G.R. No. 88402. June 15, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, VS. JOHNPET MACALINO Y CALDERON, ACCUSED/APPELLANT.
FELICIANO, J.:
Elizabeth Baldovino, on behalf of her very young daughter Erlinda
C. Baldovino, filed a complaint for rape against accused-appellant Johnpet C.
Macalino before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 156, in Criminal Case
No. 72966, committed as follows:
“That on or about the 27th day of March 1988, in the Municipality
of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused [Johnpet Macalino y Calderon], with
lewd design and by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with a two (2)
year old girl, Erlinda C. Baldovino, without her consent and against her will.
Contrary to law.”[1]
The evidence presented by the People tended to establish the
following facts:
Complainant, with two (2) very young children, one of whom is the
two-year old victim Erlinda, resides in a rented room on the second floor of an
apartment building at No. 26, Sitio Sto. Niño, Pasig, Metro Manila. The room is divided into two (2) parts with
furniture forming the dividing line: one part encloses the complainant’s and her children’s sleeping
quarters; while the other part alternately serves as complainant’s receiving
area, dining area and servant’s sleeping quarters.
On the evening of 27 March 1988, at around 9:00 o’clock,
appellant Macalino, accompanied by one Ronnie Onoya, went to the complainant’s
apartment building. Appellant Macalino,
seeing complainant in the ground floor of the apartment building doing her
laundry, approached her and inquired as to the whereabouts of his sister
Librada Macalino. Complainant replied
that Librada was no longer in her employ as a domestic helper, she having
apparently left for her home province. Complainant Elizabeth then requested appellant Macalino to fetch her
some additional water for her laundry work. Macalino complied with her request.
Upon his return from where the water faucet was located,
appellant Macalino asked Elizabeth for permission to gather up his belongings
which might have been left behind by his sister Librada.[2]
Elizabeth allowed appellant Macalino to go upstairs to gather his things; she
stayed downstairs continuing with her laundry work. Macalino’s companion, Ronnie Onoya, stayed outside the apartment
building. At that time in the evening,
Elizabeth’s two (2) children aged one (1) and two (2) years, respectively, had
already been put to bed: the younger
one occupied a crib, while Erlinda the victim was sleeping on Elizabeth’s bed.[3]
About fifteen (15) minutes after appellant Macalino had gone
upstairs to complainant’s rented room to put together his belongings,
complainant Elizabeth heard “a loud deep cry” of her daughter Erlinda. Elizabeth immediately left her laundry work
and hurried up to her room. There,
Elizabeth saw the accused near Erlinda, buttoning up his pants. Upon seeing her mother, Erlinda ran towards
complainant, naked waist down, crying and urinating at the same time. As she touched the buttocks of Erlinda,
Elizabeth felt some sticky fluid thereon and noticed some blood on the child’s
private parts. Elizabeth tried to comfort
her daughter by hugging her and asking her what was wrong; the latter pointed
to her private part.
Complainant Elizabeth thereupon turned to appellant Macalino and
furiously demanded to know what he had done to Erlinda and where the child’s
underwear was. Appellant Macalino
answered “Wala, wala akong ginawa!” (Nothing, I did not do anything!)
and “Andiyan, andiyan!” (There, there!), referring to Erlinda’s
underwear. All the while, appellant
Macalino was buttoning his pants, fixing his clothes and moving around,
apparently looking for a fan knife that he owned.[4]
Elizabeth asked appellant Macalino to leave her apartment; the latter
apparently refused to do so. Later,
complainant’s lessor, named Ester, arrived and sizing up the situation, asked
and convinced Macalino to leave the apartment house.
The next day, 28 March 1988, complainant Elizabeth brought the
child Erlinda to the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory Service at Camp
Crame, Quezon City for physical examination. Dr. Dario Gajardo, the examining physician, rendered a medico legal
report which contained the following findings and conclusions:
“FINDINGS:
GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:
Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female
subject. Breasts are undeveloped. Abdomen is flat and soft.
There is absence of pubic hair, Labia majora are full, convex and
coaptated with the pinkish labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same are disclosed a
congested vulvar mucosa and an elastic, fleshy type hymen with shallow fresh
laceration at 6:00 o’clock. External
vaginal orifice admits the tip of the examining index finger.
