PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELISTER BASMAYOR Y GRASCILLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Basmayor versus People

The Case

This is an appeal by Elister Basmayor from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming his conviction for rape. He was charged with two counts of statutory rape committed against AAA, an eleven-year-old girl who was the daughter of his live-in partner. The trial court convicted him on one count and dismissed the other. The Court of Appeals affirmed but raised the conviction to qualified rape and adjusted the damages. The case matters because it gathers in one place the rules every bar candidate needs on the credibility of a child rape victim, the elements of statutory rape, the proof of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, and the effect of the law abolishing the death penalty.

Procedural History

Two informations for statutory rape were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 261. At arraignment, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, the accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted him of simple rape in the second case and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages. It dismissed the first case for insufficiency of evidence. The trial court refused to convict for qualified rape because the prosecution failed to establish that the accused's live-in partner was the same person as the victim's mother.

The accused filed a notice of appeal, and the records were elevated to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified it, finding him guilty of qualified rape, reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and raising the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages to 75,000 pesos each while adding 25,000 pesos in exemplary damages. The records were then elevated to the Supreme Court, which accepted the appeal. The parties opted not to file supplemental briefs, having fully argued their positions in their briefs.

Facts

AAA was born on 4 February 1990, as shown by her Certificate of Live Birth. She lived with her mother, her mother's live-in partner Elister Basmayor, and the rest of the household in Pasig City. AAA called the accused her Papa, and he in turn called her his goddaughter.

On the morning of 9 November 2001, while her mother was sleeping beside her, the accused embraced AAA and touched her private parts. She removed his hands and went back to sleep. An hour later she was awakened by the accused undressing her. He removed his shorts and brief, lay on top of her, kissed her, mashed her breasts, licked her vagina, and inserted his penis, causing her pain. Her mother was out peddling goods at the time. The accused warned her not to tell anyone, and she cried in silence because she was afraid he might kill her.

On 12 November 2001, at around ten in the morning, while AAA was lying in bed and her mother was in the market, the accused again placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her pain. A barangay security officer later testified that the accused was arrested upon the complaint of a neighbor and voluntarily went with the authorities, and that at the barangay headquarters AAA pointed to him as her rapist. The medico-legal officer who examined AAA found an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with shallow fresh lacerations at the three o'clock and six o'clock positions, and concluded that the subject was compatible with recent loss of virginity, with no external signs of trauma. He explained that the lacerations were about three days old and could have resulted from the incident of 12 November 2001. For the defense, the accused denied the charges and claimed that the victim's uncle had instigated her, and that his live-in partner was a woman named CCC, not the victim's mother.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape despite the prosecution's alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the allegedly conflicting testimony of the complaining witness.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were alleged and proved, so as to raise the crime to qualified rape.
• Whether or not the penalty and the awards of damages were correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, provides:

Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the 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 reclusion perpetua to 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 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.

This is the provision that supplies the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, which the Court found alleged and proved in this case.

Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9346 provides:

Section 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed: (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

This provision required the reduction of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua.

Section 3 of the same law provides:

Section 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

This provision explains why the accused, though spared the death penalty, may not be released on parole.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt. It laid down three guiding principles in rape cases: an accusation of rape can be made with facility and is difficult to disprove; since only two persons are usually involved, the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with great caution; and the prosecution's evidence must stand or fall on its own merits. Applying these, the Court found AAA's testimony clear, credible, and convincing. Her sole testimony is sufficient to convict, and it was corroborated by the medical report showing fresh hymenal lacerations, which the Court called the best evidence of forcible defloration. Against this, the accused offered only bare denial, which is intrinsically weak and cannot outweigh the positive testimony of a rape victim.

On the second issue, the Court held that the inconsistencies in AAA's testimony concerned only the alleged rape of 9 November 2001, which was separate and distinct from the rape of 12 November 2001. What mattered was the consistency of her narration of the second rape. The Court stressed that testimonies of young and immature rape victims deserve full credence, since youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth, and no girl of tender age would concoct a story of defloration and submit to a public trial unless motivated by the desire for justice. The trial court's assessment of credibility is conclusive and binding absent arbitrariness or oversight of some fact of weight and influence.

On the third issue, the Court held that the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were both alleged in the information and proved during trial. Minority was established by the Certificate of Live Birth showing AAA was eleven years old on 12 November 2001. As to relationship, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that BBB and CCC were one and the same person. The victim declared that the accused was her mother's live-in partner, and her mother identified him as her live-in partner. The accused's reliance on his claim that his common-law wife was CCC was fatal to his cause, since he could easily have presented CCC if she were truly a different person.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly convicted him of qualified rape and that the death penalty was properly reduced to reclusion perpetua under Republic Act No. 9346, without eligibility for parole under Section 3. The awards of 75,000 pesos each for civil indemnity and moral damages were proper, since that amount is awarded when the crime is qualified by circumstances warranting the death penalty, and moral damages are granted without need of pleading or proof of basis.

Doctrine

First, the elements of statutory rape are that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman and that the woman is below twelve years of age. Sexual congress with a girl under twelve is always rape, and proof of force is not an element, because absence of free consent is presumed.

Second, for a conviction of qualified rape, at least one of the qualifying circumstances in Article 266-B must be alleged in the information and duly proved during trial. Minority is proved by the Certificate of Live Birth, and relationship by the testimony of the victim and her mother identifying the accused as the common-law spouse of the parent.

Third, the testimony of a young and immature rape victim deserves full credence, and her sole testimony, when credible and corroborated by medical findings of hymenal lacerations, is sufficient to convict. Bare denial, being a negative and self-serving assertion, cannot prevail over positive testimony.

Fourth, where the crime is qualified by circumstances warranting the death penalty, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua under Republic Act No. 9346, without eligibility for parole, and civil indemnity and moral damages of 75,000 pesos each are awarded.

Disposition

The appeal was denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, and Elister Basmayor stands convicted of qualified rape, sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered to pay 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 75,000 pesos as moral damages, and 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: youth and immaturity are badges of truth, so the credible sole testimony of a child rape victim, corroborated by fresh hymenal lacerations, suffices to convict for qualified rape when minority and relationship are alleged and proved. Examiners use this case to test the elements of statutory rape, the requirement that qualifying circumstances be both alleged and proved, and the effect of Republic Act No. 9346 in reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua without parole.