Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 210619

August 20, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
CHARLES REYES y MARASIGAN, Accused-Appellant.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
For review is the Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 10, 2013 in CA-G.R. CRH.C. No. 04374 affirming in toto the Joint Decision dated November 25, 2009 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 40 in Criminal Case Nos. C-02-6987 and C02-6988, convicting Charles Reyes y Marasigan (accused-appellant) of two counts of rape
committed against AAA, an 11-year old daughter of his common-law wife.
1

Antecedents
Two separate informations for rape were filed against the accused-appellant before the RTC, viz:
Criminal Case No. C-02-6987
"That sometime in the month of May, 2002, at Barangay Calero, City of Calapan, Province of
Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, motivated by lust and lewd design, and by means of force and intimidation, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously did lie, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge [of] [AAA], an eleven
(11) year-old[-] daughter of his common-law wife, against her will and without her consent, to the
damage and prejudice of the latter."
5

Criminal Case No. C-02-6988

"That on or about the 5th day of August, 2002, at Barangay Calero, City of Calapan, Province of
Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, motivated by lust and unchaste design, and by means of force and intimidation, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously did lie, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge [of] [AAA], an eleven
(11) year-old[-] daughter of his common-law wife, against her will and without her consent, to the
damage and prejudice of the latter."
6

When arraigned, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.

During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution stipulated and the defense admitted that the
accused-appellant is the common-law husband of AAAs mother, BBB. The defense, on its part,
waived the accused-appellants right to stipulate facts and enter into a plea-bargaining agreement.

Among the documentary evidence marked and offered by the prosecution were: (a) AAAs birth
certificate indicating that she was born on October 31, 1990; (b) the medical certificate, dated August
7, 2002, which was prepared by Dr. Ma. Teresita Nieva-Bolor (Dr. Nieva-Bolor), Rural Health
Physician of the Calapan City Health and Sanitation Department; and (c) AAA and BBBs
affidavits. The defense, on its part, offered AAAs birth certificate as sole documentary evidence.
8

In the course of the joint trial, AAA, BBB and Dr. Nieva-Bolor testified for the prosecution. On the
other hand, the accused-appellant and his 13-year old niece, Princess Ann Sicat (Sicat), were the
defense witnesses.
Version of the Prosecution
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summed up the prosecutions version of the events, viz:
In 2002, [AAA] was an eleven (11) year old girl, having been born on October 31, 1990. She is living
with her mother [BBB] and her common-law husband, [herein accused-appellant,] in their residence
in Barangay Calero, Calapan City.
Sometime in May 2002, while [AAA] was alone inside the room of their house, [the accusedappellant] entered the room and touched her breasts, afterwhich, [the accused-appellant] removed
her clothes, sando shirt, shorts and panty; she tried to go out of the room but [the accused-appellant]
did not allow her to do so. Then, [the accused-appellant] removed his shorts and brief[s], placed
himself on top of her and tried to insert his penis into her vagina causing her to feel pain; failing to
insert his penis into her vagina, [the accused-appellant] put on his shorts and brief[s] and went out of
the house. [AAA] also put on her clothes and proceeded to the house oftheir neighbor where she
watched a television program. At the time of the rape incident, her mother was not in their house
because she was instructed by [the accused-appellant] to go to the market; also, the mother of [the
accused-appellant], who was living with them, was at the time in the house of their neighbor.
Although she was able to talk to her mother after the rape incident, she did not inform her about it
because she was afraid ofthe threat of [the accused-appellant] that the latter will kill her and her
mother.
On August 5, 2002, at around four oclock in the afternoon, [AAA] was again alone in the room of
their house when [the accused-appellant] entered the room. He removed her blouse, skirt, sando
shirt and panty. She was not able to do anything because [the accused-appellant] threatened to kill
her and her mother. While naked, [the accused-appellant] placed himself on top of her and tried to
insert his penis into her vagina. She tried to push [the accused-appellant] away but she was
unsuccessful. She felt pain in her vagina when [the accused-appellant] made a push and pull
motion. Thereafter, [the accused-appellant] put on his shorts and brief[s] and left her in the room[,]
afterwhich, she put on her clothes. At the time of the incident, her mother was in the market while her
siblings CCC and DDD were somewhere else. About one hour after the incident, her mother and her
two siblings arrived but she was not able to do anything because she was afraid.
At around 8:00 oclock in the evening, she told her mother about the rape incidents. Her mother and
an employee of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) accompanied her to
the Calapan City Police Station where they reported the rape incidents.
On August 6, 2002, [Dr. Nieva-Bolor] x x x conducted a physical examination on [AAA] and issued a
medical certificate with the following findings:
xxx the presence of vulvar erythema, incomplete hymenal laceration and complete hymenal
lacerations, possibly caused by insertion of the penis, among others, xxx incomplete healed hymenal

