G.R. No. 75267. September 10, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARLOS DELA CRUZ Y VENANCIO ALIAS “BOSYO”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FELICIANO, J.:
There are not many crimes more morally repugnant than the sexual
violation of a young child. This case
involves such a crime: rape committed,
with the bravado of evil, in a place dedicated to prayer and worship of the
Supreme Being. Accused appellant was
charged with raping a 7-year old girl in Criminal Case No. SM-2219 in a
complaint which read as follows:
“Criminal
Complaint
The undersigned complainant, Marciano Venancio, father of the minor, Brigida
Venancio, accuses Carlos dela
Cruz y Venancio alias ‘Bosyo‘
of the crime of rape, penalized under the provisions of paragraph 3, Art. 335
of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
That on or about the 6th day of September, 1980, in the
municipality of Sta. Maria, province of Bulacan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused Carlos dela Cruz y Venancio
alias ‘Bosyo‘, with lewd designs, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge
with a seven-year old girl, Brigida C. Venancio, against her will and consent committed with force
and violence.
Contrary to law.”1
(Underscoring supplied)
The accused during arraignment pleaded not guilty. After trial and in due course of time, on 20 February 1985, the trial court
rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which
stated:
“WHEREFORE, finding the accused Carlos dela
Cruz y Venancio, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 335(3) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, he is hereby sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua. He
is furthermore ordered to indemnify the victim Brigida
Venancio, in the amount of P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.”2
The evidence of the prosecution tended to establish the
following:
At about 8:00 o’clock p.m.
on 6 September 1980, Brigida Venancio — then barely
seven (7) years old3
— was walking through a heavy rain, alone and without an umbrella, bound for
her grandparents’ house. While Brigida was passing by the Chapel in Sta. Cruz, Sta. Maria,
Bulacan, the accused Carlos dela
Cruz y Venancio, a blood relative of Brigida (the record does not disclose in what civil
degree), suddenly reached out from the doorway and grabbed Brigida’s
arm and pulled her inside the Chapel. In
the Chapel, where it was dark the lights being off, the accused led her to the
last pew, pinned her down on the pew and removed her panty.4 Accused also removed his pants and
immediately introjected or sought to introject his penis into little Brigida’s
private organ. While so engaged, the accused covered Brigida’s
mouth with his one hand and twisted her arm with his other arm. Accused succeeded in placing his organ on top
and at least partially into Brigida’s private part.5
Shortly, thereafter, while the two (2) lay down on the pew, head to head, with
panty and pants on, respectively, two (2) young parishioners Luzviminda Mendoza and Marilou Carpio, entered the Chapel for a scheduled prayer rally and
switched on the lights. Luzviminda Mendoza saw Brigida,
who immediately stood up almost simultaneously with the accused, dazed and
soaking wet.6
Another parishioner Mrs. Francisca Mendoza, Brigida’s
teacher in Grade I primary school, arrived in the Chapel a little later. She
too saw Brigida and the accused and wondered why she
was still abroad rather than at home at such a late hour.7 Mrs. Mendoza advised Brigida to go home immediately which Brigida
did. On her way back to her parents’
house, Brigida met Luzviminda
Mendoza’s father, Mang Domeng,
who on noticing her dazed condition accompanied her home to her doorstep.8
After the rally, Luzviminda who was an
aunt of Brigida, did not go home directly but went to
the house of Brigida’s parents9 and asked the mother why Brigida was soaking wet and still not at home at that late
hour. After Luzviminda
had left, the mother asked Brigida what had
happened. Brigida
then told her mother she had been violated by Carlos “Bosyo”
dela Cruz.10
The next day, 7 September 1980, Brigida
and her parents and accompanied by Marilou Carpio went to the office of the Police Station Commander
of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, and reported the rape of Brigida by the accused and had the matter reflected on the
police blotter.11
In the afternoon of the same day, Brigida was brought
by her parents to the National Bureau of Investigation (“NBI”) office
in Manila for medical examination.12
The examination was conducted by Dr. Nieto M. Salvador who issued a Medico
Legal Report dated 7 September 1980
which set forth the following
“F
I N D I N G S
General Physical Examination:
Height: 67 cms. Weight: 20 kgs.
Normally developed, fairly nourished, conscious, coherent,
cooperative, ambulatory subject.
Breasts infantile.
No evident sign of extragenital physical
injuries noted.
Genital Examination:
Pubic hair, absent. Labia majora and minora, coaptated. Fourchette, tense.
