THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO GONZALES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Gonzales

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Pedro Gonzales, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The accused, a thirty-six-year-old unmarried tuba-gatherer, was charged with having carnal knowledge of Teresita Aurelio, an eleven-year-old girl and the daughter of his relatives, in her own home in Puerto Princesa, Palawan. The case matters for two reasons. First, it fixes the elements of simple rape under the old rape law, where the victim is a girl below twelve years of age, so that force, intimidation, and lack of consent need not be shown at all. Second, it settles the penalty for rape committed in 1965, after the amendatory law raised it from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, and it reminds us that civil indemnity follows even where the child offered no resistance.

Procedural History

After a preliminary examination before the municipal judge of Puerto Princesa, where the accused gave a sworn statement and pleaded guilty, the record was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Palawan. The Fiscal filed an information for rape. After trial, the trial court, in a judgment promulgated in open court, convicted the accused, sentenced him to what it called life imprisonment, and recommended that he be pardoned after serving thirty years. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court did not decide the appeal on the merits but certified the case to the Supreme Court, which is how the matter reached this Court.

Facts

Pedro Gonzales was the uncle, by affinity, of Primitivo Aurelio, whose wife Margarita Agpao was the mother of Teresita, born on the sixth of January, 1954. Because the family regarded Gonzales as a relative, they allowed him to visit their house often. Teresita called him Lolo. Taking advantage of her immaturity and of the trust her parents reposed in him, Gonzales had sexual intercourse with the child three times, by his own account, before the twenty-third of July, 1965, in the very room where she slept, while her siblings were asleep and her parents were away.

On the evening of the twenty-third of July, 1965, Gonzales again went to the house intending to copulate with the child. Her parents arrived from gathering tuba, and he left, but he returned to give the mother dried fish. She noticed that he took the path leading to her own house. Suspicious, she stationed herself under the dark house. Inside, Gonzales was on top of Teresita, doing what the Court describes as the push-and-pull movement. Her undergarment had been removed, her dress was above her thighs, and she felt pain as he inserted his penis. He warned her that he would kill her if she told her parents. The mother noticed the floor moving, then saw Gonzales putting on his pants when the house was lighted. Confronted, he claimed he was looking for a magazine. The next day the mother filed a verified complaint for rape.

A physician examined Teresita on the twenty-fifth of August, 1965, and found her hymen ruptured at several positions and a contusion in her fourchette. She had been deflowered. In his defense, Gonzales offered a bare denial. He admitted signing his sworn statement and said he was not forced to do so, though he added that he was afraid. A policeman testified that Gonzales had been informed of his constitutional right to counsel during the investigation.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that sexual intercourse took place between Gonzales and Teresita, based on the mother's testimony.
• Whether or not Gonzales's sworn statement was voluntary and admissible, despite being in English and despite the claim that he was not informed of his constitutional rights.
• Whether or not the crime committed was simple rape under the Revised Penal Code, and what penalty applies.
• Whether or not the accused is civilly liable for indemnity despite the child's lack of resistance.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as it then stood, defines rape and its qualified forms. The Court cites its third paragraph, which makes carnal knowledge of a girl below twelve years of age rape even without force:

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, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.

This is the provision that makes the child's tender age, and not force, the operative element.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code governs the application of indivisible penalties:

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 is why the aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot alter the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code governs pardon, and the Court invokes it to strike out the trial court's recommendation of pardon after thirty years, since the matter of pardon belongs to the executive, not the courts.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the finding of intercourse did not rest on the mother's testimony alone. It rested principally on Gonzales's own statement and on Teresita's clear and convincing declaration that he had inserted his penis into her vagina. His defense was a mere denial, which cannot prevail against positive testimony and his own admission.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the voluntariness of the sworn statement. The presumption that a statement was made voluntarily was not overthrown. The statement contained details only Gonzales could have supplied, and his answers showed spontaneity and a desire to tell the truth. The Court laid down the rule that the deliberate admissions of a person charged with a crime are always admissible to show guilt, and that a conviction based on the admission of the accused, confirmed by the complainant's testimony, stands on solid ground. Whether an admission is voluntary is a question addressed in the first instance to the trial court. Notably, the statement was not objected to when offered in evidence.

On the third issue, the Court held that the crime was simple rape, whose basic element is carnal knowledge of a girl below twelve years of age. The penalty is reclusion perpetua, and the Court corrected the trial court's designation of the penalty as life imprisonment. It also rejected the argument that the penalty in 1965 was reclusion temporal, because the amendment introduced by Republic Act Number 4111, effective on the twentieth of June, 1964, had raised the penalty for rape to reclusion perpetua.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the accused is not exempt from civil liability merely because the child did not resist. By reason of her nonage she may not have known that she should not surrender her virtue without a struggle, and she was physically incapable of warding off the assault. The Court ordered him to pay an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos.

Doctrine

First, simple rape under the third paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code is committed by carnal knowledge of a girl below twelve years of age, even without force or intimidation, because the law treats her as incapable of giving consent. Second, the deliberate admission of an accused, confirmed by the complainant's testimony, is sufficient basis for conviction, and the presumption of voluntariness stands unless overthrown. Third, where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it is imposed regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Fourth, lack of resistance by a child below twelve does not bar civil indemnity, because she is legally and physically incapable of consenting.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, eliminated the recommendation of pardon, and ordered Gonzales to pay Teresita Aurelio an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize this line: carnal knowledge of a girl below twelve years of age is rape even without force, and the penalty is reclusion perpetua regardless of aggravating circumstances. Examiners use this case to test the elements of statutory rape, the effect of Republic Act Number 4111 on the penalty, and the rule that a child's failure to resist does not defeat civil indemnity.