PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOEL NIETES QUIATCHON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Quiatchon

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Joel Nietes Quiatchon, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The accused was charged, together with a co-accused who later died before judgment, with having carnal knowledge of a three-year-old girl by means of force and intimidation. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it shows how the Supreme Court treats the testimony of a very young child, it clarifies that the slightest touching of the outer sexual organs can consummate rape, and it illustrates the mandatory reduction of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under the law abolishing capital punishment.

Procedural History

The accused and his co-accused, Victor Omallao, were charged by Information before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, San Jose, in Antique. Both were arraigned and both pleaded not guilty. During trial the co-accused died of pneumonia, and the trial court dismissed the case against him in an order issued in September 2008. The Regional Trial Court then rendered its decision in November 2011, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with an award of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning errors against the trial court's appreciation of the prosecution evidence and against its conclusion in the light of the physician's findings.

Facts

On the third of June 2005, in San Jose, Antique, the child victim, referred to in the record as AAA, was playing near her home. The accused, whom she knew as Joel and addressed as Lolo Joel, invited her to his place. Inside his house, in a room, he removed her underwear and pressed his penis against her private parts. His companion, Victor, also pressed his penis against her, but neither succeeded in penetrating her because of the smallness of her body. The two men then gave her one peso to buy candy. When she came out, she was no longer wearing her underwear, and she told her aunt that it was with Lolo Joel.

The child went home and told her mother, but the mother simply put her to sleep. Days later, after the child was seen at the Municipal Health Office and referred to a physician, she was examined on the fourteenth of June 2005. The gynecologist found a reddened vaginal opening, called an erythematous introitus, and laboratory findings showing pus cells and gram negative diplococci, which in plain language indicated gonorrhea. The physician testified that the infection could have been acquired by contact of the private organs and by sexual contact alone, and that while the male organ could not pass beyond the opening because of the size difference, the outer parts would necessarily be touched.

For his part, the accused denied the charge, insisting that it was inherently impossible for him to have committed the act in broad daylight while he was busy attending to his business, and that his establishment had no television set. His wife and his employer corroborated his denial. The trial court convicted him, and he appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses despite the inconsistencies pointed out by the accused.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused as the perpetrator of the crime in the light of the physician's findings.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines the crime of rape and provides:

Rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: through force, threat, or intimidation; when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and when the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

This is the provision under which the accused was charged, and the victim's age of three years places the case squarely within its fourth circumstance.

Article 266-B of the same Code fixes the penalties and provides:

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating or qualifying circumstances: when the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; when the victim is a child below seven years old.

Because the victim was below seven years old, the law prescribes the death penalty, which the Court then had to reduce under the statute abolishing capital punishment.

Section 3 of Republic Act Number 9346, the law prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, provides:

Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

This is the provision that qualifies the penalty actually imposed on the accused.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the inconsistencies raised by the accused concerned only minor details and collateral matters, such as the exact time of the incident and the date the aunt spoke with the mother. These do not affect the substance of the declarations, the veracity of the witnesses, or the weight of their testimony, so long as there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and in positively identifying the accused. The Court stressed that the trial court is best situated to evaluate credibility because it observed the witnesses firsthand, and that its findings are final and conclusive absent arbitrariness or oversight of weighty facts. The Court also found it absurd to suppose that a four-year-old child could fabricate a clear story of rape, and noted that the time of commission is not an element of the crime.

On the second issue, the Court held that the physician's findings did not exculpate the accused. His theory on the incubation period of gonorrhea rested on speculation and conjecture, unsupported by substantial evidence. The Court ruled that the elements of rape were established: the identity of the accused was clearly shown by the child's candid testimony, and her age was proven by her certificate of live birth. On carnal knowledge, the Court adopted the trial court's reasoning that the reddening of the introitus, located between the labia majora and labia minora, proved that the male organ touched and penetrated the outer sexual parts, which suffices for consummated rape even without penetration of the vaginal canal. The presence of gonorrhea was treated as conclusive evidence of sexual abuse.

On the penalty, the Court held that although Article 266-B prescribes death when the victim is below seven years old, that penalty can no longer be imposed because of Republic Act Number 9346, which mandates reclusion perpetua in its place. The Court therefore affirmed the penalty but qualified it as without eligibility for parole. On damages, the Court retained the civil indemnity of 75,000 pesos and the exemplary damages of 30,000 pesos, but reduced the moral damages from 75,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos in line with recent jurisprudence, and imposed interest at six percent per annum on all damages from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.

Doctrine

• In rape cases, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense, because the constitutional presumption of innocence demands moral certainty.
• Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses that refer only to minor details and collateral matters do not impair credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and in positively identifying the accused; such minor inconsistencies may even enhance veracity by negating rehearsal.
• The time of the commission of rape is not an element of the crime.
• Carnal knowledge is consummated by the slightest contact of the male organ with the outer sexual parts, such as the labia majora and labia minora, even without penetration of the vaginal canal.
• Under Article 266-B, the death penalty is prescribed when the victim is a child below seven years old, but under Republic Act Number 9346 the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua, which must be imposed without eligibility for parole under Section 3 of that law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Joel Nietes Quiatchon, modifying the judgment so that he suffers reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, with moral damages reduced to 50,000 pesos, civil indemnity of 75,000 pesos and exemplary damages of 30,000 pesos retained, and all damages earning interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the slightest contact of the male organ with the labia consummates rape, and that a death sentence for raping a child below seven years old is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Examiners like to use this case on the credibility of child witnesses, on the sufficiency of medical evidence of penetration, and on the effect of the law abolishing the death penalty on penalties prescribed by Article 266-B.