PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUANCHO FILOSOPO[] Y AMPOON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Filosopo

The Case

This is the appeal of Juancho Filosopo y Ampoon, whom the record also spells as Filosofo, from his conviction for statutory rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted him for having carnal knowledge of his own daughter, a girl of tender years identified in the record only as AAA, on the evening of March 22, 2008, in Quezon City. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee should hold onto. First, it is a clean teaching vehicle for the elements of statutory rape and for the rule that the slightest penetration consummates the crime, so that an intact hymen proves nothing. Second, it shows how the Court treats the testimony of a child victim, the defenses of denial and alibi, and the claim of ill motive, all in the setting of incestuous rape.

Procedural History

The accused was charged by information with rape, and upon arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty. Trial on the merits followed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 106, Quezon City. On November 11, 2011, the trial court rendered its decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape qualified by minority and relationship. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered him to pay 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 75,000 pesos as moral damages, and 30,000 pesos as exemplary damages. From that decision he appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and the appeal was resolved in the Court's decision penned by Justice Paredes, with Justices Dicdican and Elbinias concurring.

Facts

At about six o'clock in the evening of March 22, 2008, AAA was at home with her two brothers and her father, the accused. Her mother, BBB, was out vending barbeque for a living. While the brothers were outside at the basketball court, the accused told AAA to go inside the room. Once inside, he told her to remove her dress. She removed her shorts, and he then inserted his penis inside her vagina. She shouted and pleaded, saying the words the record preserves as "wag na, tama na po," and he threatened her not to tell her mother. She felt pain. According to her, it was not the first time, as he had already molested her when the family still lived in Davao, though she could no longer recall how many times.

The next day her parents were fighting, and the accused was about to drive BBB out of the house. Afraid that her mother would leave, AAA told her mother what her father had done. They called the police station, and when the police arrived they arrested the accused. AAA gave a statement to the police and was referred to the crime laboratory for medical examination. The medico-legal officer, Police Senior Inspector Jesselle Baluyot, found redness in the labia minora and an edematous or swollen hymenal rim, and concluded that the ano-genital findings were diagnostic of recent and previous blunt force to the labia minora and hymen. She explained that the redness and swelling may have been caused by blunt trauma from an object that is not sharp, and that while forcible insertion of a penis could lacerate the hymen, she found no laceration; still, the injuries could have been caused by a penis that failed to actually penetrate the vagina.

The defense told a different story. The accused testified that on that day AAA was at a neighbor's house with her mother, and that he and BBB had been quarreling since the previous day, a fight that escalated to physical violence. He claimed the rape charge was merely made up by BBB to take revenge on him. He admitted, however, that he was in their house at the time of the alleged incident.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused guilty of rape notwithstanding the prosecution's alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the testimony of the child victim AAA was so flawed, inconsistent, and contrived as to fail to establish carnal knowledge.
• Whether or not the medical evidence, which showed no hymenal laceration, negated the commission of rape.
• Whether or not the defenses of denial and alibi, and the claim of ill motive on the part of the victim and her mother, could overcome the prosecution's evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines when and how rape is committed:

Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. Rape is committed. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

Subparagraph (d) is the heart of this case, because AAA was under twelve years of age, so that carnal knowledge alone sufficed and force or intimidation need not be proven.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code supplies the qualifying circumstance and the penalty, and the Court cites its first paragraph in this wise:

Under paragraph 1 of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape under Article 266-A is committed 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 is why the rape was qualified by minority and relationship, and why the trial court reached the extreme penalty before Republic Act Number 9346 intervened.

Ruling

The Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, it held that to convict an accused of statutory rape the prosecution must prove three things: the age of the complainant, the identity of the accused, and the sexual intercourse between them. All three were established. AAA's minority was shown by her birth certificate, she being born on July 8, 1998, and thus four months shy of ten years old at the time of the crime; the accused was shown to be her father; and AAA positively identified him as the one who molested her. The trial court's observation that her testimony was direct, clear, straightforward, and unshaken on cross-examination was sustained.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim that her account was inconsistent and contrived. It stressed that what must be established beyond reasonable doubt is that the accused had carnal knowledge of AAA, meaning that his penis touched her labia or slid into her female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface. Her testimony supplied exactly that direct evidence. The Court reminded that when a girl, particularly a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed, and that youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.

On the third issue, the Court held that the absence of hymenal laceration did not negate rape, because full penetration is not essential. It quoted its own settled rule:

Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. To sustain a conviction for rape, full penetration of the female genital organ is not necessary. It is enough that there is proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape. As long as the attempt to insert the penis results in contact with the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, the rape is consummated.

The redness in the labia minora and the swelling of the hymenal rim, together with the pain AAA said she felt, sufficiently corroborated her charge, and the medico-legal officer herself did not rule out a penis as the cause.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that denial and alibi could not prevail, because the accused admitted being in the house at the time and no physical impossibility of presence at the scene was shown. The claim of ill motive was dismissed as tenuous, shallow, specious, and downright incredulous. Motives of resentment, hatred, or revenge have never swayed the Court from giving full credence to a rape victim's testimony, and it is unimaginable that a girl barely ten years old would concoct such a story against her own father, or that her mother would force her to do so, unless the accusation were true.

On the penalty, the Court held that reclusion perpetua, rather than death, was in order in light of Republic Act Number 9346, the law prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, and that the accused shall not be eligible for parole. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were found correct under prevailing jurisprudence.

Doctrine

Statutory rape under Article 266-A, subparagraph (d), is committed by carnal knowledge of a woman under twelve years of age, even though none of the circumstances of force, threat, or intimidation be present. The elements the prosecution must prove are the age of the complainant, the identity of the accused, and the sexual intercourse between them. Carnal knowledge is consummated by the slightest penetration, meaning entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, and an intact hymen or the absence of laceration does not negate the crime. The testimony of a child victim of tender age is entitled to full weight and credit, youth and immaturity being badges of truth and sincerity, and it prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi absent proof of physical impossibility, and over a bare claim of ill motive. Where the victim is under eighteen and the offender is her parent, the rape is qualified under Article 266-B, but the death penalty may no longer be imposed because of Republic Act Number 9346, so the penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Disposition

The appeal was denied and the decision of the trial court was affirmed, so the accused stands convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, with the awards of damages sustained.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the briefest contact with the lips of the vagina consummates rape, so that an intact hymen never saves an accused. Examiners use this case to test the elements of statutory rape, the weight given to a child victim's testimony, and the effect of Republic Act Number 9346 on the penalty for qualified rape.