalia:
No abrasion, scar noted on pubic/escutchen.cralaw:red
-
Labia Major - Labia Minor gaping, positive rounding fourchette
-
Deep healed laceration 1:00 o'clock position hymen.cralaw:red
-
Healed laceration 3:00 position
-
Admits index finger midway with slight resistance."[5]
According to Dr. Nebril-Ramilo,
these findings revealed the "possibility of penetration" of the child's
sex organ by a blunt object.[6]
On Monday, 24 November
1997, Jonathan Fernando-Manlongat, Juliene's kindergarten teacher at
the
St. Anthony Abbot Academy, noticed that it was Manang Tessie who
accompanied
Juliene to school. When Jonathan asked Manang Tessie why Juliene was
absent
the previous Friday, Manang Tessie replied that Juliene's grandmother
had
just arrived from America. When he inquired why it was she, not
Masong,
who accompanied Juliene to school, Manang Tessie told Jonathan that
Masong
had been fired because "he had done something wrong to the
child."
Jonathan wanted to know what had happened but Manang Tessie told him to
just speak to the child. At recess period, Jonathan asked Juliene
what her "uncle" Masong did to her. At first, Juliene just stared at
Jonathan
but, when Jonathan persisted, Juliene reluctantly answered that Masong
had molested her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to Juliene
herself, during the months of August to October 1997, Masong would let
her smoke, take off her panty, and put his penis into her vagina.
She would feel pain whenever Masong inserted his penis into her vagina
but, fearful, she kept quiet about the matter. Eventually, however,
Juliene
told her Grandma Ana about the molestations and that Masong did the
acts
of taking off her panty and putting his penis into her vagina three
times
in the kubo-kubo (nipa hut). Her grandma being then abroad,
Juliene
would sleep with her aunt Tessie but it was Masong who would bring and
fetch her to and from school.cralaw:red
The defense interposed
denial. Saturnino Iluis (Masong), single, 42, reached only the
6th
grade in the Elementary School and also answered to the nickname
"Melchor."
He worked in the Abriam household from 1 April 1995 until 24 November
1997.
His sister-in-law, Teresita, who was hired to work in the same
household
on 27 August 1997, was responsible for the laundry work and for looking
after Juliene. Saturnino treated Juliene both as a sister and as
his own child. He denied the accusation against him which he
attributed
to his having spent the household allowance of P5,850 for the dress and
pictures of Juliene when she became a beauty contest candidate in her
school.
He was sent home on 19 November 1997 after Rosita previously warned
him,
through Teresita, that should he be unable to pay that amount, she
would
file a rape case against him. He was at home in Amamperez when the
police
arrested him. Teresita Iluis sought to corroborate, in part, the
testimony of her brother-in-law.cralaw:red
The defense also presented
Dr. Hian Kiat C. Dy who was the first physician to examine Juliene upon
the request of Chief of Police Patricio Fantin Piñol. In the
medical
report, he inscribed the following findings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"1.
Redness - area between urethra opening and vaginal opening.cralaw:red
"2.
Vaginal Opening - about 0.3 cm. in diameter
"3.
Hymen - intact/no laceration
"4.
Pain and tenderness of the vulva."[7]
The redness of the urethra
could have been due, he said, to inflammation or infection, and an
intact
hymen implied that there was no laceration and that no foreign object
had
been inserted into the vagina. He admitted, however, that the
redness
between the urethra opening and the vaginal opening could have been
caused
by an erect penis coming into contact with the vaginal opening.cralaw:red
The trial court found
Saturnino Iluis guilty of the crime of qualified rape for which it
imposed
upon him the death penalty; it concluded:
"WHEREFORE, the Court
finds the accused Saturnino Iluis y Jandoc alias `Masong' guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Item
No. 4 of the last paragraph of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended,
and is hereby accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.cralaw:red
"The accused is further
ordered to pay Juliene M. Abriam the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00)
as indemnification."[8]
In this automatic review,
appellant would have it that -chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"I.
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT SATURNINO ILUIS Y JANDOC BEYOND
REASONABLE
DOUBT OF STATUTORY RAPE NOTWITHSTANDING THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE.
"II.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO
THAT
THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH
PENALTY
BECAUSE THE TRUE AGE OF THE VICTIM, WHICH WAS 6 YEARS OLD AT THE TIME
OF
THE RAPE, WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION NOR WAS IT DULY PROVED
BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT."[9]
The Court finds no sufficient
basis for ignoring, let alone overturning, the factual assessment made
by the court below. Once again, the Court must reiterate the
familiar
rule that the task of taking on the issue of credibility is a function
properly lodged with the trial court and whose findings are entitled to
great weight.[10]
In this case, the trial
court observed that Juliene had remained consistent and demonstrated
her
credibility even with the extensive and rigorous cross-examination
conducted
by appellant's counsel.[11]
In assailing the credibility of the victim, who was only seven years
old
when she testified on the sexual ordeal she had suffered a year before,
appellant would stress on her failure to give details of the commission
of the crime. That, however, would not exactly appear to be the
case.
