PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO GARCIA Y NIEVEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Before Us is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of the National Capital Region, Branch 170, Malabon,
Metro Manila, finding the accused Rolando Garcia guilty of the crime of Rape
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, to indemnify Cecilia Padua and her parents
in the sum of P20,000.00, as moral damages, and to pay
the costs.  (pp.
234-239, 240 Rec.).

Accused Rolando Garcia is charged by Rossana
Padua with having committed the crime of rape on her eight-month old daughter,
Cecilia Padua, on February 21, 1984.  Cecilia Padua was born on June 18, 1983, as evidenced by her
birth certificate.  (Exh. “D”)

The evidence for the prosecution shows that at about 8:00 in the
morning of February 21, 1984, Deogracias Padua
entrusted his 8-month old daughter, Cecilia, to the care of his grandmother, Josefa Mangali, at 56 Rivera St.,
Tanong, Malabon, because he
had to go to work at Navotas and his wife, Rossana, was busy washing clothes at their residence at Disierto, Tanong, Malabon.  The companion of Josefa
Mangali in the house at the time was the accused, who
was then jobless and living in the said house, together with his wife, Venus
Padua, a sister of Deogracias Padua and a
granddaughter of Josefa Mangali.  Josefa Mangali took care of Cecilia Padua, but later in the day,
she left the child with the accused because she had to go to Maysilo, Malabon, with
instruction to the accused to bring the child home when she wakes up.  The child
was then sleeping in a hammock on the ground floor.

It appears that Deogracias Padua had
returned to the house of Josefa Mangali
at about 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon to pick up his daughter.  Josefa Mangali was not at
home.  Deogracias
Padua saw the accused sleeping outside his (accused) bedroom while his daughter
was crying inside said bedroom.  He
noticed blood at the buttocks of his daughter, wiped it with a wet cloth, and
took the child home.  Upon seeing her
daughter, Rossana Padua noticed that there were burns
on the face and left leg of Cecilia and found blood on her rectum.  Deogracias Padua
surmised that Cecilia might have fallen from the cradle.  Subsequently, however, they noticed blood
flowing from the vagina of Cecilia.  They
brought her to Dr. Albert Reyes, who advised them to bring the child to a
hospital.  They brought Cecilia to the Malabon Puericulture Center
where she was examined by a nurse, who found bruises on the private organ of Cecilia, and advised them to
report the matter to the police.  After
reporting the matter to the Malabon Police Station, Rossana Padua accompanied three policemen to the residence
of the accused and found the latter drinking with some companions.  The policemen arrested the accused.  Cecilia Padua was brought by her parents to
the Caloocan General
Hospital for examination but the
hospital refused to issue a medical certificate.  A letter-request, dated February 21, 1984, was then prepared by P/Lt.
Dante M. Buenaventura of the Malabon Police Station,
addressed to the Commanding Officer of the PC Crime Laboratory at Camp
Crame, Quezon City for the physical
examination of Cecilia Padua (Exh.
“B”).  After
securing the written consent of Rossana Padua for the
PC Crime Laboratory to conduct an examination on the person of Cecilia Padua (Exh. “C”), said examination was conducted
by Major Dario L. Gajardo, medico?legal
examiner, who submitted a report (Exh. “A”)
on his findings and conclusions, as follows:

“GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:

‘Fairly developed, fairly nourished female subject.  Breast are
undeveloped.  Abdomen is flat and
tight.  The following injuries are noted
at the head and lower extremity:

‘(1) Violet contusion, frontal region, measuring 3 by 3 cm., along the anterior midline.

‘(2) Violet contusion, left cheek, measuring 6 by 5 cm., 2 by 4 cm., 3 cm. lateral to its anterior midline.

“GENITAL:

There is absence of pubic hair. 
Labia majora are reddish and edematous.  On separating the same are disclosed an
elastic, fleshy-type hymen with deep fresh laceration at 6 o’clock and a
lacerated posterior fourchette.

‘Peri-urethral smears are negative for
gram-negative diplococci and for spermatozoa.

“CONCLUSION:

‘Subject is in non-Virgin state physically.

‘Barring unforeseen
complication, it is estimated that the above injuries will resolve in 14 to 16
days.”

(pp. 45-46, Rollo)

Upon the other hand, the version of the defense consists mainly of denials.  Rolando Garcia denies the crime imputed to
him (p. 7 tsn, April 10, 1986) and denies having seen
the baby that whole day of February
21, 1984 (p. 9 tsn, April
10, 1986).

On November 16,1987, the trial court rendered a decision
convicting the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape.  The dispositive
portion of the said decision reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused
Rolando Garcia y Nieves guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify Cecilia Padua and her parents in the sum of P20,000.00
as moral damages and to pay the
costs.

“SO ORDERED. (Rollo,
p. 38)

Not satisfied with the aforesaid decision, the accused interposed
this appeal, and assigned the following errors, to wit:

“I

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT
CONCLUSIVELY SHOW THAT THE CHILD WAS A VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT.

