PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RENE C. HENSON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Henson

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Rene C. Henson, a criminal prosecution for statutory rape. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of a six-year-old girl, the daughter of the complainant. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the rules that examiners love to test: the elements of statutory rape, the irrelevance of consent when the victim is under twelve, the strict requirements for the defense of alibi, and the weight given to a child's candid testimony.

Procedural History

The complainant, the mother of the victim, filed a sworn complaint with the Inquest Prosecutor, who approved it. The Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City tried the case, and after trial rendered a decision convicting the accused of statutory rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with an award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning a single error: that the trial court erred in convicting him of the crime charged. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction in its entirety.

Facts

On the evening of 16 June 1993, the victim, then only six years of age, went to the house of the accused, a neighbor. She swept the ground floor, then went upstairs. The accused held her by the hand, led her to his bedroom, made her lie down, and removed her shorts and underwear. He then lay on top of her and made up and down movements, slightly penetrating her and causing her pain.

The prosecution also presented the accused's ten-year-old niece, who testified that she heard strange sounds, peeped through a hole in the plywood wall, and saw the accused unzipping his pants before going on top of the victim. She called her cousin, and together they saw the victim being made to stay on top of the accused. They reported the matter to their grandfather, who told them to fetch the victim and inform her mother. The mother then lodged the complaint with the police.

The examining physician testified that the victim's hymen was still intact and no spermatozoa were found, but there were abrasions on the inner lips of the external genitalia and on the right thigh that could have been caused by a male organ in an attempt at forcible entry. The accused denied being with the victim and put up alibi, claiming he attended a church meeting and then stayed for night guard duty. He attributed the accusation to a grudge. His witnesses placed him at the church compound about 300 meters from his house.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim.
• Whether or not the absence of resistance by the victim affects the commission of statutory rape.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335, Number 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as applied by the trial court, defines statutory rape. The decision refers to it as the offense committed when the victim is a minor child under the circumstance prescribed in that number. It bears on the case because the victim was six years old, and the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve.

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 decision also cites Section 7 of Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure in the complaint, as the basis for filing without preliminary investigation because the accused was lawfully arrested without a warrant and did not ask for one.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The victim's testimony was clear, convincing, and straightforward, and a candid narration by a victim of rape can bear the earmarks of credibility, particularly where no motive is attributed to her that would make her testify falsely. The Court noted that no evidence was presented to prove fabrication, and that it is hard to believe a mother would sacrifice her own daughter to a public trial unless motivated by an honest desire to have the culprit punished.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the alibi. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission. Here, the venue of the alibi was only about 300 meters from the crime scene, a few minutes' walk away. The alibi also cannot stand against the positive identification made by the victim.

On the third issue, the Court held that the absence of resistance is of no moment. The gravamen of statutory rape is having carnal knowledge with a girl under twelve years of age. When the victim is below twelve, her consent or lack of it to the carnal embrace is irrelevant.

Doctrine

Statutory rape is committed by carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve years of age. The gravamen of the offense is the age of the victim, not the presence of force, intimidation, or resistance. Consent is immaterial, because the law presumes the victim incapable of giving valid consent.

Alibi is a weak and unreliable defense, received with caution. It prospers only if the accused proves both that he was elsewhere at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. It cannot overcome positive identification by the victim.

A candid and straightforward testimony of a child victim of rape bears the earmarks of credibility, especially where no improper motive is shown. The findings of the trial court on credibility are accorded great weight.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed in toto the conviction of Rene C. Henson for statutory rape, with costs against the accused.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the gravamen of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve, and her consent or lack of resistance is irrelevant. Examiners use this case to test the elements of statutory rape, the strict requirements of alibi, and the credibility of a child victim's testimony.