PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LINO VILLARUEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Villaruel

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Lino Villaruel for two counts of rape committed against Jennylinda Pagayona, a girl below twelve years old, on two successive nights in October 1993 in Narra, Palawan. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee should carry into the examination room. First, it settles that the complaint required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code is not what confers jurisdiction on the trial court; it is only a condition precedent to prosecution. Second, it reminds us that complete penetration is not an element of rape, so the absence of hymenal lacerations does not defeat a conviction.

Procedural History

Two informations for rape were filed against the appellant before the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 50, and he entered pleas of not guilty to both. After trial, the court rendered a joint decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count, ordering him to pay moral damages of 50,000 pesos for each offense, and to pay the costs. The appellant appealed seasonably to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the sufficiency of the evidence and the alleged failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirement of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. The appeal was resolved by the Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction but modified the award of damages.

Facts

On the night of October 9, 1993, Jennylinda was alone in the family home in Panacan, Narra, Palawan, her mother having gone to Cabugan Island to buy fish. She woke at about eleven in the evening to find the lampshade turned off and a man beside her. He covered her mouth, pointed a knife at her neck, and threatened to cut her throat if she shouted. He kissed her, removed her undergarment while still holding the knife, and inserted his penis into her vagina with push and pull motions. He then abused her further, threatened to kill her and her family if she reported him, and after resting, mounted her again and repeated the act. He also forced her face down and inserted his organ into her anus. Only as he hurriedly dressed and left through the kitchen door did she manage to switch on the lights and recognize him as Lino Villaruel.

She immediately sought help from her elder sister and from Resurreccion Villaruz, who called the police by hand radio. She was brought to the Narra District Hospital and examined by Dr. Perseverando Tangug, whose findings showed mucosal irritation at the vaginal opening, no hymenal lacerations, and a vaginal opening that admitted the tip of the middle finger with pain. On cross-examination he stated that she was still a virgin at the time of examination.

The defense presented Dr. Rudolf Baladad, Senior, who testified that mucosal irritation may have many causes, but who admitted on cross-examination that a male sex organ can cause such irritation and that difficulty of penetration depends on elasticity. The appellant denied the charges, claimed the case arose from a grudge after he slapped the complainant for cursing him when he hit her dog, alleged ill feelings on the part of the complainant's grandfather over a refused business agreement, and interposed alibi. No witness or proof corroborated any of these claims.

Issues

• Whether or not the complaint filed by the offended party sufficed to confer jurisdiction upon the Regional Trial Court under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the prosecution evidence sufficed to convict the appellant of two counts of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be.

This is the provision the appellant invoked, and its requirement of a complaint filed by the offended party is the threshold question on jurisdiction.

Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is the provision the Court applies in fixing the penalty, and the decision refers to it in imposing reclusion perpetua for each count in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the complaint does not confer jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred by law, and the complaint is merely a condition precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty parties. The Court declined to apply the older Santos ruling, noting that it had already been modified, and observed that here the complaint of Jennylinda did not merely narrate the facts but explicitly and categorically charged the appellant with rape, and the prosecutor expressly stated that the informations were instituted upon her sworn complaint. The substantial requirements of Article 344 were therefore satisfied.

On the second issue, the Court reiterated that an accusation of rape is easy to make and hard to disprove, that the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with great caution, and that the prosecution evidence must stand on its own merit. Applying these principles, it found the complainant's categorical identification of the appellant credible, and found no improper motive for her to fabricate the charge. On the medical evidence, the Court held that the absence of lacerations was consistent with the complainant's testimony that the penis did not completely penetrate her, and it laid down the controlling rule:

As law and jurisprudence now stand, however, complete penetration of the female genitalia is not required for a finding that rape was committed on a girl.

The Court added that there is no need to pierce the hymen, and that penile contact with the labia suffices to consummate rape. It sustained the trial court's findings on credibility and affirmed the conviction, but modified the civil award to include civil indemnity and exemplary damages for each count.

Doctrine

First, the complaint required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code is a condition precedent to prosecution, not a jurisdictional requirement; jurisdiction over the offense is conferred by law, and a sworn complaint that categorically charges the offender satisfies the substantial requirements of the provision. Second, complete penetration is not an element of rape; penile contact with the labia suffices, and the absence of hymenal lacerations does not negate the crime. Third, factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are conclusive on appeal absent a showing that the court overlooked or misapplied a fact of weight and substance. Fourth, where no improper motive is shown on the part of the complainant, her testimony deserves full faith and credence.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Lino Villaruel for two counts of rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, and ordered him to pay the victim 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages for each count, plus the costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the Article 344 complaint is a condition precedent, not a jurisdiction-conferring act, and that penile contact with the labia consummates rape. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over rape prosecutions and to test whether a candidate will wrongly equate the absence of hymenal lacerations with the absence of the crime.