“II

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT ON THE BASIS OF WEAK CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.” (Rollo,
p. 38, Appellant’s Brief)

Appellant asserts that the court a quo erred in not finding that the
physical evidence does not conclusively show that the baby was a victim of sexual assault.  He claims that the trial court relied solely
on the Medico Legal Report (Exh. “A”)
in concluding that Cecilia Padua, an eight month old baby, was a rape victim.
(p. 6, Appellant’s Brief)

The examining doctor testifying as an expert witness said that
the laceration of the hymen indicated in his report, could have possibly been
caused by sexual intercourse (90%) and finger-insertion (10%); that the said
laceration of the fourchette, which was almost up to
the anus, is very typical in sexual intercourse; and that it was possible that
the penis entered the vaginal canal because of the extent of the laceration of
the hymen (pp. 5-9, tsn., July 24, 1984).

The appellant would want it to appear that the findings as stated
in the medical examination report are defective factually and legally wanting
to sustain the theory that the child was
sexually abused (p. 7, Appellant’s Brief).  Such assertions of the appellant do not merit
a reversal of the judgment appealed from. 
The jurisprudential rule
states that it is not even necessary that there should be a medical examination
of the victim in rape cases.  A medical
examination is not an indispensable requisite. 
(People v. Carandang, 52 SCRA
[1973]).

The fact is that the subject (Cecilia Padua) is already in a
non-virgin state physically, as attested to by the examining doctor.  The conclusion of a sexual assault
perpetrated upon her becomes very clear and outweighs greatly the presumption that
the loss of virginity may have been due to finger insertion.  It cannot
be disputed therefore that indeed rape was committed against the eight-month
old Cecilia Padua considering the medical finding that the labia majora were reddish and edematous and that
the hymen was deeply lacerated.

With regard to the second assignment of error, appellant faults
the court a quo for finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the
basis of weak circumstantial evidence.

Appellant argues that the trial court had conceded that there was no direct evidence pointing to him as the malefactor and
yet it found him guilty based on circumstantial evidence.

By the very nature of the crimes against chastity, generally only
two persons are involved – the
victim and the offender.  Seldom, if
ever, is there an eyewitness to the commission of the crime.  In the instant case, the offended victim was
only eight months old when the heinous crime was committed, and obviously
cannot testify on the crime committed against her.

The trial court enumerated the series of circumstantial evidence,
to wit:

“1. That Josefa Mangali
entrusted Cecilia Padua to the care of the appellant that fateful day of February 21, 1984;

“2. That appellant was the only person with Cecilia Padua that
afternoon of February 21, 1984;

“3. That appellant
had the smell of liquor;

“4. That Cecilia Padua
who was sleeping in a hammock on the ground floor of the house when entrusted
to the care of the appellant, was subsequently found
by her father inside the bedroom of the appellant at the second floor.  (pp. 8-9, Appellant’s
Brief).

The first, third, and fourth circumstances were testified to by
the prosecution witnesses, and, appellant disputes only the second
circumstantial evidence, claiming that it was not supported by evidence and
consequently the same has no probative value (supra).

The assertion made by the appellant with regard to the second
circumstantial evidence is obviously devoid of merit.  There are circumstances which strongly
militate against appellant’s pretenses.

The evidence on record is clear that at the time Deogracias Padua came back that afternoon of February 21,
1984 to fetch his infant daughter, the only person he noticed inside his
grandmother’s house was the appellant who at that time was outside his bedroom, sleeping, while his daughter Cecilia was
inside the bedroom of the appellant at the second floor (pp. 4, 5, tsn., January 30, 1986). 
If it were true that appellant was
not alone and that there were other persons at that time, Deogracias naturally could have inquired from any of them
as to what probably caused the blood stains in the area of the buttocks of his
infant daughter.

Appellant claims to have been sleeping the whole day of February 21, 1984 until three o’clock that afternoon and was totally
unaware of the presence of the baby in the household (pp. 7, 9, tsn., April 10, 1986).  If that were true, it does not stand to
reason why appellant failed to contradict or rebut the first circumstantial
evidence to the effect that, Josefa Mangali had entrusted to him the baby that day of February 21, 1984 (p. 3, tsn., September 27, 1985).

Another point is that, if it were really true that there were
other persons in the household that afternoon, as claimed by the appellant, he
should have presented his wife, Venus Padua, to corroborate his testimony that
Cecilia Padua was not brought to their house that day.  It seems incredible that the wife of the
accused would not testify for her husband and defend him from a very serious
accusation if it were true that she was with him in their house on February 21, 1984 and that Cecilia
Padua was not brought to their house that day.

In addition, the accused himself admits that he knows of no
reason why Josefa Mangali
and Deogracias Padua would testify against him (tsn., April 10, 1986, p. 16).

And lastly, and more importantly, Cecilia was found sleeping
inside the bedroom of the accused at the second floor contradicting his earlier
statement that he was totally unaware of the presence of the baby in the
household.

The trial court, therefore, did not commit a reversible error
when it rendered the judgment of conviction predicated on circumstantial
evidence against the accused.

WHEREFORE, finding the acused
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE, the decision appealed from
is hereby AFFIRMED with costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.