People vs. Rafales G.R. No.

133477 January 21, 2000 FACTS: ROCHELLE, 10 years old, testified that in 1993, her neighbor BENJAMIN thrice raped her. The first rape took place sometime in November. ROCHELLE was then at her home with her siblings while her parents were at the farm. BENJAMIN arrived, unceremoniously removed ROCHELLE's dress, laid her on the floor, undressed himself, placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis in her vagina. ROCHELLE felt pain. After the act was over, she saw a whitish substance on her vagina.3 The other two incidents of rape occurred some days after and in a similar manner. ROCHELLE did not report or reveal to her parents or anyone else the sexual molestations due to BENJAMIN's threats to kill her and her family. ROCHELLE ran away from home due to frequent quarrels with her siblings and took refuge in the streets and sought the company of street children, but police found her later and brought to DSWD. ROCHELLE was turned over to the orphanage. Hence, it was only after two (2) years or in 1995 when ROCHELLE finally disclosed her sexual ignominy. Dr. Jose Bernardo Gochoco, Jr. who physically examined ROCHELLE two years after the rape incidents affirmed his findings contained in a medico legal report that ROCHELLE's hymenal ring and posterior fourchette were intact. He concluded that there was no physical penetration of ROCHELLE's labia majora. Trial court convicted accused of statutory rape, affording full credence to ROCHELLE's positive testimony. ISSUE: Whether Rochelles testimony is credible, viz.: (1) the delay in the reporting of the rape charge coupled by the probability that ROCHELLE's wanderings and constant company of streetchildren (2) the ponente's admission that he did not personally observe the deportment of the witnesses; (3) ROCHELLE's observation that she found a whitish substance on her vagina, where if she was indeed raped, she should have discharged blood; and (4) the failure of ROCHELLE's mother to notice any change in her daughter's behavior, for ROCHELLE should have exhibited the consequent physical and emotional trauma evident in a rape victim. HELD: Yes. ROCHELLE's credibility is beyond dispute. Her candor in responding to queries relating to shameful details of that episode in her childhood is palpable. Her responses were clear and categorical, all earmarks of truth. In the review of rape cases, we are always guided by the following principles:(1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility since it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) by reason of the intrinsic nature of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the

prosecution must stand or fall on its merits and it cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Delay in the disclosure of a crime is not always an indication of prevarication. In rape cases, young girls usually conceal for some time their ordeals due to the threats made by their assailants. Further, ROCHELLE had for quite some time been deprived of the counsel of parents or other adults when she ran away from home. It was only during her stay at the orphanage when Vicky confronted her [ROCHELLE] with tales of a child-rape victim. ROCHELLE confessed to Vicky that she was the child-race victim. She revealed the details of the sexual violations quite hesitantly for she still feared BENJAMIN and his threats to kill her. These circumstances perforce satisfactorily explained and justified the two (2)-year delay in the disclosure of the crime. Besides, the prescriptive period for the filing of a rape charge is twenty years. Proof of injury is not an element of rape. Even a medical examination is not required in the prosecution of rape cases. Moreover, as the trial court noted, the physical examination took place two years after the rape occurrences. Naturally, whatever injuries ROCHELLE might have sustained must have healed, leaving no traces thereof. Anyway, even the absence of hymenal lacerations does not negate rape. We also deem the matter of Marissa and Gemma's witnessing of the second rape as trifling for the lone testimony of the rape victim is indeed sufficient for a verdict of conviction. Accused failed to produce evidence to buttress this allegation of unjust judgment. Besides, a judge who pens a decision is not immediately disqualified to render such judgment simply because another magistrate heard the case. Such fact does not necessarily render a ponente's decision void, unjust or reversible considering that the full record of the case was available for his perusal. We reiterate the rule that rape is consummated with the slightest penile penetration of the labia or pudendum of a female. Hence, blood or a whitish discharge of or on the vagina after the sexual act is not necessary to prove rape. The fact that the whitish substance was found at the pedendum [sic] is proof enough that the penis of the accused at least knocked at the door of the vagina. Finally, we reject for being absolutely frivolous, BENJAMIN's accusation that ROCHELLE's failure to exhibit the emotional and physical trauma evident in a rape victim assayed to the falsity of her tale of rape. At any rate, BENJAMIN's sole defense of denial, already considered as inherently weak, appears flimsy, feeble and self-serving. It cannot therefore prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the complainant.