The victim testified:
"PROS. MAPILI:
"Q Between
the months of August to October, 1997 do you remember if `Masong' did
something
to you Madam Witness?
"A
Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q What
was that something which `Masong' did to you?
"A
He let me smoke, he took off my panty and he put his penis into my
vagina,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q And where
were you when `Masong' put his penis into your vagina?
"A
In a little `kubo-kubo' (small nipa hut), sir.cralaw:red
"COURT:
"Q Where
is that little `kubo-kubo'?
"A
Near our shed, sir.cralaw:red
"PROS. MAPILI:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q That
little `kubo-kubo' is located near the house of your grandma Ana Abriam?
"A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q Is that
`kubo-kubo' still there at this time?
"A
Yes sir, it still exists.cralaw:red
"Q So [how]
did you feel when `Masong' put his penis into your vagina?
"A
I felt pain, sir.cralaw:red
"Q So what
did you do when you felt the pain?
"A
I remained silent, sir.cralaw:red
"Q Why did
you not say or do something?
"A
I was afraid, sir.cralaw:red
"Q Why were
you afraid at that time?
"A
Because of that thing that he did to me, sir.cralaw:red
"Q And what
did `Masong' do or tell you if any when he put his penis into your
vagina?
"A
That I will not tell the matter, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q Now you
said that `Masong' warned you not to tell the matter, did you tell the
matter to anyone?
"A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q To whom
did you tell what Masong did to you?
"A
To my grandma Ana Abriam, sir.cralaw:red
"Q And what
did you tell to your grandma Ana?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"A
I told her what he did to me, sir.cralaw:red
"Q You are
referring [to] what Masong did to you?
"A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"COURT:
"Q How did
you tell your grandma Ana..what did you say to her?
"A
I only had my left forefinger pointed at the middle of her palm, Your
Honor.cralaw:red
"PROS. MAPILI:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q So that
is the sign [of] what Masong did to you?
"A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q And what
was the response of your grandma Ana when you demonstrated to her what
Masong did to you?
"A
She asked me, `what did he do to you?'
"COURT:
"Q What
was your answer?
"A
I told her what he did to me, sir (witness turning her head to the
place
of the accused.)
"Q What
did he do to you?
"A
He took off my panty and put his penis into my vagina Your Honor.cralaw:red
"Q How many
times did Masong do that to you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"A
Three (3) times, Your Honor.cralaw:red
"Q On different
dates?
"ATTY. BUMACOD:
Your Honor, the accused is charged for only one count.cralaw:red
"COURT:
Yes.cralaw:red
"A
Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
"Q On the
same date?
"A
Different dates, Your Honor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q Also
in [the] `kubo-kubo'?
"A
Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
"Q So 3
times inside the `kubo-kubo'?
"A
Yes, Your Honor."[12]
On cross-examination,
Juliene continued:
"ATTY. BUMACOD:
"Q From
whom did you learn how to make that sign of pointing your left
forefinger
at the middle of the palm of your grandmother?
"A
From Masong, sir.cralaw:red
"Q What
did Masong tell you about that sign?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"A
He taught me to do that, sir.cralaw:red
"Q You want
to impress the Honorable Court Juliene that Masong made or pointed his
forefinger at your palm or at his palm?
"A
In my palm, sir.cralaw:red
"Q And did
he tell you what is that sign?
"A
No, sir.cralaw:red
"Q So if
Masong did not tell you Madam Witness what is that sign, what do you
mean
then to tell your grandmother when you pointed at [sic] your left
forefinger
at the middle of her palm?
"A
I only did that act, sir.cralaw:red
"x x
x
x x
x
x x x.cralaw:red
"ATTY. BUMACOD:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q So you
told her, I'm referring to your grandma, what Masong did without your
grandma
asking you anything?
"A
She asked me, sir.cralaw:red
"Q What
did she ask you?
"A
That thing that he did to me, sir.cralaw:red
"Q And what
is that that you told her?
"A
The thing that Masong did to me, sir.cralaw:red
"Q What
is that that Masong did to you?
"A
That same thing that he did to me, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"COURT:
"Q What
did Masong do to you?
"A
That same thing, Your Honor.cralaw:red
"Q Can you
tell the Court what is that same thing that Masong did to you?
"A
He took off my panty, Your Honor.cralaw:red
"Q What
else?
"A
He put his penis into my vagina, Your Honor.cralaw:red
"ATTY. BUMACOD:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Madam Witness, you said that Masong put his penis into your vagina. How
long in time did he put his penis in your vagina, if you remember?
"A
Long ago [sic], sir."[13]
The unflinching testimony
of the child victim notwithstanding, appellant would insist that her
statement
that "he (appellant) put his penis into my vagina" was inadequate to
warrant
conviction for the crime of rape. The trial court correctly
brushed
aside this argument. Granting that there was no complete
penetration
of the vagina, even just the briefest contact of the pudendum by the
phallus,
however, would be enough to consummate the crime of rape.[14]
In People vs. Balgos,[15]
the six-year old victim testified that the penis of the appellant did
not
penetrate her vagina but only touched its "hole." The Court considered
that testimony as being sufficient and a "tell-tale sign" of the
victim's
"honesty and candor in relating her unsavory experience."
