PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEOPOLDO SANTOS, JR. Y GARBIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Santos

The Case

This is People versus Santos, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Leopoldo Santos, Junior, whom the record calls Nonoy, for the crime of rape committed against a twelve year old girl whom the Court hides behind the initials AAA. The accused lived with the victim's family, was sent to school by her parents, and was the nephew and godson of the victim's mother. The case matters for two reasons. First, it teaches how the Supreme Court weighs the testimony of a child against a medico-legal report showing an intact hymen. Second, it teaches that the real nature of the crime charged is fixed not by the title of the information but by the facts recited in it, a rule that decided the penalty in one of the three counts.

Procedural History

Three separate informations for rape were filed against the accused before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 72. He pleaded not guilty on arraignment, and trial on the merits followed. On the fourteenth of January, 2013, the trial court rendered its decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape. For the count in which he inserted his finger into the victim's vagina, the trial court imposed an indeterminate penalty of one year, one month and ten days of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. For the two other counts, it imposed reclusion perpetua for each, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and the costs. Aggrieved, the accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising the lone error that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him although his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

In the year 2001, AAA was twelve years old, having been born on the sixteenth of August, 1989. She and her parents shared a basement bedroom, and her bed was separated from theirs only by a divider. The accused, then eighteen years old and a high school sophomore, lived with the family. On the fifteenth of August, 2001, AAA came home from school at noon, ate lunch, and lay down to sleep. Half asleep, she felt someone touching her breast and holding her leg, then felt her vagina aching. She opened her eyes and saw the accused seated at the edge of the bed, his left hand inside her short pants, his finger touching and then entering her vagina. She pushed his forearm four times, but he pressed his finger harder. He then stood, warned her not to tell her parents, and left.

The next day, during her birthday celebration, AAA told her father that she felt pain in her genitals. The accused placed an index finger against his mouth to silence her, and she acquiesced. On the twenty sixth of September, 2001, while she napped, she felt someone spreading her legs and placing himself on top of her. She smelled a pungent odor and felt pain in her vagina. She opened her eyes and saw the accused on top of her. She struggled, but he held her hands and inserted his penis into her vagina, moving as if riding a horse. She kicked his buttock twice before he stood, warned her again, and left. On the twenty sixth of October, 2001, after a Halloween party, she again felt someone spreading her legs and smelled the same pungent odor. She felt pain and saw the accused moving on top of her. She was uncertain whether his penis penetrated her vagina, but she felt a hot liquid there. That evening she had a fever.

On the nineteenth of December, 2001, AAA's father came home and, descending the staircase, saw the accused squatting on AAA's bed, holding her legs open and pulling her to the edge of the bed. When the accused was about to lie on top of her, the father demanded to know what he was doing. The accused claimed he was fixing the electric fan, but his pants were loosened. The father shook AAA and demanded to know what the accused had done to her. She cried and said, among other things, that the accused had threatened her and wanted to insert his penis into her private part. The accused escaped from the house. On the twenty first of December, 2001, the father brought AAA to the crime laboratory, where the initial medico-legal report stated that she was in a virgin state physically. On the witness stand, AAA testified that aside from the December incident, the accused had taken advantage of her and had carnal knowledge of her previously.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape despite the medico-legal report showing that the victim's hymen was intact and that she was in a virgin state physically.
• Whether or not the absence of hymenal lacerations, bleeding, hematoma, or spermatozoa negates the commission of rape and destroys the credibility of the victim.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed for the count in which the accused inserted his finger into the victim's vagina was correct, considering the facts actually alleged in the information.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote the rape provision of the Revised Penal Code, but it applies the settled rule on what consummates rape, as quoted from the case of People versus Palicte:

For, rape is committed even with the slightest penetration of the woman's sex organ. Mere entry of the labia of lips of the female organ without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, as in this case is sufficient to warrant conviction for consummated rape.

This rule bears directly on the case because the accused argued that an intact hymen and the absence of physical marks proved that no rape occurred.

The decision also applies the rule on the sufficiency of an information, as quoted from the case of People versus Valdez:

It cannot be otherwise, for, indeed, the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information, or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information.

This rule bears on the third issue, because the information in the finger insertion case recited only the insertion of a finger, and that recital controlled the penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled against the accused and affirmed the finding of guilt. It held that it found no reason to doubt the victim's credibility, and that her credible testimony deserved greater weight than the accused's bare denial. The Court reasoned that no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and run the risk of public contempt unless she is, in fact, a rape victim. It added that it is unthinkable for a young girl to submit her private parts to physical examination and expose her family to public scrutiny or ridicule if her accusation were not true. The Court also reiterated that it will not disturb the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses, since the trial court had the unique opportunity to observe their candor, demeanor, and conduct, especially under cross-examination.

On the second issue, the Court held that the absence of hymenal lacerations or abrasions, and of seminal fluid, spermatozoa, or hematoma, does not negate the commission of rape. Medical evidence is merely corroborative and is even dispensable in proving rape. The Court explained that in child sexual abuse cases, normal physical findings are common because of delay in seeking medical examination, the rapid healing of injuries, washing, urinating or defecating after the assault, the elasticity of the hymen, changes in hymenal tissue at the pubertal stage, or the type of molestation involved. The child's disclosure is the most important evidence of the sexual abuse she has gone through. The Court also quoted its ruling in People versus Palicte that the hymenal resistance of a virgin may be strong enough to prevent full penetration, yet the slightest penetration still consummates rape.

On the third issue, the Court found no reason to modify the penalty imposed for the finger insertion count. It held that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information, nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the actual recital of the facts. The information in that case clearly averred that AAA was already twelve years old on the fifteenth of August, 2001, and nothing in it suggested that she was in fact below twelve years old. Hence, the penalty imposed by the trial court stood.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the credibility of a child victim of rape, when categorical, straightforward, and consistent, prevails over the bare denial of the accused, and the trial court's assessment of credibility is respected absent overlooked facts of substance. Second, the absence of hymenal lacerations, bleeding, hematoma, or spermatozoa does not negate rape, because medical evidence is merely corroborative and dispensable, and the child's disclosure is the most important evidence of sexual abuse. Third, rape is consummated by the slightest penetration of the woman's sex organ, and mere entry of the labia without rupture of the hymen is sufficient. Fourth, the real nature of the crime charged is determined by the actual recital of facts in the information, not by its title or the provision of law cited, and the allegations in the information control the penalty that may be imposed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused in all three counts, modifying the decision only to impose on all monetary awards an interest at the legal rate of six percent per annum from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid, with the rest affirmed in toto.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the child's disclosure is the most important evidence of the sexual abuse she has gone through, and the slightest penetration consummates rape. Examiners like to use this case to test the weight of an intact hymen against a credible child witness, and to test the rule that the facts recited in the information, not its title, control the charge and the penalty.