Vestibule, reddish and congested.
Hymen, intact. Hymenal orifice, minular admits a
tube 0.5 c.m. in diameter.
Conclusion:
Hymen intact.”13
Brigida’s parents, however, did not
think very much of the medical examination conducted by Dr. Salvador. Brigida’s mother
later testified in court that she believed the examination had been done
hurriedly and cursorily and haphazardly.14 Notwithstanding the conclusion of
Dr. Salvador’s report that Brigida’s “hymen
[was] intact”, Brigida’s parents were determined
to pursue their complaint on behalf of Brigida. They were not, however, able to lodge one
immediately against the accused, since the police investigator was not in his
office whenever they went to the police station.15 Thus, on 18 September 1980, Brigida
and her mother went to the Philippine Constabulary Criminal Investigation
Service (“CIS”) at Camp Crame for assistance. There, Brigida was
again examined by PC Medico-Legal officer Dr. Desiderio
Moraleda who made the following
“FINDINGS:
General and Extragenital:
Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female
subject. Breasts are undeveloped. Abdomen is flat and tight. There are not external signs of recent
application of any form of trauma.
Genital:
There is absence of pubic hair.
Labia majora are full, convex and gaping with
the pale brown labia minora presenting in
between. On separating the same are
disclosed a congested vulvar mucosa, a tight and
intact fourchette and an elastic, fleshy-type hymen
with a deep, healed laceration at 6 and shallow, healed laceration at 3 and 9 o’clock.
External vaginal orifice offers strong resistance to the introduction of
the examining index finger.
Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are
negative for gram-negative diplococci and for
spermatozoa.
Remarks:
Subject is in non-virgin state physically.”16
The defense’s version of the facts was simply that the rape never
happened. The accused testified that he
had come from work and stopped by and stayed at the Chapel waiting for the rain
to stop.17
He dozed off, he said, and upon waking up, found a child sleeping on a pew some
little distance from where he himself had fallen asleep. He testified that he saw Mrs. Francisca
Mendoza talk to the child; that he had not done anything to Brigida;
that he had not inserted his organ into Brigida’s
private part; and he had not removed her panty nor lain on top of her.18
The accused’s bare denial was not
corroborated by any other witness. Luzviminda Mendoza’s testimony, even if presented by the
defense, strongly suggested that something out of the ordinary had happened on
the evening of 6 September 1980 inside the Sta. Cruz Chapel; for, as noted, she
proceeded to Brigida’s home right after the prayer
rally, indicating that finding the child Brigida with
the accused in the Chapel in such a condition — soaked to the skin and dazed
— had aroused her concern.
Upon the other hand, the testimony of the child Brigida in open court was starkly simple and
straightforward. She said:
“Atty. Regalado:
Q: Brigida, do you know a person by the name of
Carlos dela Cruz or ‘Bosyo‘?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: If
he is inside this courtroom, can you point to him?
A: That
man (witness pointing to a man who responded to the name of Carlos dela Cruz).
x x x x x x x x x
Q: Ida,
you earlier said that you have a complaint please tell us what that complaint
was? You are complaining against whom?
A: Bosyo, sir.
Q: Why? Ida, did you also complain to your mother
about Bosyo?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
did you complain to your mother about?
A: Bosyo undressed me, sir.
Q: Are
you also making the same complaint here or what?
A: The
same, sir.
x x x x x
x x
x x
Court:
Proceed.
[Atty. Regalado:]
Q: On
the night that you reported to your mother, what exactly did you tell your
mother on the night you reported it to your mother?
A: That
Bosyo ‘hinubaran po ako ni
Bosyo at inilabas niya ang kanyang
titi at inilagay sa kiki ko
po‘.
Q: What
else did he do to you?
A: He
covered my mouth with his hands.
Q: What
else?
A: He
twisted my arm, sir.
Q: Will
you please show the Honorable Court how your arm was twisted by the accused?
A: This
way, sir. (Witness holding her right
wrist by her left hand and twisting the same.)
Q: Now
Bosyo you said ‘hinubaran
ka . . .’
Court:
Was the panty removed?
Atty. Hernandez:
We agree to that
translation, your Honor.
Court:
Go ahead.
Atty. Regalado:
Q: When
Bosyo pulled down your panty, will you please state
before this Honorable Court how he put down your panty?
A: (Witness
showing that her panty was being put down.)
Q: When
your panty was down already, what did Bosyo do, if
any?
A: He
put his penis on my vagina, sir.
