THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMSHAND THAMSEY Y CARIÑOSA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Thamsey

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Ramshand Thamsey for the rape of a five-year-old girl, Giselle Maris Bacalla. The trial court convicted him only of attempted rape, but the Court of Appeals set that aside and found him guilty of consummated rape, sentencing him to death. The case matters because the Supreme Court explains what carnal knowledge means for rape to be consummated, how the weakest of defenses, alibi, is measured, and why the death penalty attaches when the victim is a child below seven years of age.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 84, after trial, found the accused guilty of attempted rape and sentenced him to imprisonment of twelve years as minimum and seventeen years as maximum, and ordered him to pay thirty thousand pesos as indemnity, twenty thousand pesos as moral damages, and ten thousand pesos as exemplary damages. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. He later tried to withdraw his appeal by a letter dated June 8, 1999, saying he could not contact his lawyer and was already qualified for conditional pardon, but the Court of Appeals denied the plea for lack of merit because the appellee's brief had already been filed. On August 15, 2000, the Court of Appeals set aside the trial court's decision, found him guilty of rape instead, and sentenced him to death. The case was then certified to the Supreme Court for review under Rule 124, Section 13 of the 1988 Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Supreme Court reviewed it.

Facts

In November 1993, the spouses Mateo and Guadalupe Bacalla moved to a rented house in Pandayan, Bauan, Batangas, with their children, including Giselle, who was five years old. Guadalupe kept a dental clinic at home, adjacent to the sala. In April 1994, the accused, Ramshand Thamsey, moved into the quarters of his sister, Delilah Dela Cruz, in an extension of the house, while he was applying for a job.

In the evening of November 24, 1994, Guadalupe saw her three-year-old son Gerald remove his diaper, hug Giselle, and press his private part against hers. When asked why Gerald did it, Giselle cried and said he was only imitating Kuya Ramshand. Guadalupe took Giselle upstairs, examined her, and found her vagina bleeding and reddish. Giselle then told her that she had followed Gerald into the extension, that the accused pulled her inside a room near the clinic, locked the door, laid her on a mat, and inserted his penis inside her private part. Guadalupe recalled that Giselle had a fever days before and had complained of pain when urinating, which she had dismissed.

On November 26, 1994, Giselle was examined at the Bauan Community Hospital. The physician found an erythematous vulva with gaping labia minora, an erythematous urethra, and a healed superficial laceration of the hymen, and opined that the injuries were caused by a plain or smooth object forcibly inserted, inflicted about three to four days earlier. The accused denied the charge and claimed alibi, saying he was training as a janitor at the Bauan Medicare Hospital from November 22 to 26, 1994, and that the accusation stemmed from ill motive over his sister's advice to the family's maid to leave. On rebuttal, Guadalupe testified that she saw the accused loitering around the house during that period, and Mateo testified that the hospital was only about two hundred meters from their house.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
• Whether or not the penalty of death is the appropriate penalty.

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. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death. When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. 2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities. 3. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. 4. When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old. 5. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease. 6. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency. 7. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation.

This provision fixes the elements of rape and the qualifying circumstance of a victim below seven years old, which authorizes the death penalty.

Article 2219 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; (8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

This provision is the basis for awarding moral damages to the rape victim without need of proof beyond the fact of the offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the accused is guilty not only of attempted but of consummated rape. Carnal knowledge requires at least the entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum, and the Court found that Giselle's testimony, taken with the physical evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused inserted his penis inside her vagina, although there may not have been full penetration. The Court rejected the claim that Giselle had been coached, noting that she did not always answer yes to every question, that her answers were simple, direct, spontaneous, and befitting her age, and that a child of such tender age could not have told a tale of sexual assault if it were not true. On the alibi, the Court held that alibi is the weakest of defenses, self-serving and easy to fabricate, and cannot prevail over positive identification. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough that the accused prove he was elsewhere; he must show it was physically impossible for him to be present at the place at the time of the crime. Since the hospital was only two hundred meters from the house, it was not physically impossible for him to have gone home during his morning break. The Court also found the alleged ill motive without basis, as no parent would fabricate a horrible tale of rape against his or her daughter and expose her to the trauma of a public trial just to exact revenge.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals was correct in imposing the death penalty, because Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, imposes death when the victim is a child below seven years of age, and Giselle's age of five was alleged in the information and proven during trial by her birth certificate. The Court, however, found that the Court of Appeals erred in not awarding civil indemnity and moral damages, and ruled that if rape is committed or qualified by any circumstance authorizing the death penalty, the civil indemnity shall be not less than seventy-five thousand pesos, and the victim is also entitled to moral damages under Article 2219 of the Civil Code without need of pleading or proof beyond the fact of the offense.

Doctrine

Rape is consummated upon the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum; full penetration is not required. Alibi is the weakest of defenses and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim; for alibi to prosper, the accused must show that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the place of the crime at the time of its commission. The testimony of a child of tender age, simple, direct, and spontaneous, is entitled to credence, and no parent would fabricate a tale of rape against his or her own daughter merely to exact revenge. When the victim of rape is a child below seven years of age, the death penalty is imposed under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provided the age is alleged in the information and proven during trial. If rape is committed or qualified by a circumstance authorizing the death penalty, the civil indemnity is not less than seventy-five thousand pesos, and the victim is entitled to moral damages under Article 2219 of the Civil Code without need of pleading or proof beyond the fact of the offense.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals imposing the death penalty, with the modification that the accused is ordered to pay the victim seventy-five thousand pesos as civil indemnity and fifty thousand pesos as moral damages.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the slightest penetration consummates rape, and alibi fails unless it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene. Examiners use this case to test the meaning of carnal knowledge, the requisites of alibi, the credence given to child witnesses, and the award of civil indemnity and moral damages when the death penalty is authorized.