PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMIL SAJOLGA Y OMERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This case is here on automatic appeal from the
decision,^[1]
dated October 18, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, City of
Malaybalay, finding accused-appellant Ramil Sajolga guilty of rape and
sentencing him to death and to pay the victim Genlei Abejaron^[2] in the sum of
P75,000.00 as indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

The information, filed by the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor of Bukidnon, alleged ¾

That on or about the 17th day of October, 1998, in the
afternoon,
at Sitio San Ramon, Cojuangco, Kalagutay, Base Camp, Municipality of
Maramag, Province of Bukidnon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, prompted by lewd
designs, with the use of force and intimidation on the person of GENLEI
ABEJARON, a fifteen (15) year-old minor and accused’s half-sister, did
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally box the latter which
caused her [to become] unconscious and while at that state, undress
GENLEI ABEJARON, remove her panties, insert his penis into the vagina of
GENLEI ABEJARON, and have sexual intercourse with GENLEI ABEJARON,
against her will, to the damage and prejudice of GENLEI ABEJARON in such
amount as may be allowed by law.^[3]

Upon being arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not
guilty,^[4]
whereupon trial ensued.

At the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated as
follows:

1. That private complainant Genlei Abejaron was born
   on February 15, 1983.

2. That accused and private complainant are
   siblings, being children of Segundina Sajolga.^[5]
3. That before and up to October 17, 1998, private
   complainant was living with her mother in Agrosite, Poblacion, Maramag,
   Bukidnon.^[6]

The prosecution presented two witnesses: complainant Genlei Abejaron
and her teacher Mrs. Erlinda Alceso.^[7] Their testimonies are to the following effect:

From 1997 up to 1998, Genlei Abejaron stayed in the house of
her
teacher, Mrs. Erlinda Alceso, during weekdays as a working student
because the Maramag Elementary School, where she was studying, was some
three kilometers away from her mother’s house in Sitio San Ramon,
Cojuangco, Kalagutay, Base Camp, Maramag, Bukidnon. She went home to her
mother’s house only on weekends.^[8]

Genlei testified that at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon of
October 17, 1998, while she was alone in her mother’s house playing
cards, someone knocked on the door, and, when she opened it, she saw her
half-brother, accused-appellant Ramil Sajolga, who was drunk. Without
warning, accused-appellant boxed her in the abdomen, causing her to fall
on the floor on her buttocks. Genlei said that she gasped for breath as
she suffered excruciating pain. She tried to give accused-appellant
some blows but accused-appellant proved to be stronger. Genlei said
accused-appellant dragged her to the bedroom, made her lie on the bed,
and took off her shorts and panties. Before she became unconscious,
Genlei remembered that accused-appellant kissed her lips and
neck.^[9]

When Genlei recovered, she found herself naked and lying on
the
bed. Her body was aching and her vagina was sore, with a sticky
substance, presumably semen, in her private part. Accused-appellant was
lying beside her, asleep, with his naked body covered by a blanket. When
she realized that she had been violated by accused-appellant, Genlei
took hold of a pillow, the nearest weapon available, and pummeled the
latter, all the while crying and cursing him. Accused-appellant calmly
told her that there was nothing she could do and pointed out to her that
she would not win any case against him as he had not been sued or
jailed despite molesting her twice when she was eight years old.^[10]

When her mother arrived, Genlei tried to tell her what had
happened
but, as she had expected, her mother only shouted at her. Genlei left
for Mrs. Alceso’s house the next day, without being able to tell her
mother what had happened. Genlei tried to tell her mother again about
her misfortune when the latter visited her in the boarding house, but
once more she failed.^[11]

Genlei kept her torment a secret until sometime in January
1999,
when she told her teacher Maxima Cabang that she wanted to stop
schooling. When Mrs. Cabang asked for her reason, Genlei told her that
her half-brother had raped her. Mrs. Cabang then asked Genlei if she
wanted to file a case, to which she replied that she would think it over
because it would not be easy to file a case.^[12]

