PEOPLE OF TE P!L!PP!NE", plaintif-appellee, vs. RO#EO G. $%LO"$O", accused-appellant. R E " O L & T ! O N 'N%RE"-"%NT!%GO, J.( The accused-appellant, Romeo G. Jalosjos is a full-fedged meme! of Cong!ess "ho is no" con#ned at the national penitentia!$ "hile his con%iction fo! statuto!$ !ape on t"o counts and acts of lasci%iousness on si& counts '() is pending appeal. The accused-appellant #led this motion as*ing that he e allo"ed to full$ discha!ge the duties of a Cong!essman, including attendance at legislati%e sessions and committee meetings despite his ha%ing een con%icted in the #!st instance of a non-ailale o+ense. The issue !aised is one of #!st imp!ession. ,oes meme!ship in Cong!ess e&empt an accused f!om statutes and !ules "hich appl$ to %alidl$ inca!ce!ated pe!sons in gene!al- .n ans"e!ing the /ue!$, "e a!e called upon to alance !ele%ant and conficting facto!s in the judicial inte!p!etation of legislati%e p!i%ilege in the conte&t of penal la". The accused-appellant0s 12otion To Be Allo"ed To ,ischa!ge 2andate As 2eme! of 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es1 "as #led on the g!ounds that 4 (. Accused-appellant0s !eelection eing an e&p!ession of popula! "ill cannot e !ende!ed inutile $ an$ !uling, gi%ing p!io!it$ to an$ !ight o! inte!est 4 not e%en the police po"e! of the 5tate. 6. To dep!i%e the electo!ate of thei! elected !ep!esentati%e amounts to ta&ation "ithout !ep!esentation. 7. To a! accused-appellant f!om pe!fo!ming his duties amounts to his suspension8!emo%al and moc*s the !ene"ed mandate ent!usted to him $ the people. 9. The electo!ate of the :i!st ,ist!ict of ;amoanga del No!te "ants thei! %oice to e hea!d. <. A p!ecedent-setting =.5. !uling allo"ed a detained la"ma*e! to attend sessions of the =.5. Cong!ess. >. The 3ouse t!eats accused-appellant as a bona fde meme! the!eof and u!ges a co- e/ual !anch of go%e!nment to !espect its mandate. ?. The concept of tempo!a!$ detention does not necessa!il$ cu!tail the dut$ of accused- appellant to discha!ge his mandate. @. Accused-appellant has al"a$s complied "ith the conditions8!est!ictions "hen allo"ed to lea%e jail. The p!ima!$ a!gument of the mo%ant is the 1mandate of so%e!eign "ill.1 3e states that the so%e!eign electo!ate of the :i!st ,ist!ict of ;amoanga del No!te chose him as thei! !ep!esentati%e in Cong!ess. 3a%ing een !e-elected $ his constituents, he has the dut$ to pe!fo!m the functions of a ( Cong!essman. 3e calls this a co%enant "ith his constituents made possile $ the inte!%ention of the 5tate. 3e adds that it cannot e defeated $ insupe!ale p!ocedu!al !est!aints a!ising f!om pending c!iminal cases. T!ue, election is the e&p!ession of the so%e!eign po"e! of the people. .n the e&e!cise of su+!age, a f!ee people e&pects to achie%e the continuit$ of go%e!nment and the pe!petuation of its ene#ts. 3o"e%e!, inspite of its impo!tance, the p!i%ileges and !ights a!ising f!om ha%ing een elected ma$ e enla!ged o! !est!icted $ la". Au! #!st tas* is to asce!tain the applicale la". Be sta!t "ith the incontestale p!oposition that all top oCcials of Go%e!nment-e&ecuti%e, legislati%e, and judicial a!e suject to the majest$ of la". The!e is an unfo!tunate misimp!ession in the pulic mind that election o! appointment to high go%e!nment oCce, $ itself, f!ees the oCcial f!om the common !est!aints of gene!al la". D!i%ilege has to e g!anted $ la", not infe!!ed f!om the duties of a position. .n fact, the highe! the !an*, the g!eate! is the !e/ui!ement of oedience !athe! than e&emption. The immunit$ f!om a!!est o! detention of 5enato!s and meme!s of the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es, the latte! customa!il$ add!essed as Cong!essmen, a!ises f!om a p!o%ision of the Constitution. The histo!$ of the p!o%ision sho"s that the p!i%ilege has al"a$s een g!anted in a !est!icti%e sense. The p!o%ision g!anting an e&emption as a special p!i%ilege cannot e e&tended e$ond the o!dina!$ meaning of its te!ms. .t ma$ not e e&tended $ intendment, implication o! e/uitale conside!ations. The (E7< Constitution p!o%ided in its A!ticle F. on the Gegislati%e ,epa!tmentH 5ec. (<. The 5enato!s and 2eme!s of the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es shall in all cases e&cept t!eason, felon$, and !each of the peace e p!i%ileged f!om a!!est du!ing thei! attendance at the sessions of Cong!ess, and in going to and !etu!ning f!om the sameI &&&. Because of the !oad co%e!age of felon$ and !each of the peace, the e&emption applied onl$ to ci%il a!!ests. A cong!essman li*e the accused-appellant, con%icted unde! Title Ele%en of the Re%ised Denal Code could not claim pa!liamenta!$ immunit$ f!om a!!est. 3e "as suject to the same gene!al la"s go%e!ning all pe!sons still to e t!ied o! "hose con%ictions "e!e pending appeal. The (E?7 Constitution !oadened the p!i%ilege of immunit$ as follo"sH A!ticle F..., 5ec. E. A 2eme! of the Batasang Damansa shall, in all o+enses punishale $ not mo!e than si& $ea!s imp!isonment, e p!i%ileged f!om a!!est du!ing his attendance at its sessions and in going to and !etu!ning f!om the same. :o! o+enses punishale $ mo!e than si& $ea!s imp!isonment, the!e "as no immunit$ f!om a!!est. The !est!icti%e inte!p!etation of immunit$ and the intent to con#ne it "ithin ca!efull$ de#ned pa!amete!s is illust!ated $ the concluding po!tion of the p!o%ision, to "itH &&& ut the Batasang Damansa shall su!!ende! the meme! in%ol%ed to the custod$ of the la" "ithin t"ent$ fou! hou!s afte! its adjou!nment fo! a !ecess o! fo! its ne&t session, othe!"ise such p!i%ilege shall cease upon its failu!e to do so. The p!esent Constitution adhe!es to the same !est!icti%e !ule minus the oligation of Cong!ess to su!!ende! the suject Cong!essman to the custod$ of the la". The 6 !e/ui!ement that he should e attending sessions o! committee meetings has also een !emo%ed. :o! !elati%el$ mino! o+enses, it is enough that Cong!ess is in session. The accused-appellant a!gues that a meme! of Cong!ess0 function to attend sessions is unde!sco!ed $ 5ection (> J6K, A!ticle F. of the Constitution "hich states that4 J6K A majo!it$ of each 3ouse shall constitute a /uo!um to do usiness, ut a smalle! nume! ma$ adjou!n f!om da$ to da$ and ma$ compel the attendance of asent 2eme!s in such manne!, and unde! such penalties, as such 3ouse ma$ p!o%ide. 3o"e%e!, the accused-appellant has not gi%en an$ !eason "h$ he should e e&empted f!om the ope!ation of 5ection ((, A!ticle F. of the Constitution. The meme!s of Cong!ess cannot compel asent meme!s to attend sessions if the !eason fo! the asence is a legitimate one. The con#nement of a Cong!essman cha!ged "ith a c!ime punishale $ imp!isonment of mo!e than si& months is not me!el$ autho!iLed $ la", it has constitutional foundations. Accused-appellant0s !eliance on the !uling in Aguinaldo v. Santos '6) , "hich states, inte! alia, that 4 The Cou!t should ne%e! !emo%e a pulic oCce! fo! acts done p!io! to his p!esent te!m of oCce. To do othe!"ise "ould e to dep!i%e the people of thei! !ight to elect thei! oCce!s. Bhen a people ha%e elected a man to oCce, it must e assumed that the$ did this "ith the *no"ledge of his life and cha!acte!, and that the$ dis!ega!ded o! fo!ga%e his fault o! misconduct, if he had een guilt$ of an$. .t is not fo! the Cou!t, $ !eason of such fault o! misconduct, to p!acticall$ o%e!!ule the "ill of the people. "ill not e&t!icate him f!om his p!edicament. .t can e !eadil$ seen in the ao%e-/uoted !uling that the Aguinaldo case in%ol%es the administ!ati%e !emo%al of a pulic oCce! fo! acts done prior to his p!esent te!m of oCce. .t does not appl$ to imp!isonment a!ising f!om the enfo!cement of c!iminal la". 2o!eo%e!, in the same "a$ that p!e%enti%e suspension is not !emo%al, con#nement pending appeal is not !emo%al. 3e !emains a cong!essman unless e&pelled $ Cong!ess o!, othe!"ise, dis/uali#ed. Ane !ationale ehind con#nement, "hethe! pending appeal o! afte! #nal con%iction, is pulic self-defense. 5ociet$ must p!otect itself. .t also se!%es as an e&le and "a!ning to othe!s. A pe!son cha!ged "ith c!ime is ta*en into custod$ fo! pu!poses of the administ!ation of justice. As stated in United States v. Gustilo, '7) it is the inju!$ to the pulic "hich 5tate action in c!iminal la" see*s to !ed!ess. .t is not the inju!$ to the complainant. Afte! con%iction in the Regional T!ial Cou!t, the accused ma$ e denied ail and thus sujected to inca!ce!ation if the!e is !is* of his asconding. '9) The accused-appellant states that the plea of the electo!ate "hich %oted him into oCce cannot e supplanted $ unfounded fea!s that he might escape e%entual punishment if pe!mitted to pe!fo!m cong!essional duties outside his !egula! place of con#nement. .t "ill e !ecalled that "hen a "a!!ant fo! accused- appellant0s a!!est "as issued, he fed and e%aded captu!e despite a call f!om his colleagues in the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es fo! him to attend the sessions and to su!!ende! %olunta!il$ to the autho!ities. .!onicall$, it is no" the same od$ "hose call he initiall$ spu!ned "hich accused-appellant is in%o*ing to justif$ his p!esent motion. This can not e countenanced ecause, to !eite!ate, aside f!om its eing cont!a!$ to "ell-de#ned Constitutional 7 !est!ains, it "ould e a moc*e!$ of the aims of the 5tate0s penal s$stem. Accused-appellant a!gues that on se%e!al occasions, the Regional T!ial Cou!t of 2a*ati g!anted se%e!al motions to tempo!a!il$ lea%e his cell at the 2a*ati Cit$ Jail, fo! oCcial o! medical !easons, to "itH aK to attend hea!ings of the 3ouse Committee on Ethics held at the Batasan Comple&, MueLon Cit$, on the issue of "hethe! to e&pel8suspend him f!om the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%esI K to unde!go dental e&amination and t!eatment at the clinic of his dentist in 2a*ati Cit$I cK to unde!go a tho!ough medical chec*-up at the 2a*ati 2edical Cente!, 2a*ati Cit$I dK to !egiste! as a %ote! at his hometo"n in ,apitan Cit$. .n this case, accused-appellant commuted $ cha!te!ed plane and p!i%ate %ehicle. 3e also calls attention to %a!ious instances, afte! his t!ansfe! at the Ne" Biliid D!ison in 2untinlupa Cit$, "hen he "as li*e"ise allo"ed8pe!mitted to lea%e the p!ison p!emises, to "itH aK to join 1li%ing-out1 p!isone!s on 1"o!*- %oluntee! p!og!am1 fo! the pu!pose of (K estalishing a mahogan$ seedling an* and 6K planting mahogan$ t!ees, at the NBD !ese!%ation. :o! this pu!pose, he "as assigned one gua!d and allo"ed to use his o"n %ehicle and d!i%e! in going to and f!om the p!oject a!ea and his place of con#nement. K to continue "ith his dental t!eatment at the clinic of his dentist in 2a*ati Cit$. cK to e con#ned at the 2a*ati 2edical Cente! in 2a*ati Cit$ fo! his hea!t condition. The!e is no sho"ing that the ao%e p!i%ileges a!e peculia! to him o! to a meme! of Cong!ess. Eme!genc$ o! compelling tempo!a!$ lea%es f!om imp!isonment a!e allo"ed to all p!isone!s, at the disc!etion of the autho!ities o! upon cou!t o!de!s. Bhat the accused-appellant see*s is not of an eme!genc$ natu!e. Allo"ing accused-appellant to attend cong!essional sessions and committee meetings fo! #%e J<K da$s o! mo!e in a "ee* "ill %i!tuall$ ma*e him a f!ee man "ith all the p!i%ileges appu!tenant to his position. 5uch an ae!!ant situation not onl$ ele%ates accused-appellant0s status to that of a special class, it also "ould e a moc*e!$ of the pu!poses of the co!!ection s$stem. Af pa!ticula! !ele%ance in this !ega!d a!e the follo"ing ose!%ations of the Cou!t in Martinez v. Morfe: '<) The ao%e conclusion !eached $ this Cou!t is olste!ed and fo!ti#ed $ polic$ conside!ations. The!e is, to e su!e, a full !ecognition of the necessit$ to ha%e meme!s of Cong!ess, and li*e"ise delegates to the Constitutional Con%ention, entitled to the utmost f!eedom to enale them to discha!ge thei! %ital !esponsiilities, o"ing to no othe! fo!ce e&cept the dictates of thei! conscience. Necessa!il$ the utmost latitude in f!ee speech should e acco!ded them. Bhen it comes to f!eedom f!om a!!est, ho"e%e!, it "ould amount to the c!eation of a p!i%ileged class, 9 "ithout justi#cation in !eason, if not"ithstanding thei! liailit$ fo! a c!iminal o+ense, the$ "ould e conside!ed immune du!ing thei! attendance in Cong!ess and in going to and !etu!ning f!om the same. The!e is li*el$ to e no dissent f!om the p!oposition that a legislato! o! a delegate can pe!fo!m his functions eCcientl$ and "ell, "ithout the need fo! an$ t!ansg!ession of the c!iminal la". 