CONCLUSION
Findings are compatible with a recent loss of virginity.
There are no external signs of recent application of any form of
trauma.”[5]
Appellant Macalino was arrested by two (2) Criminal Investigation
Service (“CIS”) agents on 14 April 1988, and brought to Camp Crame where the
present complaint for rape was prepared against him.
After trial, the court a quo rendered a decision
with the following dispositive portion:
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused JOHNPET
MACALINO y CALDERON guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and
hereby sentences said accused JOHNPET MACALINO y CALDERON to reclusion perpetua
with all its accessory penalties, to indemnify the victim, Erlinda Baldovino
through her mother, Elizabeth C. Baldovino in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P30,000.00) in compliance with the mandate in Articles 100, 104(3), 107
and 345 of the Revised Penal Code and to pay the costs.
In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be credited in
full with the period of his preventive imprisonment.
SO ORDERED.”[6]
In his Brief, appellant Macalino ascribes the following errors to
the trial court:
“I. The court a quo erred in
convicting the accused on the basis of uncorroborated circumstantial evidence.
II.
The court a quo erred in giving credence to the
self-serving and biased statement of witness Elizabeth Baldovino.
III.
The court a quo erred in giving undue importance
to the testimony of the doctor.
IV. The court a
quo erred in failing to appreciate the conduct of the accused after the
alleged incident.
V. The court a quo erred in
failing to hold that the constitutional presumption of innocence has not been
overcome.”[7]
The appeal must fail.
The trial court’s finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is quite
supported by the evidence of record. It
is noteworthy that complainant Elizabeth not only identified appellant Macalino
as the violator of her 2-year old daughter; the child-victim herself pointed to
appellant Macalino in open court. The
relevant portion of the transcript of Elizabeth’s testimony follows:
“FISCAL LIM: Now
you mentioned that you suspected that the accused had sexual intercourse
with your daughter Erlinda. Were
you able to communicate with your daughter?
Complainant: No, sir. She was the one who told me that it was painful and so I asked her what
was painful?
Q: This
small girl was able to tell you that?
A: Even
now sir, if you ask her what is painful even she doesn’t know how to talk, she
could point to that painful part, sir. [sic]
Q: To
what does your child point as ‘masakit’? [sic]
A: Her
vagina, sir.
Q: What
happened after she told you that her private part was painful?
A: She
continued crying, sir.
Q: Did
you have the occasion to ask her what caused the pain?
A: Yes,
sir. I asked her.
Q: Was
she able to answer?
A: She
could not only answer orally, sir.
Q: How
did she answer you?
A: I
just asked her what is painful and she pointed to [her vagina] but she did
not say anything, sir?
Q: Did
she tell you who caused the pain?
A: Yes,
sir. She could still remember.
Q: Even
now?
A: Yes,
sir. If I ask her who, she will point.
Q: Will
you show to the Honorable Court.
Interpreter:
Witness, the mother, and
the little girl [i.e., victim] going down the witness stand. Going near the place where the accused is
seated.
COURT:
Call the accused in
front.
Interpreter:
The accused is standing
in front of the mother and the little girl.
The little girl is
standing beside her mother.
The
mother is asking the little girl ‘ano ang masakit sa ‘yo? and the little girl pointing to her private
part.
The
little girl pointing to the accused when the mother asked her ‘sino ang umano
sa ‘yo?
The
mother pointed to the Fiscal if he was the one who did it and the little girl
pointed to the accused.
Fiscal:
Now did you have this
little girl examined by any physician after the incident?
x x x x x x x
x x[8]
(Underscoring
supplied)
Although Erlinda was much too young to be able to speak before
the trial court, her pointing to appellant Macalino as the person who had
inflicted pain upon her private part, was precise, clear and loud enough for
this Court to hear. The testimony given
by complainant Elizabeth, which was supplemented by the child Erlinda pointing
to appellant Macalino, was clear and forthright. Appellant Macalino has not adduced any reason why this Court
should overturn the full faith and credit given by the trial court to
Elizabeth’s testimony and that of the child.