Mrs. Alceso noticed that something was bothering Genlei. She
once
saw Genlei crying while watching a rape scene on television. Genlei had
asked her as to what could possibly happen if her mother learned that
she had been raped. Later, on the assurance that her teachers would help
her, Genlei told Mrs. Alceso that her half-brother raped her but she
was afraid her mother would not believe her.^[13]

In January 1999, one of Mrs. Alceso’s co-teachers informed
her that
Genlei could be pregnant, as she was seen vomiting. Mrs. Alceso
confronted Genlei and told her that she might be carrying a baby. Genlei
was made to hide in another teacher’s (Mrs. Divina Flores) house,
because she was afraid that her mother might learn about her pregnancy.
In February 1999, Genlei’s teachers, Mrs. Alceso, Mrs. Flores, and a
Mrs. Bertrudes, took her to the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) in Maramag, Bukidnon. A DSWD officer assisted in
filing a case against her half-brother.^[14]

The results of the medical examination (Exh. A) conducted on
Genlei
by Dr. Evangeline C. Revilla of the Bukidnon Provincial Hospital of
Maramag on February 10, 1999 showed the following:

– has minimal pubic hair at the mons pubis

– cervix has old healed lacerated wound at the 1:00
o’clock, 2:00 o’clock, 5 o’clock and the 11:00 o’clock position

– admits 1 finger very easily

NOTE: has minimal blood at examining finger because she’s
on her first day of menstruation.^[15]

The defense offered no objection to the admission of the
Medical
Certificate, including the findings therein. For this reason, the
testimony of the doctor was dispensed with.^[16] The prosecution thereafter rested
its case.

The defense thereafter presented three witnesses:
accused-appellant
Ramil Sajolga, his friend and neighbor Aurelio Manuel, and his mother
Segundina Recaros. Accused-appellant Ramil Sajolga interposed the
defense of denial and alibi. He claimed that in the morning of October
17, 1999, he and his neighbor, Aurelio Manuel, went to Purok 8, about
ten kilometers from Sitio San Ramon, Cojuangco. Riding on a cart pulled
by a carabao, they arrived in Purok 8 at about 3 o’clock in the
afternoon. They cut bamboo poles for their houses. As they were unable
to finish, they stayed at Abundio Carbona’s (the uncle of Aurelio
Manuel’s wife) house until lunch time the following day. They arrived
home at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon. Accused-appellant requested
his mother for hot water for coffee when he arrived. He said he did not
see Genlei as she did not come home in October 1998. Accused-appellant
said that Genlei had been staying with her teacher, Mrs. Erlinda Alceso.
He admits, however, that the house where he and his live-in partner and
their child lived was a mere five arm’s length away from his mother’s
house. His alibi was corroborated by Aurelio Manuel. ^[17]

Segundina Recaros explained that Genlei seldom went home
because of
the danger posed by two warring groups of land claimants in the area.
Both accused-appellant and Segundina stated that Genlei allegedly came
home only on September 16, 1999 but went back to Maramag on the same
day. According to them, Genlei was also home on December 28, 1999 for
accused-appellant’s birthday.^[18]

On October 18, 2000, judgment was rendered by the trial court

finding accused-appellant guilty of qualified rape. The dispositive
portion of the decision read:

WHEREFORE, judgment is entered finding accused RAMIL
SAJOLGA
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of rape and penalized
under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353
and he is therefore sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH. He
is further ordered to indemnify his victim Genlei Abejaron the sum of
P75,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.^[19]

Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant alleges that—

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF
THE
CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF ITS COMMISSION.^[20]

In his reply brief dated August 1, 2002, he contends:

ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY, HE IS ONLY
GUILTY OF
THE CRIME OF SIMPLE RAPE BECAUSE THE ACCUSED IS NOT THE FULL-BLOODED
BROTHER OF THE VICTIM AND NEITHER WAS THE CORRECT RELATIONSHIP STATED IN
THE INFORMATION.

When an alleged victim of rape says that she was violated,
she says
in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on
her and, so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the
accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. We find complainant’s
testimony to be straightforward, candid, and credible.