5hould such an unfo!tunate e%ent come to pass, he is to e t!eated li*e an$ othe! citiLen conside!ing that the!e is a st!ong pulic inte!est in seeing to it that c!ime should not go unpunished. To the fea! that ma$ e e&p!essed that the p!osecuting a!m of the go%e!nment might unjustl$ go afte! legislato!s elonging to the mino!it$, it suCces to ans"e! that p!ecisel$ all the safegua!ds th!o"n a!ound an accused $ the Constitution, solicitous of the !ights of an indi%idual, "ould constitute an ostacle to such an attempt at ause of po"e!. The p!esumption of cou!se is that the judicia!$ "ould !emain independent. .t is t!ite to sa$ that in each and e%e!$ manifestation of judicial endea%o!, such a %i!tue is of the essence. The accused-appellant a%e!s that his constituents in the :i!st ,ist!ict of ;amoanga del No!te "ant thei! %oices to e hea!d and that since he is t!eated as bona fde meme! of the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es, the latte! u!ges a co-e/ual !anch of go%e!nment to !espect his mandate. 3e also claims that the concept of tempo!a!$ detention does not necessa!il$ cu!tail his dut$ to discha!ge his mandate and that he has al"a$s complied "ith the conditions8!est!ictions "hen he is allo"ed to lea%e jail. Be !emain unpe!suaded. No less than accused-appellant himself admits that li*e an$ othe! meme! of the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es 1'h)e is p!o%ided "ith a cong!essional oCce situated at Room N-6(9, No!th Bing Building, 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es Comple&, Batasan 3ills, MueLon Cit$, manned $ a full complement of sta+ paid fo! $ Cong!ess. Th!ough 'an) inte!-depa!tment coo!dination, he is also provided with an ofce at the Adinistration !uilding, "ew !ilibid #rison, Muntinlupa $it%, where he attends to his constituents.1 Accused-appellant fu!the! admits that "hile unde! detention, he has #led se%e!al ills and !esolutions. .t also appea!s that he has een !ecei%ing his sala!ies and othe! moneta!$ ene#ts. 5uccinctl$ stated, accused-appellant has een discha!ging his mandate as a meme! of the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%e consistent "ith the !est!aints upon one "ho is p!esentl$ unde! detention. Being a detainee, accused-appellant should not e%en ha%e een allo"ed $ the p!ison autho!ities at the National Dentientia!$ to pe!fo!m these acts. Bhen the %ote!s of his dist!ict elected the accused-appellant to Cong!ess, the$ did so "ith full a"a!eness of the limitations on his f!eedom of action. The$ did so "ith the *no"ledge that he could achie%e onl$ such legislati%e !esults "hich he could accomplish "ithin the con#nes of p!ison. To gi%e a mo!e d!astic illust!ation, if %ote!s elect a pe!son "ith full *no"ledge that he is su+e!ing f!om a te!minal illness, the$ do so *no"ing that at an$ time, he ma$ no longe! se!%e his full te!m in oCce. .n the ultimate anal$sis, the issue efo!e us oils do"n to a /uestion of constitutional e/ual p!otection. The Constitution gua!anteesH 1& & & no! shall an$ pe!son e denied the e/ual p!otection of la"s.1 '>) This simpl$ means that all pe!sons simila!l$ situated shall e t!eated ali*e oth in !ights enjo$ed and !esponsiilities imposed. '?) The o!gans of go%e!nment ma$ not sho" an$ undue fa%o!itism o! hostilit$ to an$ pe!son. Neithe! pa!tialit$ no! p!ejudice shall e displa$ed. < ,oes eing an electi%e oCcial !esult in a sustantial distinction that allo"s di+e!ent t!eatment- .s eing a Cong!essman a sustantial di+e!entiation "hich !emo%es the accused-appellant as a p!isone! f!om the same class as all pe!sons %alidl$ con#ned unde! la"- The pe!fo!mance of legitimate and e%en essential duties $ pulic oCce!s has ne%e! een an e&cuse to f!ee a pe!son %alidl$ in p!ison. The duties imposed $ the 1mandate of the people1 a!e multifa!ious. The accused-appellant asse!ts that the dut$ to legislate !an*s highest in the hie!a!ch$ of go%e!nment. The accused-appellant is onl$ one of 6<N meme!s of the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es, not to mention the 69 meme!s of the 5enate, cha!ged "ith the duties of legislation. Cong!ess continues to function "ell in the ph$sical asence of one o! a fe" of its meme!s. ,epending on the e&igenc$ of Go%e!nment that has to e add!essed, the D!esident o! the 5up!eme Cou!t can also e deemed the highest fo! that pa!ticula! dut$. The impo!tance of a function depends on the need fo! its e&e!cise. The dut$ of a mothe! to nu!se he! infant is most compelling unde! the la" of natu!e. A docto! "ith uni/ue s*ills has the dut$ to sa%e the li%es of those "ith a pa!ticula! aOiction. An electi%e go%e!no! has to se!%e p!o%incial constituents. A police oCce! must maintain peace and o!de!. Ne%e! has the call of a pa!ticula! dut$ lifted a p!isone! into a di+e!ent classi#cation f!om those othe!s "ho a!e %alidl$ !est!ained $ la". A st!ict sc!utin$ of classi#cations is essential lest "ittingl$ o! othe!"ise, insidious disc!iminations a!e made in fa%o! of o! against g!oups o! t$pes of indi%iduals. '@) The Cou!t cannot %alidate adges of ine/ualit$. The necessities imposed $ pulic "elfa!e ma$ justif$ e&e!cise of go%e!nment autho!it$ to !egulate e%en if the!e$ ce!tain g!oups ma$ plausil$ asse!t that thei! inte!ests a!e dis!ega!ded. 'E) Be, the!efo!e, #nd that election to the position of Cong!essman is not a !easonale classi#cation in c!iminal la" enfo!cement. The functions and duties of the oCce a!e not sustantial distinctions "hich lift him f!om the class of p!isone!s inte!!upted in thei! f!eedom and !est!icted in lie!t$ of mo%ement. Ga"ful a!!est and con#nement a!e ge!mane to the pu!poses of the la" and appl$ to all those elonging to the same class. '(N) .mp!isonment is the !est!aint of a man0s pe!sonal lie!t$I coe!cion e&e!cised upon a pe!son to p!e%ent the f!ee e&e!cise of his po"e! of locomotion. '(() 2o!e e&plicitl$, 1imp!isonment1 in its gene!al sense, is the !est!aint of one0s lie!t$. As a punishment, it is !est!aint $ judgment of a cou!t o! la"ful t!iunal, and is pe!sonal to the accused. '(6) The te!m !efe!s to the !est!aint on the pe!sonal lie!t$ of anothe!I an$ p!e%ention of his mo%ements f!om place to place, o! of his f!ee action acco!ding to his o"n pleasu!e and "ill. '(7) .mp!isonment is the detention of anothe! against his "illdepriving hi of his power of locootion '(9) and it 1'is) something mo!e than me!e loss of f!eedom. .t includes the notion of restraint within liits defned b% wall or an% e&terior barrier.1 '(<) .t can e seen f!om the fo!egoing that inca!ce!ation, $ its natu!e, changes an indi%idual0s status in societ$. '(>) D!ison oCcials ha%e the diCcult and often than*less jo of p!ese!%ing the secu!it$ in a potentiall$ e&plosi%e setting, as "ell as of attempting to p!o%ide !ehailitation that p!epa!es inmates fo! !e-ent!$ into the social mainst!eam. Necessa!il$, oth these demands !e/ui!e the cu!tailment and elimination of ce!tain !ights. '(?) D!emises conside!ed, "e a!e const!ained to !ule against the accused-appellant0s claim that !e-election to pulic oCce gi%es p!io!it$ to an$ othe! !ight o! inte!est, including the police po"e! of the 5tate. > )EREFORE, the instant motion is he!e$ ,EN.E,. "O OR*ERE*. 'apunan, #anganiban, (uisubing, #urisia, #ardo, !uena, and )e *eon, +r., ++., concu!. Gonzaga,-e%es, +., see sepa!ate concu!!ing opinion. )avide, +r., $.+., !ellosillo, Melo, #uno, .itug, and Mendoza, ++., concu!s in the main and sepa!ate opinion. EN BANC [G.R. Nos. 132875-76. No+e,ber 16, 2001] PEOPLE OF TE P!L!PP!NE", plaintif-appellee, +s., RO#EO G. $%LO"$O", accused-appellant. * E - ! " ! O N 'N%RE"-"%NT!%GO, J.( This Cou!t has decla!ed that the state polic$ on the heinous o+ense of !ape is clea! and unmista*ale. =nde! ce!tain ci!cumstances, some of them p!esent in this case, the o+ende! ma$ e sentenced to a long pe!iod of con#nement, o! he ma$ su+e! death. The c!ime is an assault on human dignit$. No legal s$stem "o!th$ of the name can a+o!d to igno!e the t!aumatic conse/uences fo! the unfo!tunate %ictim and g!ie%ous inju!$ to the peace and good o!de! of the communit$. '() Rape is pa!ticula!l$ odious, one "hich #gu!ati%el$ sc!apes the ottom of the a!!el of mo!al dep!a%it$, "hen committed against a mino!. '6) .n %ie" of the int!insic natu!e of the c!ime of !ape "he!e onl$ t"o pe!sons a!e usuall$ in%ol%ed, the testimon$ of the complainant is al"a$s sc!utiniLed "ith e&t!eme caution. '7) .n the p!esent case, the!e a!e ce!tain pa!ticula!s "hich impelled the cou!t to de%ote an e%en mo!e painsta*ing and meticulous e&amination of the facts on !eco!d and a simila!l$ conscientious e%aluation of the a!guments of the pa!ties. The %ictim of !ape in this case is a mino! elo" t"el%e J(6K $ea!s of age. As na!!ated $ he!, the details of the !ape a!e mesme!icall$ so!did and !epulsi%e. The %ictim "as peddled fo! comme!cial se& $ he! o"n gua!dian "hom she t!eated as a foste! fathe!. Because the complainant "as a "illing %ictim, the acts of !ape "e!e p!eceded $ se%e!al acts of lasci%iousness on distinctl$ sepa!ate occasions. The accused is also a most unli*el$ !apist. 3e is a meme! of Cong!ess. .nspite of his ha%ing een cha!ged and con%icted $ the t!ial cou!t fo! statuto!$ !ape, his constituents li*ed him so much that the$ *no"ingl$ !e-elected him to his cong!essional oCce, the duties of "hich he could not pe!fo!m. 5tatuto!$ !ape committed $ a distinguished Cong!essman on an ele%en J((K $ea! old comme!cial se& "o!*e! is ound to att!act "idesp!ead media and pulic attention. .n the "o!ds of accused-appellant, Phe has een demoniLed in the p!ess most unfai!l$, his image t!ansmog!i#ed into that of a dasta!dl$, og!e, out to get his slim$ hands on innocent and naQ%e gi!ls to satiate his lustful desi!es.R '9) This Cou!t, the!efo!e, punctiliousl$ conside!ed accused-appellant0s claim that he su+e!ed Pin%idiousl$ disc!iminato!$ t!eatment.R Rega!ding the ao%e allegation, the Cou!t has asce!tained that the e&tensi%e pulicit$ gene!ated $ the case did not !esult in a mist!ialI the ? !eco!ds sho" that the accused had ample and f!ee oppo!tunit$ to adduce his defenses. This is an appeal f!om the decision '<) of the Regional T!ial Cou!t of 2a*ati, B!anch >6, in C!iminal Case Nos. E>- (E@< and E>-(E@>, con%icting accused-appellant Romeo Jalosjos of t"o J6K counts of statuto!$ !ape, and in C!iminal Case Nos. E>-(E@?, E>-(E@@, E>-(E@E, E>-(EEN, E>-(EE6, and E>-(EE7, fo! si& J>K counts of acts of lasci%iousness de#ned and penaliLed unde! A!ticle 77> of the Re%ised Denal Code, in !elation to 5ection <JK of Repulic Act No. ?>(N, also *no"n as the Child Ause Ga". The!e "e!e si& J>K othe! cases, C!iminal Case Nos. E>- (EE(, E>-(EE9, E>-(EE<, E>-(EE>, E>-(EE?, and E>-(EE@, "he!e the accused-appellant "as ac/uitted of the cha!ges of acts of lasci%iousness fo! failu!e of the p!osecution to p!o%e his guilt e$ond !easonale dout. An ,eceme! (>, (EE>, t"o J6K info!mations fo! the c!ime of statuto!$ !apeI and t"el%e J(6K fo! acts of lasci%iousness de#ned and penaliLed unde! A!ticle 77> of the Re%ised Denal Code, in !elation to 5ection <JK of Repulic Act No. ?>(N, "e!e #led against accused- appellant. The accusato!$ po!tion of said info!mations fo! the c!ime of statuto!$ !ape stateH /n $riinal $ase "o. 01,2034: The unde!signed, upon p!io! s"o!n complaint $ the o+ended pa!t$, ele%en J((K $ea! old mino! RA5.GSN ,EGANTAR, accuses RA2EA JAGA5JA5 of the c!ime of RADE de#ned and penaliLed unde! A!t. 77< J7K of the Re%ised Denal Code, committed as follo"sH That on o! aout June (@, (EE> at Room No.