People v. Pantorilla 322 SCRA 337 FACTS: An appeal from the decision of the RTC. On December 24, 1989, at around 7:00 in the evening, Allan Cablayan, saw Franklin Bello being dragged by three persons. Allan Cablayan identified them as accused-appellant Jose Pantorilla, accused Bartolome Dahan and a third person he did not know. The three persons dragged Bello inside the house of Jose Pantorilla and locked it. Allan Cablayan then heard Bello from the inside crying for help. Cablayan sought assistance from his neighbors. They attempted to enter the house of Pantorilla, but the door was locked. They called for police assistance. After a warning shot, Policemen then entered the house and found the body of Franklin Bello sprawled on the concrete floor of the kitchen, with blood and intestines protruding from his slashed stomach. Accused Jose Pantorilla had a different story. Trial Court found accused JOSE PANTORILLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER. ISSUEs: (1) Whether the plea of self-defense can be validly invoked by the accused. (2) Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused on the strength of attending circumstantial evidence. HELD: 1) The plea of self-defense cannot prosper. The rule is well-settled that when an accused invokes selfdefense, the burden of evidence to prove his claim shifts to him. It is incumbent upon him to show the concurrent presence of all the elements of selfdefense, namely, (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; (3) and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element, whether in complete or incomplete self-defense. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused admitted to the killing. In this case, the fact that accused-appellant sustained injuries did not signify that he was a victim of unlawful aggression. His examining doctor testified that the wounds he incurred were merely superficial, perhaps caused by a small bladed instrument not a bolo. Moreover, his testimony was not corroborated by any witness. Neither his wife nor the wife of Bartolome Dahan, who were allegedly inside the house when the stabbing incident occurred, testified in court. Furthermore, prosecution witness Allan Cablayan identified accused-appellant as the aggressor, together with two other persons. The nature, location and number of wounds inflicted on the victim indicate a determined effort to kill him. 2) The second assigned error is inconsistent with the first one. Accused-appellant, in his testimony in court, admitted that he took a knife from the floor and used

it to stab Franklin Bello. In invoking self-defense, accused-appellant admitted killing Bello. Thus, he cannot now assert lack of proof to convict him. Therefore, we find no error of the trial court in placing responsibility on accused-appellant Jose M. Pantorilla for the death of Franklin Bello. We note, though, that the trial court failed to indicate any qualifying circumstance which would qualify the killing to murder. Without any qualifying circumstance, which will determine the degree of culpability and penalty to be imposed, accusedappellant Jose M. Pantorilla may be held liable only for homicide, not murder

People v. Villar 322 SCRA 393 FACTS: Automatic review by SC Accused-appellant was charged in two separate Information of rape. The accused consistently acted as caretaker and guardian of Mary Ann Ramos from the time she was enrolled in Grade I together with four others. For some time all went well in the manner Salvador performed his duties as guardian of the school children, until , one evening about the middle of January, 1993, and while all the four (4) other children with her were already asleep, Mary Ann noticed Salvador Villar approached her and with a knife poked at her chest, undressed her. Even as she struggled to prevent him from undressing her he also took off her panty and made her lie down. She attempted to shout but he covered her mouth with his hand. Then he laid on top of her and thereupon forcibly inserted his male organ in her female genitalia. With his penis inside her private organ he executed repeated pumping motions which made her momentary loss of consciousness. When shortly after she regained consciousness, she felt pain in her female organ. Realizing that her organ had been bleeding she became frightened. Just then, Salvador Villar warned her not to tell anyone what happened or he will kill her. Because of fear instilled in her by that threat she refrained from telling anyone about what the accused did to her. For a period of about a year thereafter the accused repeatedly had forcible carnal knowledge of the complainant at intervals of more or less three days, or about ten (10) times a month. He raped her so many times, about a hundred (100) times, that she was unable to recall the precise dates of each assault on her. It was that incident which made the children jump out of the window which led to the disclosure by Mary Ann of the sexual abuse on her by the accused. Accused went home one night drunk and started yelling which made the children jump out of the window which led to the disclosure by Mary Ann of the sexual abuse on her by the accused. ISSUEs: (1) Whether the accused be on the strength of the testimony of the complaining witness. (2) Whether the death penalty is imposable on him. HELD: It may well be pointed out that not all kinds of inconsistency of a witness render the witness testimony unworthy of credence. Verily, inconsistencies in minor details reinforce rather than weaken credibility and such inconsistencies do not materially impair the credibility of the witness. Under the circumstances of the case at bar, the Court finds the materiality of the exact time the crime was committed as a minor detail and not of great significance. The more important consideration is that the declarations of the victim both in her sworn

statement before the investigating police officer and in her testimony in court, are consistent on the basic matters constituting the elements of the crime charged. Besides, this Court has already ruled that discrepancy between the witnesses testimony in court and the affidavits they had previously signed, as to minor details regarding the commission of the crime, do not constitute sufficient ground to impeach the credibility of said witnesses, where on material and important points their declarations are consistent We find no competent evidence showing that the victim exhibited no unusual behavior during the oneyear period that she was being sexually abused by accused-appellant. The lack of concrete evidence of any unusual behavior on record does not prove that there was in fact no such unusual behavior. If accusedappellant wanted the court to consider such an allegation, it was incumbent upon him to prove the same with competent evidence. The fundamental rule is that upon him who alleges rests the burden of proof. He cannot simply rely on the lack of evidence showing the contrary. There may be ample evidence on record to show that accused-appellant qualified as a guardian of the victim the way the lawmakers intended the word to be understood, but the Court reserves its ruling on the issue considering that this special qualifying circumstance of being a guardian was not duly alleged in the information. The Court cannot affirm the death sentence imposed by the trial court anchored upon the above-cited provision of the Death Penalty Law. In People vs. Dela Cuesta (G.R. No. 126134, March 2, 1999), we held: o The seven modes of committing rape introduced under R.A. 7659 and R.A. 4111 which warrant the automatic imposition of death penalty partake of the nature of a qualifying circumstance under the Revised Penal Code since it increases the penalty or rape to one degree. As such, this qualifying circumstance, that the child is under eighteen (18) and the offender is a guardian, should be alleged in the information to be appreciated as such.