PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GERRY LIBETA Y TORRE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Libeta

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Gerry Libeta y Torre, a criminal prosecution for statutory rape of an eleven-year-old girl, Jacqueline Labial, committed in Davao City in April 1995. The accused was convicted by the Regional Trial Court and appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it states the two elements of statutory rape as a rule, and it draws the dividing line between consummated rape and attempted rape, distinguishing the Campuhan doctrine on the slightest penetration of the labia majora.

Procedural History

The victim herself, an eleven-year-old minor, personally filed a complaint for statutory rape against the accused before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. At arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. The trial court rendered its decision in May 1999, finding the prosecution evidence more than sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, convicting the accused of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the complainant 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages. From that decision the accused filed a notice of appeal, and the case reached the Supreme Court on appeal, where the Court affirmed the conviction.

Facts

On the morning of April 3, 1995, at around eleven o'clock, eleven-year-old Jacqueline Labial was cooking rice alone in her house at St. Michael, Daliao, Toril, Davao City, while her mother washed clothes to earn a living. The accused, Gerry Libeta, suddenly appeared, seized her hand, dragged her outside, and pulled her to a distance of about twenty meters from her house, to a grassy area among the ipil-ipil trees. He took off her panty, removed his short pants and brief, forced her to lie on the ground, rolled up her dress to her neck, placed himself on top of her, spread her legs, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made a push and pull movement. She felt great pain.

A neighbor, Vilma Meriales, had earlier seen a man holding the girl's hand before both disappeared, and she asked her husband Saturnino Meriales to check on the neighbor's house. Saturnino went, found no one inside, saw a bicycle parked at the riverbank behind the house, and walked further. He arrived to see the accused on top of the girl making a push and pull movement, wearing only a T-shirt, his brief pulled down to his ankle and his penis exposed, while the child lay on the ground with her dress pulled up and her panty rolled down to her ankle. Saturnino pulled the accused away and told both to get dressed, then brought them to the police station at Toril, Davao City. On the way, the accused asked for forgiveness, saying he would not do it again.

At the police station the accused admitted the accusation but claimed he merely attempted to rape her, saying he was already on top of her when a member of the Alsa Masa arrived. The victim's mother arrived and confronted him, and he admitted the offense and asked for forgiveness. The victim was referred to the Women's Desk, where she repeated her account and her vagina was inspected, showing redness in her labia majora. The next day, a doctor of the City Health Office examined her and noted no physical injuries, no laceration of the vagina, no spermatozoa, and no blood at the opening of the vagina. The birth certificate showed she was born on April 25, 1985, making her eleven years old at the time of the incident. The accused denied the charge and narrated a different version, claiming he was kicked and mauled by persons who accused him of molesting a girl, and a neighbor testified to seeing him picking ipil-ipil leaves and later being mauled.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape despite the testimony of the prosecution's doctor that there was no indication of any sexual assault on the complainant.
• Whether or not, assuming he is guilty, the accused should have been convicted only of the lesser offense of attempted rape.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, provides:

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.

This provision defines statutory rape, where the woman is under twelve years of age, and fixes the penalty of reclusion perpetua for rape committed against a woman under twelve years of age, which is the offense charged and the penalty imposed in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the conviction stands despite the medical findings. In statutory rape, two elements must be established: that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman, and that the woman is below twelve years of age. The victim's age was undisputed, so the sole remaining question was whether the accused had carnal knowledge of her. The Court gave great respect to the trial court's assessment of credibility, finding the victim's testimony categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank, and her positive identification of the accused decisive. The Court held that when a complainant in a rape case testifies credibly that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, and the accused may be convicted on the sole basis of that testimony. Her account was corroborated by Saturnino Meriales, who caught the accused in the act, and no improper motive was shown why he would falsely implicate a person he did not know. On the medical findings, the Court held that proof of injury is not an element of rape, that the redness observed a few hours after the incident supported the charge, and that the examination the day after could no longer show redness that had already subsided. A medical examination and medical certificate are merely corroborative and not indispensable. The defense of denial, being inherently weak, cannot prevail against positive identification.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim of attempted rape. The accused relied on the Campuhan case, where the accused was held guilty only of attempted rape because the prosecution failed to prove the slightest intrusion into the labia majora, the complainant having denied actual penetration and having resisted by putting her legs close together. The Court found the factual setting different: here the complainant categorically stated that the accused inserted his penis into her vagina and that she felt great pain, with her legs spread apart, so she felt actual penetration and not a mere grazing of the male organ. The Court restated the rule:

It bears emphasis that mere introduction of the male organ in the labia of the pudendum of the female's private parts is sufficient to consummate rape.

The act of inserting his penis into the victim's vagina was all that was necessary to commit consummated rape. The Court thus found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of consummated statutory rape, for which the penalty under Article 335, as amended, is reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

Statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, has two elements: carnal knowledge of a woman, and that the woman is below twelve years of age. Proof of injury, a medical examination, or a medical certificate is not an element of rape; these are merely corroborative and not indispensable, and conviction may rest on the sole credible testimony of the victim. What is decisive is the complainant's positive identification of the accused, and denial is an inherently weak defense against such positive identification. On consummation, mere introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female's private parts is sufficient to consummate rape; the touching must be construed as entry by the penis into the labia majora, not a mere grazing or clashing of the organs. Where the victim testifies that the penis was inserted into her vagina and that she felt great pain, the rape is consummated, not merely attempted, and the Campuhan ruling applies only where penetration is not established.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding Gerry Libeta y Torre guilty beyond reasonable doubt of consummated statutory rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages.

Remember This

Memorize the line that mere introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is sufficient to consummate rape, and that proof of injury is not an element of the crime. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between consummated and attempted rape, and to test whether a conviction may stand on the victim's credible testimony alone despite negative medical findings.