(?N6, RitL To"e!s, 2a*ati Cit$, and "ithin the ju!isdiction of this 3ono!ale Cou!t, the ao%e-named accused, did then and the!e "illfull$, unla"full$ and feloniousl$ ha%e ca!nal *no"ledge "ith 5sic6 ele%en $ea! old mino! Rosil$n ,elanta! against he! "ill, "ith damage and p!ejudice. CANTRARS TA GAB. '>) /n $riinal $ase "o. 01,2031: The unde!signed, upon p!io! s"o!n complaint $ the o+ended pa!t$, ele%en J((K $ea! old mino! RA5.GSN ,EGANTAR, accuses RA2EA JAGA5JA5 of the c!ime of RADE de#ned and penaliLed unde! A!t. 77< J7K of the Re%ised Denal Code, committed as follo"sH That on o! aout June 6N, (EE> at Room No. (?N6, RitL To"e!s, 2a*ati Cit$, and "ithin the ju!isdiction of this 3ono!ale Cou!t, the ao%e-named accused, did then and the!e "illfull$, unla"full$ and feloniousl$ ha%e ca!nal *no"ledge "ith 5sic6 ele%en $ea! old mino! Rosil$n ,elanta! against he! "ill, "ith damage and p!ejudice. CANTRARS TA GAB. '?) :o! acts of lasci%iousness, the info!mations '@) unde! "hich accused-appellant "as con%icted "e!e identical e&cept fo! the di+e!ent dates of commission on June (9, (EE>I June (<, (EE>I June (>, (EE>I June 6N, (EE>I June 6(, (EE>I and June 66, (EE>, to "itH The unde!signed, upon p!io! s"o!n complaint $ the o+ended pa!t$, ele%en J((K-$ea! old mino! RA5.GSN ,EGANTAR accuses RA2EA JAGA5JA5 of the c!ime of ACT5 A: GA5C.F.A=5NE55 in !elation to 5ection < JK, A!ticle ... of Repulic Act No. ?>(N, othe!"ise *no"n as the 5pecial D!otection of Child!en against Ause, E&ploitation and ,isc!imination Act, committed as follo"sH That in the e%ening of June (9, (EE>, o! the!eaout, in Room No. (?N6, RitL To"e!s, 2a*ati Cit$, 2et!o-2anila and "ithin @ the ju!isdiction of this 3ono!ale Cou!t, the ao%e-named accused, "ith le"d design, did then and the!e "ilfull$, unla"full$ and feloniousl$ *iss, ca!ess and fondle said complainantTs face, lips, nec*, !easts, "hole od$, and %agina, suc* he! nipples and inse!t his #nge! and then his tongue into he! %agina, place himself on top of he!, then inse!t his penis in et"een he! thighs until ejaculation, and othe! simila! lasci%ious conduct against he! "ill, to he! damage and p!ejudice. CANTRARS TA GAB. .n C!iminal Cases Nos. E>-(E@@I E>-(EENI and E>-(EE7, the!e "e!e added a%e!ments that on the di+e!ent dates, the accused ga%e the complainant D(N,NNN.NN, D<,NNN.NN and D<,NNN.NN !especti%el$. =pon a!!aignment on Janua!$ 6E, (EE?, accused- appellant !efused to ente! a plea. 3ence, the t!ial cou!t ente!ed a plea of not guilt$ fo! him. At the t!ial, the p!osecution p!esented eight J@K main "itnesses and se%en J?K !euttal "itnesses as "ell as documenta!$ e%idences ma!*ed as E&hiits A to EEEE, inclusi%e of suma!*ings. The defense, on the othe! hand p!esented t"ent$-si& J6>K "itnesses. .ts documenta!$ e%idence consists of E&hiits ( to (<7, inclusi%e of suma!*ings. The !eco!ds of the case a!e e&t!emel$ %oluminous. The Deople0s %e!sion of the facts, culled mainl$ f!om the testimon$ of the %ictim, a!e as follo"sH 2a!ia Rosil$n ,elanta! "as a slim, ele%en-$ea! old lass "ith long, st!aight lac* hai! and almond-shaped lac* e$es. 5he g!e" up in a t"o-sto!e$ apa!tment in Dasa$ Cit$ unde! the ca!e of 5implicio ,elanta!, "hom she t!eated as he! o"n fathe!. 5implicio "as a #ft$-si& $ea! old homose&ual "hose ostensile sou!ce of income "as selling longganiza and tocino and accepting oa!de!s at his house. An the side, he "as also engaged in the s*in t!ade as a pimp. Rosil$n ne%e! got to see he! mothe!, though she had *no"n a $ounge! !othe!, 5hand!o, "ho "as also unde! the ca!e of 5implicio. At a %e!$ $oung age of <, fai! and smooth- comple&ioned Rosil$n "as e&posed $ 5implicio to his illicit acti%ities. 5he and he! !othe! "ould tag along "ith 5implicio "hene%e! he deli%e!ed p!ostitutes to his clients. Bhen she tu!ned E, Rosil$n "as o+e!ed $ 5implicio as a p!ostitute to an A!aian national *no"n as 2!. 3ammond. Thus egun he! o!deal as one of the gi!ls sold $ 5implicio fo! se&ual fa%o!s. Rosil$n #!st met accused-appellant, Romeo Jalosjos, sometime in :e!ua!$ (EE> at his oCce located nea! Roinson0s Galle!ia. Rosil$n and 5implicio "e!e !ought the!e and int!oduced $ a talent manage! $ the name of Edua!do 5ua!eL. Accused-appellant p!omised to help Rosil$n ecome an act!ess. Bhen he sa" Rosil$n, accused- appellant as*ed ho" old she "as. 5implicio ans"e!ed, P(N. 5he is going to e (( on 2a$ ((.R Accused-appellant in/ui!ed if Rosil$n *no"s ho" to sing. 5implicio told Rosil$n to sing, so she sang the song, PTell 2e Sou Go%e 2e.R Accused-appellant then as*ed if Rosil$n has nice legs and then !aised he! s*i!t up to the mid-thighs. 3e as*ed if she "as al!ead$ menst!uating, and 5implicio said $es. Accused-appellant fu!the! in/ui!ed if Rosil$n al!ead$ had !easts. Bhen nood$ ans"e!ed, accused-appellant cupped Rosil$n0s left !east. The!eafte!, accused-appellant assu!ed them that he "ould help Rosil$n ecome an act!ess as he "as one of the p!oduce!s of the TF p!og!ams, 7.aliente8 and 79at !ulaga.8 5implicio and 5ua!eL then discussed the e&ecution of a cont!act fo! Rosil$n0s mo%ie ca!ee!. Accused-appellant, on the othe! hand, said that he "ould adopt Rosil$n and that the latte! "ould ha%e to li%e "ith him in his condominium at the RitL To"e!s. Befo!e 5implicio and Rosil$n "ent home, accused-appellant ga%e Rosil$n D6,NNN.NN. The second time Rosil$n met accused-appellant "as at his condominium unit, located at Room (?N6, RitL To"e!s, 2a*ati Cit$. Accused-appellant and 5implicio discussed the E cont!act and his plan to #nance Rosil$n0s studies. Accused- appellant ga%e 5implicio D<NN.NN, the!eafte!, Rosil$n, 5hand!o and 5implicio left. The thi!d meeting et"een Rosil$n and accused- appellant "as also at RitL To"e!s to discuss he! acting ca!ee!. Accused-appellant !efe!!ed the p!epa!ation of Rosil$n0s cont!act to his la"$e!, "ho "as also p!esent. Afte! the meeting, 5implicio and Rosil$n left. As the$ "e!e "al*ing to"a!ds the ele%ato!, accused-appellant app!oached them and ga%e Rosil$n D7,NNN.NN. An June (9, (EE>, at aout @H7N to EHNN p.m., 5implicio and Rosil$n !etu!ned to accused-appellant0s condominium unit at RitL To"e!s. Bhen accused-appellant came out of his ed!oom, 5implicio told Rosil$n to go inside the ed!oom, "hile he and accused-appellant sta$ed outside. Afte! a "hile, accused-appellant ente!ed the ed!oom and found Rosil$n "atching tele%ision. 3e "al*ed to"a!ds Rosil$n and *issed he! on the lips, then left the !oom again. 5implicio came in and id he! good$e. Rosil$n told 5implicio that accused-appellant *issed he! to "hich 5implicio !eplied, 7:ali; lang naan.8 Rosil$n "as left alone in the ed!oom "atching tele%ision. Afte! some time, accused-appellant came in and ente!ed the ath!oom. 3e came out clad in a long "hite T- shi!t on "hich "as p!inted the "o!d, 7)a;a;.8 .n his hand "as a plain "hite T-shi!t. Accused-appellant told Rosil$n that he "anted to change he! clothes. Rosil$n p!otested and told accused-appellant that she can do it he!self, ut accused-appellant ans"e!ed, 7)add% o naan a;o.8 Accused-appellant then too* o+ Rosil$n0s louse and s*i!t. Bhen he "as aout to ta*e o+ he! panties, Rosil$n said, 7:uwag po.8 Again, accused-appellant told he!, PAfte! all, . am $ou! ,add$.R Accused-appellant then !emo%ed he! panties and d!essed he! "ith the long "hite T-shi!t. The t"o of them "atched tele%ision in ed. Afte! sometime, accused-appellant tu!ned o+ the lamp and the tele%ision. 3e tu!ned to Rosil$n and *issed he! lips. 3e then !aised he! shi!t, touched he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge! into he! %agina. Rosil$n felt pain and c!ied out, 7<aa na po.8 Accused-appellant stopped. 3e continued to *iss he! lips and fondle he! !easts. Gate!, accused-appellant told Rosil$n to sleep. The follo"ing mo!ning, Rosil$n "as a"a*ened $ accused-appellant "hom she found ent o%e! and *issing he!. 3e told he! to get up, too* he! hand and led he! to the ath!oom. 3e !emo%ed Rosil$n0s shi!t and ga%e he! a ath. Bhile accused-appellant !ued soap all o%e! Rosil$n0s od$, he ca!essed he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge! into he! %agina. Afte! that, he !insed he! od$, d!ied he! "ith a to"el and applied lotion on he! a!ms and legs. Then, he d!ied he! hai! and told he! to d!ess up. Rosil$n put on he! clothes and "ent out of the ath!oom, "hile accused- appellant too* a sho"e!. Accused-appellant ate !ea*fast "hile Rosil$n sta$ed in the ed!oom "atching tele%ision. Bhen accused-appellant ente!ed the !oom, he *nelt in f!ont of he!, !emo%ed he! panties and placed he! legs on his shoulde!s. Then, he placed his tongue on he! %agina. The!eafte!, he ga%e Rosil$n D(N,NNN.NN and told his housemaid to ta*e he! shopping at 5hoema!t. Bhen she !etu!ned to the RitL To"e!s, 5implicio "as "aiting fo! he!. The t"o of them "ent home. Rosil$n na!!ated to 5implicio "hat accused-appellant did to he!, and pleaded fo! him not to !ing he! ac* to the RitL To"e!s. 5implicio told he! that e%e!$thing "as al!ight as long as accused-appellant does not ha%e se&ual inte!cou!se "ith he!. That same e%ening, at a!ound EHNN to EH7N in the e%ening, 5implicio again !ought Rosil$n to the RitL To"e!s. Afte! 5implicio left, accused-appellant !emo%ed Rosil$n0s clothes and d!essed he! "ith the same long T-shi!t. The$ "atched tele%ision fo! a "hile, then accused-appellant sat eside Rosil$n and *issed he! on the lips. 3e made Rosil$n lie do"n, lifted he! shi!t ao%e he! !easts, and inse!ted his #nge! into he! %agina. Then, accused-appellant !emo%ed his o"n clothes, placed his penis et"een Rosil$n0s thighs and (N made th!usting motions until he ejaculated on he! thighs. The!eafte!, accused-appellant *issed he! and told he! to sleep. The ne&t da$, June (>, (EE>, accused-appellant !oused he! f!om sleep and athed he!. Again, he !ued soap all o%e! he! od$, "ashed he! hai!, and the!eafte! !insed he! od$ and d!ied he! hai!. Bhile accused-appellant "as athing Rosil$n, he as*ed he! to fondle his penis "hile he ca!essed he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge! into he! %agina. Afte! thei! sho"e!, accused-appellant ate !ea*fast. 3e ga%e Rosil$n D<,NNN.NN and told he! to just "ait fo! 5implicio in the condominium unit. An thei! "a$ home, 5implicio told Rosil$n that if accused-appellant t!ies to inse!t his penis into he! %agina, she should !efuse. At a!ound @HNN p.m. of June (@, (EE>, 5implicio !ought Rosil$n to the RitL To"e!s. The$ found accused-appellant sitting on the ed in his ed!oom. 5implicio told Rosil$n to app!oach accused-appellant, then he left. Accused- appellant too* o+ Rosil$n0s clothes and d!essed he! "ith a long T-shi!t on "hich "as p!inted a pictu!e of accused- appellant and a "oman, "ith the caption, PCong. Jalosjos "ith his To$.R The$ "atched tele%ision fo! a "hile, then accused-appellant la$ eside Rosil$n and *issed he! on the lips. 3e !aised he! shi!t and pa!ted he! legs. 3e positioned himself et"een the sp!ead legs of Rosil$n, too* o+ his o"n shi!t, held his penis, and po*ed and p!essed the same against Rosil$n0s %agina. This caused Rosil$n pain inside he! se& o!gan. The!eafte!, accused-appellant fondled he! !easts and told he! to sleep. Bhen Rosil$n "o*e up the follo"ing mo!ning, June (E, (EE>, accused-appellant "as no longe! a!ound ut she found D<,NNN.NN on the tale. Ea!lie! that mo!ning, she had felt someod$ touching he! p!i%ate pa!ts ut she "as still too sleep$ to #nd out "ho it "as. Rosil$n too* a ath, then "ent o+ to school "ith 5implicio, "ho a!!i%ed to fetch he!. The ne&t encounte! of Rosil$n "ith accused-appellant "as on June 6(, (EE>, at aout EHNN o0cloc* in the e%ening in his ed!oom at the RitL To"e!s. Accused-appellant st!ipped he! na*ed and again put on he! the long shi!t he "anted he! to "ea!. Afte! "atching tele%ision fo! a "hile, accused-appellant *nelt eside Rosil$n, !aised he! shi!t, ca!essed he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge! into he! %agina. Then, he clipped his penis et"een Rosil$n0s thighs, and made th!usting motions until he ejaculated. The!eafte!, Rosil$n "ent to sleep. The ne&t da$, June 66, (EE>, Rosil$n "as a"a*ened $ accused-appellant "ho "as *issing he! and fondling he! se& o!gan. 5he, ho"e%e!, igno!ed him and "ent ac* to sleep. Bhen she "o*e up, she found the D<,NNN.NN "hich accused-appellant left and ga%e the same to 5implicio ,elanta!, "hen the latte! came to pic* he! up. An June 6E, (EE>, Rosil$n again "ent to the RitL To"e!s. ,u!ing that %isit, accused-appellant too* photog!aphs of Rosil$n. 3e as*ed he! to pose "ith he! T- shi!t pulled do"n the!e$ e&posing he! !easts. 3e also too* he! photog!aphs "ith he! T-shi!t !olled up to the pel%is ut "ithout sho"ing he! puis, and #nall$, "hile st!addled on a chai! facing the ac*!est, sho"ing he! legs. Befo!e Rosil$n "ent to sleep, accused-appellant *issed he! lips, fondled he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge! into he! %agina. The follo"ing mo!ning, she "o*e up and found the D<,NNN.NN left $ accused-appellant on the tale. 5he !ecalled that ea!lie! that mo!ning, she felt someod$ ca!essing he! !easts and se& o!gan. An Jul$ 6, (EE> at ?HNN p.m., Rosil$n and 5implicio !etu!ned to the RitL To"e!s. Rosil$n had to "ait fo! accused- appellant, "ho a!!i%ed et"een (6HNN to (HNN a.m. 3e again d!essed he! "ith the long "hite shi!t simila! to "hat he "as "ea!ing. Bhile sitting on the ed, accused-appellant *issed he! lips and inse!ted his tongue into he! mouth. 3e then fondled he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge! into he! %agina, causing he! to c!$ in pain. Accused-appellant stopped and told he! to sleep. (( The ne&t mo!ning, accused-appellant athed he! again. Bhile he soaped he! od$, he fondled he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge! in he! %agina. Rosil$n felt pain and sho%ed his hand a"a$. Afte! athing he!, accused-appellant had !ea*fast. Befo!e he left, he ga%e Rosil$n D<,NNN.NN. As soon as 5implicio a!!i%ed, Rosil$n ga%e he! the mone$ and then the$ left fo! school. An Jul$ 6N, (EE>, 5implicio again !ought Rosil$n to the RitL To"e!s. Accused-appellant "as "aiting in his ed!oom. 3e too* o+ Rosil$n0s clothes, including he! panties, and d!essed he! "ith a long T-shi!t simila! to "hat he "as "ea!ing. Afte! "atching tele%ision, accused- appellant *issed Rosil$n on the lips, inse!ted his tongue in he! mouth and fondled he! !easts. Then, he made Rosil$n lie on the ed, sp!ead he! legs apa!t and placed a pillo" unde! he! ac*. 3e inse!ted his #nge! in he! %agina and mounted himself et"een he! legs "ith his hands !ested on he! sides. Afte! that, he lifted his shi!t, then pointed and p!essed his penis against he! %agina. Accused-appellant made th!usting motions, "hich caused Rosil$n pain. The!eafte!, accused-appellant told he! to sleep. .n the ea!l$ mo!ning of Jul$ 6(, (EE>, Rosil$n felt someod$ touching he! se& o!gan, ut she did not "a*e up. Bhen she "o*e up late!, she found D<,NNN.NN on the tale, and she ga%e this to 5implicio "hen he came to fetch he!. An August (<, (EE>, Rosil$n and 5implicio "ent to the RitL To"e!s at a!ound ?HNN p.m. Accused-appellant "as aout to lea%e, so he told them to come ac* late! that e%ening. The t"o did not !etu!n. The follo"ing da$, Rosil$n !an a"a$ f!om home "ith the help of Samie Est!eta, one of thei! oa!de!s. Samie accompanied Rosil$n to the Dasa$ Cit$ Dolice, "he!e she e&ecuted a s"o!n statement against 5implicio ,elanta!. Rosil$n "as the!eafte! ta*en to the custod$ of the ,epa!tment of 5ocial Belfa!e and ,e%elopment J,5B,K. The National Bu!eau of .n%estigation JNB.K conducted an in%estigation, "hich e%entuall$ led to the #ling of c!iminal cha!ges against accused-appellant. An August 67, (EE>, Rosil$n "as e&amined $ ,!. Emmanuel G. A!anas at Camp C!ame. The e&amination $ielded the follo"ing !esultsH EUTERNAG AN, EUTRAGEN.TAG :ai!l$ de%eloped, fai!l$ nou!ished and cohe!ent female suject. B!easts a!e conical "ith pin*ish !o"n a!eola and nipples f!om "hich no sec!etions could e p!essed out. Adomen is fat and soft GEN.TAG The!e is mode!ate g!o"th of puic hai!. Gaia majo!a a!e full, con%e& and coaptated "ith the pin*ish !o"n laia mino!a p!esenting in et"een. An sepa!ating the same disclosed an elastic, fesh$ t$pe h$men, "ith shallo" healed lace!ation at 7 oTcloc* position and deep healed lace!ation at @ oTcloc* position. E&te!nal %aginal o!i#ce o+e!s mode!ate !esistance to the int!oduction of the e&amining inde& #nge! and the %i!gin siLed %aginal speculum. Faginal canal is na!!o" "ith p!ominent !ugosities. Ce!%i& is #!m and closed. CANCG=5.ANH 5uject is in non-%i!gin state ph$sicall$. The!e a!e no e&te!nal signs of application of an$ fo!m of %iolence. 'E) ,u!ing the t!ial, accused-appellant !aised the defense of denial and alii. 3e claimed that it "as his !othe!, ,ominado! PJunR Jalosjos, "hom Rosil$n had met, once at accused-appellant0s ,a*a* oCce and t"ice at the RitL (6 To"e!s. Accused-appellant insisted that he "as in the p!o%ince on the dates Rosil$n claimed to ha%e een se&uall$ aused. 3e att!iuted the #ling of the cha!ges against him to a small g!oup of lac*maile!s "ho "anted to e&to!t mone$ f!om him, and to his political opponents, pa!ticula!l$ E&-Cong!essman A!temio AdaLa, "ho a!e allegedl$ dete!mined to dest!o$ his political ca!ee! and oost thei! pe!sonal agenda. 2o!e speci#call$, accused-appellant claims that on June (>, (EE>, he "as on the Dhilippine Ai!lines JDAGK EH9N a.m. fight f!om 2anila to ,ipolog. 3e sta$ed in ,ipolog until June (@, (EE>. 3e sumitted in e%idence ai!line tic*et no. (N?E6969, '(N) sho"ing that he "as on oa!d :light DR (><I the said fight0s passenge!0s manifest, '(() "he!e the name JAGA5JA58R282R appea!sI and photog!aphs sho"ing accused-appellant0s constituents "elcoming his a!!i%al and sho"ing accused-appellant tal*ing "ith fo!me! 2a$o! 3e!manico Ca!!eon and :iscal Empainado. Accused-appellant fu!the! alleges that on June 6@, (EE>, he again too* the EH9N a.m. fight f!om 2anila to ,ipolog Cit$. An the same fight, he met A!mando Nocom of the Dhilippine ,ail$ .n/ui!e!. =pon a!!i%al and afte! tal*ing to his !ep!esentati%es, he p!oceeded to his !esidence *no"n as PBa!anga$ 3ouseR in Taguinon, ,apitan, nea! ,a*a* Beach !eso!t, and spent the night the!e. An June 6E, (EE>, accused-appellant attended the #esta at Ba!anga$ 5an Ded!o. 3e sta$ed in the house of Ba!anga$ Captain 2ila Sap until <H7N p.m. Then, togethe! "ith some f!iends, he %isited the RiLal 5h!ine and the Di!ate Ba! at ,a*a* Beach Reso!t. The!eafte!, he !eti!ed in the PBa!anga$ 3ouseR in Taguilon. An June 7N, (EE>, accused-appellant alleges that he attended a cit$-"ide consultation "ith his political leade!s at the Blue Room of ,a*a*, "hich lasted till the afte!noon. .n the e%ening, he "ent home and slept in the PBa!anga$ 3ouse.R An Jul$ (, (EE>, he attended the "hole da$ cele!ation of ,ipolog ,a$. 3e spent the night in the PBa!anga$ 3ouse.R An Jul$ 6, (EE>, he attended the inaugu!ation of the !eception hall of ,a*a* Beach Reso!t. The lessing ce!emon$ "as oCciated $ Assistant Da!ish D!iest Adelmo Gaput. An Jul$ 7, (EE>, he "as the guest in the inagu!ation of the 7 !d Enginee!ing ,ist!ict of ,apitan Cit$. Afte! the mass, he %isited the Jamo!ee site in Ba!anga$ Taguilon, ,apitan Cit$. 3e fu!the! contended that afte! his a!!i%al in ,ipolog on June 6@, (EE>, the!e "as ne%e! an instance "hen he "ent to 2anila until Jul$ E, (EE>, "hen he attended a confe!ence called $ the D!esident of the Dhilippines. Accused-appellant li*e"ise alleged that on Jul$ 6(, (EE>, he too* the <HNN a.m. fight of DAG f!om 2anila to ,umaguete Cit$. :!om the!e, he "as fo"n $ a p!i%ate plane to ,ipolog, "he!e he sta$ed until the D!esident of the Dhilippines a!!i%ed. To utt!ess the theo!$ of the defense, ,ominado! PJunR Jalosjos testi#ed that he "as the one, and not accused- appellant, "hom Rosil$n met on th!ee occasions. These occu!!ed once du!ing the #!st "ee* of 2a$ (EE>, at accused-appellant0s ,a*a* oCce "he!e Rosil$n and 5implicio ,elanta! "e!e int!oduced to him $ Edua!do 5ua!eL, and t"ice at the RitL To"e!s "hen he inte!%ie"ed Rosil$n, and late! "hen Rosil$n and 5implicio follo"ed up the p!oposed ent!$ of Rosil$n into the sho" usiness. ,ominado!0s admission of his meetings "ith Rosil$n on th!ee instances "e!e limited to inte!%ie"ing he! and assessing he! singing and modeling potentials. 3is testimon$ made no mention of an$ se&ual encounte! "ith Rosil$n. (7 Afte! t!ial, the cou!t !ende!ed the assailed decision, the dispositi%e po!tion of "hich !eadsH B3ERE:ARE, p!emises conside!ed, judgment is he!e$ !ende!ed as follo"sH (. .n C!iminal Cases Nos. E>-(E@< and E>-(E@>, the p!osecution has p!o%en e$ond !easonale dout the guilt of the accused, RA2EA JAGA5JA5 $ GARC.A, as p!incipal in the t"o J6K counts of statuto!$ !ape de#ned and penaliLed unde! A!ticle 77< of the Re%ised Denal Code. 3e is he!e$ decla!ed CANF.CTE, in each of these cases. 6. Acco!dingl$, he is sentenced toH 6a. su+e! the penalt$ of reclusion perpetua in each of these cases. 6. indemnif$ the %ictim, 2A. RA5.GSN ,EGANTAR, in the amount of :.:TS T3A=5AN, DE5A5 JD<N,NNN.NNK as mo!al damages fo! each of the cases. 7. .n C!iminal Cases Nos. E>-(E@?, E>-(E@@, E>-(E@E, E>- (EEN, E>-(EE6 and E>-(EE7, the p!osecution has p!o%en e$ond !easonale dout the guilt of the accused, RA2EA JAGA5JA5 $ GARC.A, as p!incipal in si& J>K counts of acts of lasci%iousness de#ned unde! A!ticle 77> of the Re%ised Denal Code and penaliLed unde! 5ection < JK of R.A. ?>(N othe!"ise *no"n as the Child Ause Ga". 3e is he!e$ decla!ed CANF.CTE, in each of these casesI 9. Acco!dingl$ he is sentenced toH 9.a. su+e! in each of the cases an indete!minate p!ison te!m of f!om eight J@K $ea!s, eight J@K months and one J(K da$ of prision a%or in its medium pe!iod, as ma&imum, to #fteen J(<K $ea!s, si& J>K months and t"ent$ J6NK da$s of reclusion teporal in its medium pe!iod, as ma&imumI 9.. indemnif$ the %ictim, 2A RA5.GSN ,EGANTAR, in the amount of TBENTS T3A=5AN, JD6N,NNN.NNK as mo!al damages fo! each of the casesI <. .n C!iminal Case Nos. E>-(EE(, E>-(EE9, E>-(EE<, E>- (EE>, E>-(EE? and E>-(EE@, the p!osecution has failed to p!o%e e$ond !easonale dout the guilt of the accused, RA2EA JAGA5JA5 $ GARC.A, in si& J>K counts of acts of lasci%iousness. The!efo!e, on the g!ound of !easonale dout, the accused in these cases is he!e$ ACM=.TTE,. 5A AR,ERE,. '(6) 3ence, the instant appeal. Accused-appellant contendsH %. T3E TR.AG CA=RT GR.EFA=5GS ERRE, .N CANF.CT.NG T3E ACC=5E,-ADDEGGANT BA5E, AN TE5T.2ANS A: T3E DR.FATE CA2DGA.NANT, CAN5.,ER.NG T3E ATTEN,ANT .N,.C.A A: .NCAN5.5TENC.E5 AN, =NTR=T35. .. T3E TR.AG CA=RT GR.EFA=5GS ERRE, .N ,.5REGAR,.NG T3E 5.GN.:.CANCE A: T3E CAN:G.CT.NG 5TATE2ENT5 G.FEN BS T3E DR.FATE CA2DGA.NANT. -. T3E TR.AG CA=RT GR.EFA=5GS ERRE, .N ,.5REGAR,.NG T3E 5.GN.:.CANCE A: DR.FATE CA2DGA.NANT05 :A.G=RE TA .,ENT.:S T3E ACC=5E,- ADDEGGANT. *. (9 T3E TR.AG CA=RT GR.EFA=5GS ERRE, .N R=G.NG T3AT T3E DR.FATE CA2DGA.NANT BA5 A 2.NAR GE55 T3AN TBEGFE SEAR5 A: AGE B3EN T3E CGA.2E, .NC.,ENT5 AGGEGE,GS TAAV DGACE. E. T3E TR.AG CA=RT GR.EFA=5GS ERRE, .N :.N,.NG T3AT RADE BA5 CA22.TTE, AGA.N5T T3E DR.FATE CA2DGA.NANT. '(7) .n this ju!isdiction, the testimon$ of the p!i%ate complainant in !ape cases is sc!utiniLed "ith utmost caution. The constitutional p!esumption of innocence !e/ui!es no less than mo!al ce!taint$ e$ond an$ scintilla of dout. This applies "ith mo!e %igo! in !ape cases "he!e the e%idence fo! the p!osecution must stand o! fall on its o"n me!its and is not allo"ed to d!a" st!ength f!om the "ea*ness of the e%idence of the defense. As an ine%itale conse/uence, it is the !ape %ictim he!self that is actuall$ put on t!ial. The case at a! is no e&ception. Bent on dest!o$ing the %e!acit$ of p!i%ate complainant0s testimon$, the e!!o!s assigned $ accused-appellant, pa!ticula!l$ the #!st th!ee, a!e focused on the issue of c!ediilit$. Accused-appellant ma*es much of his ac/uittal in C!iminal Case Nos. E>-(EE(, E>-(EE9, E>-(EE<, E>-(EE>, E>-(EE?, and E>-(EE@, fo! acts of lasci%iousness. Acco!ding to him, the fact that the t!ial cou!t sustained his defense of alii in the said cases onl$ sho"s that Rosil$n concocted he! sto!ies and the !est of he! testimon$ ought not to e elie%ed. 5tated di+e!entl$, accused-appellant u!ges the application of the doct!ine of =falsus in uno falsus in onibus8 Jfalse in pa!t, false in e%e!$thingK. '(9) The contention is "ithout me!it. >alsus in uno falsus in onibus is not an asolute !ule of la" and is in fact !a!el$ applied in mode!n ju!isp!udence. '(<) Thus, in#eople v. ?anson,)uancas, '(>) citing #eople v. *i !un +uan, '(?) this Cou!t held thatH ... .n this connection it must e o!ne in mind that the p!inciple falsus in uno falsus in omnius is not an asolute one, and that it is pe!fectl$ !easonale to elie%e the testimon$ of a "itness "ith !espect to some facts and diselie%e it "ith !espect to othe! facts. .n Deople %s. Velle!, 9> A.G. No. ?, pp. 7666-7667, the follo"ing "as /uoted "ith app!o%al $ the Cou!t of Appeals f!om ( 2oo!e on :acts, p. 67H P(@. <estion% a% be partl% credited and partl% re@ected. --- T!ie! of facts a!e not ound to elie%e all that an$ "itness has saidI the$ ma$ accept some po!tions of his testimon$ and !eject othe! po!tions, acco!ding to "hat seems to them, upon othe! facts and ci!cumstances to e the t!uthW E%en "hen "itnesses a!e found to ha%e delie!atel$ falsi#ed in some mate!ial pa!ticula!s, the ju!$ a!e not !e/ui!ed to !eject the "hole of thei! unco!!oo!ated testimon$, ut ma$ c!edit such po!tions as the$ deem "o!th$ of elief.R Jp. E9<K '(@) Being in the est position to disc!iminate et"een the t!uth and the falsehood, the t!ial cou!tTs assignment of %alues and "eight on the testimon$ of Rosil$n should e gi%en c!edence. 5igni#cantl$, it should e o!ne in mind that the issue at hand hinges on c!ediilit$, the assessment of "hich, as oft-!epeated, is est made $ the t!ial cou!t ecause of its unt!ammeled oppo!tunit$ to ose!%e he! demeano! on the "itness stand. An the demeano! and manne! of testif$ing sho"n $ the complainant, the t!ial cou!t statedH Guided $ the fo!egoing p!inciples, this cou!t found no !eason "h$ it should not elie%e Rosil$n "hen she claimed she "as !aped. Testimonies of !ape %ictims especiall$ those "ho a!e $oung and immatu!e dese!%e full c!edence JDeople %. Gi/ui!an, 66@ 5CRA >6 J(EE7K conside!ing that Pno "oman "ould concoct a sto!$ of defo!ation, allo" an e&amination of he! p!i%ate pa!ts and the!eafte! allo" he!self to e (< pe!%e!ted in a pulic t!ial if she "as not moti%ated solel$ $ the desi!e to ha%e the culp!it app!ehended and punished.R JDeople %. Bu$o*, 67< 5CRA >66 '(EE>)K. Bhen as*ed to desc!ie "hat had een done to he!, Rosil$n "as ale to na!!ate spontaneousl$ in detail ho" she "as se&uall$ aused. 3e! testimon$ in this !ega!d "as #!m, candid, clea! and st!aightfo!"a!d, and it !emained to e so e%en du!ing the intense and !igid c!oss-e&amination made $ the defense counsel. '(E) Accused-appellant ne&t a!gues that Rosil$n0s di!ect and !edi!ect testimonies "e!e !ehea!sed and lac*ing in candidness. 3e points to the supposed hesitant and e%en idiotic ans"e!s of Rosil$n on c!oss and !e-c!oss e&aminations. 3e added that she "as t!ained to gi%e ans"e!s such as, 7Ano poA8, 7#arang po,8 7Med%o po,8 and 7Sa tingin ;o po.8 Accused-appellant0s a!guments a!e fa! f!om pe!suasi%e. A !eading of the pe!tinent t!ansc!ipt of stenog!aphic notes !e%eals that Rosil$n "as in fact #!m and consistent on the fact of !ape and lasci%ious conduct committed on he! $ accused-appellant. 5he ans"e!ed in clea!, simple and natu!al "o!ds customa!$ of child!en of he! age. The ao%e ph!ases /uoted $ accused-appellant as utte!ed $ Rosil$n a!e, as co!!ectl$ pointed out $ the 5olicito! Gene!al, t$pical ans"e!s of child "itnesses li*e he!. At an$ !ate, e%en assuming that Rosil$n, du!ing he! length$ o!deals on the "itness stand, ma$ ha%e gi%en some amiguous ans"e!s, the$ !efe! me!el$ to mino! and pe!iphe!al details "hich do not in an$ "a$ det!act f!om he! #!m and st!aightfo!"a!d decla!ation that she had een molested and sujected to lasci%ious conduct $ accused- appellant. 2o!eo%e!, it should e o!ne in mind that e%en the most candid "itness oftentimes ma*es mista*es and confused statements. At times, fa! f!om e!oding the e+ecti%eness of the e%idence, such lapses could, indeed, constitute signs of %e!acit$. '6N) Then, too, accused-appellant capitaliLes on the alleged asence of an$ allegation of !ape in the #%e J<K s"o!n statements e&ecuted $ Rosil$n as "ell as in the inte!%ie"s and case stud$ conducted $ the !ep!esentati%es of the ,5B,. .n pa!ticula!, accused-appellant points to the follo"ing documentsH J(K 5"o!n statements dated August 66 and 6>, (EE>, e&ecuted efo!e 5DA< 2ilag!os A. Ca!!asco of the Dasa$ Cit$ DoliceI J6K 5"o!n statements dated 5epteme! <, ((, and (E, (EE>, e&ecuted efo!e NB. Agents C$nthia G. 2a!iano and 5upe!%ising NB. Agent A!lis E. FelaI J7K The .nitial .nte!%ie" of Rosil$n $ the ,5B, dated August 7N, (EE>I J9K ,5B, :inal Case 5tud$ Repo!t dated Janua!$ (N, (EE?. .t must e st!essed that P!apeR is a technical te!m, the p!ecise and accu!ate de#nition of "hich could not ha%e een unde!stood $ Rosil$n. .ndeed, "ithout the assistance of a la"$e!, "ho could e&plain to he! the int!icacies of !ape, she e&pectedl$ could not distinguish in he! aCda%its and conse/uentl$ disclose "ith p!o#cient e&actitude the act o! acts of accused-appellant that unde! the contemplation of la" constitute the c!ime of !ape. This is especiall$ t!ue in the p!esent case "he!e the!e "as no e&hausti%e and clea!- cut e%idence of full and complete penet!ation of the %ictim0s %agina. .t ma$ "ell e that Rosil$n thought, as an$ la$man "ould p!oal$ do, that the!e must e the fullest penet!ation of the %ictim0s %agina to /ualif$ a se&ual act to !ape. .n #eople v. $apuhan, '6() "e !uled that !ape is consummated P$ the slightest penet!ation of the female o!gan, i.e., touching of eithe! laia of the pudendum $ the penis.R The!e need not e full and complete penet!ation of the %ictim0s %agina fo! !ape to e consummated. The!e eing no sho"ing that the fo!egoing technicalities of !ape (> "as full$ e&plained to Rosil$n on all those occasions that she "as inte!%ie"ed $ the police, the NB. agents and ,5B, social "o!*e!s, she could not the!efo!e e e&pected to intelligil$ decla!e that accused-appellant0s act of p!essing his se& o!gan against he! laia "ithout full ent!$ of the %aginal canal amounted to !ape. .n the decision of the t!ial cou!t, the testimon$ on one of the !apes is cited plus the cou!t0s mention of the ju!isp!udence on this issue, to "itH MH Sou said that "hen Cong!essman Jalosjos inse!ted his #nge! into $ou! %agina, $ou! ac* "as !ested on a pillo" and $ou! legs "e!e sp!ead "ide apa!t, "hat else did he do- AH 3e lifted his shi!t, and held his penisI and again Pidini*it-di*it ni$a ang a!i ni$a sa a!i *o.R 5underscoring supplied6 MH And, afte! doing thatH P.dini*it-di*it ni$a $ong a!i ni$a sa a!i *oRI "hat else did he do- AH Afte! that, P.tinuto* ni$a po $ong a!i ni$a at idiniin- diin ni$a ang a!i ni$a sa a!i *o.R Junderscoring supplied6 Jpp. 67, 6< to 7N, T5N, (> Ap!il (EE?K .t is "ell-ent!enched in this ju!isdiction that !ape can e committed e%en "ithout full penet!ation of the male o!gan into the %agina of the "oman. .t is enough that the!e e p!oof of the ent!ance of the male o!gan "ithin the laia of the pudendum of the female o!gan. JDeople %s. 2angalino, (@6 5CRA 76EI Deople %s. Tismo, 6N9 5CRA <7<I Deople %s. Bacani, (@( 5CRA 7E7K. PDenet!ation of the penis $ ent!$ into the lips of the female o!gan suCces to "a!!ant a con%iction.R JDeople %s. Galima, G.R. No. (((<>7->9, :e!ua!$ 6N, (EE> citing Deople %s. Aonada, (>E 5CRA <7NK. 3ence, "ith the testimon$ of Rosil$n that the accused p!essed against JPidiniinRK and pointed to JPitinuto*RK Rosil$n0s %agina his se&ual o!gan on t"o J6K occasions, t"o J6K acts of !ape "e!e consummated. '66) 2o!eo%e!, it must e o!ne in mind that Rosil$n0s pu!pose in e&ecuting the aCda%its on August 66 and 6>, (EE> efo!e the Dasa$ Cit$ Dolice "as to cha!ge 5implicio ,elanta!, not accused-appellant. As aptl$ pointed out $ the t!ial cou!t, it is p!eposte!ous to e&pect Rosil$n to ma*e an e&hausti%e na!!ation of the se&ual ause of accused- appellant "hen he "as not the oject of the said complaint. Additionall$, Rosil$n0s statements, gi%en to the NB. on 5epteme! (( and (E, (EE>, conce!ned mainl$ the identi#cation of pictu!es. The!e "as thus no occasion fo! he! to na!!ate the details of he! se&ual encounte! "ith accused-appellant. As to the inte!%ie"s and studies conducted $ the ,5B,, suCce it to state that said meetings "ith Rosil$n "e!e speciall$ focused on the emotional and ps$chological !epe!cussions of the se&ual ause on Rosil$n, and had nothing to do "ith the legal actions eing p!epa!ed as a conse/uence the!eof. Thus, the documents pe!taining to said inte!%ie"s and studies cannot e !elied upon to !e%eal e%e!$ minute aspect of the se&ual molestations complained of. At an$ !ate, the inconsistencies et"een the aCda%its and Rosil$n0s testimon$, if at all the$ e&isted, cannot diminish the p!oati%e %alue of Rosil$n0s decla!ations on the "itness stand. The consistent !uling of this Cou!t is that, if the!e is an inconsistenc$ et"een the aCda%it of a "itness and he! testimonies gi%en in open cou!t, the latte! commands g!eate! "eight than the fo!me!. '67) .n the thi!d assigned e!!o!, accused-appellant attempts to imp!ess upon this Cou!t that Rosil$n ga%e the name Cong!essman Romeo Jalosjos as he! ause! onl$ ecause that "as the name gi%en to he! $ the pe!son to "hom she "as int!oduced. That same name, accused-appellant claims, "as me!el$ pic*ed up $ Rosil$n f!om the name (? plate, pla/ue, and memo pad she sa" on accused- appellant0s oCce des*. Accused-appellant p!esented his !othe!, ,ominado! PJunR Jalosjos, in an attempt to cast dout on his culpailit$. .t "as ,ominado! PJunR Jalosjos "ho allegedl$ met and inte!%ie"ed Rosil$n at the ,a*a* oCce. .n ad%ancement of this theo!$, accused-appellant cites the fact that out of a total of (> pictu!es p!esented to Rosil$n fo! identi#cation, she pic*ed up onl$ 9, "hich depict ,ominado! PJunR Jalosjos. .n the same %ein, accused- appellant claims that the !esulting ca!tog!aphic s*etch f!om the facial cha!acte!istics gi%en $ Rosil$n to the ca!tog!aphe!, !esemles the facial appea!ance of ,ominado! PJunR Jalosjos. Accused-appellant also points out that Rosil$n failed to gi%e his co!!ect age o! state that he has a mole on his lo"e! !ight ja". Cont!a!$ to the contentions of accused-appellant, the !eco!ds !e%eal that Rosil$n positi%el$ and unhesitatingl$ identi#ed accused-appellant at the cou!t!oom. 5uch identi#cation du!ing the t!ial cannot e diminished $ the fact that in he! s"o!n statement, Rosil$n !efe!!ed to accused-appellant as he! ause! ased on the name she hea!d f!om the pe!son to "hom she "as int!oduced and on the name she sa" and !ead in accused-appellant0s oCce. Fe!il$, a pe!son0s identit$ does not depend solel$ on his name, ut also on his ph$sical featu!es. Thus, a %ictim of a c!ime can still identif$ the culp!it e%en "ithout *no"ing his name. 5imila!l$, the Cou!t, in Deople %. Fas/ueL, '69) !uled thatH .t matte!s little that the e$e"itness initiall$ !ecogniLed accused-appellant onl$ $ faceW 'the "itness) W acted li*e an$ o!dina!$ pe!son in ma*ing in/ui!ies to #nd out the name that matched 'appellant0s) face. 5igni#cantl$, in open cou!t, he une/ui%ocall$ identi#ed accused-appellant as thei! assailant. E%en in the case of Deople %. Timon, '6<) !elied upon $ accused-appellant to disc!edit his identi#cation, this Cou!t said that e%en assuming that the out-of-cou!t identi#cation of accused-appellant "as defecti%e, thei! suse/uent identi#cation in cou!t cu!ed an$ fa" that ma$ ha%e initiall$ attended it. .n light of the fo!egoing, Rosil$n0s failu!e to identif$ accused-appellant out of the (> pictu!es sho"n to he! does not fo!eclose the c!ediilit$ of he! un/uali#ed identi#cation of accused-appellant in open cou!t. The same holds t!ue "ith the suject ca!tog!aphic s*etch "hich, incidentall$, !esemles accused-appellant. As noted $ the t!ial cou!t, accused-appellant and his !othe! ,ominado! Jalosjos ha%e a st!i*ing simila!it$ in facial featu!es. Natu!all$, if the s*etch loo*s li*e ,ominado!, it logicall$ follo"s that the same d!a"ing "ould de#nitel$ loo* li*e accused-appellant. Gi*e"ise, Rosil$n0s failu!e to co!!ectl$ app!o&imate the age of accused-appellant and to state that he has a mole on the lo"e! !ight ja", cannot a+ect the %e!acit$ of accused- appellant0s identi#cation. At a $oung age, Rosil$n cannot e e&pected to gi%e the accu!ate age of a <> $ea!-old pe!son. As to accused-appellant0s mole, the 5olicito! Gene!al is co!!ect in contending that said mole is not so distincti%e as to captu!e Rosil$n0s attention and memo!$. Bhen she "as as*ed to gi%e additional info!mation aout accused-appellant, Rosil$n desc!ied him as ha%ing a Pp!ominent ell$.R This, to ou! mind, is indeed a mo!e distinguishing featu!e that "ould natu!all$ catch the attention of an ele%en $ea!-old child li*e Rosil$n. .n his #fth assigned e!!o!, accused-appellant insists that the "o!ds 7idini;it,8 7itinuto;,8 and 7idiniin,diin,8 "hich Rosil$n used to desc!ie "hat accused-appellant did to he! %agina "ith his genitals, do not constitute consummated !ape. .n addition, the defense a!gued that Rosil$n did not actuall$ see accused-appellant0s penis in the supposed se&ual contact. .n fact, the$ st!essed that Rosil$n decla!ed that accused-appellant0s semen spilled in he! thighs and not in he! se& o!gan. 2o!eo%e!, in his Repl$ B!ief, accused-appellant, citing #eople v. $apuhan, a!gued that, assuming that his (@ penis touched o! !ushed Rosil$n0s e&te!nal genitals, the same is not enough to estalish the c!ime of !ape. T!ue, in #eople v. $apuhan, '6>) "e e&plained that the ph!ase, Pthe me!e touching of the e&te!nal genitalia $ the penis capale of consummating the se&ual act is suCcient to constitute ca!nal *no"ledge,R means that the act of touching should e unde!stood he!e as inhe!entl$ pa!t of the ent!$ of the penis into the laia of the female o!gan and not me!e touching alone of the mons puis o! the pudendum. Be fu!the! elucidated thatH The pudendum o! %ul%a is the collecti%e te!m fo! the female genital o!gans that a!e %isile in the pe!ineal a!ea, e.g., mons puis, laia majo!a, laia mino!a, the h$men, the clito!is, the %aginal o!i#ce, etc. The mons puis is the !ounded eminence that ecomes hai!$ afte! pue!t$, and is instantl$ %isile "ithin the su!face. The ne&t la$e! is the laia majo!a o! the oute! lips of the female o!gan composed of the oute! con%e& su!face and the inne! su!face. The s*in of the oute! con%e& su!face is co%e!ed "ith hai! follicles and is pigmented, "hile the inne! su!face is a thin s*in "hich does not ha%e an$ hai!s ut has man$ seaceous glands. ,i!ectl$ eneath the laia majo!a is the laia mino!a. Ju!isp!udence dictates that the laia majo!a must e ente!ed fo! !ape to e consummated, and not me!el$ fo! the penis to st!o*e the su!face of the female o!gan. Thus, a g!aLing of the su!face of the female o!gan o! touching the mons puis of the pudendum is not suCcient to constitute consummated !ape. Asent an$ sho"ing of the slightest penet!ation of the female o!gan, i.e., touching of eithe! laia of the pudendum $ the penis, the!e can e no consummated !apeI at most, it can onl$ e attempted !ape, if not acts of lasci%iousness. '6?) .n the p!esent case, the!e is suCcient p!oof to estalish that the acts of accused-appellant "ent e$ond Pst!a#ng of the citadel of passionR o! Pshelling of the castle of o!gasmic potenc$,R as depicted in the $apuhan case, and p!og!essed into Poma!dment of the d!a"!idge '"hich) is in%asion enough,R '6@) the!e eing, in a manne! of spea*ing, a con/uest of the fo!t!ess of ignition. Bhen the accused- appellant !utel$ mounted et"een Rosil$n0s "ide-sp!ead legs, unfette!edl$ touching, po*ing and p!essing his penis against he! %agina, "hich in he! position "ould then e natu!all$ "ide open and !ead$ fo! copulation, it "ould !e/ui!e no fe!tile imagination to elie the h$poc!is$ claimed $ accused-appellant that his penis o! that of someone "ho loo*ed li*e him, "ould unde! the ci!cumstances me!el$ touch o! !ush the e&te!nal genital of Rosil$n. The ine%itale contact et"een accused-appellant0s penis, and at the %e!$ least, the laia of the pudendum of Rosil$n, "as con#!med "hen she felt pain inside he! %agina "hen the 7idiniin8 pa!t of accused appellant0s se& !itual "as pe!fo!med. The incident on June (@, (EE> "as desc!ied $ Rosil$n as follo"sH DRA5. ;=NAH M. And, afte! *issing $ou! lipsI afte! *issing $ou in $ou! lips, "hat else did he do- A. Afte! that, he "as lifting m$ shi!t. M. No", "hile he "as lifting $ou! shi!t, "hat "as $ou! positionI "ill $ou tell the cou!t- A. . "as l$ing, si!. M. G$ing on "hat- A. An the ed, si!. M. And, afte! lifting $ou! shi!t, "hat else did he do- A. 3e sp!ead m$ legs si!. M. And, afte! sp!eading $ou! legs apa!tI "hat did he do- A. Afte! that, he lifted his shi!t and held his penis. M. And "hile he "as holding his penisI "hat did he do- (E A. 3e p!essed it in m$ %agina. ATTS. :ERNAN,E;H 2a$ "e !e/uest that the %e!nacula! e used- A. <apos po, idini;it,di;it po ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa ari ;o. DRA5. ;=NAH 2a$ . !espectfull$ mo%e that the "o!dH 7idini;it,di;it ni%a ang ari ni%a sa ari ;o,8 e inco!po!ated- M. And "hile he "as doing thatI acco!ding to $ou, 7idini;it,di;it ni%a ang ari ni%a sa ari oB8 "hat did $ou feel- A. . "as af!aid and then, . c!ied. M. Bill $ou tell the Cou!t "h$ $ou felt af!aid and "h$ $ou c!ied- A. Because . "as af!aid he might inse!t his penis into m$ %agina. M. And, fo! ho" long did Cong!essman Jalosjos pe!fo!m that act, "hich acco!ding to $ou, 7idini;it,di;it ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa ari ;oA8 CA=RTH Dlace the Tagalog "o!ds, into the !eco!ds. A. Sandali lang po %on. M. Bhat pa!t of $ou! %agina, o! 7ari8 "as eing touched $ the ari o! penis- & & & & & & & & & M. Sou said that $ou feltW . "ithd!a" that /uestion. 3o" did $ou *no" that Cong!essman Jalosjos "as doing, 7idini;it,di;it ni%a %ung ari ni%a sa ari ;oA8 A. Because . could feel it, si!. M. No", $ou said $ou could feel it. Bhat pa!t of the %aginaW in "hat pa!t of $ou! %agina "as Cong!essman Jalosjos, acco!ding to $ou, 7idini;it, di;it ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa ari oA8 A. .n f!ont of m$ %agina, si!. M. .n f!ont of $ou! %agina- A.V.I "ill $ou tell the Cou!t the position- Bill $ou desc!ie the position of Cong!essman Jalosjos "hen he "as doing that. 7/dini;it,di;it ni%a sa ari ;oA8 A. /de,deonstrate ;o po baA :.5CAG ;=NAH M. Can $ou demonst!ate- & & & & & & & & & A. 3e "as holding me li*e this "ith his one handI and "as holding his penis "hile his othe! hand, o! his f!ee hand "as on the ed. & & & & & & & & & DRA5. ;=NAH No", acco!ding to $ou, $ou don0t *no" ho" to sa$ itI o! "hat "as done to $ou. No", "ill $ou tell the Cou!t ho" can $ou desc!ie "hat "as done to $ou- A. Afte! he 7dini;it,di;it ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa ari ;oB itinuto; naan ni%a ito.8 M. A.V. $ou said 7itinuto; ni%a itoB8 "hat else did he do- DRA5. ;=NAH 5he is no" t!$ing to desc!ie. 6N CA=RTH T!anslate. A. 3e seems to e 7parang idinidiin po ni%a.8 M. No", "hat did $ou feel, "hen acco!ding to $ouI as . "ould /uoteH 7parang idinidiin ni%aA8 A. Masa;it po. M. And, just to ma*e it clea! in TagalogH Ano itong idinidiin ni%aA CA=RTH M. Sabi o itinuto;. "a;ita o bang itinuto;A A. . sa" him na na;aganuon po sa ano ni%a. DRA5. ;=NAH M. A.V., cla!if$. Sou said 7na;aganuon si%a8 "hat do $ou mean $ 7na;aganuon si%aA8 A. 3e "as holding his penis, and then, that "as the one "hich he itinuto; sa a!i *o. DRA5. ;=NAH M. And, "hen $ou said 7idinidiin po ni%aB8 to "hich $ou a!e !efe!!ing- Bhat is this 7idinidiin ni%aA8 A. /dinidiin ni%a ang ari ni%a sa ari ;o. M. And "hat did $ou feel "hen $ou saidH he "as 7idinidiin ni%a ang ari ni%a sa ari ;oA8 A. Masa;it po. CA=RTH The ans"e! is 7asa;it po.8 D!oceed. DRA5. ;=NAH M. Bhe!e did $ou feel the pain- A. .nside m$ ari po. 5Sa loob po ng ari ;o.6 & & & & & & & & & DRA5. ;=NAH M. And then, afte! that, "hat else did he do A. Afte! that, he touched m$ !east, si!. M. And, afte! touching $ou! !east, "hat did he do- A. And afte! that . felt that he "as J"itness demonst!ating to the cou!t, "ith he! inde& #nge!, !uing against he! open left palmK M. And afte! doing that, "hat else did he do- A. Afte! that, he inst!ucted me to go to sleep. & & & & & & & & & A. . put do"n m$ clothes and then, . c!ied m$self to sleep, si!. M. Bh$ did $ou c!$- Bill $ou tell the cou!t, "h$ did $ou c!ied afte! putting do"n $ou! clothes- A. Because . felt pit$ fo! m$self. 5"aaawa po a;o sa sarili ;o.6 & & & & & & & & &. JEmphasis supplied.K '6E) E%en the Jul$ 6N, (EE> encounte! et"een Rosil$n and accused-appellant "ould not ta& the s*etch$ %isualiLation of the naQ%e and uninitiated to conclude that the!e "as indeed penile in%asion $ accused-appellant of Rosil$n0s laia. An that occasion, accused-appellant "as simila!l$ ensconced 6( et"een the pa!ted legs of Rosil$n, e&cept that, this time, Rosil$n "as con%enientl$ !ested on, and ele%ated "ith a pillo" on he! ac* "hile accused-appellant "as touching, po*ing and p!essing his penis against he! %agina. Topped "ith the th!usting motions emplo$ed $ accused-appellant, the !esulting pain felt $ Rosil$n in he! se& o!gan "as no dout a conse/uence of consummated !ape. The pe!tinent po!tions of Rosil$n0s account of the Jul$ 6N, (EE> incident is as follo"sH DRA5. ;=NAH & & & & & & & & & M. The moment "hen Cong. Jalosjos inse!ted his #nge! into $ou! %agina, "hat "as $ou! position- .NTERDRETERH The "itness is as*ing he 5sic6 she has to demonst!ate- :.5CAG ;=NAH M. /paliwanag o langA A. 2$ ac* "as !ested on a pillo" and m$ legs "e!e sp!ead apa!t. M. Sou said that "hen Cong!essman Jalosjos inse!ted his #nge! into $ou! %agina, $ou! ac* "as !ested on a pillo" and $ou! legs "e!e sp!ead "ide apa!t, "hat else did he do- A. 3e lifted his shi!t, and held his penisI and again 7idini;it,di;it ni%a ang ari ni%a sa ari ;o.8 M. And "hat did $ou feel "hen he "as doing that "hich acco!ding to $ou and . "ould /uote in TagalogH 7idini;it,di;it ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa ari ;oA8 A. . "as af!aid si!. M. And, afte! doing thatH 7idini;it,di;it ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa ari ;o,8 "hat else did he do- A. Afte! that, 7itinuto; ni%a po %ong ari ni%a at idiniin, diin ni%a ang ari ni%a sa ari ;o.8 M. Sou saidH 7$ongressan +alos@os itinuto; ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa ari ;oB at idiniin,diin ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa ari ;oB8 No", "hile he "as doing that act, "hat "as the position of Cong!essman Jalosjos- A. 3is t"o J6K hands "e!e on m$ side and since m$ legs "e!e sp!ead apa!tI he "as in-et"een them, and doing an up"a!d and do"n"a!d mo%ement. JBitness demonst!ated a pushing, o! pumping mo%ementK M. :o! ho" long did Cong!essman Jalosjos pe!fo!m that act, pushing o! pumping mo%ement "hile his penis, o! 7ang ari ni%a a% na;atuto; at idinidiin,diin %ong ari ni%a sa ari oA8 A. . don0t *no". M. And "hat did $ou feel "hen Cong!essman Jalosjos "as ma*ing that mo%ement, pushing, o! pumping- A. . felt pain and then . c!ied. M. Bhe!e did $ou feel the pain- A. .nside m$ %agina, si!. & & & & & & & & &. '7N) The child0s na!!ation of the !ape se/uence is !e%ealing. The act of 7idini;it,di;it ni%a8 "as follo"ed $ 7itinuto; ni%a &&& at idiniin,diin ni%a.8 The7idiniin,diin ni%a8 "as succeeded $ 7Masa;it po.8 Dain inside he! 7ari8 is indicati%e of consummated penet!ation. The en%i!onmental ci!cumstances displa$ed $ the g!aphic na!!ation of "hat too* place at the appellant0s !oom 66 f!om June (9 to June (> and June 6( to June 66, (EE> a!e consistent "ith the complainant0s testimon$ "hich sho"s that !ape "as legall$ consummated. .n the case of #eople v. $apuhan, the %ictim put up a !esistance --- $ putting he! legs close togethe! --- "hich, although futile, someho" made it incon%enient, if not diCcult, fo! the accused-appellant to attempt penet!ation. An the othe! hand, the ease "ith "hich accused-appellant he!ein pe!pet!ated the se&ual ause, not to mention the asence of time const!aint, totall$ distinguishes the instant case f!om $apuhan. 3e!e, the %ictim "as passi%e and e%en sumissi%e to the leche!ous acts of accused-appellant. Thus, e%en assuming that his penis then "as faccid, his act of holding, guiding and assisting his penis "ith his one hand, "hile touching, po*ing and p!essing the same against Rosil$nTs %agina, "ould su!el$ !esult in e%en the slightest contact et"een the laia of the pudendum and accused-appellantTs se& o!gan. Conside!ing that Rosil$n is a self-confessed se& "o!*e!, and the ci!cumstances of the alleged se&ual assault at a!, the defense a!gued that it is highl$ imp!oale and cont!a!$ to human e&pe!ience that accused-appellant e&e!cised a 5pa!tan-li*e discipline and !est!ained himself f!om full$ consummating the se&ual act "hen the!e "as in fact no !eason fo! him not to do so. .n the same light, the defense li*e"ise !anded as unnatu!al the testimon$ of Rosil$n that accused-appellant contented himself "ith !uing his penis clipped et"een he! thighs until he !eached o!gasm and desisted f!om full$ penet!ating he!, "hen Rosil$n "as then enti!el$ at his disposal. The defense seems to fo!get that the!e is no standa!d fo!m of eha%io! "hen it comes to g!atif$ing one0s asic se&ual instinct. The human se&ual pe!%e!sit$ is fa! too int!icate fo! the defense to p!esc!ie ce!tain fo!ms of conduct. E%en the "o!d Ppe!%e!seR is not enti!el$ p!ecise, as "hat ma$ e pe!%e!se to one ma$ not e to anothe!. =sing a child of tende! $ea!s "ho could e%en pass as one0s g!anddaughte!, to unleash "hat othe!s "ould call do"n!ight estial lust, ma$ e utte!l$ nauseating and !epulsi%e to some, ut ma$ peculia!l$ e a festi%e cele!ation of salacious fantasies to othe!s. :o! all "e *no", accused-appellant ma$ ha%e found a distinct and complete se&ual g!ati#cation in such *ind of liidinous stunts and maneu%e!s. Ne%e!theless, accused-appellant ma$ not ha%e full$ and fo! a longe! pe!iod penet!ated Rosil$n fo! fea! of pe!pet!ating his name th!ough a child f!om the "om of a mino!I o! ecause of his p!e%ious ag!eement "ith his 7su;ing bugaw,8 5implicio ,elanta!, that the!e "ould e no penet!ation, othe!"ise the latte! "ould demand a highe! p!ice. This ma$ e the !eason "h$ 5implicio ,elanta! ga%e his moc*ing fathe!l$ ad%ice to Rosil$n that it is ad if accused-appellant inse!ts his penis into he! se& o!gan, "hile at the same time o!de!ing he! to call him if accused- appellant "ould penet!ate he!. 5uch instance of penile in%asion "ould p!ompt 5implicio to demand a highe! p!ice, "hich is, afte! all, as the 5olicito! Gene!al calls it, the peculia!it$ of p!ostitution. The defense contends that the testimon$ of Rosil$n that accused-appellant ejaculated on he! thighs and not in he! %agina, onl$ p!o%es that the!e "as no !ape. .t should e noted that this po!tion of Rosil$n0s testimon$ !efe!s to the June (< and 6(, (EE> cha!ges of acts of lasci%iousness, and not the !ape cha!ges. .n an$ e%ent, g!anting that it occu!!ed du!ing the t"in instances of !ape on June (@ and Jul$ 6N, (EE>, the ejaculation on the %ictim0s thighs "ould not p!eclude the fact of !ape. The!e is no t!uth to the contention of the defense that Rosil$n did not see the penis of accused-appellant. As can e gleaned f!om the ao%e-/uoted po!tions of the t!ansc!ipts, Rosil$n une/ui%ocall$ testi#ed that accused- appellant held his penis then po*ed he! %agina "ith it. And e%en if she did not actuall$ see accused-appellant0s penis go inside he!, su!el$ she could ha%e felt "hethe! it "as his penis o! just his #nge!. 67 Be no" come to the issue of "hethe! o! not Rosil$n "as elo" t"el%e J(6K $ea!s of age at the time the !ape complained of occu!!ed. To olste! the decla!ation of Rosil$n that she "as then ele%en $ea!s old, the p!osecution p!esented the follo"ing documentsH J(K Rosil$n0s i!th ce!ti#cate sho"ing he! i!thda$ as 2a$ ((, (E@<I '7() J6K Rosil$n0s aptismal ce!ti#cate sho"ing he! i!thda$ as 2a$ ((, (E@<I '76) J7K 2aste! Gist of Gi%e Bi!ths stating that 2a. Rosil$n ,elanta! "as o!n on 2a$ ((, (E@< to Gi!ada Telen as the mothe!I '77) J9K 2a!*ed pages of the Co!d ,!essing Room Boo*I '79) J<K 5umma!$ of the Co!d ,!essing Boo*, sho"ing he! i!thda$ as 2a$ ((, (E@< and he! pa!ents0 JGi!ada Telen and 5implicio ,elanta!K patient #le nume! J7E-(N-?(KI '7<) J>K Reco!d of admission sho"ing he! pa!ents0 patient nume! J7E-(N-?(K and con#nement at the Jose :aella 2emo!ial 3ospital f!om 2a$ <- (9, (E@<. '7>) .t is settled that in cases of statuto!$ !ape, the age of the %ictim ma$ e p!o%ed $ the p!esentation of he! i!th ce!ti#cate. .n the case at a!, accused-appellant contends that the i!th ce!ti#cate of Rosil$n should not ha%e een conside!ed $ the t!ial cou!t ecause said i!th ce!ti#cate has al!ead$ een o!de!ed cancelled and e&punged f!om the !eco!ds $ the Regional T!ial Cou!t of 2anila, B!anch 7@, in 5pecial D!oceedings No. E?-@(@E7, dated Ap!il ((, (EE?. '7?) 3o"e%e!, it appea!s that the said decision has een annulled and set aside $ the Cou!t of Appeals on June (N, (EEE, in CA-G.R. 5D No. 9<6@E. The decision of the Cou!t of Appeals "as appealed to this Cou!t $ petition fo! !e%ie", doc*eted as G.R. No. (9N7N<. Dending the #nal outcome of that case, the decision of the Cou!t of Appeals is p!esumed %alid and can e in%o*ed as pria facie asis fo! holding that Rosil$n "as indeed ele%en $ea!s old at the time she "as aused $ accused-appellant. 3o"e%e!, e%en assuming the asence of a %alid i!th ce!ti#cate, the!e is suCcient and ample p!oof of the complainant0s age in the !eco!ds. Rosil$n0s Baptismal Ce!ti#cate can li*e"ise se!%e as p!oof of he! age. .n Deople %. Gian, '7@) "e !uled that the i!th ce!ti#cate, o! in lieu the!eof, an$ othe! documenta!$ e%idence that can help estalish the age of the %ictim, such as the aptismal ce!ti#cate, school !eco!ds, and documents of simila! natu!e, can e p!esented. And e%en assuming e& gratia arguenti that the i!th and aptismal ce!ti#cates of Rosil$n a!e inadmissile to p!o%e he! age, the 2aste! Gist of Gi%e Bi!ths and the Co!d ,!essing Boo* of ,!. Jose :aella 2emo!ial 3ospital "he!e Rosil$n "as o!n a!e suCcient e%idence to p!o%e that he! date of i!th "as 2a$ ((, (E@<. These documents a!e conside!ed ent!ies in oCcial !eco!ds, admissile as pria facie e%idence of thei! contents and co!!oo!ati%e of Rosil$n0s testimon$ as to he! age. Thus, Rule (7N, 5ection 99, of the Rules of Cou!t statesH 9ntries in ofcial records. ,,, Ent!ies in oCcial !eco!ds made in the pe!fo!mance of his dut$ $ a pulic oCce! of the Dhilippines, o! $ a pe!son in the pe!fo!mance of a dut$ especiall$ enjoined $ la", a!e pria facie e%idence of the facts the!ein stated. .n Africa v. $alte&, et al., 5#hil6, /nc., et al., '7E) the Cou!t laid do"n the !e/uisites fo! the application of the fo!egoing !ule, thusH JaK That the ent!$ "as made $ a pulic oCce!, o! $ anothe! pe!son speciall$ enjoined $ la" to do soI 69 JK That it "as made $ the pulic oCce! in the pe!fo!mance of his duties o! $ such othe! pe!son in the pe!fo!mance of a dut$ speciall$ enjoined $ la"I and JcK That the pulic oCce o! the othe! pe!son had suCcient *no"ledge of the facts $ him stated, "hich must ha%e een ac/ui!ed $ him pe!sonall$ o! th!ough oCcial info!mation. .n o!de! fo! a oo* to classif$ as an oCcial !egiste! and admissile in e%idence, it is not necessa!$ that it e !e/ui!ed $ an e&p!ess statute to e *ept, no! that the natu!e of the oCce should !ende! the oo* indispensaleI it is suCcient that it e di!ected $ the p!ope! autho!it$ to e *ept. Thus, oCcial !egiste!s, though not !e/ui!ed $ la", *ept as con%enient and app!op!iate modes of discha!ging oCcial duties, a!e admissile. '9N) Ent!ies in pulic o! oCcial oo*s o! !eco!ds ma$ e p!o%ed $ the p!oduction of the oo*s o! !eco!ds themsel%es o! $ a cop$ ce!ti#ed $ the legal *eepe! the!eof. '9() .t is not necessa!$ to sho" that the pe!son ma*ing the ent!$ is una%ailale $ !eason of death, asence, etc., in o!de! that the ent!$ ma$ e admissile in e%idence, fo! his eing e&cused f!om appea!ing in cou!t in o!de! that pulic usiness e not de!anged, is one of the !easons fo! this e&ception to the hea!sa$ !ule. '96) Co!olla!$ the!eto, D!esidential ,ec!ee No. ><(, as amended $ D.,. No. ?>>, '97) mandates hospitals to !epo!t and !egiste! "ith the local ci%il !egist!a! the fact of i!th, among othe!s, of aies o!n unde! thei! ca!e. 5aid ,ec!ee imposes a penalt$ of a #ne of not less that D<NN.NN no! mo!e than D(,NNN.NN o! imp!isonment of not less than th!ee J7K months no! mo!e than si& J>K months, o! oth, in the disc!etion of the cou!t, in case of failu!e to ma*e the necessa!$ !epo!t to the local ci%il !egist!a!. 3ence, unde! the ao%e-cited D.,. ><(, as amended, in connection "ith Rule 7N, 5ection 99, of the Rules of Cou!t, it is clea! that the Co!d ,!essing Room Boo* "he!e the fact of i!th, name of the mothe! and othe! !elated ent!ies a!e initiall$ !eco!ded, as "ell as the 2aste! Gist of Gi%e Bi!ths of the hospital, a!e conside!ed ent!ies in oCcial !eco!d, eing indispensale to and app!op!iate modes of !eco!ding the i!ths of child!en p!epa!ato!$ to !egist!ation of said ent!ies "ith the local ci%il !egist!a!, in compliance "ith a dut$ speci#call$ mandated $ la". .t matte!s not that the pe!son p!esented to testif$ on these hospital !eco!ds "as not the pe!son "ho actuall$ made those ent!ies "a$ ac* in (E@<, ut Amelita A%enante, the !eco!ds custodian of the hospital in (EE<. To !eite!ate, these !eco!ds ma$ e p!o%ed $ the p!esentation of the !eco!d itself o! $ a ce!ti#ed cop$ o! the legal *eepe! the!eof. D!oof of the una%ailailit$ of the pe!son "ho made those ent!ies is not a !e/uisite fo! thei! admissiilit$. Bhat is impo!tant is that the ent!ies testi#ed to $ A%enante "e!e gathe!ed f!om the !eco!ds of the hospital "hich "e!e accomplished in compliance "ith a dut$ speci#call$ mandated $ la". The!efo!e, the Co!d ,!essing Room Boo* and the 2aste! Gist of Gi%e Bi!ths of the hospital a!e admissile as e%idence of the facts stated the!ein. The p!epa!ation of these hospital documents p!eceded that of the i!th and aptismal ce!ti#cates of Rosil$n. The$ estalish independent and mate!ial facts p!epa!ed $ uniased and disinte!ested pe!sons unde! en%i!onmental ci!cumstances apa!t f!om those that ma$ ha%e attended the p!epa!ation of the i!th and aptismal ce!ti#cates. 3ence, these hospital !eco!ds, to !eite!ate, a!e suCcient to suppo!t the testimon$ of Rosil$n as to he! age. Conse/uentl$, the testimon$ of 5implicio ,elanta! that the ent!ies in the i!th ce!ti#cate of Rosil$n a!e false and that he me!el$ made them up, pa!ticula!l$ he! date of i!th, "as co!!ectl$ dis!ega!ded $ the t!ial cou!t. .t should e noted that the c!iminal cha!ges fo! child ause #led $ Rosil$n against him "as the di!ect cause of his 6< inca!ce!ation. This !aises a possiilit$ that 5implicio falsel$ testi#ed in the p!esent case, to get e%en "ith Rosil$n. Gi*e"ise, the t!ial cou!t co!!ectl$ dis!ega!ded the testimonies of Glo!ia Bina$ and Angelito .nt!uLo ecause the defense failed to p!o%e that the$ "e!e *no"ledgeale as to the ci!cumstances of Rosil$n0s i!th. Thei! testimonies consist mainl$ of ose!%ations tending to sho" that Rosil$n0s appea!ance elie he! claim that she "as o!n on 2a$ ((, (E@<. .n the fou! instances of acts of lasci%iousness allegedl$ committed on June 6E, June 7N, Jul$ 6, and Jul$ 7, (EE> JC!iminal Cases Nos. E>-(EE9, E>-(EE<, E>-(EE>, and E>- (EE?, !especti%el$K, the t!ial cou!t ac/uitted accused- appellant on the g!ound of !easonale dout as the defense "as ale to p!o%e that accused-appellant "as not in 2anila ut eithe! in ,ipolog o! ,apitan Cit$ at the time the lasci%ious acts "e!e supposedl$ committed. The e%idence of the defense estalished that accused-appellant fe" to ,ipolog on June 6@, (EE>, and sta$ed the!e until Jul$ E, (EE>. .n C!iminal Cases Nos. E>-(EE( and E>-(EE@, fo! t"o counts of acts of lasci%iousness allegedl$ committed oth in the ea!l$ mo!nings of June (E and Jul$ 6(, (EE>, Rosil$n me!el$ testi#ed that she felt someod$ touching he! p!i%ate pa!t ut failed to identif$ the pe!son "ho "as pe!fo!ming those leche!ous acts as she "as too sleep$ to "a*e up. 3ence, accused-appellant "as li*e"ise ac/uitted in these cases on the g!ound of !easonale dout. Bith !espect, ho"e%e!, to the acts of lasci%iousness committed in the mo!ning of June (< and 66, (EE>, and in the e%ening of June (9, (<, (@, and 6(, (EE>, as "ell as the !ape pe!pet!ated on June (@, (EE> and Jul$ 6N, (EE>, accused-appellant failed to account fo! his "he!eaouts. A ca!eful !e%ie" of the pe!tinent t!ansc!ipt of stenog!aphic notes !e%eals that accused-appellant did not gi%e an$ testimon$ as to "he!e he "as at the time these c!imes "e!e committed. Clea!l$, the!efo!e, the t!ial cou!t co!!ectl$ dis!ega!ded his unsustantiated defense of denial, "hich cannot p!e%ail o%e! his positi%e identi#cation $ Rosil$n as the culp!it. As !ega!ds the cha!ge of acts of lasci%iousness committed in the mo!ning of June (>, (EE>, accused- appellant claimed that it "as impossile fo! him to ha%e committed the same ecause he fe" to ,ipolog on that da$. The !eco!ds disclose, ho"e%e!, that accused- appellant0s fight "as at EH9N a.m. The possiilit$, the!efo!e, of accused-appellant0s ha%ing pe!fo!med the lasci%ious acts on the %ictim efo!e he "ent o+ to the ai!po!t is not at all p!ecluded. :o! his failu!e to p!o%e the ph$sical impossiilit$ of his p!esence at the RitL To"e!s in the mo!ning of June (>, (EE>, "hen the se&ual ause of Rosil$n "as committed, his defense of alii must fail. A!ticle ..., 5ection < of Repulic Act No. ?>(N, statesH $hild #rostitution and other Se&ual Abuse. --- Child!en, "hethe! male o! female, "ho fo! mone$ o! p!o#t, o! an$ othe! conside!ation o! due to the coe!cion o! infuence of an$ adult, s$ndicate o! g!oup, indulge in se&ual inte!cou!se o! lasci%ious conduct a!e deemed to e child!en e&ploited in p!ostitution and othe! se&ual ause. The penalt$ of reclusion teporal in its medium pe!iod to reclusion perpetua shall e imposed upon the follo"ingH &&& &&& &&& JK Those "ho commit the act of se&ual inte!cou!se o! lasci%ious conduct "ith a child e&ploited in p!ostitution o! sujected to othe! se&ual auseI #rovided, That "hen the %ictim is unde! t"el%e J(6K $ea!s of age, the pe!pet!ato!s shall e p!osecuted unde! A!ticle 77<, pa!ag!aphs 7, fo! !ape and A!ticle 77> of Act No. 7@(<, as amended, the Re%ised Denal Code, fo! !ape o! lasci%ious conduct, as the case ma$ eH #rovided, That the penalt$ fo! lasci%ious conduct "hen the %ictim is unde! t"el%e J(6K $ea!s of age 6> shall e reclusion teporal in its medium pe!iodI & & & . JEmphasis supplied.K .n Deople %. Aptana, '99) the Cou!t, citing the case of Deople %. Ga!in, '9<) e&plained the elements of the o+ense of %iolation of 5ection < JK of R.A. ?>(N, o! the Child Ause Ga", as follo"sH (. The accused commits the act of se&ual inte!cou!se o! lasci%ious conduct. 6. The said act is pe!fo!med "ith a child e&ploited in p!ostitution o! sujected othe! se&ual ause. 7. The child, "hethe! male o! female, is elo" (@ $ea!s of age. A child is deemed e&ploited in p!ostitution o! sujected to othe! se&ual ause, "hen the child indulges in se&ual inte!cou!se o! lasci%ious conduct JaK fo! mone$, p!o#t, o! an$ othe! conside!ationI o! JK unde! the coe!cion o! infuence of an$ adult, s$ndicate o! g!oup. =nde! RA ?>(N, child!en a!e Ppe!sons elo" eighteen $ea!s of age o! those unale to full$ ta*e ca!e of themsel%es o! p!otect themsel%es f!om ause, neglect, c!uelt$, e&ploitation o! disc!imination ecause of thei! age o! mental disailit$ o! condition.R PGasci%ious conductR is de#ned unde! A!ticle U..., 5ection 76 of the .mplementing Rules and Regulation of R.A. ?>(N, as follo"sH 'T)he intentional touching, eithe! di!ectl$ o! th!ough clothing, of the genitalia, anus, g!oin, !east, inne! thigh, o! uttoc*s, o! the int!oduction of an$ oject into the genitalia, anus o! mouth, of an$ pe!son, "hethe! of the same o! opposite se&, "ith an intent to ause, humiliate, ha!ass, deg!ade, o! a!ouse o! g!atif$ the se&ual desi!e of an$ pe!son, estialit$, mastu!ation, lasci%ious e&hiition of the genitals o! puic a!ea of a pe!son. .n the case at a!, accused-appellant0s acts of *issing Rosil$n on the lips, fondling he! !east, inse!ting his #nge! into he! %agina and placing his penis et"een he! thighs, all constitute lasci%ious conduct intended to a!ouse o! g!atif$ his se&ual desi!e. 3ence, the t!ial cou!t co!!ectl$ con%icted accused-appellant of %iolation of 5ection < JK of R.A. ?>(N, o! the Child Ause Ga", in C!iminal Cases Nos. E>-(E@?, E>- (E@@, E>-(E@E, E>-(EEN, E>-(EE6, and E>-(EE7, cha!ging him "ith the ao%e-desc!ied lasci%ious acts. The penalt$ fo! %iolation of 5ection < JK of R.A. ?>(N, o! the Child Ause Ga", "he!e the %ictim is elo" (6 $ea!s of age, is reclusion teporal in its medium pe!iod. The !eco!ds sho" that on at least nine JEK sepa!ate occasions, the accused-appellant inse!ted his #nge! into the complainant0s %agina. These inse!tions too* place in (EE>. A $ea! late!, Cong!ess enacted Repulic Act No. @7<7, the Anti-Rape la" of (EE?. .t does not appl$ to this case ut it indicates state polic$ on !ape. The Re%ised Denal Code is no" amended to !ead as follo"sH A!ticle 6>>-A. -apeB Chen and :ow $oitted. 4 Rape is committed 4 (. B$ a man "ho ha%e ca!nal *no"ledge of a "oman unde! an$ of the follo"ing ci!cumstancesH aK Th!ough fo!ce, th!eat o! intimidationI K Bhen the o+ended pa!t$ is dep!i%ed of !eason o! othe!"ise unconsciousI cK B$ means of f!audulent machination o! g!a%e ause of autho!it$I and 6? dK Bhen the o+ended pa!t$ is unde! t"el%e J(6K $ea!s of age o! is demented, e%en though none of the ci!cumstances mentioned ao%e e p!esent. 6. B$ an$ pe!son "ho, unde! an$ of the ci!cumstances mentioned in pa!ag!aph ( he!eof, shall commit an act of se&ual assault $ inse!ting his penis into anothe! pe!son0s mouth o! anal o!i#ce o! an$ inst!ument o! oject, into the genital o! anal o!i#ce of anothe! pe!son. JEmphasis supplied.K .ndicati%e of the continuing state polic$ to"a!ds !ape, the Anti-Rape Ga" of (EE? no" classi#es the c!ime as an o+ense against pe!sons. An$ pulic p!osecuto!, not necessa!il$ the %ictim o! he! pa!ents, can p!osecute the case. The penalties fo! the c!ime of !ape in the light of %a!ious ci!cumstances, "hich a!e no" set fo!th and contained in A!ticle 6>>-B of the Re%ised Denal Code, ha%e also een inc!eased. Conside!ing that the!e a!e neithe! mitigating no! agg!a%ating ci!cumstance, the t!ial cou!t co!!ectl$ imposed on accused-appellant the ma&imum penalt$ of #fteen J(<K $ea!s, si& J>K months and t"ent$ J6NK da$s of reclusion teporal, "hich is "ithin the medium pe!iod of reclusion teporal medium, pu!suant to ou! !uling in)ulla v. $ourt of Appeals. '9>) Not"ithstanding that R.A. ?>(N is a special la", accused-appellant ma$ enjo$ a minimum te!m of the indete!minate sentence to e ta*en "ithin the !ange of the penalt$ ne&t lo"e! to that p!esc!ied $ the Code. '9?) 3o"e%e!, the t!ial cou!t e!!oneousl$ #&ed the minimum te!m of the indete!minate sentence at eight J@K $ea!s, eight J@K months and one J(K da$ of prision a%or in its medium pe!iod. .n the afo!esaid case of )ulla, '9@) "e held that the penalt$ ne&t lo"e! in deg!ee to reclusion teporal medium is reclusion teporal minimum, the !ange of "hich is f!om t"el%e J(6K $ea!s and one J(K da$ to fou!teen J(9K $ea!s and eight J@K months. 3ence, fo! %iolation of A!ticle ..., 5ection < JK of R.A. ?>(N, accused-appellant shall su+e! the indete!minate sentence of t"el%e $ea!s J(6K and one J(K da$ of reclusion teporal, as minimum, to #fteen J(<K $ea!s, si& J>K months and t"ent$ J6NK da$s of reclusion teporal as ma&imum. At the time of commission of the c!imes complained of he!ein in (EE>, statuto!$ !ape "as penaliLed unde! 5ection (( of R.A. ?><E, "hich amended A!ticle 77< of the Re%ised Denal Code, to "itH Chen and how rape is coitted. --- Rape is committed $ ha%ing ca!nal *no"ledge of a "oman unde! an$ of the follo"ing ci!cumstancesH (. B$ using fo!ce o! intimidationI 6. Bhen the "oman is dep!i%ed of !eason o! othe!"ise unconsciousI and 7. Bhen the "oman is unde! t"el%e $ea!s of age o! is demented. The c!ime of !ape shall e punished $ reclusion perpetua. &&&. .n statuto!$ !ape, me!e se&ual cong!ess "ith a "oman elo" t"el%e $ea!s of age consummates the c!ime of statuto!$ !ape !ega!dless of he! consent to the act o! lac* of it. The la" p!esumes that a "oman of tende! age does not possess disce!nment and is incapale of gi%ing intelligent consent to the se&ual act. Thus, it "as held that ca!nal *no"ledge of a child elo" t"el%e $ea!s old e%en if she is engaged in p!ostitution is still conside!ed statuto!$ !ape. The application of fo!ce and intimidation o! the dep!i%ation of !eason of the %ictim ecomes i!!ele%ant. The asence of st!uggle o! outc!$ of the %ictim o! e%en he! passi%e sumission to the se&ual act "ill not mitigate no! asol%e the accused f!om liailit$. '9E) 6@ .n the case at a!, the p!osecution estalished e$ond !easonale dout that accused-appellant had ca!nal *no"ledge of Rosil$n. 2o!eo%e!, the p!osecution successfull$ p!o%ed that Rosil$n "as onl$ ele%en $ea!s of age at the time she "as se&uall$ aused. As such, the asence of p!oof of an$ st!uggle, o! fo! that matte! of consent o! passi%e sumission to the se&ual ad%ances of accused-appellant, "as of no moment. The fact that accused-appellant had se&ual cong!ess "ith ele%en $ea!-old Rosil$n is suCcient to hold him liale fo! statuto!$ !ape, and sentenced to su+e! the penalt$ of reclusion perpetua. As to accused-appellantTs ci%il liailit$, the amount of mo!al damages a"a!ded $ the t!ial cou!t fo! each count of acts of lasci%iousness unde! 5ection < JK of R.A. ?>(N should e inc!eased f!om D6N,NNN.NN to D<N,NNN.NN. '<N) An the othe! hand, the a"a!d of the amount of D<N,NNN.NN as mo!al damages fo! each count of statuto!$ !ape "as co!!ect. .n Deople %. Go!, '<() citing the cases of Deople %. Ficto!, '<6) and Deople %. GementiLa, '<7) "e held that the indemnit$ autho!iLed $ ou! c!iminal la" as ci%il indemnit$ e& delicto fo! the o+ended pa!t$, in the amount autho!iLed $ the p!e%ailing judicial polic$ and aside f!om othe! p!o%en actual damages, is itself e/ui%alent to actual o! compensato!$ damages in ci%il la". 5aid ci%il indemnit$ is mandato!$ upon #nding of the fact of !apeI it is distinct f!om and should not e denominated as mo!al damages "hich a!e ased on di+e!ent ju!al foundations and assessed $ the cou!t in the e&e!cise of sound judicial disc!etion. '<9) 3ence, accused-appellant should e o!de!ed to pa$ the o+ended pa!t$ anothe! D<N,NNN.NN as ci%il indemnit$ fo! each count of !ape and acts of lasci%iousness. )EREFORE, the ,ecision of the Regional T!ial Cou!t of 2a*ati, B!anch >6, in C!iminal Case Nos. E>-(E@< and E>- (E@> #nding accused-appellant Romeo Jalosjos guilt$ e$ond !easonale dout of t"o counts of statuto!$ !ape, and sentencing him to su+e! the penalt$ of reclusion perpetua fo! each count, is A::.R2E,. Gi*e"ise, the appealed ,ecision of the Regional T!ial Cou!t of 2a*ati, B!anch >6 in C!iminal Case Nos. E>-(E@?, E>-(E@@, E>-(E@E, E>-(EEN, E>-(EE6, and E>-(EE7, #nding accused-appellant guilt$ e$ond !easonale dout of acts of lasci%iousness in si& counts, is A::.R2E, "ith 2A,.:.CAT.AN5. As modi#ed, accused-appellant is sentenced to su+e!, fo! each count of acts of lasci%iousness, the indete!minate penalt$ of t"el%e $ea!s J(6K and one J(K da$ ofreclusion teporal, as minimum, to #fteen J(<K $ea!s, si& J>K months and t"ent$ J6NK da$s of reclusion teporal as ma&imum. :u!the!, accused-appellant is o!de!ed to pa$ the %ictim, 2a. Rosil$n ,elanta!, the additional amount of D<N,NNN.NN as ci%il indemnit$ fo! each count of statuto!$ !ape and acts of lasci%iousness. :inall$, the a"a!d of mo!al damages fo! each count of acts of lasci%iousness is inc!eased to D<N,NNN.NN. "O OR*ERE*. )avide, +r., $+., !ellosillo, Melo, #uno, .itug, 'apunan, Mendoza, #anganiban, (uisubing, #ardo, !uena, )e *eon, +r., Sandoval,Gutierrez, and$arpio, ++., concu!. 6E Attendance of Session People v. Jalosjos 324 SCRA 689 FACTS: While his appeal from a conviction of rape is pending, the accused, a Congressman was confined at the national penitentiary. Since he was reelected to his position, he argued that he should be allowed to attend the legislative sessions and committee hearings, because his confinement was depriving his constituents of their voice in Congress. HELD: Election to high government office does free accused from the common restraints of general law. Under Section II, Article I of the Constitution, a member of the !ouse of "ep is privileged from arrest only if offense is punishable by not more than # years imprisonment. Confinement of a congressman charged with a crime punishable by more than # years has constitutional foundations. If allowed to attend the congressional sessions, the accused would be virtually made a free man. When he was elected into office, the voters were aware of his limitations on his freedom of action. Congress can continue to function even without all its members being present. Election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. 7N