Appellant Macalino put up the defense of simple denial. He testified that he had asked permission
from Elizabeth to get his clothing inside the “aparador” in Elizabeth’s
apartment room, and was allowed to do so. He said that it only took him five (5) minutes to do so and that he went
down again, but was requested by Elizabeth to fetch some water for her, which
he did. Thereafter, he bade goodbye to
Elizabeth and left. Appellant Macalino
suggests that complainant Elizabeth’s charges against him are false and
motivated by desire for personal vengeance. In his Brief, appellant Macalino suggests that Elizabeth had brought the
charges of rape against him.
“as a sort of vengeance against the
accused-appellant and his sister or a leverage to gain back their company,
considering that the duo are of great help to her especially so that she is
alone with two (2) hapless children and estranged at that.”[9]
We do not think that appellant Macalino’s
imputation of such a motive on the part of complainant Elizabeth deserves
serious consideration. The supposed
motive appears to us to be much too contrived and entirely inadequate to induce
belief that Elizabeth had deliberately and falsely accused Macalino of such a
serious crime as the rape of a two-year old child to compel (somehow)
Macalino’s sister to go back to Elizabeth’s domestic service.
As earlier noted, the medico-legal report on the examination of
the victim Erlinda Baldovino stated that there was “a shallow fresh laceration
at 6 o’clock” on the hymen of the child and that the “external vaginal orifice”
admitted the “tip of the examination index finger.” The range of the possible
causes of the “non-virgin state” of the victim Erlinda is quite limited. The hymenal laceration could have been due
to penetration, however shallow, of the vagina either by a penis or by some
other organ (such as a human finger) or by an inanimate penis-like object. There was no suggestion even from the
appellant that the two-year old child was somehow so sexually precocious as to
have engaged in self-stimulation so violent as to have induced severe pain and
bleeding and laceration. The physician
who had examined Erlinda Baldovino testified in court that the hymenal
laceration had been caused, in his opinion, by sexual intercourse, that is by
penile penetration of the child’s vagina. During his direct and cross-examination, the examining physician, Dr.
Dario Gajardo, said in part:
“FISCAL BAYANI:
In your examination,
will you please tell this Court your findings.
WITNESS (Dr. Gajardo):
If the Honorable Court
will allow me to read the findings, sir.
COURT:
Read it.
x x x x x x x x x
COURT:
In layman’s language, what
does it mean?
A: The
area of both sides of the opening. When
I speak of congested vulva, it means ‘namamaga.’ I found in the
examination of the genital organ from outside to the hymen I found fresh
laceration at 6:00 o’clock position. [sic] When I speak of 6:00 o’clock position, I mean that if you compare
the vaginal opening [with] the face of the watch, the area of laceration is at
the 6:00 o’clock posterial portion of the opening, Your Honor.
Q: What
could have been the cause of this 6:00 o’clock position?
A: It
could be sexual intercourse, sir.
Q: Could
it be lacerated at 6:00 o’clock position when you use your finger?
A: Masturbation
or fingering, your Honor.
Q: A
6:00 o’clock position could have [been] caused by fingering?
A: I
would say laceration inside the genital organ. When you insert your finger, there is a presence of abrasion,
sir.
Q: How
old is the patient here?
A: Two
(2) years old, your Honor.
Q: Did
you examine the patient personally?
A: Yes,
your Honor.
FISCAL:
You said the laceration
was fresh. In your opinion, what age
is the wound in terms of days?
A: Being
[a] fresh laceration, not more than 12 or 24 hours, sir.
Q: Do
you confirm and affirm the truth of all the statement or data you placed in
this Exh. D and D-1?
A: Yes,
sir.
FISCAL:
That’s all, your honor.
COURT: Cross.
x x x x
x x x
x x
ATTY. CABANGIS:
You also have a remark
in this Exh. D and I quote, ‘vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for
gram-negative diplococci and for spermatozoa.’ Is it not doctor [that] this
means there was no injury in the sexual organ of the victim?
A: No,
sir.
Q: It
is very clear there was no sperm in the sexual organ of the victim?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
is it not doctor, the injury in the sexual organ cannot be solely caused by
penetration of the sexual organ of the male?