Considering
her age, Juliene's failure to give the gory details on the sexual
debasement
would be understandable and typical of an innocent child whose virtue
had
unexpectedly been violated and her chastity abused.[16]
Ample margin of inaccuracies should be accorded to a child witness who
obviously had been gripped with tension on the witness stand.[17]
Most significantly, no plausible reason was given by the defense why
Juliene
would fabricate the charges.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant claims that
Juliene's behavior after the commission of the crime, i.e., in not
missing
school, can hardly be considered normal for one who has been
raped.
There is, the Court has repeatedly observed however, no standard form
of
behavior that can be anticipated of a rape victim following her
defilement,
particularly by a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend
the
ways of an adult. People react differently to emotional stress
and
rape victims are no different from them.cralaw:red
The defense attempts
to blemish the medical report of Dr. Nebril-Ramilo by the findings of
Dr.
Dy but the latter himself, on cross-examination, did not rule out the
possibility
of "an erect penis coming into contact" with the sex organ of the child
that resulted in the redness of the area between the urethral and the
vaginal
openings.[18]
In any event, a medical examination is not essential in the prosecution
of a rape case; a medical examination, as well as the medical
certificate,
is merely corroborative in character. Such a report is not an
indispensable
requirement for conviction for what matters greatly is the clear,
unequivocal
and credible[19]
testimony of the victim.cralaw:red
Appellant is correct,
however, in submitting that the death penalty should not have been
imposed.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:
"Article 335.
When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal
knowledge
of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
"x x
x
x x
x
x x x.cralaw:red
"3. When the woman is under
twelve
years of age or is demented.cralaw:red
"The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
"x x
x
x x x
x x x.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed
with any of the following attendant circumstances:
"x x
x
x x x x x x.cralaw:red
"4. when the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years
old."
While the age of the
victim, i.e., of being barely six years old at the time of the rape, is
supported by the Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit "A"), showing that
Juliene was born on 23 September 1991, and the testimony of Maritess
Raguindin
(the sister of Juliene's mother[20]),
in order, however, to warrant the imposition of the death penalty, it
is
required that the qualifying circumstance of the rape victim being
"below
seven years of age" should be aptly alleged in the Information. The
Court
has made it explicit that qualifying circumstances, which would
increase
the penalty by a higher degree, "must be properly pleaded in the
information
consistent with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed
of the charges against him."[21]
Mindful, indeed, of the entitlement of an accused to this fundamental
right,
the Court has now provided for in Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal
Procedure, made effective on 1 December 2000, thusly:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"SEC. 8.
Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state
the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances.
If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to
the
section or subsection of the statute punishing it.cralaw:red
"SEC. 9.
Cause of accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting
the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
stated
in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language
used
in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding
to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and
aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The allegation in the
Information that the victim is "below twelve (12) years old," an age
indication
that would only call for the penalty of reclusion perpetua, cannot
suffice
to warrant the imposition of the extreme penalty of death.cralaw:red
Pursuant to prevailing
jurisprudence, in addition to the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded
by the court a quo, a like amount of P50,000.00 in moral damages must
also
be awarded to the rape victim.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the trial court insofar as it finds appellant Saturnino Iluis y
Jandoc,
a.k.a. Masong or Melchor, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of
rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in (a) that the penalty of death
imposed
is reduced to reclusion perpetua and (b) that, in addition to the civil
indemnity of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) ordered to be paid by
appellant,
another amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) in moral damages is
awarded to Juliene Abriam. Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo,
Puno, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J.,
on leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 10.
[2]
This is the name appearing in the certificate of live birth (Exh. A).
She
signed her name as Juliene M. Abriam in the complaint. Her first name
is
spelled "Juliene" in the record of this case.
[3]
Exh. A, Records, p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Exh. B, supra at 5.
[5]
Exh. D, Records, p. 15.
[6]
TSN, April 12, 1999, p. 18.
[7]
Exh. 2-a.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 53-54.
[9]
Rollo, p. 75.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
People vs. Taño, G.R. No. 133872, 5 May 2000, 331 SCRA 449.
[11]
RTC Decision, p. 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, 28 February 2000, pp. 6-9.
[13]
TSN, 16 March 2000, pp. 13-15.
[14]
People vs. Brigildo, G.R. No. 124129, 28 January 2000, 323 SCRA 631.
[15]
323 SCRA 372.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Ibid.
[17]
People vs. Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, 28 February 2000, 326 SCRA 530.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
TSN, 10 May 2000, p. 11. See: People vs. Lomerio, supra at 544 where
the
Court agreed with the prosecution that redness of the labia minora of
the
victim, which the defense claimed to have been caused by the finger of
another person, does not rule out the possibility of sexual intercourse.
[19]
People vs. Lerio, 324 SCRA 76.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN, 19 April 1999, pp. 5-6.
[21]
People vs. Bernaldez, 322 SCRA 462. |