laceration at 3:00 oclock position and complete healed hymenal lacerations at 5, 6, 8 and 9 oclock
positions which were probably caused by masturbation, insertion of handsor objects or the insertion
of a hard or erect penis during actual sexual intercourse. (Citations omitted)
10

Version of the Defense

The accused-appellant, who was then a 34-year old construction worker when he took the witness
stand, vehemently denied the charges against him. He stated that heand BBB maintained a
common-law relationship for two years. Thereafter, things turned sour as BBB was unemployed and
indulged in gambling using the accused-appellants earnings. He alleged that on August 5,2002, he
was at home the whole day doing carpentry work. AAA and BBB were there as well, while the
formers three siblings were in school. That night, the accused-appellant drove BBB and her
children, including AAA, away from the house. The incident earned AAAs ire, which led her to filethe
complaints against him.
11

Sicat, on her part, testified that she was with AAA the entire day of August 5, 2002. The accusedappellant could not have raped AAA at that time as the latter went home late at around 8:00 p.m.

12

Ruling of the RTC

On November 25, 2009, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision convicting the accused-appellant of two
counts of rape. The trial court found the motive, which according to the accused-appellant impelled
AAA to file the complaints, was "too shallow, flimsy and insignificant." A minor would not have risked
undergoing humiliation, anxiety and public exposure if her claims were untrue. Her testimony, as
regards the two rape incidents, was likewise detailed and straightforward. Besides, Dr. Nieva-Bolors
statements to the effect that AAA sustained hymenal lacerations corroborated the latters
allegations.
13

14

15

Further, the RTC found Sicats testimony as biased and without credence. While claiming that she
was with AAA the whole day of August 5, 2002, she also stated that she attended her classes
inCalapan Central School.
16

The RTC also declared that the accused-appellants denial of the charges against him was nothing
more than self-serving negative evidence, which pales vis--visAAAs positive testimony.
17

The dispositive portion of the RTCs Joint Decision thus reads:

ACCORDINGLY, finding herein accused Charles Reyes y Marasigan GUILTYbeyond reasonable
doubt asprincipal by direct participation [in] two counts of Rape, punishable under paragraph 1 (a) of
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
two (2) RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties as provided for by law. Further, the
accused is hereby directed to indemnify [AAA] in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
([P]100,000.00) as civil indemnity, the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos ([P]75,000.00) as
moral damages and the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P]50,000.00) as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.

18

The Parties Arguments Before the CA

Dissatisfied, the accused-appellant assailed the above disquisition before the CA.

As regards the alleged rape incident inMay of 2002, the accused-appellant claimed the absence of
proof on the part of the prosecution to show that his penis actually penetrated AAAs vagina. AAA
even testified that the accused-appellant merely tried to insert his organ into hers but was unable to
do so.
19

Anent the rape incident on August 5, 2002, the accused-appellant pointed out that the medical
examination conducted by Dr. Nieva-Bolor two days after yielded no evidence of fresh lacerations.
Instead, only an incomplete hymenal laceration at three oclock position and completely healed ones
at five, six, eight and nineoclock positions were found. How they were incurred was likewise
uncertainsince a regular insertion of hard objects including an erect penis, self manipulation and
severe scratching due to improper hygiene could have caused the lacerations.
20

The OSG, on the other hand, refuted the accused-appellants claims.