A: As
I said, there were several causes of laceration to the sexual organ, sir.
Q: In
this case, you cannot make a conclusion that the male sexual organ penetrated
the sexual organ of the victim?
A: [As]
I said earlier, it was due to sexual intercourse.”[10]
(Underscoring supplied)
The Court notes that the testimony or
medical opinion of Dr. Gajardo that the fresh laceration had been produced by
sexual intercourse is corroborated by the testimony given by complainant
Elizabeth that when she rushed upstairs upon hearing her daughter suddenly cry
out, she found appellant Macalino beside the child buttoning his own pants
and that she found some sticky fluid on the child’s buttocks and some
blood on her private part.
Appellant Macalino assails the credence accorded by the trial
court to the testimony of Dr. Dario Gajardo. While it is true that the findings and conclusions of expert witnesses
do not bind the courts, such findings and conclusions may nevertheless be
accorded persuasive weight on the basis of the expertise of the witness on the
subject of the testimony.[11]
Defense counsel has not shown any reason for supposing that Dr. Gajardo had
arbitrarily overlooked or disregarded facts or circumstances of importance in
the instant case. Accordingly, we see
no reason why his testimony and conclusion should be overturned. It is scarcely necessary to add that defense
counsel did not try to suggest that Dr. Gajardo had any sinister motive or
personal resentment that could have moved him falsely to testify against
appellant Macalino or that would have discredited his expert testimony or opinion.
Appellant finally argues that his failure to leave immediately
after complainant Elizabeth rushed upstairs upon hearing her daughter cry out,
somehow showed that he had not raped the child. This contention is not persuasive at all. As the Solicitor General noted in his brief,[12]
appellant Macalino could not have fled in the first place because he was
“literally caught with his ‘pants down’ immediately after the fact” and, in the
second place, the scene of the crime was Elizabeth’s room located on the second
floor of an apartment building, there being only one door leading to and from
such room. In People v. Hangdaan,[13]
the Court had occasion to reject a similar argument, saying that:
“He [accused-appellant] attempts to bolster such denial by pointing
out that unlike his co-accused Romel Ballongan, who fled and remains at large,
he did not hide, thereby showing that he is innocent of the crime charged.
Appellant’s pretended innocence is clearly non-sequitur to his
decision not to flee. Apart from
the fact that there is no case law holding that non-flight is conclusive
proof of innocence, the argument does not hold weight in the light of the
positive identification of the appellant by the victim as one of two (2) men
who abused her. The material factor
here is that there is positive identification of the accused as the author,
or more accurately, a co-author of the crime.” (Underscoring supplied)
In the case at bar too, appellant
Macalino was positively identified as the violator of the child Erlinda as she
lay asleep on her mother’s bed.
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the Court hereby AFFIRMS
in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch
156, Metro Manila, dated 2 May 1989 in Criminal Case No. 72966, finding Johnpet
C. Macalino guilty of the crime of rape. The civil indemnity shall, however, be INCREASED to P50,000.00, in view
of the particularly repulsive and unnatural character of the crime here
committed. Costs against
accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., (Chairman), Bidin, Davide Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.
[1]
Complaint, Rollo, p. 3.
[2]
Accused-appellant had previously stayed at complainant’s rented room, upon the
request of Librada. During those occasions,
accused-appellant would leave some of his things with Librada (TSN, 30 May
1988, p. 7; TSN, 17 August 1988).
[3]
TSN, 17 August 1988, p. 8; Trial Court Decision, p. 2.
[4]
TSN, 30 May 1988, p. 6.
[5]
Records, p. 120; Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “D.”
[6]
Trial Court Decision, p. 8; Rollo, p. 20.
[7]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 54.
[8]
TSN, 30 May 1988, pp. 7-8.
[9]
Rollo, p. 54; Appellant’s Brief, p. 8.
[10]
TSN, 15 December 1988, pp. 2-4.
[11]
People v. Tolentino, 166 SCRA 469 (1988); People v. Dejucos, 156
SCRA 469 (1987); People v. Valdez, 150 SCRA 405 (1987).
[12]
Rollo, p. 87; Appellee’s Brief, pp. 14-15.
[13]
201 SCRA 568, 573 (1991).