PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJIE RESURRECCION, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Resurreccion

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Benjie Resurreccion, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The accused was the household helper of the victim's family, and the victim was a girl of tender age. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a compact restatement of how the Court weighs a child's testimony in a crime committed in secrecy. Second, it settles that the absence of sperm cells and the absence of hymenal lacerations do not negate rape, because the slightest penetration consummates the offense. A reviewee should keep this case beside the statutory rape doctrine and the rules on credibility of witnesses.

Procedural History

Benjie Resurreccion was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Branch 8, with rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353. He pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty of simple rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the victim 50,000 pesos as damages, plus the costs of suit.

Benjie appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the penalty but modified the award of damages, ordering him to pay 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and another 50,000 pesos as moral damages. Benjie then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal. The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals in full.

Facts

The victim was born on 26 December 1988 and was only 11 years old when the incident took place. Benjie lived in the victim's house as a helper. In the late afternoon of 5 December 2000, the victim was going downstairs after closing the windows on the second floor. Benjie suddenly grabbed her arm, covered her mouth with his hand, dragged her into her room, and pinned her down on the bed. He removed her short pants, her underwear, and her shirt. She struggled and kicked him, but he succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. She felt pain. After the act, he warned her not to tell anyone, or something would happen to her.

On 6 December 2000, afraid that Benjie would abuse her again and with her mother away, the victim reported the matter to her aunt, who relayed it to her mother. The incident was reported to the police, and the victim was taken for medical examination. The physician examined her only on 7 December 2000, two days after the incident. The examination showed no laceration of the external organ or hymen and no spermatozoa in the vagina. The physician explained that if the hymen is elastic and thin, as in the victim's case, laceration may not be present, and that the absence of spermatozoa could be due to washing, especially since the examination came two days later.

For his part, Benjie denied the charge. He claimed that the victim and her parents falsely accused him because he often quarreled with the victim and was scolded for it, and because the family suspected him of stealing 8,000 pesos.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Benjie had carnal knowledge of the victim.
• Whether or not the victim's testimony deserves credence despite the accused's claim that the position he allegedly took made the rape improbable.
• Whether or not the absence of sperm cells and of hymenal lacerations negates the commission of rape.
• Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of damages were correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353, defines and penalizes rape. The Court applied it as the charging provision, and the conviction rests on the carnal knowledge it punishes:

Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. — 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; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

Subparagraph (d) is the heart of this case, because the victim was below twelve years old, which makes the offense statutory rape.

The Court also relied on the settled definition of statutory rape under the third paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as it then stood, which it quoted in the decision:

The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape as provided under Article 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years old.

This definition fixes the elements the prosecution had to prove and explains why force or intimidation need not be established.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution proved carnal knowledge beyond reasonable doubt. It laid down the elements of statutory rape in these words:

The only elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such woman is under 12 years of age. It is not necessary to prove that the victim was intimidated or that force was used against her because in statutory rape the law presumes that the victim, on account of her tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her own.

The Court noted that although the prosecution proposed during pre-trial to admit that the victim was 12 years old, the pre-trial order was silent on whether the defense concurred, so there was no categorical admission. During trial, however, without objection from the defense, the prosecution presented the victim's testimony and her birth certificate proving she was below twelve. The crime was therefore statutory rape, and the only remaining question was whether Benjie had carnal knowledge of her.

On the second issue, the Court found the victim's testimony candid and straightforward. It stressed that rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or secrecy, so the victim's credibility is almost always the single most important issue, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may justifiably be convicted on its basis. Against the victim's positive declaration, Benjie offered only denial, uncorroborated by any witness or document. The Court held that the allegedly difficult position, with one hand covering the victim's mouth and the other pinning her down, did not exclude the possibility of consummating the rape, especially since the victim was a fragile 11-year-old and the accused was used to manual labor and was already 18 or 19 years old. The Court also rejected the claim of ill motive, observing that no parent would expose a daughter to the shame of such a charge for flimsy reasons.

On the third issue, the Court held that the absence of spermatozoa and of lacerations did not negate rape. It ruled that the slightest penetration, even without emission, is sufficient to consummate the offense, and that the mere touching of the labia by the male organ consummates the act. Where the victim is a child, the absence of deep penetration and an intact hymen do not negate rape, and hymenal lacerations are not an element of the crime. The physician's explanation that the hymen was elastic and thin, and that the two-day delay could account for the absence of sperm cells, supported the conviction.

On the fourth issue, the Court affirmed the penalty. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, and the awards of 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages were in order.

Doctrine

First, the gravamen of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age. The elements are carnal knowledge and the victim's age; force or intimidation need not be proved, because the law presumes that a child of tender age does not and cannot have a will of her own.

Second, the slightest penetration consummates rape. Emission is not required, and the mere touching of the labia by the male organ suffices. The absence of sperm cells and the absence of hymenal lacerations do not negate the offense, because lacerations are not an element of rape.

Third, in a crime committed in secrecy, the victim's credibility is almost always the single most important issue. If her testimony meets the test of credibility, conviction may rest on it alone, and it prevails over the accused's uncorroborated denial. Findings of the trial court on credibility are accorded great respect absent overlooked facts that would materially affect the result.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals, finding Benjie Resurreccion guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the victim 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and another 50,000 pesos as moral damages.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the slightest penetration, even without emission, consummates rape, and that hymenal lacerations are not an element of the crime. Examiners use this case to test statutory rape under Article 266-A, the weight of a child's lone testimony, and the rule that denial cannot overcome a positive and credible declaration.