PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RECTO SUBION, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Subion

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a rape case. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Recto Subion for sexually assaulting his own niece, a girl of tender age, in the early morning hours in a barangay in San Andres, Catanduanes. The trial court convicted him of rape and imposed the supreme penalty of death. The case matters to the reviewee for two reasons: it is a compact restatement of the rules on credibility of a lone rape victim, and it is a precise lesson on how a special qualifying circumstance of relationship and minority must be alleged and proved before death may be imposed. It shows how a conviction for rape can stand while the penalty is reduced, because the information and the evidence fell short of the qualifying circumstances.

Procedural History

Recto Subion was charged by information with rape before the Regional Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 42. When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed. On January 30, 2002, the trial court rendered its decision convicting him of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act Number 7659, sentencing him to death, and ordering him to indemnify the victim in the amount of 100,000 pesos. From that judgment he appealed. The appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to its ruling in People versus Mateo, which modified the rules on direct appeals from the Regional Trial Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

Facts

On the evening of September 29, 1994, Lorena Subion was alone at their house in barangay Codon, San Andres, Catanduanes. It was the barangay fiesta, they had no guests, and she slept early. At about two o'clock in the early morning of September 30, 1994, she was awakened by footsteps. She rose and saw the appellant, her paternal uncle, wearing only a t-shirt and brief, approaching her. She cried, remembering that a few days earlier he had told her he wanted to look at her pubic hair and touch her nipples.

The appellant told her not to make any noise and covered her mouth. He ordered her to lie face down, removed her jeans and panty, took off his clothes, separated her legs, and placed himself on top of her back. She felt pain in her sexual organ, as if his penis were inside her vagina. She begged him to stop and tried to repel him, but to no avail. Afterwards, as she sat on the bed, he told her he would do it slowly and asked her to suck his penis; when she refused, he said he wanted to touch her nipples. He then stood up and warned her not to tell anybody, otherwise he would kill her, and left.

Afraid and ashamed, Lorena did not immediately report the ordeal. On October 2, 1994, she told her classmate Eleanor Palmes and the latter's parents. On October 4, 1994, her Aunt Medy Vargas brought her to the San Andres Hospital, where Dr. Rudy Tresvalles examined her and found her negative for hymenal laceration, old or recent, with a vaginal introitus that easily admitted one finger. The defense was denial and alibi: the appellant claimed he had been drinking, fell asleep in the room of Pepito Castillo, and woke there the next morning, and that Lorena's family harbored a grudge over their father's wish that the ancestral house be given to him.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim.
• Whether or not the victim's uncertainty as to whether it was the penis or the finger of the appellant that entered her vagina, and the absence of hymenal laceration, create reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not force or intimidation attended the commission of the crime.
• Whether or not the appellant's defense of alibi and denial should be credited.
• Whether or not the penalty of death was correctly imposed, considering the allegations of relationship and minority in the information and the evidence presented.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, defines rape and prescribes the penalties, and it 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: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death. When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. When 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.

This provision fixes both the elements of rape and the special qualifying circumstance of relationship and minority that raises the penalty to death, which the Court measures against the allegations and the proof in this case.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code governs the application of indivisible penalties, and it provides:

Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

This provision explains why, once the crime is reduced to simple rape, the Court imposes reclusion perpetua without weighing any modifying circumstance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent, and that the prosecution established carnal knowledge through the victim's categorical and positive testimony. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the victim's admission that she did not see what was inserted does not destroy her credibility. What is essential is positive proof that rape was consummated, and her testimony that she felt the appellant's organ inside her private part and felt pain when he penetrated her suffices. The Court noted that she was made to lie flat on her belly while the appellant went on top of her back, so it was easy to understand why she could not tell whether it was the penis or the finger. It also held that rupture of the hymen is not necessary, nor is a laceration essential, and that a medical certificate is not indispensable to prove rape.

On the third issue, the Court held that even the lack of struggle by the victim does not necessarily negate rape, especially when the victim is intimidated into submission. Being the brother of Lorena's father, the appellant exercised moral ascendancy and influence over his niece, and in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation. On the fourth issue, the Court gave short shrift to the uncorroborated defense of denial and alibi, holding that for alibi to prosper the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis, which he failed to do.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that while the law then in force prescribed death when the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, these circumstances must both be alleged and proved with certainty. The information alleged only that the victim was the appellant's niece, without stating that the relationship was within the third civil degree, and the prosecution failed to adduce her certificate of birth or other similar authenticated documents to prove her age. The Court stated the rule thus:

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.

Accordingly, the Court found the appellant guilty of simple rape only, for which the law prescribed the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, to be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the elements of rape are carnal knowledge of a woman and the accomplishment of the act through force or intimidation, or when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is under twelve years of age or demented. Second, the lone testimony of a rape victim, if credible, is sufficient to support a conviction, and when it is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies on material points, it must be given full faith and credence. Third, absence of hymenal laceration or of a medical examination does not preclude conviction, because rupture of the hymen is not an element of consummated rape. Fourth, in rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation, and lack of tenacious resistance does not negate the crime. Fifth, the special qualifying circumstance of relationship and minority under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, must be both alleged in the information with specificity, including that the relationship is within the third civil degree, and proved with certainty, such as by a certificate of birth, before death may be imposed. Sixth, where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, Article 63 requires its application regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision with modifications: it found the appellant guilty of simple rape only, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the victim 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and another 50,000 pesos as moral damages, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: relationship and minority as a special qualifying circumstance must be both specifically alleged and proved with certainty, or the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of the information in rape and the rule that moral ascendancy substitutes for force and intimidation.