PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO GOOL Y CALIGAGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Gool

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Rolando Gool, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The accused was the live-in partner of the victim's mother, and the victim was a twelve-year-old girl. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the rules a bar candidate must hold: how rape is proved when only the victim can speak, how a child's testimony is weighed, why medico-legal findings are corroborative and not indispensable, and how the penalty and damages are fixed under the Revised Penal Code.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 106, under an information alleging rape committed on December 22, 2009 against a twelve-year-old girl, with the accused taking advantage of his moral ascendancy as her stepfather. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed. On July 31, 2013, the trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages, with the period of preventive detention credited in the service of his sentence.

Aggrieved, the accused interposed an appeal, raising a single assignment of error: that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which reviewed the records and rendered the decision we now brief.

Facts

On the morning of December 22, 2009, at about half past eleven, the twelve-year-old victim, her mother, and the mother's live-in partner, the accused, were at their house in Quezon City. The mother was doing the laundry. The victim told her mother she felt sleepy and asked to be allowed to sleep, and the mother agreed. The victim went inside the house and saw the accused cooking. When she entered the room, the accused followed her and said, "Pahipo naman," meaning he wanted to touch her private part. She refused, and he left.

Thinking he would not return, the victim lay on the bed and covered herself with a blanket. Suddenly she felt the accused pulling her feet and removing her shorts and underwear. He held her hands and inserted his penis into her vagina. While he was ejaculating, the mother entered the room and saw him with his shorts unzipped, kneeling on the bed and holding his penis. The victim was naked from the waist down and about to put on her underwear and shorts. Stunned, the mother slapped and hit the accused and demanded that he leave.

That evening the victim and her mother went to the police station to report the incident, and the victim was subjected to a medico-legal examination. The examining physician found a deep healed hymenal laceration at the eight o'clock position, caused by insertion of a blunt object. In court the victim identified the accused and testified that he had raped her several times before, the first time in October 2009 and on twenty-four other occasions thereafter. She explained that she did not report the abuse because the accused threatened that if she did, her mother would order her to leave the house. The accused denied the charge, claiming the victim's mother confronted them about the victim's failing grade and the victim suddenly admitted she had been raped. The trial court gave more weight to the victim's direct, positive, and clear testimony and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the victim's failure to run away or shout for help, and the alleged inconsistency between the physical evidence and the physician's testimony, create reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of damages were correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 1, defines rape, and the Court states its elements as follows:

That the offender is a man; that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and that such act is accomplished through the use of force or intimidation, or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.

These elements are the checklist the Court applies to the evidence, and all three were found present.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code fixes the penalty, and the Court states the rule thus:

Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A is punishable by reclusion perpetua.

This is why the trial court's penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It recalled the settled considerations in reviewing rape cases: an accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person, though innocent, to disprove; the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits. Yet rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or secrecy, so it is most often only the victim who can testify to the fact of forced coitus. Applying the elements, the Court found that the accused is a man, that he had carnal knowledge of the victim as shown by her candid and straightforward testimony, and that he employed threat, force, and intimidation, since he threatened that her mother would send her away from the house if she reported him. The Court held that the thought of being sent away by one's own mother, with nowhere else to go, is sufficient to bring a woman into submission.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that the victim's conduct was incredible. It held that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed, and that youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. It found it highly improbable that the victim would fabricate so humiliating a charge, or that a mother would sacrifice her own daughter to a public trial without an honest desire to punish the culprit. As to the medico-legal finding, the Court held there was no real inconsistency: the deep healed hymenal laceration strongly supported the victim's testimony that she had been raped several times before, the first in October 2009. Even assuming an inconsistency, medico-legal findings in rape cases, while corroborative of the fact of rape, are not indispensable to conviction; what is crucial is the positive testimony of the victim.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua under Article 266-B. It affirmed the civil indemnity and moral damages at 50,000 pesos each, increased the exemplary damages from 25,000 pesos to 30,000 pesos in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence, and imposed interest at six percent per annum on all damages from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.

Doctrine

• Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, has three elements: the offender is a man; he had carnal knowledge of a woman; and the act was accomplished through force or intimidation, or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when the victim is under twelve years of age or is demented.
• In reviewing rape cases, the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its own merits, and the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution, because rape is usually committed in isolation and only the victim can testify to the forced coitus.
• The testimony of a child victim is given full weight and credit; youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity.
• Medico-legal findings are corroborative of rape but not indispensable; the positive testimony of the victim is what is crucial.
• Rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A is punishable by reclusion perpetua under Article 266-B.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused with modification, increasing the exemplary damages to 30,000 pesos and imposing interest at six percent per annum on all damages from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize the line that medico-legal findings are corroborative but not indispensable, for what is crucial in a rape case is the positive testimony of the victim. Examiners use this case to test the elements of rape under Article 266-A, the weight of a child's testimony, and the penalty and damages under Article 266-B.