Relative to the rape incident in May of 2002, the affidavit executed by AAA while she was in Calapan
City Police Station, and which was offered as part of the prosecutions evidence, categorically
indicated that the accused-appellant inserted his penis into the victims vagina, viz:
13. T Noon bang una kang hindutin ng iyong Daddy ay pumasok ang titi nito sa iyong ari?
S Opo[,] pumasok po iyon.
14. T Ano naman ang naramdaman mo ng ipasok ng iyong Daddy ang kanyang titi sa iyong ari?
S Labis po akong nasaktan.
xxxx
6. T Maari mo bang isalaysay ang mga pangyayari kung iyong matandaan pa?
S pilit niyang ipinasok ang kanyang uten sa aking maliit na puki na ako nga po ay halos mawalan
ng malay o ulirat sa ginawa niyang pagpasok ng kanyang uten sa aking puki
21

(Citations omitted)
As to the rape incident on August 5, 2002, AAA gave a detailed account of how the accusedappellantundressed and mounted her, then made pumping motions, which caused her tofeel severe
pain in her vagina.
22

Dr. Nieva-Bolor found that AAA had hymenal lacerations, hence, corroborating the latters
claims. Moreover, at the time of the examination, AAAs vulva was reddish in color and Dr. NievaBolor opined that sexual intercourse was among the possible causes of such condition.
23

24

Ruling of the CA
On July 10, 2013, the CA rendered the herein assailed decision affirming in totothe RTCs judgment
based on the following grounds:
25

[AAAs] testimony has the ring of truth as it was given in a simple but clear and straightforward
manner.

On the face of the overwhelming evidence against him, [the] accused-appellant capitalizes on the
perceived absence of penetration during the first incident of rape. x x x This contention of the
accused-appellant is a lie, in view of the victims declaration that she felt pain in her private part
because [the] accused-appellant, while on top of her and doing a pumping motion, tried to insert his
penis into her vagina. It must be emphasized at this juncture that an entry, to the least extent, of the
labia or lips of the female organ is sufficient. In fact, remaining a virgin does not negate rape.
x x x [T]he absence of fresh lacerations in the hymen cannot be a firm indication that she was not
raped. Hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape.
As regards the second count of rape committed on August 5, 2002, the testimony of the victim alone
is sufficient to convict the accused-appellant. x x x:
[AAA gave a detailed testimony that she was still wearing her school uniform when the accusedappellant entered the room, undressed and went on top of her, then made pumping motions, which
caused her to feel pain in her vagina.]
The victims testimony, taken in its entirety, revealed a clear picture of the consummation of the
crime of rape and that the accused-appellant was the author thereof. Notwithstanding this, the
accused-appellant harps on the fact that the medical examination of the victim did not show fresh
lacerations inthe victims private part but only incomplete hymenal laceration at 3 oclock position
and completely healed lacerations at 5, 6,8 and 9 oclock positions.
In People v. Evangelio[,] the Supreme Court reiterated the rule that the absence of fresh lacerations
does not prove that the victim was not raped. x x x [T]he presence of healedhymenal lacerations the
day after the victim was raped does not negate the commission of rape by the accused-appellant
when the crime was proven by the combination of highly convincing pieces of evidence. In addition,
a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable
to the prosecution of a rape case.
In this case, the medical finding that [the] complainant had a [sic] incomplete hymenal lacerations at
3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 oclock positions clearly corroborated the victims truthful admission that she had
been sexually abused by the accused-appellant.
xxxx
x x x We have long adhered to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses
and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts and
circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of the case. (Citations omitted)
26