(Witness demonstrated by movements)
Court:
Were you sitting or
standing at the time or were you lying?
A: I
was lying sir.
Q: And
how did he do it?
A: (Witness
demonstrated the manner how Bosyo laid on top of
her.)
Court:
Proceed:
Atty. Regalado:
Q: At
the time, what place was that where you said you were lying?
A: On
a long bench, sir.
Q: Approximately,
if you can remember what time was that in the evening?
A: Around
8:30 in the evening, sir.
Q: Where
did the incident happen?
A: Inside
the chapel, sir.
Q: You
said chapel, what chapel was that?
A: Sta.
Cruz, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, sir.
Court:
Aside from you and Bosyo, were there other persons there?
A: None,
sir.
Atty. Regalado:
Q: How
many minutes did this Bosyo had the opportunity of
putting his penis in your vagina?
A: Quite
a few seconds, sir.
x x x x
x x x x x”19
(Underscoring supplied)
The trial court which heard Brigida’s
testimony from beginning to end, found that her statements had the ring of
truth and were convincing. The trial
court said:
“The Court is not unmindful of that judicial pronouncement
deeply embedded in jurisprudence that the accusation for rape is easily made,
hard to prove, but harder to be defended by the party accused, though
innocent. (U.S.
v. Flores, 26 Phil. 262). In this case, however, it is inconceivable
and it is extremely difficult for the Court to believe that a seven year old girl,
unmotivated and so blissfully innocent, could concoct a narration such as she
testified to in Court. That she did not complain to her Aunt or to
her teacher when the two found her in the Chapel with the accused is
understandable. She was so young, just a
child. She must have been shocked by
what has been done to her by the accused.
No wonder she was speechless. She
could not comprehend what happened. The
pain in her vagina when she urinated upon reaching home however must have been
such that constrained her to tell her mother what the accused did to her.
Against the narration of a guileless 7 year old girl, the mere
denial and protestation of innocence of a 25 year old man cannot prevail. The Court is thoroughly convinced of the
truth of Brigida Venancio’s
story. No more need be said.”20
(Underscoring supplied)
We find no basis for disagreeing with the
evaluation of the trial court.
The appellant, however, insists that the charge against him had not
been established beyond reasonable doubt.
He urges that there is significant variance between the result of the
medical examination conducted on Brigida by the NBI
doctor, Dr. Nieto M. Salvador, who found Brigida’s
hymen to have been “intact” and the result of the examination
conducted a few days later by the Philippine Constabulary CIS physician, Dr. Desiderio Moraleda who concluded
that Brigida was then “in a non-virgin
state”. Accused submits that the
finding of Dr. Salvador should prevail over that of Dr. Moraleda
since the findings of the former were obtained barely twenty-four (24) hours
after the alleged rape had occurred while Dr. Moraleda
examined Brigida some eleven (11) days after the
violation. Accused further argues that
even assuming the truth of Brigida’s testimony in
open court, such testimony indicated that the accused’s
male member was merely placed on top of the private part of the victim Brigida and had not passed into it,21
and that there was no proof at all that his male member had penetrated into the
female opening of the victim.
Apropos the above argument, we note, firstly, that medical
findings are not indispensable in the prosecution of the crime of rape.22
We note, secondly, that the fact that a woman’s hymen is found intact does not
show that there had been no penetration by an accused’s
male organ. It is well-settled doctrine
that the slightest penetration of the pudenda is quite sufficient for the
consummation of the crime of rape. In People
v. Abonada,23
the Court pointed out that “the medical finding that the hymen is intact
does not negate rape. Penetration of the
penis by entry into the lips of the female organ even without rupture or
laceration of the hymen suffices to warrant conviction for rape”.24
Moreover, Dr. Salvador testified that he had found physical evidence of
“manipulation” of the vagina or the vestibule thereof, which is
consistent with entry into the lips of the female part of Brigida:
“Court:
Q: You
use the word manipulation, what was manipulated?
A: The
attempt to insert a finger or in some other cases wherein the man attempts
to insert his erected penis on the child whose genitalia is not yet ripe,
with that particular act, there is no way that the penis can go inside the vaginal
opening because at this age, the vaginal opening is still narrow, normal,
.5 cms.
Q: In
this particular case of Brigida, there were signs
that there were manipulations?