First. Accused-appellant contends that
complainant failed
to present credible and substantial evidence that he sexually abused
her. He said that “the complaint of pain and sticky fluid in the vagina
can also be felt or experienced by a woman even though there is no
sexual abuse. . . . Thus, despite her testimony that accused kissed her
and she saw him naked, it is dubious that she truly lost her
consciousness and accused sexually abused her.”^[21]

The contention is without merit. Rule 133, §4 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence provides:

Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.
¾ Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived
are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

In several cases,^[22] we
have sustained convictions based on circumstantial evidence. Indeed, a
conviction based on circumstantial evidence is proper if the
circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which lead to a fair
and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of
all others, as the guilty person.^[23]
In this case, the totality of circumstances warrants a finding that
private complainant was raped by accused-appellant while the former was
unconscious. The prosecution presented credible and substantial evidence
showing interlocking circumstances that accused-appellant sexually
abused complainant. As pointed out by the Solicitor-General, these
circumstances are:

(a) When Genlei opened the door after hearing some knocks,
appellant immediately entered and boxed her on the abdomen even without
any provocation on the part of Genlei (TSN, December 2, 1999, pp. 2-17,
18);

(b) When Genlei fell but still conscious, appellant dragged
her and
made her lie on the bed, removed her shorts and panties, after which
appellant kissed her neck and lips. Then Genlei lost consciousness.
There was no other man inside the house (Ibid.);

(c) When Genlei recovered, she was naked, her
body was
aching, her vagina was painful and she felt that there was a sticky
substance on her vagina. Appellant was lying beside her and he was naked
too (Ibid.);

(d) When Genlei struck appellant with a pillow and cursed
him,
appellant told her that there is nothing that she could do. Appellant
had the guts to say this because he raped Genlei twice when she was
still eight (8) years old and he is still free (Ibid., pp. 8-10, 14);
and

(e) The present offense against Genlei was perpetrated on
October
17, 1998 and later on Genlei became pregnant but her pregnancy was
aborted (TSN, December 2, 1999, pp. 3-7; TSN, January 25, 2000, pp. 1-6;
TSN, April 28, 2000, pp. 1-17).^[24]

Second. Accused-appellant claims that
complainant’s
behavior after the alleged “rape” negates its occurrence. She was,
according to him, “amazingly contained” when their mother arrived home.
He capitalizes on the failure of complainant to report the alleged rape
until after four (4) months from its occurence.
Complainant’s silence upon her mother’s arrival was sufficiently
explained. She knew that her mother would just dismiss it if she told
her that her brother had raped her. As Genlei said:

[FISCAL TORIBIO, counsel for the prosecution]:

Q When you filed this case, Genlei, did you not tell
your mother?
A No, because she would not listen to me.

Q You mean to tell the court that there was an attempt
to tell your mother but she will not believe you?
A Yes, ma’am.

Q How did you tell your mother?
A I told her, Ma, would you give in to my request, that do not
drink now because I have a problem to tell you.

Q You requested your mother not to drink, you mean to
say that your mother is a habitual drinker?
A She is not a habitual drinker but she drinks.

Q When you told this to your mother, what was her
reaction if any?
A She told me just do that after sometime, Day, because I am
very thirsty I will have to buy Fighter wine.

Q After that was there an attempt by you to tell your
mother?
A Yes, at my boarding house.

Q Were you able to tell your mother what your brother
did to you?
A No, ma’am.

