PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN MADRIGALEJOS Y DALDE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Madrigalejos

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Benjamin Madrigalejos y Dalde, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape by sexual assault under the Revised Penal Code. The accused is the grandfather of the victim, a child two years and ten months old at the time of the act. The case matters for the bar candidate because it gathers in one decision the rules on the competency and credibility of a child witness, the sufficiency of a victim's testimony when corroborated by medical findings, the weakness of alibi established only by relatives, and the proper computation of the penalty and damages when minority and relationship raise the crime to its higher penalty.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 8. When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty. At the pre-trial conference, the parties admitted that the offended party was two years and ten months old at the time of the offense, the identity of the accused, his residence in the same place as the victim, and the jurisdiction of the court. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision in September 2011, finding him guilty of rape by sexual assault and imposing an indeterminate sentence, together with awards of moral damages, civil indemnity, and exemplary damages. The accused filed an appeal, assigning as errors the trial court's finding of competency and credibility in the child witness, its reliance on the mother's testimony, and its conclusion that the crime and the perpetrator's identity were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which reviewed the records and rendered the decision we now study.

Facts

On the morning of October 11, 2006, one of the accused's daughters fetched the child from the house of her mother, the accused's daughter-in-law, and brought her across the street to the accused's house. That daughter then left for school, leaving the child in the accused's home. The mother stayed in her own house doing household chores, but through the window she saw the child with the accused. She heard the accused utter threats of cutting hands and feet, removing eyes, and slashing the stomach, and say that the child was no longer dear to him.

At around eleven o'clock in the morning, another daughter of the accused brought the child back. The mother noticed that the child was limping, complaining of pain in her lower back, and smelled of human saliva and cigarettes. When the mother examined the child's private parts, she found the vagina swollen and bloodied. Asked who did it, the child at first repeated the threats, and when asked again, named the accused. The mother sought assistance from the social welfare office and was referred to the crime laboratory, but the doctor was on assignment, so they went home. The next day, the medico-legal officer examined the child and found a slightly dilated hymen with a deep healed laceration at the eight o'clock position, concluding that there were clear signs of blunt vaginal penetrating trauma. He testified that the injury could be caused by the insertion of a hard, blunt object, and that a tense adult human finger is a good example of such an object.

The defense presented the accused, another daughter, and his wife. The accused denied the charge and claimed he was working on a fishing boat twelve to thirteen meters behind his house. He suggested that the mother harbored a grudge arising from his differences with her father over politics and a landowner's association. The trial court convicted him, and the case went up on appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the child victim was a competent and credible witness.
• Whether or not the testimony of the victim's mother deserved weight and credence.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved the fact of rape by sexual assault and the identity of the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the penalty and the damages awarded were proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 2, defines the crime as the Court quotes it:

Rape by sexual assault is committed 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.

This is the provision under which the accused was charged and convicted, and its elements frame the entire sufficiency inquiry.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code fixes the penalties, and the Court quotes it:

Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor. Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed by any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article.

This provision is the basis for raising the penalty from prision mayor to reclusion temporal because of the qualifying circumstances present.

Among the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Article 266-B, the Court quotes these:

When the victim is under eighteen 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. When the victim is a child below seven years old.

Both circumstances are present here, the victim being below seven years old and the offender being her grandfather, an ascendant.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the child was a competent and credible witness. In determining the competency of a child witness, the court must consider his capacity at the time the fact occurred to receive correct impressions, his capacity to comprehend the obligation of an oath, and his capacity to relate those facts truly at the time he is offered as a witness. The Court stressed that the competence of a child witness is not impaired merely because she was not sworn in, and that any child regardless of age can be a competent witness if he can perceive, make known his perception to others, and relate truthfully. The question of competency rests primarily in the sound discretion of the trial court, whose finding will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. The trial court found that the child demonstrated with straightforwardness the identity of her abuser and the manner of the act, and the Supreme Court deferred to that finding.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the attack on the mother's credibility. Her testimony supplied the surrounding circumstances, and the Court held that when the victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physician's findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of rape. The child's testimony, given through a combination of head movements and words, described the insertion of a finger into her private organ and identified the accused by pointing to him in the chamber.

On the third issue, the Court held that the crime and the perpetrator's identity were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused's alibi could not stand against the positive identification of the victim and the corroborating circumstances, since the fishing boat he claimed to be working on was only twelve to thirteen meters from his house. The Court held that alibi is inherently weak, easy to fabricate, and highly unreliable, and that when established only by the accused, his relatives, or close friends, it must be treated with the strictest scrutiny. The testimonies of his daughter and wife contained inconsistencies that contradicted each other and the accused. His claim of motive on the part of the mother was unsubstantiated, and the Court found it preposterous considering that the accused is the victim's grandfather.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal because of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it modified the penalty to ten years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum. It lowered the moral damages and civil indemnity to fifty thousand pesos each, retained exemplary damages of thirty thousand pesos, and imposed interest at six percent per annum on all damages from the finality of the resolution until fully paid.

Doctrine

A child regardless of age can be a competent witness if he can perceive, make known his perception to others, and relate truthfully what he is examined on. The competence of a child witness is not impaired merely because she was not sworn in, and the question of competency rests primarily in the sound discretion of the trial court. The testimony of a rape victim of tender age is credible and deserves full credit especially where no motive is attributed to her that would make her testify falsely. When the victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physician's findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of rape. Alibi is inherently weak and must be treated with the strictest scrutiny when established only by the accused, his relatives, or close friends. Under Article 266-B, the qualifying circumstances of the victim being below seven years old and the offender being an ascendant raise the penalty for rape by sexual assault from prision mayor to reclusion temporal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification, sentencing the accused to ten years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordering him to pay fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity, and thirty thousand pesos as exemplary damages, with interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a child of tender age is a competent witness if she can perceive, make known her perception, and relate truthfully, and her testimony, corroborated by medical findings of penetration, sustains a conviction for rape by sexual assault. Examiners like to use this case on the competency of child witnesses, the treatment of alibi established only by relatives, and the application of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship under Article 266-B.