A: I
think so because the appearance is reddish which is not normal, it should
be pinkish.”25
(Underscoring supplied)
Dr. Moraleda’s
finding, upon the other hand, was that Brigida’s
hymen had in fact been lacerated, showing that there must have been some
penetration. The fact that Dr. Moraleda’s examination of Brigida
took place eleven (11) days after the examination by Dr. Salvador does not
impair the credit worthiness of Dr. Moraleda’s
findings. It is important to note,
moreover, that the testimony of the child Brigida
herself is quite consistent with the findings and testimony of both Dr.
Salvador and Dr. Moraleda that there had been some
penetration at least of the labia of Brigida’s female
part. Brigida’s
testimony stated, in relevant part:
“Court:
Q: Ida,
you said he put his penis into your vagina, does his penis get into your vagina
or not?
A: Only
on top, sir.
Q: It
did not go in?
A: No,
sir.
Q: And
did you feel any pain or you did not feel any pain?
A: Yes,
sir. I felt pain, sir.
Q: Why
did you feel pain, what pain? Where
was the pain on your vagina or your body as a whole?
A: In
my vagina, sir.
Q: Was
medical report?
Fiscal:
The record of the fiscal’s office show there were two medical examinations.
Court:
Q: Ida,
you said a short time did you urinate at that time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What
about this Bosyo did he urinate?
A: No,
sir.
Q: How
do you know you urinated?
A: (Witness
does not answer.)
Q: Did
you know whether something came out from the penis of Bosyo?
A: Sticky
fluid and dropped on my thigh.
Q: But
you said you urinated, when did you urinate at the time or when?
A: When
I went home, sir.
Q: Did
you notice any or rather did you notice whether or not there was blood around
the area of your vagina?
A: No,
sir.”26
(Underscoring supplied)
Brigida’s
statement that she had felt pain in her private part would have been
incomprehensible if there had been absolutely no penetration, not even of the
labia, by the accused’s male organ. It appears to the Court, that the 7-year old Brigida was much too young to be capable of distinguishing
between the penis merely lying outside the vagina and on top of the pubes, from
the erect penis poking into the labia in the effort to get into the vaginal
canal, but being unable to do so because of the unripe or infantile condition
of the canal. We agree with the
conclusion of the trial court that there had in fact been some penetration at
least of the labia and that consequently, the crime that was committed was
consummated rape.
It was proven at the trial that the violation of the child Brigida took place in the Sta. Cruz Chapel in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, a building dedicated to and actively used for
religious worship. The criminal
information did not apparently specify the place of the commission of the
rape. Nonetheless, the trial court could
have and should have found the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance
of commission of the offense in a place dedicated to religious worship.27
The trial court made no mention of such aggravating circumstance in its
decision. Because the appropriately
imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua
is an indivisible penalty, and was in fact imposed by the trial court, the
finding that we here make of the presence of this generic aggravating
circumstance, does not impact upon the imposable penalty.28
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court dated 20 February 1985 must be, as it is
hereby, AFFIRMED. Costs against
appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), on leave.
2
Trial Court Decision, p. 9; Rollo, p.
32.
3
Brigida was born on 4 December 1973. See Certificate of Live Birth, Record, p.
282.
4
TSN, 2 February 1981, pp.
10-12; 4 May 1982, pp. 4-5.
5
Id., p. 13.
6
TSN, 9 August 1984, p. 4.
7 TSN, 6 July 1984, pp. 4-6.
8
TSN, 4 May 1982, p. 15.
9
Id., p. 9.
10
TSN, 12 November 1982, pp.
3-4.
11 Id.,
pp. 7-8.
12 TSN, 25
April 1983, pp. 6-7.
13 Folder of Exhibits, p. 1.
14 TSN, 25
April 1983, pp. 10-11.
15 Id.,
p. 7.
16 Record, p. 286.
17 TSN, 7
September 1984, p. 5.
18 Id.,
pp. 12-14.
19 Trial Court Decision, pp. 2-4; Rollo,
pp. 25-27.
20 Id.,
p. 8; Rollo, p. 31.
21 TSN, 2
February 1981, pp. 10-31.
22 People v. Orteza,
6 SCRA 109 (1962).
23 169 SCRA 530 (1989).
24 169 SCRA at 534.
25 Trial Court Decision, p. 6; Rollo,
p. 29.
26 TSN, 2
February 1981, pp. 3-14.
27 Article 14 (5), Revised Penal Code. See also People v. De Guzman, 164 SCRA
215 (1988); People v. Soriano, 134 SCRA 542
(1985); People v. Tapac, 28 SCRA 191 (1969);
People v. Martinez Godinez, 106 Phil. 597
(1959).
28 Article 63, Revised Penal Code.