Q Up to this time, Genlei?
A Yes, ma’am.^[25]

On the other hand, Segundina claimed that she no longer
understood
her daughter’s actions, as it seemed that the latter had lost respect
for her. Genlei stayed with Mrs. Taning Taganas from December 1998 to
January 1999. All the while, Genlei had been unable to talk to her
mother about what happened to her as she was afraid that her mother
would not believe her. It was only when classes resumed in January 1999
that Genlei was able to fully narrate her torment. Around that time,
Genlei found that she was pregnant. On January 23, 1999, Mrs. Taganas
had to call Segundina because Genlei was sick. Segundina stayed with her
daughter for three days. But in February, Genlei had to be hidden from
her mother by her teachers. She stayed at the house of one of her
teacher’s (Mrs. Divina Flores). By February 8, 1999, Genlei was placed
in the custody of the DSWD. She suffered an abortion sometime during the
months of January and February 1999.^[26]

Indeed, although complainant was unable to get sympathy from
her
mother, she was able to find this from her teachers. This explains her
silence and the delay of about four (4) months in reporting the crime to
the authorities. Furthermore, the period of October 1998 to February
1999 were quite tumultuous for her. She was raped on October 17, 1998.
On the 22nd of the same month, she had to spend the night at the Kalasag
Center (Police Detachment) of Maramag because Mrs. Alceso’s husband
drove her out of their house as Genlei’s presence was seen by Mr. Alceso
as an extra expense. When Segundina Recaros learned about this, she
made Genlei live with her friend, Mrs. Taganas.

Third. Alternatively, accused-appellant
argues that the
death penalty may not be imposed upon him because, although he and
complainant were related, the prosecution failed to show that
complainant was below 18 years of age at the time the rape took place as
this was merely alleged in the information.
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code provides in pertinent part:

The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
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; . . .

Although no birth certificate or document was presented to
prove
that complainant was 15 years old at the time she was raped, the parties
stipulated that she was born on February 15, 1983. This stipulation is
contained in a Pre-Trial Order issued by the trial court.^[27]
A stipulation of facts in criminal cases is now authorized to be made
by Rule 118, §§1 and 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.^[28]
Thus, not only was complainant’s age alleged in the information, it was
proven, having been made the subject of stipulation and admission.

For the purpose of imposing the death penalty under paragraph
1 of
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the relationship of the parties
must also be alleged and proved. It cannot be the subject of
stipulation of the parties. Even if such is proven, it cannot be
considered in the imposition of the death penalty if it is not properly
alleged in the information. The reason for this is that the age (below
18) and relationship of the offender and the offended party in Art.
266-B, par. 1 are in the nature of qualifying circumstances requiring
the imposition of a more severe penalty. Hence, due process requires
that the accused be informed of them as possibly qualifying the crime
with which he is charged.

Accused-appellant is not “a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
or
guardian or the common-law spouse” of the victim’s mother, but a
relative by consanguinity. Hence, as this Court has held, it must be
alleged in the information that he is a relative by consanguinity or
affinity, as the case may be, within the third civil degree.^[29]
Not only should “relationship by consanguinity or affinity” be alleged,
it is also necessary to specify that such relationship is “within the
third civil degree.”^[30] Mere
allegation and the stipulation that accused-appellant is the brother of
the victim because they have a common mother are not enough to satisfy
the special qualifying circumstance of relationship.

Anent accused-appellant’s contention that “he is guilty only
of
simple rape and not qualified rape because he is not a full-blooded
brother of the victim sister and there are no half measures in the
Heinous Crime Law,” suffice it to say the law does not distinguish
between full blood and half blood relatives. The law does not in fact
speak of full blood and half blood relatives but “of relatives by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree.” As a recent
study has found, “around 92% of the perpetrators in rape cases are known
to the child and 39% of these cases were committed by legal or common
law relatives.”^[31]

In any event, because of the failure of the prosecution to
allege
that accused-appellant is a relative by consanguinity within the third
civil degree of the offended party, accused-appellant can only be held
liable for simple rape even if it was proven and stipulated that the
victim was under eighteen (18) years of age and that he is a
half-brother of complainant.

The penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua. In view of
the
imposition of this reduced penalty on accused-appellant, the amount of
civil indemnity awarded by the Regional Trial Court to the victim should
likewise be reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. The award of
P50,000.00 as moral damages, however, remains.^[32]
Because of the aggravating circumstances of relationship and age,
exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should also be awarded
even if it cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.^[33]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the
Regional Trial
Court, Branch 8, City of Malaybalay is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that accused-appellant Ramil Sajolga y Omera is found guilty of simple
rape and is ordered to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay complainant Genlei Abejaron the amounts of P50,000.00 as indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez and
Corona, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., on official business.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on leave.

---

^[1] Per Judge
Vivencio P. Estrada.
^[2] Also
referred as “Genlie” Abejaron.
^[3] Rollo, p. 5.

^[4] Records, p.
25.
^[5] During the
trial,
Segundina Recaros, the mother of accused-appellant Ramil Sajolga and of
complainant Genlei Abejaron, explained that her first husband, Olegario
Sajolga, then already deceased, was accused-appellant’s father. On the
other hand, Genlei is her daughter by her second husband, Eulalio
Abejaron, also deceased, although Genlei claims that her father was
living in Bohol. Segundina said she has a live-in partner whose family
name (Recaros) she uses. TSN (Segundina Recaros), pp. 3-4, 18-20, Apr.
28, 2000.
^[6] Pre-trial
Agreement, June 1, 1999; Pre-Trial Order, June 23, 1999; Records, pp.
32-33.
^[7] Also
referred to as Erlinda “Alciso” or Erlinda “Calsejo.”

^[8] TSN (Erlinda
Alceso), p. 3, Jan. 25, 2000.
^[9] TSN (Genlei
Abejaron), pp. 3-7, 10, Dec. 2, 1999.
^[10] Id., pp.
7-9, 14.
^[11] Id., pp.
10, 12-13.
^[12] Id., pp.
10-11.
^[13] TSN
(Erlinda Alceso), pp. 3-4, Jan. 25, 2000.
^[14] TSN (Genlei
Abejaron), pp. 10-11, 21, Dec. 2, 1999.
^[15] Records, p.
4.
^[16] Order, Nov.
4, 1999; Records, p. 45.
^[17] TSN (Ramil
Sajolga), pp. 6-11, June 14, 2000; TSN (Aurelio Manuel), pp. 7-11, March
8, 2000.
^[18] Id., pp.
6-7, June 14, 2000; TSN (Segundina Recaros), pp. 12-13, Apr. 28, 2000.

^[19] Decision,
p. 5; Rollo, p. 17.
^[20] Appellant’s
Brief, p. 5, Id., p. 34.
^[21] Id., p. 8;
Id., p. 37.
^[22] E.g.,
People v.
Mercado, G.R. No. 139904, Oct. 12, 2001; People v. Tolentino, G.R. No.
139834, Feb. 19, 2001; People v. Perez, 307 SCRA 276 (1999); People v.
Tabarangao, 303 SCRA 623 (1999); People v. Diaz, 262 SCRA 723 (1996);
People v. Ulili, 225 SCRA 594 (1993); People v. Abiera, 222 SCRA 378
(1993); People v. Naguita, 208 SCRA 206 (1992); People v. Santiago, 197
SCRA 556 (1991); People v. Garcia, 89 SCRA 440 (1979).
^[23] People v.
Mendoza, 301 SCRA 66 (1999).
^[24] Appellee’s
Brief, pp. 9-11; Rollo, pp. 68-70.
^[25] TSN (Genlei
Abejaron), pp. 12-13, Dec. 2, 1999.
^[26] Id., pp.
10-11, 19-21,
Dec. 2, 1999; TSN (Erlinda Alceso), pp. 5-6, Jan. 25, 2000; TSN
(Segundina Recaros), pp. 7, 11-15, Apr. 28, 2000.
^[27] Records, p.
33.
^[28] People v.
Hernandez, 260 SCRA 25 (1996).
^[29] People v.
Lachica, G.R.
No. 143677, May 9, 2002; People v. Libo-on, G.R. No. 136737, May 23,
2001; People v. Banihit, 339 SCRA 86 (2000); People v. Ferolino, 329
SCRA 719 (2000).
^[30] Id.

^[31] Ateneo
Human Rights Center, Human Rights Treatise on Children 46 (1999).

^[32] People v.
Escaño, G.R. Nos. 140218-23; Feb. 13, 2002.
^[33] People v.
Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, Aug. 23, 2001.