PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. SAMUEL DIUNSAY-JALANDONI, APPELLANT.

People versus Diunsay-Jalandoni

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Samuel Diunsay-Jalandoni, an ice cream vendor charged with the rape of a twenty-one-year-old woman with severe mental retardation whom the decision calls AAA. The case matters because it is a compact lesson in two things examiners love: the sufficiency of the victim's lone testimony in rape, and the strict rule that a qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the information before it can raise the penalty. The Court affirms the conviction but strips away the death penalty, and in doing so it teaches exactly where the line falls between simple rape and qualified rape.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 86, after trial, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages, plus costs. Conformably with the ruling in People versus Mateo, the records were forwarded to the Court of Appeals for review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and increased the civil indemnity. The case then reached the Supreme Court on automatic review, and the Court rendered its own judgment modifying the penalty and the damages.

Facts

On the morning of March 31, 2000, two construction workers, Wilfredo Aganon and Chris Pastor, were walking to their jobsite inside a subdivision in Quezon City. Passing a guard outpost, they saw the appellant pushing AAA on the floor and unzipping his pants. Pastor called out that the act was forbidden and carried the death penalty, but the two walked on. AAA testified that the appellant forced her down, held her thighs, boxed her stomach, and threatened to maul and kill her if she did not keep silent. He then undressed her, placed himself on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina.

Shortly after, the two workers heard AAA shout that it was enough and that she did not want any more. They returned to the outpost and saw the appellant stand up and ring his ice cream bell while AAA pulled up her shorts. They reported the matter to the subdivision guards and homeowners, brought the appellant to the barangay hall, and later turned him over to the police.

The mother of AAA learned from her daughter that this was not the first time, and that the appellant had previously threatened her not to tell anyone. A psychiatrist and a psychologist from the National Center for Mental Health testified that AAA had severe mental retardation with a mental age of about four years, although she was twenty-one at the time of the rape. They noted her limited attention span, her eagerness to please, and her inability to fabricate or be coached. The appellant denied the charge, claiming AAA kept bumping him while he rested, that he pushed her and she fell, and that he was then accused by the two workers.

Issues

• Whether or not the rape was impossible or inconceivable because it was committed in broad daylight inside a guard outpost along a subdivision street.
• Whether or not the prosecution's failure to present the doctor who conducted the medico-legal examination destroyed its case.
• Whether or not the lone testimony of AAA, a mental retardate, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
• Whether or not the appellant may be convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to death when the information alleged only that AAA was a retardate and did not allege that he knew of her mental disability at the time of the crime.
• Whether or not exemplary damages may be awarded where the qualifying circumstance was proved at trial but not alleged in the information.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353, defines rape and provides:

Rape is committed 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat or intimidation; x x x x d) When the offended party is x x x demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

This is the provision under which the appellant is ultimately convicted, for simple rape.

Article 266-B of the same Code fixes the penalty and lists the qualifying circumstances:

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: x x x 10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.

This is the circumstance the trial court and the Court of Appeals used to impose death, and which the Supreme Court holds was never alleged in the information.

The same article provides the penalty for simple rape:

Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

This is the penalty the Court ultimately imposes.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the rape was neither impossible nor inconceivable. The photographs showed the outpost had an opening and three side walls about waist high, high enough to conceal the crime on the floor. No one else was traversing the street except the two workers. As the Court puts it, lust is not a respecter of time and place, and rape can be committed even where people congregate.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the failure to present the examining doctor is not fatal. A medical examination is merely corroborative. The absence of external signs of violence does not negate rape, nor does the absence of spermatozoa, and healed lacerations do not negate rape because full penetration is not necessary. Entry into the labia of the pudendum, even without rupture of the hymen, is enough.

On the third issue, the Court holds that what matters greatly is the clear, unequivocal and credible testimony of the victim. An accused may be convicted on the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim if it is clear, convincing and consistent with human nature. Here AAA's testimony was spontaneous and detailed, corroborated by the two workers who saw the appellant with her shortly before and soon after. Given her mental age, she could not have concocted the charge nor been coached, and the trial court's credibility findings are respected.

On the fourth issue, the Court holds that qualifying circumstances must be sufficiently alleged in the indictment and proved during trial. Otherwise the accused is denied his right to be informed of the charge and denied due process. The information alleged only that AAA was a retardate; it did not allege that the appellant knew of her mental disability at the time of the crime. Hence he can be convicted only of simple rape, and the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

On the fifth issue, the Court holds that although the qualifying circumstance cannot raise the penalty, it was proved at trial and may be appreciated for the limited purpose of awarding exemplary damages. The procedural rule requiring aggravating circumstances to be alleged cannot be applied retroactively to defeat rights already vested when the offense was committed before the rules took effect. Exemplary damages of twenty-five thousand pesos are therefore proper.

Doctrine

First, a qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the information and proved at trial; if it is not alleged, the accused can be convicted only of the simple crime, whatever the proof shows. Second, a medical examination is not essential in rape, being merely corroborative, and the absence of external injury, of spermatozoa, or a fresh hymen does not negate the crime. Third, the lone testimony of the victim, if clear, unequivocal and credible, suffices for conviction, and the trial court's assessment of credibility is respected absent overlooked facts of substance. Fourth, a qualifying circumstance proved but not alleged may still ground exemplary damages, because the retroactive application of the pleading rule cannot prejudice a private offended party's vested rights.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification: the appellant was found guilty of simple rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity, fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, and twenty-five thousand pesos as exemplary damages, plus costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a qualifying circumstance not alleged in the information cannot raise the penalty, but if proved it may still support exemplary damages. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between simple and qualified rape and the rule that the victim's lone, credible testimony can sustain a conviction.