THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DELANO MENDIOLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Mendiola

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Delano Mendiola, a criminal case for rape, decided by the Supreme Court on automatic review of a death sentence. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of his own five-year-old daughter, Daryll Mendiola, in their house in Pasig City sometime in 1994. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it shows how the Court treats the testimony of a child of tender years, it shows how the Court weighs the defense of a coached child witness, and it shows the Court applying the death penalty for qualified rape and fixing the civil indemnity and moral damages that follow conviction.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed by Consuelo Pedrosa, the victim's grandmother, on behalf of her granddaughter. An information for rape was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 166. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment on March 11, 1998, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to death, and ordering him to indemnify the victim 50,000 pesos plus costs. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The accused assigned two errors: that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him by relying heavily on the victim's testimony and totally discrediting the defense, and that the trial court gravely erred in disregarding the testimony of Delmar Mendiola, the victim's younger sister, who said she saw their cousin Gene on top of Daryll after removing her panty.

Facts

Daryll Mendiola was born in 1989. About a month after birth she was brought to Naga City and entrusted to her grandmother, Consuelo Pedrosa. In 1994, when Daryll was already five years old, her mother Marlene brought her back to Pasig City to live with the family. In January 1995, Daryll was bitten by a dog and was brought back to Naga City for treatment. While in her grandmother's custody, the child complained of pain in the genitalia during urination and bathing. Examination by a doctor at the Bicol National Hospital showed old lacerations of the hymen at the two, six, and eight o'clock positions, and a vaginal infection. Her statement was taken at the National Bureau of Investigation office in Naga City.

The grandmother also observed the child acting strangely and violently, with hyperirritability, aggressiveness, biting, masturbatory acts, and violent tendencies. The child was referred for psychological management. In one of the sessions she said it was her father who sexually abused her, on several occasions while she was still living in Pasig. Psychiatric evaluation found her suffering from adjustment disorder with disruptive behavioral symptoms and depressive features, and negative for any psychotic condition. The grandmother testified that when she told Marlene about the findings and the taking of the statement, Marlene got mad at her, and that she herself pursued the case because Marlene refused to help Daryll.

On the witness stand, Daryll, then six years old, testified that her father is Delano Mendiola and her mother is Marlene, and that in 1994 and 1995, inside their house in Pasig City, her father inserted his penis inside her vagina many times. The defense, for its part, pointed to the victim's cousin Gene, a boy of about thirteen or fourteen, as the culprit. The victim's younger sister Delmar, nicknamed Macdo, testified that she saw Gene remove Daryll's panty, cover himself and Daryll with a blanket, and go on top of her. The mother Marlene corroborated this and said Gene frequented their house. The accused testified that he had seen Daryll and Gene playing horsy-horsy, that he had caught Daryll peeping while he and his wife were having sex, and that his other children saw Daryll stick a walis tingting inside her vagina. He also said his mother-in-law was mad at him and had advised his wife to split up with him.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of rape by relying heavily on the testimony of the complaining victim, Daryll Mendiola, and in totally discrediting the version of the defense.
• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in disregarding the revelation of Delmar Mendiola that she saw her cousin Gene go on top of her sister Daryll after removing the latter's panty.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the crime of rape as defined and penalized under the law in force at the time, and the qualifying circumstances that authorize the death penalty. The information charges that the accused, with lewd designs and by means of force and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with a five-year-old girl, his daughter, without her consent and against her will. The Court refers to the amendatory law that authorized the death penalty for qualified rape, and to the rule that the death penalty is imposed when the victim is a minor and the offender is her father. The Court also applies the settled rule on civil indemnity and moral damages in rape cases, awarding 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity because the rape was qualified by a circumstance authorizing the death penalty, and 50,000 pesos as moral damages without need of proof of the basis thereof.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err. It reiterated the settled rule that when the issue is credibility, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, which is in a better position to observe the witnesses, unless certain facts of substance and value had been plainly overlooked. The Court found that Daryll's failure to answer some questions was understandable: she was only five when the rape took place and six when she testified, and she was a disturbed child with disruptive behavioral symptoms. These conditions did not materially affect her credibility. When asked the material question of what her father did to her, she answered clearly, candidly, and categorically that he inserted his penis inside her vagina several times. The Court held that testimonies of child victims who are young and immature are given full weight and credit, and that when a girl-child says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. The lone testimony of the victim, if credible and free from serious and material contradictions, is enough basis for conviction.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court correctly disregarded Delmar's testimony. On cross-examination, Delmar admitted that she was coached by her mother and that everything she told the court was what her mother had repeatedly taught her. She also admitted that she did not actually see what Gene and Daryll were doing under the blanket. The Court noted that the testimonies of the accused and of Marlene, that they saw Gene fully clothed on top of Daryll on different occasions, even if true, are no more than suspicion, speculation, or surmise that Gene had carnal knowledge of Daryll, and are utterly insufficient to rebut the prosecution's evidence. The Court also found it difficult to accept the defense version because the grandmother testified that Gene was childish, having suffered meningitis at six and could hardly talk. If Gene had raped Daryll, the incident would have made an unforgettable impression on her mind, yet when questioned about Gene she showed no fear and categorically denied that he ever put himself on top of her. The Court further noted that the accused was a drug user who had been confined in a rehabilitation center, and that the victim testified he was using shabu taken from the aparador, an allegation never disputed. On the claim of ill motive, the Court held that the grandmother's anger at her son-in-law was too flimsy a reason to concoct a story of rape on her own granddaughter, and that it is unbelievable a grandmother would expose her innocent granddaughter to the humiliation and stigma of a rape trial just to end the marriage. The Court concluded that the law may be exceedingly hard, but so the law is written, and the Court is duty bound to apply it.

Doctrine

First, the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court, which heard them and observed their deportment, and the appellate court will not disturb its findings absent facts of substance and value plainly overlooked. Second, the testimony of a child victim of tender years, if categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and consistent, is given full weight and credit, and the lone testimony of a rape victim, if credible and free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient for conviction. Third, a child witness shown to have been coached by a parent cannot be relied upon to exculpate the accused, and mere suspicion or surmise that another person committed the crime is insufficient to rebut the prosecution's evidence. Fourth, ill motive on the part of the complainant's relative is not enough to overcome the presumption that a grandmother would not expose her granddaughter to the stigma of a rape trial. Fifth, when rape is qualified by the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender, the death penalty is imposed, and the victim is entitled to civil indemnity of 75,000 pesos and moral damages of 50,000 pesos.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the death sentence, with modification: the accused was ordered to pay the victim 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and the records were ordered forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power upon finality of the decision.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that when a girl-child says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed, and her lone testimony, if credible, suffices for conviction. Examiners like to use this case on the credibility of child witnesses, on the weight to be given to a coached child witness for the defense, and on the civil indemnity and moral damages awarded in qualified rape.