Issue
Unperturbed, the accused-appellant is insisting anew that he is innocent.
Both the accused-appellant and the OSG dispensed with the filing of supplemental briefs and
adopted instead the same arguments they had presented before the CA.
Ruling of the Court

The Court sustains the CAs verdict convicting the accused-appellant of two counts of rape, but
modify the amount of damages imposed. Additionally, in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence, the
Court imposes interests upon the damages awarded to AAA.
Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),as amended, substantially states that rape is
committed by a man, who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years of age or is
demented. To be liable under the above provision, it is not necessary that the commission of the
crime is attended by the use of force, threat, intimidation, fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority,or that the victim is deprived of reason or unconscious.
Article 266-B of the same code, on the other hand, provides that the imposable penalty for acts
falling under Article 266-A(1)(d) is reclusion perpetua. However, the death penalty shall be imposed
if rape is committed with aggravating or qualifying circumstances enumerated in Article 266-B
therein, among which is when the victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is a common-law
spouse ofthe parent of the victim.
The People of the Philippines v. Guillermo B. Cadano, Jr. discussed as follows the elements of
statutory rape:
27

Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of
her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary
as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is
conclusively presumed whenthe victim is below the age of 12. At that age, the law presumes that the
victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.
Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of
proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse
between the accused and the complainant. (Citation omitted and italics ours)
28

Records show that the elements of statutory rape are present in the case under review. First, AAA
was 11 years old when the sordid crimes were committed. Her birth certificate was presented as
evidence by both the prosecution and the defense. Second, AAA positively, categorically and
resolutely testified thatthe accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her on two separate
occasionsin May and on August 5 of 2002. Dr. Nieva-Bolors findings of hymenal lacerations, both
healed and not, in AAAs vagina corroborated the latters claims.
1wphi1

"The eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin
state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges." This is especially true in the case of
AAA, a girl of tender age, who is not likely to fabricate a story of her own defloration which may
expose her and her family tohumiliation. The accused-appellant denied the charges and in his
defense posited that AAA filed the complaints in anger after the former drove BBB and the children
away from the house. The RTC declared this ascribed motive as too flimsy and insignificant, and we
find no reason to depart from the said finding.
29

It is an oft-repeated doctrine thatthe uniform factual findings of the trial court and the CA are
generally not to be disturbed unless certain substantial facts have been plainly overlooked, which if
considered, might alter the result of the case.
30

In the appeal before us, we find the RTC and CAs conviction of the accused-appellant for two
counts of statutory rape as amply supported by both evidence and jurisprudence. It bears clarifying
though that in view of the fact that the accused-appellant is BBBs common-law husband, the two
counts of rape committed upon AAA shall be considered as qualified. For each count, the proper
imposable penalty is death as provided for in Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended. However,

consequent to the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, the imposable penalty herein is lowered to
reclusion perpetua, with the offender being rendered ineligible for parole.
31

32

While no compelling grounds exist toreverse the accused-appellants conviction, to conform to

prevailing jurisprudence, the Court finds it proper to modify the civil indemnity and exemplary
damages imposed by the courts a quo.For each of the two counts of rape, the Court awards in AAAs
favor P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delictoand P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The courts a
quosaward of P75,000.00 as moral damages in each count of rape is, on the other, hand
sustained. Lastly, the Court imposes an interest of six percent (6%) per annumon all the damages
awarded, to be computed from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.
33

34

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 10, 2013 in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 04374 is AFFIRMEDwith the following MODIFICATIONS:
(a) The accused-appellant Charles Reyes yMarasigan shall be ineligible for parole;
(b) For each of the two counts of qualified statutory rape, the accused-appellant shall pay
AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
(c) The accused-appellant is also directed to pay interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annumon all the damages awarded, to be computed from the date of the finality of this
judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA*
Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
C E R TI F I C ATI O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice