Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

TodayisMonday,November28,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.Nos.13287576November16,2001
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
ROMEOG.JALOSJOS,accusedappellant.
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
This Court has declared that the state policy on the heinous offense of rape is clear and unmistakable. Under
certain circumstances, some of them present in this case, the offender may be sentenced to a long period of
confinement, or he may suffer death. The crime is an assault on human dignity. No legal system worthy of the
namecanaffordtoignorethetraumaticconsequencesfortheunfortunatevictimandgrievousinjurytothepeace
andgoodorderofthecommunity.1
Rape is particularly odious, one which figuratively scrapes the bottom of the barrel of moral depravity, when
committedagainstaminor.2
Inviewoftheintrinsicnatureofthecrimeofrapewhereonlytwopersonsareusuallyinvolved,thetestimonyof
thecomplainantisalwaysscrutinizedwithextremecaution.3
In the present case, there are certain particulars which impelled the court to devote an even more painstaking
and meticulous examination of the facts on record and a similarly conscientious evaluation of the arguments of
the parties. The victim of rape in this case is a minor below twelve (12) years of age. As narrated by her, the
detailsoftherapearemesmericallysordidandrepulsive.Thevictimwaspeddledforcommercialsexbyherown
guardianwhomshetreatedasafosterfather.Becausethecomplainantwasawillingvictim,theactsofrapewere
precededbyseveralactsoflasciviousnessondistinctlyseparateoccasions.Theaccusedisalsoamostunlikely
rapist. He is a member of Congress. Inspite of his having been charged and convicted by the trial court for
statutoryrape,hisconstituentslikedhimsomuchthattheyknowinglyreelectedhimtohiscongressionaloffice,
thedutiesofwhichhecouldnotperform.
StatutoryrapecommittedbyadistinguishedCongressmanonaneleven(11)yearoldcommercialsexworkeris
bound to attract widespread media and public attention. In the words of accusedappellant, "he has been
demonizedinthepressmostunfairly,hisimagetransmogrifiedintothatofadastardly,ogre,outtogethisslimy
hands on innocent and nave girls to satiate his lustful desires."4 This Court, therefore, punctiliously considered
accusedappellantsclaimthathesuffered"invidiouslydiscriminatorytreatment."Regardingtheaboveallegation,
the Court has ascertained that the extensive publicity generated by the case did not result in a mistrial the
recordsshowthattheaccusedhadampleandfreeopportunitytoadducehisdefenses.
Thisisanappealfromthedecision5oftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakati,Branch62,inCriminalCaseNos.96
1985 and 961986, convicting accusedappellant Romeo Jalosjos of two (2) counts of statutory rape, and in
Criminal Case Nos. 961987, 961988, 961989, 961990, 961992, and 961993, for six (6) counts of acts of
lasciviousnessdefinedandpenalizedunderArticle336oftheRevisedPenalCode,inrelationtoSection5(b)of
RepublicActNo.7610,alsoknownastheChildAbuseLaw.
Thereweresix(6)othercases,CriminalCaseNos.961991,961994,961995,961996,961997,and961998,
wheretheaccusedappellantwasacquittedofthechargesofactsoflasciviousnessforfailureoftheprosecution
toprovehisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.
On December 16, 1996, two (2) informations for the crime of statutory rape and twelve (12) for acts of
lasciviousnessdefinedandpenalizedunderArticle336oftheRevisedPenalCode,inrelationtoSection5(b)of
RepublicActNo.7610,werefiledagainstaccusedappellant.Theaccusatoryportionofsaidinformationsforthe
crimeofstatutoryrapestate:

InCriminalCaseNo.961985:
Theundersigned,uponpriorsworncomplaintbytheoffendedparty,eleven(11)yearoldminorROSILYN
DELANTAR,accusesROMEOJALOSJOSofthecrimeofRAPEdefinedandpenalizedunderArt.335(3)of
theRevisedPenalCode,committedasfollows:
ThatonoraboutJune18,1996atRoomNo.1702,RitzTowers,MakatiCity,andwithinthejurisdictionof
this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
havecarnalknowledgewith(sic)elevenyearoldminorRosilynDelantaragainstherwill,withdamageand
prejudice.
CONTRARYTOLAW.6
InCriminalCaseNo.961986:
Theundersigned,uponpriorsworncomplaintbytheoffendedparty,eleven(11)yearoldminorROSILYN
DELANTAR,accusesROMEOJALOSJOSofthecrimeofRAPEdefinedandpenalizedunderArt.335(3)of
theRevisedPenalCode,committedasfollows:
That on or about June 20, 1996 at Room No. 1702, Ritz Towers, Makati City, and within the
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfully
andfeloniouslyhavecarnalknowledgewith(sic)elevenyearoldminorRosilynDelantaragainsther
will,withdamageandprejudice.
CONTRARYTOLAW.7
Foractsoflasciviousness,theinformations8underwhichaccusedappellantwasconvictedwereidenticalexcept
forthedifferentdatesofcommissiononJune14,1996June15,1996June16,1996June20,1996June21,
1996andJune22,1996,towit:
Theundersigned,uponpriorsworncomplaintbytheoffendedparty,eleven(11)yearoldminorROSILYN
DELANTARaccusesROMEOJALOSJOSofthecrimeofACTSOFLASCIVIOUSNESSinrelationtoSection
5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children against
Abuse,ExploitationandDiscriminationAct,committedasfollows:
That in the evening of June 14, 1996, or thereabout, in Room No. 1702, Ritz Towers, Makati City,
MetroManila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with
lewd design, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously kiss, caress and fondle said
complainant'sface,lips,neck,breasts,wholebody,andvagina,suckhernipplesandinserthisfinger
andthenhistongueintohervagina,placehimselfontopofher,theninserthispenisinbetweenher
thighs until ejaculation, and other similar lascivious conduct against her will, to her damage and
prejudice.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
InCriminalCasesNos.961988961990and961993,therewereaddedavermentsthatonthedifferentdates,
theaccusedgavethecomplainantP10,000.00,P5,000.00andP5,000.00respectively.
UponarraignmentonJanuary29,1997,accusedappellantrefusedtoenteraplea.Hence,thetrialcourtentered
apleaofnotguiltyforhim.Atthetrial,theprosecutionpresentedeight(8)mainwitnessesandseven(7)rebuttal
witnesses as well as documentary evidences marked as Exhibits A to EEEE, inclusive of submarkings. The
defense,ontheotherhandpresentedtwentysix(26)witnesses.ItsdocumentaryevidenceconsistsofExhibits1
to153,inclusiveofsubmarkings.Therecordsofthecaseareextremelyvoluminous.
ThePeoplesversionofthefacts,culledmainlyfromthetestimonyofthevictim,areasfollows:
Maria Rosilyn Delantar was a slim, elevenyear old lass with long, straight black hair and almondshaped black
eyes. She grew up in a twostorey apartment in Pasay City under the care of Simplicio Delantar, whom she
treatedasherownfather.Simpliciowasafiftysixyearoldhomosexualwhoseostensiblesourceofincomewas
sellinglongganizaandtocinoandacceptingboardersathishouse.Ontheside,hewasalsoengagedintheskin
tradeasapimp.
Rosilynnevergottoseehermother,thoughshehadknownayoungerbrother,Shandro,whowasalsounderthe
careofSimplicio.Ataveryyoungageof5,fairandsmoothcomplexionedRosilynwasexposedbySimplicioto
his illicit activities. She and her brother would tag along with Simplicio whenever he delivered prostitutes to his
clients.Whensheturned9,RosilynwasofferedbySimplicioasaprostitutetoanArabiannationalknownasMr.
Hammond.ThusbegunherordealasoneofthegirlssoldbySimplicioforsexualfavors.

Rosilyn first met accusedappellant, Romeo Jalosjos, sometime in February 1996 at his office located near
RobinsonsGalleria.RosilynandSimpliciowerebroughtthereandintroducedbyatalentmanagerbythenameof
Eduardo Suarez. Accusedappellant promised to help Rosilyn become an actress. When he saw Rosilyn,
accusedappellantaskedhowoldshewas.Simplicioanswered,"10.Sheisgoingtobe11onMay11."Accused
appellantinquiredifRosilynknowshowtosing.SimpliciotoldRosilyntosing,soshesangthesong,"TellMeYou
LoveMe."AccusedappellantthenaskedifRosilynhasnicelegsandthenraisedherskirtuptothemidthighs.
Heaskedifshewasalreadymenstruating,andSimpliciosaidyes.Accusedappellant further inquired if Rosilyn
already had breasts. When nobody answered, accusedappellant cupped Rosilyns left breast. Thereafter,
accusedappellantassuredthemthathewouldhelpRosilynbecomeanactressashewasoneoftheproducers
oftheTVprograms,"Valiente"and"EatBulaga."
SimplicioandSuarezthendiscussedtheexecutionofacontractforRosilynsmoviecareer.Accusedappellant,on
the other hand, said that he would adopt Rosilyn and that the latter would have to live with him in his
condominium at the Ritz Towers. Before Simplicio and Rosilyn went home, accusedappellant gave Rosilyn
P2,000.00.
The second time Rosilyn met accusedappellant was at his condominium unit, located at Room 1702, Ritz
Towers, Makati City. Accusedappellant and Simplicio discussed the contract and his plan to finance Rosilyns
studies.AccusedappellantgaveSimplicioP500.00,thereafter,Rosilyn,ShandroandSimplicioleft.
ThethirdmeetingbetweenRosilynandaccusedappellantwasalsoatRitzTowerstodiscussheractingcareer.
Accusedappellant referred the preparation of Rosilyns contract to his lawyer, who was also present. After the
meeting, Simplicio and Rosilyn left. As they were walking towards the elevator, accusedappellant approached
themandgaveRosilynP3,000.00.
On June 14, 1996, at about 8:30 to 9:00 p.m., Simplicio and Rosilyn returned to accusedappellants
condominiumunitatRitzTowers.Whenaccusedappellantcameoutofhisbedroom,SimpliciotoldRosilyntogo
insidethebedroom,whileheandaccusedappellantstayedoutside.Afterawhile,accusedappellantenteredthe
bedroomandfoundRosilynwatchingtelevision.HewalkedtowardsRosilynandkissedheronthelips,thenleft
theroomagain.Simpliciocameinandbidhergoodbye.RosilyntoldSimpliciothataccusedappellantkissedher
towhichSimplicioreplied,"Haliklangnaman."
Rosilyn was left alone in the bedroom watching television. After some time, accusedappellant came in and
entered the bathroom. He came out clad in a long white Tshirt on which was printed the word, "Dakak."In his
hand was a plain white Tshirt. Accusedappellant told Rosilyn that he wanted to change her clothes. Rosilyn
protested and told accusedappellant that she can do it herself, but accusedappellant answered, "Daddy mo
naman ako." Accusedappellant then took off Rosilyns blouse and skirt. When he was about to take off her
panties, Rosilyn said, "Huwag po." Again, accusedappellant told her, "After all, I am your Daddy." Accused
appellantthenremovedherpantiesanddressedherwiththelongwhiteTshirt.
The two of them watched television in bed. After sometime, accusedappellant turned off the lamp and the
television.HeturnedtoRosilynandkissedherlips.Hethenraisedhershirt,touchedherbreastsandinsertedhis
fingerintohervagina.Rosilynfeltpainandcriedout,"Tamanapo."Accusedappellantstopped.Hecontinuedto
kissherlipsandfondleherbreasts.Later,accusedappellanttoldRosilyntosleep.
Thefollowingmorning,Rosilynwasawakenedbyaccusedappellantwhomshefoundbentoverandkissingher.
Hetoldhertogetup,tookherhandandledhertothebathroom.HeremovedRosilynsshirtandgaveherabath.
WhileaccusedappellantrubbedsoapalloverRosilynsbody,hecaressedherbreastsandinsertedhisfingerinto
hervagina.Afterthat,herinsedherbody,driedherwithatowelandappliedlotiononherarmsandlegs.Then,
he dried her hair and told her to dress up. Rosilyn put on her clothes and went out of the bathroom, while
accusedappellanttookashower.
Accusedappellant ate breakfast while Rosilyn stayed in the bedroom watching television. When accused
appellantenteredtheroom,hekneltinfrontofher,removedherpantiesandplacedherlegsonhisshoulders.
Then, he placed his tongue on her vagina. Thereafter, he gave Rosilyn P10,000.00 and told his housemaid to
takehershoppingatShoemart.WhenshereturnedtotheRitzTowers,Simpliciowaswaitingforher.Thetwoof
them went home. Rosilyn narrated to Simplicio what accusedappellant did to her, and pleaded for him not to
bringherbacktotheRitzTowers.Simpliciotoldherthateverythingwasalrightaslongasaccusedappellantdoes
nothavesexualintercoursewithher.
That same evening, at around 9:00 to 9:30 in the evening, Simplicio again brought Rosilyn to the Ritz Towers.
After Simplicio left, accusedappellant removed Rosilyns clothes and dressed her with the same long Tshirt.
They watched television for a while, then accusedappellant sat beside Rosilyn and kissed her on the lips. He
madeRosilynliedown,liftedhershirtaboveherbreasts,andinsertedhisfingerintohervagina.Then,accused
appellantremovedhisownclothes,placedhispenisbetweenRosilynsthighsandmadethrustingmotionsuntilhe
ejaculatedonherthighs.Thereafter,accusedappellantkissedherandtoldhertosleep.

Thenextday,June16,1996,accusedappellantrousedherfromsleepandbathedher.Again,herubbedsoapall
overherbody,washedherhair,andthereafterrinsedherbodyanddriedherhair.Whileaccusedappellantwas
bathingRosilyn,heaskedhertofondlehispeniswhilehecaressedherbreastsandinsertedhisfingerintoher
vagina.Aftertheirshower,accusedappellantatebreakfast.HegaveRosilynP5,000.00andtoldhertojustwait
forSimpliciointhecondominiumunit.Ontheirwayhome,SimpliciotoldRosilynthatifaccusedappellanttriesto
inserthispenisintohervagina,sheshouldrefuse.
At around 8:00 p.m. of June 18, 1996, Simplicio brought Rosilyn to the Ritz Towers. They found accused
appellant sitting on the bed in his bedroom. Simplicio told Rosilyn to approach accusedappellant, then he left.
AccusedappellanttookoffRosilynsclothesanddressedherwithalongTshirtonwhichwasprintedapictureof
accusedappellant and a woman, with the caption, "Cong. Jalosjos with his Toy." They watched television for a
while, then accusedappellant lay beside Rosilyn and kissed her on the lips. He raised her shirt and parted her
legs.HepositionedhimselfbetweenthespreadlegsofRosilyn,tookoffhisownshirt,heldhispenis,andpoked
and pressed the same against Rosilyns vagina. This caused Rosilyn pain inside her sex organ. Thereafter,
accusedappellantfondledherbreastsandtoldhertosleep.
When Rosilyn woke up the following morning, June 19, 1996, accusedappellant was no longer around but she
foundP5,000.00onthetable.Earlierthatmorning,shehadfeltsomebodytouchingherprivatepartsbutshewas
stilltoosleepytofindoutwhoitwas.Rosilyntookabath,thenwentofftoschoolwithSimplicio,whoarrivedto
fetchher.
ThenextencounterofRosilynwithaccusedappellantwasonJune21,1996,atabout9:00oclockintheevening
inhisbedroomattheRitzTowers.Accusedappellantstrippedhernakedandagainputonherthelongshirthe
wantedhertowear.Afterwatchingtelevisionforawhile,accusedappellantkneltbesideRosilyn,raisedhershirt,
caressedherbreastsandinsertedhisfingerintohervagina.Then,heclippedhispenisbetweenRosilynsthighs,
andmadethrustingmotionsuntilheejaculated.Thereafter,Rosilynwenttosleep.
Thenextday,June22,1996,Rosilynwasawakenedbyaccusedappellantwhowaskissingherandfondlingher
sex organ. She, however, ignored him and went back to sleep. When she woke up, she found the P5,000.00
whichaccusedappellantleftandgavethesametoSimplicioDelantar,whenthelattercametopickherup.
OnJune29,1996,RosilynagainwenttotheRitzTowers.Duringthatvisit,accusedappellanttookphotographsof
Rosilyn. He asked her to pose with her Tshirt pulled down thereby exposing her breasts. He also took her
photographswithherTshirtrolleduptothepelvisbutwithoutshowingherpubis,andfinally,whilestraddledona
chairfacingthebackrest,showingherlegs.
BeforeRosilynwenttosleep,accusedappellantkissedherlips,fondledherbreastsandinsertedhisfingerinto
hervagina.Thefollowingmorning,shewokeupandfoundtheP5,000.00leftbyaccusedappellantonthetable.
Sherecalledthatearlierthatmorning,shefeltsomebodycaressingherbreastsandsexorgan.
OnJuly2,1996at7:00p.m.,RosilynandSimplicioreturnedtotheRitzTowers.Rosilynhadtowaitforaccused
appellant,whoarrivedbetween12:00to1:00a.m.Heagaindressedherwiththelongwhiteshirtsimilartowhat
he was wearing. While sitting on the bed, accusedappellant kissed her lips and inserted his tongue into her
mouth.Hethenfondledherbreastsandinsertedhisfingerintohervagina,causinghertocryinpain.Accused
appellantstoppedandtoldhertosleep.
Thenextmorning,accusedappellantbathedheragain.While he soaped her body, he fondled her breasts and
insertedhisfingerinhervagina.Rosilynfeltpainandshovedhishandaway.Afterbathingher,accusedappellant
had breakfast. Before he left, he gave Rosilyn P5,000.00. As soon as Simplicio arrived, Rosilyn gave her the
moneyandthentheyleftforschool.
On July 20, 1996, Simplicio again brought Rosilyn to the Ritz Towers. Accusedappellant was waiting in his
bedroom.HetookoffRosilynsclothes,includingherpanties,anddressedherwithalongTshirtsimilartowhat
hewaswearing.Afterwatchingtelevision,accusedappellantkissedRosilynonthelips,insertedhistongueinher
mouthandfondledherbreasts.Then,hemadeRosilynlieonthebed,spreadherlegsapartandplacedapillow
underherback.Heinsertedhisfingerinhervaginaandmountedhimselfbetweenherlegswithhishandsrested
on her sides. After that, he lifted his shirt, then pointed and pressed his penis against her vagina. Accused
appellantmadethrustingmotions,whichcausedRosilynpain.Thereafter,accusedappellanttoldhertosleep.
In the early morning of July 21, 1996, Rosilyn felt somebody touching her sex organ, but she did not wake up.
Whenshewokeuplater,shefoundP5,000.00onthetable,andshegavethistoSimpliciowhenhecametofetch
her.
OnAugust15,1996,RosilynandSimpliciowenttotheRitzTowersataround7:00p.m.Accusedappellantwas
abouttoleave,sohetoldthemtocomebacklaterthatevening.Thetwodidnotreturn.

The following day, Rosilyn ran away from home with the help of Yamie Estreta, one of their boarders. Yamie
accompaniedRosilyntothePasayCityPolice,wheresheexecutedaswornstatementagainstSimplicioDelantar.
RosilynwasthereaftertakentothecustodyoftheDepartmentofSocialWelfareandDevelopment(DSWD).The
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation, which eventually led to the filing of criminal
chargesagainstaccusedappellant.
On August 23, 1996, Rosilyn was examined by Dr. Emmanuel L. Aranas at Camp Crame. The examination
yieldedthefollowingresults:
EXTERNALANDEXTRAGENITAL
Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female subject. Breasts are conical with pinkish brown
areolaandnipplesfromwhichnosecretionscouldbepressedout.Abdomenisflatandsoft
GENITAL
Thereismoderategrowthofpubichair.Labiamajoraarefull,convexandcoaptatedwiththepinkishbrown
labiaminorapresentinginbetween.Onseparatingthesamedisclosedanelastic,fleshytypehymen,with
shallow healed laceration at 3 o'clock position and deep healed laceration at 8 o'clock position. External
vaginal orifice offers moderate resistance to the introduction of the examining index finger and the virgin
sizedvaginalspeculum.Vaginalcanalisnarrowwithprominentrugosities.Cervixisfirmandclosed.
CONCLUSION:
Subjectisinnonvirginstatephysically.
Therearenoexternalsignsofapplicationofanyformofviolence.9
During the trial, accusedappellant raised the defense of denial and alibi. He claimed that it was his brother,
Dominador"Jun"Jalosjos,whomRosilynhadmet,onceataccusedappellantsDakakofficeandtwiceattheRitz
Towers. Accusedappellant insisted that he was in the province on the dates Rosilyn claimed to have been
sexuallyabused.Heattributedthefilingofthechargesagainsthimtoasmallgroupofblackmailerswhowanted
to extort money from him, and to his political opponents, particularly ExCongressman Artemio Adaza, who are
allegedlydeterminedtodestroyhispoliticalcareerandboosttheirpersonalagenda.
More specifically, accusedappellant claims that on June 16, 1996, he was on the Philippine Airlines (PAL) 9:40
a.m.flightfromManilatoDipolog.HestayedinDipologuntilJune18,1996.Hesubmittedinevidenceairlineticket
no.10792424,10showingthathewasonboardFlightPR165thesaidflightspassengersmanifest,11wherethe
name JALOSJOS/RM/MR appears and photographs showing accusedappellants constituents welcoming his
arrivalandshowingaccusedappellanttalkingwithformerMayorHermanicoCarreonandFiscalEmpainado.
AccusedappellantfurtherallegesthatonJune28,1996,heagaintookthe9:40a.m.flightfromManilatoDipolog
City.Onthesameflight,hemetArmandoNocomofthePhilippineDailyInquirer.Uponarrivalandaftertalkingto
hisrepresentatives,heproceededtohisresidenceknownas"BarangayHouse"inTaguinon,Dapitan,nearDakak
Beachresort,andspentthenightthere.
On June 29, 1996, accusedappellant attended the fiesta at Barangay San Pedro. He stayed in the house of
BarangayCaptainMilaYapuntil5:30p.m.Then,togetherwithsomefriends,hevisitedtheRizalShrineandthe
PirateBaratDakakBeachResort.Thereafter,heretiredinthe"BarangayHouse"inTaguilon.
OnJune30,1996,accusedappellantallegesthatheattendedacitywideconsultationwithhispoliticalleadersat
theBlueRoomofDakak,whichlastedtilltheafternoon.Intheevening,hewenthomeandsleptinthe"Barangay
House."
On July 1, 1996, he attended the whole day celebration of Dipolog Day. He spent the night in the "Barangay
House."
On July 2, 1996, he attended the inauguration of the reception hall of Dakak Beach Resort. The blessing
ceremonywasofficiatedbyAssistantParishPriestAdelmoLaput.
On July 3, 1996, he was the guest in the inaguration of the 3rd Engineering District of Dapitan City. After the
mass,hevisitedtheJamboreesiteinBarangayTaguilon,DapitanCity.
He further contended that after his arrival in Dipolog on June 28, 1996, there was never an instance when he
wenttoManilauntilJuly9,1996,whenheattendedaconferencecalledbythePresidentofthePhilippines.
Accusedappellant likewise alleged that on July 21, 1996, he took the 5:00 a.m. flight of PAL from Manila to
DumagueteCity.Fromthere,hewasflownbyaprivateplanetoDipolog,wherehestayeduntilthePresidentof

thePhilippinesarrived.
Tobuttressthetheoryofthedefense,Dominador"Jun"Jalosjostestifiedthathewastheone,andnotaccused
appellant, whom Rosilyn met on three occasions. These occurred once during the first week of May 1996, at
accusedappellants Dakak office where Rosilyn and Simplicio Delantar were introduced to him by Eduardo
Suarez,andtwiceattheRitzTowerswhenheinterviewedRosilyn,andlaterwhenRosilynandSimpliciofollowed
uptheproposedentryofRosilynintotheshowbusiness.
Dominadors admission of his meetings with Rosilyn on three instances were limited to interviewing her and
assessing her singing and modeling potentials. His testimony made no mention of any sexual encounter with
Rosilyn.
Aftertrial,thecourtrenderedtheassaileddecision,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows:
1.InCriminalCasesNos.961985and961986,theprosecutionhasprovenbeyondreasonabledoubtthe
guilt of the accused, ROMEO JALOSJOS y GARCIA, as principal in the two (2) counts of statutory rape
definedandpenalizedunderArticle335oftheRevisedPenalCode.HeisherebydeclaredCONVICTEDin
eachofthesecases.
2.Accordingly,heissentencedto:
2a.sufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuaineachofthesecases.
2b. indemnify the victim, MA. ROSILYN DELANTAR, in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00)asmoraldamagesforeachofthecases.
3.InCriminalCasesNos.961987,961988,961989,961990,961992and961993,theprosecutionhas
proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, ROMEO JALOSJOS y GARCIA, as principal in
six(6)countsofactsoflasciviousnessdefinedunderArticle336oftheRevisedPenalCodeandpenalized
under Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610 otherwise known as the Child Abuse Law. He is hereby declared
CONVICTEDineachofthesecases
4.Accordinglyheissentencedto:
4.a.sufferineachofthecasesanindeterminateprisontermoffromeight(8)years,eight(8)months
and one (1) day of prisionmayor in its medium period, as maximum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6)
monthsandtwenty(20)daysofreclusiontemporalinitsmediumperiod,asmaximum
4.b. indemnify the victim, MA ROSILYN DELANTAR, in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND
(P20,000.00)asmoraldamagesforeachofthecases
5.InCriminalCaseNos.961991,961994,961995,961996,961997and961998,theprosecutionhas
failedtoprovebeyondreasonabledoubttheguiltoftheaccused,ROMEOJALOSJOSyGARCIA,insix(6)
countsofactsoflasciviousness.Therefore,onthegroundofreasonabledoubt,theaccusedinthesecases
isherebyACQUITTED.
SOORDERED.12
Hence,theinstantappeal.Accusedappellantcontends:
A.
THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT BASED ON
TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, CONSIDERING THE ATTENDANT INDICIA OF
INCONSISTENCIESANDUNTRUTHS.
B.
THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONFLICTING
STATEMENTSGIVENBYTHEPRIVATECOMPLAINANT.
C.
THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PRIVATE
COMPLAINANTSFAILURETOIDENTIFYTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANT.

D.
THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WAS A MINOR
LESSTHANTWELVEYEARSOFAGEWHENTHECLAIMEDINCIDENTSALLEGEDLYTOOKPLACE.
E.
THETRIALCOURTGRIEVOUSLYERREDINFINDINGTHATRAPEWASCOMMITTEDAGAINSTTHEPRIVATE
COMPLAINANT.13
Inthisjurisdiction,thetestimonyoftheprivatecomplainantinrapecasesisscrutinizedwithutmostcaution.The
constitutionalpresumptionofinnocencerequiresnolessthanmoralcertaintybeyondanyscintillaofdoubt.This
applieswithmorevigorinrapecaseswheretheevidencefortheprosecutionmuststandorfallonitsownmerits
and is not allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense. As an inevitable
consequence, it is the rape victim herself that is actually put on trial. The case at bar is no exception. Bent on
destroyingtheveracityofprivatecomplainantstestimony,theerrorsassignedbyaccusedappellant,particularly
thefirstthree,arefocusedontheissueofcredibility.
AccusedappellantmakesmuchofhisacquittalinCriminalCaseNos.961991,961994,961995,961996,96
1997,and961998,foractsoflasciviousness.Accordingtohim,thefactthatthetrialcourtsustainedhisdefense
ofalibiinthesaidcasesonlyshowsthatRosilynconcoctedherstoriesandtherestofhertestimonyoughtnotto
bebelieved.Stateddifferently,accusedappellanturgestheapplicationofthedoctrineof"falsusinunofalsusin
omnibus"(falseinpart,falseineverything).14
Thecontentioniswithoutmerit.Falsusinunofalsusinomnibusisnotanabsoluteruleoflawandisinfactrarely
appliedinmodernjurisprudence.15Thus,inPeoplev.YansonDumancas,16citingPeoplev.LiBunJuan,17 this
Courtheldthat:
... In this connection it must be borne in mind that the principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an
absoluteone,andthatitisperfectlyreasonabletobelievethetestimonyofawitnesswithrespecttosome
factsanddisbelieveitwithrespecttootherfacts.InPeoplevs.Keller,46O.G.No.7,pp.32223223,the
followingwasquotedwithapprovalbytheCourtofAppealsfrom1MooreonFacts,p.23:
"18.Testimonymaybepartlycreditedandpartlyrejected.Trieroffactsarenotboundtobelieve
all that any witness has said they may accept some portions of his testimony and reject other
portions, according to what seems to them, upon other facts and circumstances to be the truth
Evenwhenwitnessesarefoundtohavedeliberatelyfalsifiedinsomematerialparticulars,thejuryare
not required to reject the whole of their uncorroborated testimony, but may credit such portions as
theydeemworthyofbelief."(p.945)18
Being in the best position to discriminate between the truth and the falsehood, the trial court's assignment of
valuesandweightonthetestimonyofRosilynshouldbegivencredence.Significantly,itshouldbeborneinmind
that the issue at hand hinges on credibility, the assessment of which, as oftrepeated, is best made by the trial
courtbecauseofitsuntrammeledopportunitytoobserveherdemeanoronthewitnessstand.
Onthedemeanorandmanneroftestifyingshownbythecomplainant,thetrialcourtstated:
Guidedbytheforegoingprinciples,thiscourtfoundnoreasonwhyitshouldnotbelieveRosilynwhenshe
claimedshewasraped.Testimoniesofrapevictimsespeciallythosewhoareyoungandimmaturedeserve
fullcredence(Peoplev.Liquiran,228SCRA62(1993)consideringthat"nowomanwouldconcoctastoryof
defloration,allowanexaminationofherprivatepartsandthereafterallowherselftobepervertedinapublic
trialifshewasnotmotivatedsolelybythedesiretohavetheculpritapprehendedandpunished."(Peoplev.
Buyok,235SCRA622[1996]).
When asked to describe what had been done to her, Rosilyn was able to narrate spontaneously in detail
howshewassexuallyabused.Hertestimonyinthisregardwasfirm,candid,clearandstraightforward,and
itremainedtobesoevenduringtheintenseandrigidcrossexaminationmadebythedefensecounsel.19
Accusedappellant next argues that Rosilyns direct and redirect testimonies were rehearsed and lacking in
candidness. He points to the supposed hesitant and even idiotic answers of Rosilyn on cross and recross
examinations.Headdedthatshewastrainedtogiveanswerssuchas,"Anopo?","Parangpo,""Medyopo,"and
"Satinginkopo."
Accusedappellants arguments are far from persuasive. A reading of the pertinent transcript of stenographic
notesrevealsthatRosilynwasinfactfirmandconsistentonthefactofrapeandlasciviousconductcommittedon
herbyaccusedappellant.Sheansweredinclear,simpleandnaturalwordscustomaryofchildrenofherage.The

above phrases quoted by accusedappellant as uttered by Rosilyn are, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor
General,typicalanswersofchildwitnesseslikeher.
Atanyrate,evenassumingthatRosilyn,duringherlengthyordealsonthewitnessstand,mayhavegivensome
ambiguousanswers,theyrefermerelytominorandperipheraldetailswhichdonotinanywaydetractfromher
firmandstraightforwarddeclarationthatshehadbeenmolestedandsubjectedtolasciviousconductbyaccused
appellant.Moreover, it should be borne in mind that even the most candid witness oftentimes makes mistakes
andconfusedstatements.Attimes,farfromerodingtheeffectivenessoftheevidence,suchlapsescould,indeed,
constitutesignsofveracity.20
Then, too, accusedappellant capitalizes on the alleged absence of any allegation of rape in the five (5) sworn
statementsexecutedbyRosilynaswellasintheinterviewsandcasestudyconductedbytherepresentativesof
theDSWD.Inparticular,accusedappellantpointstothefollowingdocuments:
(1)SwornstatementsdatedAugust22and26,1996,executedbeforeSPO5MilagrosA.Carrascoofthe
PasayCityPolice
(2) Sworn statements dated September 5, 11, and 19, 1996, executed before NBI Agents Cynthia L.
MarianoandSupervisingNBIAgentArlisE.Vela
(3)TheInitialInterviewofRosilynbytheDSWDdatedAugust30,1996
(4)DSWDFinalCaseStudyReportdatedJanuary10,1997.
It must be stressed that "rape" is a technical term, the precise and accurate definition of which could not have
beenunderstoodbyRosilyn.Indeed,withouttheassistanceofalawyer,whocouldexplaintohertheintricaciesof
rape,sheexpectedlycouldnotdistinguishinheraffidavitsandconsequentlydisclosewithproficientexactitudethe
act or acts of accusedappellant that under the contemplation of law constitute the crime of rape. This is
especially true in the present case where there was no exhaustive and clearcut evidence of full and complete
penetration of the victims vagina. It may well be that Rosilyn thought, as any layman would probably do, that
theremustbethefullestpenetrationofthevictimsvaginatoqualifyasexualacttorape.
InPeoplev.Campuhan,21weruledthatrapeisconsummated"bytheslightestpenetrationofthefemaleorgan,
i.e.,touchingofeitherlabiaofthepudendumbythepenis."Thereneednotbefullandcompletepenetrationof
thevictimsvaginaforrapetobeconsummated.Therebeingnoshowingthattheforegoingtechnicalitiesofrape
wasfullyexplainedtoRosilynonallthoseoccasionsthatshewasinterviewedbythepolice,theNBIagentsand
DSWDsocialworkers,shecouldnotthereforebeexpectedtointelligiblydeclarethataccusedappellantsactof
pressinghissexorganagainstherlabiawithoutfullentryofthevaginalcanalamountedtorape.
In the decision of the trial court, the testimony on one of the rapes is cited plus the courts mention of the
jurisprudenceonthisissue,towit:
Q:YousaidthatwhenCongressmanJalosjosinsertedhisfingerintoyourvagina,yourbackwasrested
onapillowandyourlegswerespreadwideapart,whatelsedidhedo?
A: He lifted his shirt, and held his penis and again "idinikitdikit niya ang ari niya sa ari ko." (Italics
supplied)
Q:And,afterdoingthat:"Idinikitdikitniyayongariniyasaariko"whatelsedidhedo?
A: After that, "Itinutok niya po yong ari niya at idiniindiin niya ang ari niya sa ari ko." (underscoring
supplied)
(pp.23,25to30,TSN,16April1997)
Itiswellentrenchedinthisjurisdictionthatrapecanbecommittedevenwithoutfullpenetrationofthemale
organ into the vagina of the woman. It is enough that there be proof of the entrance of the male organ
withinthelabiaofthepudendumofthefemaleorgan.(Peoplevs.Mangalino, 182 SCRA 329 People vs.
Tismo,204SCRA535Peoplevs.Bacani,181SCRA393)."Penetrationofthepenisbyentryintothelipsof
thefemaleorgansufficestowarrantaconviction."(Peoplevs.Galimba,G.R.No.11156364,February20,
1996 citing People vs. Abonada, 169 SCRA 530). Hence, with the testimony of Rosilyn that the accused
pressedagainst("idiniin")andpointedto("itinutok")Rosilynsvaginahissexualorganontwo(2)occasions,
two(2)actsofrapewereconsummated.22
Moreover,itmustbeborneinmindthatRosilynspurposeinexecutingtheaffidavitsonAugust22and26,1996
beforethePasayCityPolicewastochargeSimplicioDelantar,notaccusedappellant.Asaptlypointedoutbythe

trialcourt,itispreposteroustoexpectRosilyntomakeanexhaustivenarrationofthesexualabuseofaccused
appellantwhenhewasnottheobjectofthesaidcomplaint.
Additionally, Rosilyns statements, given to the NBI on September 11 and 19, 1996, concerned mainly the
identificationofpictures.Therewasthusnooccasionforhertonarratethedetailsofhersexualencounterwith
accusedappellant.
AstotheinterviewsandstudiesconductedbytheDSWD,sufficeittostatethatsaidmeetingswithRosilynwere
specially focused on the emotional and psychological repercussions of the sexual abuse on Rosilyn, and had
nothingtodowiththelegalactionsbeingpreparedasaconsequencethereof.Thus,thedocumentspertainingto
said interviews and studies cannot be relied upon to reveal every minute aspect of the sexual molestations
complainedof.
At any rate, the inconsistencies between the affidavits and Rosilyns testimony, if at all they existed, cannot
diminishtheprobativevalueofRosilynsdeclarationsonthewitnessstand.TheconsistentrulingofthisCourtis
that, if there is an inconsistency between the affidavit of a witness and her testimonies given in open court, the
lattercommandsgreaterweightthantheformer.23
In the third assigned error, accusedappellant attempts to impress upon this Court that Rosilyn gave the name
Congressman Romeo Jalosjos as her abuser only because that was the name given to her by the person to
whomshewasintroduced.Thatsamename,accusedappellantclaims,wasmerelypickedupbyRosilynfromthe
nameplate,plaque,andmemopadshesawonaccusedappellantsofficedesk.Accusedappellantpresentedhis
brother,Dominador"Jun"Jalosjos,inanattempttocastdoubtonhisculpability.ItwasDominador"Jun"Jalosjos
whoallegedlymetandinterviewedRosilynattheDakakoffice.Inadvancementofthistheory,accusedappellant
citesthefactthatoutofatotalof16picturespresentedtoRosilynforidentification,shepickeduponly4,which
depict Dominador "Jun" Jalosjos. In the same vein, accusedappellant claims that the resulting cartographic
sketch from the facial characteristics given by Rosilyn to the cartographer, resembles the facial appearance of
Dominador "Jun" Jalosjos. Accusedappellant also points out that Rosilyn failed to give his correct age or state
thathehasamoleonhislowerrightjaw.
Contrary to the contentions of accusedappellant, the records reveal that Rosilyn positively and unhesitatingly
identifiedaccusedappellantatthecourtroom.Suchidentificationduringthetrialcannotbediminishedbythefact
thatinherswornstatement,Rosilynreferredtoaccusedappellantasherabuserbasedonthenamesheheard
fromthepersontowhomshewasintroducedandonthenameshesawandreadinaccusedappellantsoffice.
Verily,apersonsidentitydoesnotdependsolelyonhisname,butalsoonhisphysicalfeatures.Thus,avictimof
acrimecanstillidentifytheculpritevenwithoutknowinghisname.Similarly,theCourt,inPeoplev.Vasquez,24
ruledthat:
It matters little that the eyewitness initially recognized accusedappellant only by face [the witness]
acted like any ordinary person in making inquiries to find out the name that matched [appellants] face.
Significantly,inopencourt,heunequivocallyidentifiedaccusedappellantastheirassailant.
EveninthecaseofPeoplev.Timon,25relieduponbyaccusedappellanttodiscredithisidentification,thisCourt
saidthatevenassumingthattheoutofcourtidentificationofaccusedappellantwasdefective,theirsubsequent
identificationincourtcuredanyflawthatmayhaveinitiallyattendedit.
Inlightoftheforegoing,Rosilynsfailuretoidentifyaccusedappellantoutofthe16picturesshowntoherdoes
not foreclose the credibility of her unqualified identification of accusedappellant in open court. The same holds
true with the subject cartographic sketch which, incidentally, resembles accusedappellant. As noted by the trial
court,accusedappellantandhisbrotherDominadorJalosjoshaveastrikingsimilarityinfacialfeatures.Naturally,
if the sketch looks like Dominador, it logically follows that the same drawing would definitely look like accused
appellant.
Likewise,Rosilynsfailuretocorrectlyapproximatetheageofaccusedappellantandtostatethathehasamole
on the lower right jaw, cannot affect the veracity of accusedappellants identification. At a young age, Rosilyn
cannot be expected to give the accurate age of a 56 yearold person. As to accusedappellants mole, the
SolicitorGeneraliscorrectincontendingthatsaidmoleisnotsodistinctiveastocaptureRosilynsattentionand
memory.Whenshewasaskedtogiveadditionalinformationaboutaccusedappellant,Rosilyndescribedhimas
having a "prominent belly." This, to our mind, is indeed a more distinguishing feature that would naturally catch
theattentionofanelevenyearoldchildlikeRosilyn.
In his fifth assigned error, accusedappellant insists that the words "idinikit," "itinutok," and "idiniindiin," which
Rosilyn used to describe what accusedappellant did to her vagina with his genitals, do not constitute
consummatedrape.Inaddition,thedefensearguedthatRosilyndidnotactuallyseeaccusedappellantspenisin
thesupposedsexualcontact.Infact,theystressedthatRosilyndeclaredthataccusedappellantssemenspilled
inherthighsandnotinhersexorgan.

Moreover,inhisReplyBrief,accusedappellant,citingPeoplev.Campuhan,arguedthat,assumingthathispenis
touchedorbrushedRosilynsexternalgenitals,thesameisnotenoughtoestablishthecrimeofrape.
True,inPeoplev.Campuhan,26weexplainedthatthephrase,"themeretouchingoftheexternalgenitaliabythe
peniscapableofconsummatingthesexualactissufficienttoconstitutecarnalknowledge,"meansthattheactof
touchingshouldbeunderstoodhereasinherentlypartoftheentryofthepenisintothelabiaofthefemaleorgan
andnotmeretouchingaloneofthemonspubisorthepudendum.Wefurtherelucidatedthat:
Thepudendumorvulvaisthecollectivetermforthefemalegenitalorgansthatarevisibleintheperineal
area,e.g.,monspubis,labiamajora,labiaminora,thehymen,theclitoris,thevaginalorifice,etc.Themons
pubisistheroundedeminencethatbecomeshairyafterpuberty,andisinstantlyvisiblewithinthesurface.
The next layer is the labia majora or the outer lips of the female organ composed of the outer convex
surface and the inner surface. The skin of the outer convex surface is covered with hair follicles and is
pigmented,whiletheinnersurfaceisathinskinwhichdoesnothaveanyhairsbuthasmanysebaceous
glands.Directlybeneaththelabiamajoraisthelabiaminora.Jurisprudencedictatesthatthelabiamajora
must be entered for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the
female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the
pudendum is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest
penetrationofthefemaleorgan,i.e.,touchingofeitherlabiaofthepudendumbythepenis,therecanbeno
consummatedrapeatmost,itcanonlybeattemptedrape,ifnotactsoflasciviousness.27
Inthepresentcase,thereissufficientprooftoestablishthattheactsofaccusedappellantwentbeyond"strafing
ofthecitadelofpassion"or"shellingofthecastleoforgasmicpotency,"asdepictedintheCampuhancase,and
progressed into "bombardment of the drawbridge [which] is invasion enough,"28 there being, in a manner of
speaking,aconquestofthefortressofignition.WhentheaccusedappellantbrutelymountedbetweenRosilyns
widespreadlegs,unfetteredlytouching,pokingandpressinghispenisagainsthervagina,whichinherposition
would then be naturally wide open and ready for copulation, it would require no fertile imagination to belie the
hypocrisyclaimedbyaccusedappellantthathispenisorthatofsomeonewholookedlikehim,wouldunderthe
circumstances merely touch or brush the external genital of Rosilyn. The inevitable contact between accused
appellantspenis,andattheveryleast,thelabiaofthepudendumofRosilyn,wasconfirmedwhenshefeltpain
insidehervaginawhenthe"idiniin"partofaccusedappellantssexritualwasperformed.
TheincidentonJune18,1996wasdescribedbyRosilynasfollows:
PROS.ZUNO:
Q.And,afterkissingyourlipsafterkissingyouinyourlips,whatelsedidhedo?
A.Afterthat,hewasliftingmyshirt.
Q.Now,whilehewasliftingyourshirt,whatwasyourpositionwillyoutellthecourt?
A.Iwaslying,sir.
Q.Lyingonwhat?
A.Onthebed,sir.
Q.And,afterliftingyourshirt,whatelsedidhedo?
A.Hespreadmylegssir.
Q.And,afterspreadingyourlegsapartwhatdidhedo?
A.Afterthat,heliftedhisshirtandheldhispenis.
Q.Andwhilehewasholdinghispeniswhatdidhedo?
A.Hepresseditinmyvagina.
ATTY.FERNANDEZ:
Maywerequestthatthevernacularbeused?
A.Tapospo,idinikitdikitponiyayongariniyasaariko.
PROS.ZUNO:

MayIrespectfullymovethattheword:"idinikitdikitniyaangariniyasaariko,"beincorporated?
Q.Andwhilehewasdoingthataccordingtoyou,"idinikitdikitniyaangariniyasaarimo"whatdidyou
feel?
A.Iwasafraidandthen,Icried.
Q.WillyoutelltheCourtwhyyoufeltafraidandwhyyoucried?
A.BecauseIwasafraidhemightinserthispenisintomyvagina.
Q.And,forhowlongdidCongressmanJalosjosperformthatact,whichaccordingtoyou,"idinikitdikit
niyayongariniyasaariko?"
COURT:
PlacetheTagalogwords,intotherecords.
A.Sandalilangpoyon.
Q.Whatpartofyourvagina,or"ari"wasbeingtouchedbytheariorpenis?
xxxxxxxxx
Q.YousaidthatyoufeltIwithdrawthatquestion.HowdidyouknowthatCongressmanJalosjoswas
doing,"idinikitdikitniyayungariniyasaariko?"
A.BecauseIcouldfeelit,sir.
Q. Now, you said you could feel it. What part of the vagina in what part of your vagina was
CongressmanJalosjos,accordingtoyou,"idinikitdikitniyayongariniyasaarimo?"
A.Infrontofmyvagina,sir.
Q.Infrontofyourvagina?O.K.willyoutelltheCourttheposition?Willyoudescribethepositionof
CongressmanJalosjoswhenhewasdoingthat."Idinikitdikitniyasaariko?"
A.Idedemonstratekopoba?
FISCALZUNO:
Q.Canyoudemonstrate?
xxxxxxxxx
A.Hewasholdingmelikethiswithhisonehandandwasholdinghispeniswhilehisotherhand,orhis
freehandwasonthebed.
xxxxxxxxx
PROS.ZUNO:
Now,accordingtoyou,youdontknowhowtosayitorwhatwasdonetoyou.Now,willyoutellthe
Courthowcanyoudescribewhatwasdonetoyou?
A.Afterhe"dinikitdikitniyayongariniyasaarikoitinutoknamanniyaito."
Q.O.K.yousaid"itinutokniyaito"whatelsedidhedo?
PROS.ZUNO:
Sheisnowtryingtodescribe.
COURT:
Translate.
A.Heseemstobe"parangidinidiinponiya."
Q.Now,whatdidyoufeel,whenaccordingtoyouasIwouldquote:"parangidinidiinniya?"

A.Masakitpo.
Q.And,justtomakeitclearinTagalog:Anoitongidinidiinniya?
COURT:
Q.Sabimoitinutok.Nakitamobangitinutok?
A.Isawhimnanakaganuonposaanoniya.
PROS.ZUNO:
Q.O.K.,clarify.Yousaid"nakaganuonsiya"whatdoyoumeanby"nakaganuonsiya?"
A.Hewasholdinghispenis,andthen,thatwastheonewhichheitinutoksaariko.
PROS.ZUNO:
Q.And,whenyousaid"idinidiinponiya"towhichyouarereferring?Whatisthis"idinidiinniya?"
A.Idinidiinniyaangariniyasaariko.
Q.Andwhatdidyoufeelwhenyousaid:hewas"idinidiinniyaangariniyasaariko?"
A.Masakitpo.
COURT:
Theansweris"masakitpo."
Proceed.
PROS.ZUNO:
Q.Wheredidyoufeelthepain?
A.Insidemyaripo.(Saloobpongariko.)
xxxxxxxxx
PROS.ZUNO:
Q.Andthen,afterthat,whatelsedidhedo
A.Afterthat,hetouchedmybreast,sir.
Q.And,aftertouchingyourbreast,whatdidhedo?
A.AndafterthatIfeltthathewas(witnessdemonstratingtothecourt,withherindexfinger,rubbing
againstheropenleftpalm)
Q.Andafterdoingthat,whatelsedidhedo?
A.Afterthat,heinstructedmetogotosleep.
xxxxxxxxx
A.Iputdownmyclothesandthen,Icriedmyselftosleep,sir.
Q.Whydidyoucry?Willyoutellthecourt,whydidyoucriedafterputtingdownyourclothes?
A.BecauseIfeltpityformyself.(Naaawapoakosasariliko.)
xxxxxxxxx.
(Emphasissupplied.)29
EventheJuly20,1996encounterbetweenRosilynandaccusedappellantwouldnottaxthesketchyvisualization
ofthenaveanduninitiatedtoconcludethattherewasindeedpenileinvasionbyaccusedappellantofRosilyns
labia.On that occasion, accusedappellant was similarly ensconced between the parted legs of Rosilyn, except

that,thistime,Rosilynwasconvenientlyrestedon,andelevatedwithapillowonherbackwhileaccusedappellant
wastouching,pokingandpressinghispenisagainsthervagina.Toppedwiththethrustingmotionsemployedby
accusedappellant, the resulting pain felt by Rosilyn in her sex organ was no doubt a consequence of
consummatedrape.
ThepertinentportionsofRosilynsaccountoftheJuly20,1996incidentisasfollows:
PROS.ZUNO:
xxxxxxxxx
Q.ThemomentwhenCong.Jalosjosinsertedhisfingerintoyourvagina,whatwasyourposition?
INTERPRETER:
Thewitnessisaskinghe(sic)shehastodemonstrate?
FISCALZUNO:
Q.Ipaliwanagmolang?
A.Mybackwasrestedonapillowandmylegswerespreadapart.
Q.YousaidthatwhenCongressmanJalosjosinsertedhisfingerintoyourvagina,yourbackwasrested
onapillowandyourlegswerespreadwideapart,whatelsedidhedo?
A.Heliftedhisshirt,andheldhispenisandagain"idinikitdikitniyaangariniyasaariko."
Q.AndwhatdidyoufeelwhenhewasdoingthatwhichaccordingtoyouandIwouldquoteinTagalog:
"idinikitdikitniyayongariniyasaariko?"
A.Iwasafraidsir.
Q.And,afterdoingthat:"idinikitdikitniyayongariniyasaariko,"whatelsedidhedo?
A.Afterthat,"itinutokniyapoyongariniyaatidiniindiinniyaangariniyasaariko."
Q.Yousaid:"CongressmanJalosjositinutokniyayongariniyasaarikoatidiniindiinniyayongariniya
saariko"Now,whilehewasdoingthatact,whatwasthepositionofCongressmanJalosjos?
A.Histwo(2)handswereonmysideandsincemylegswerespreadaparthewasinbetweenthem,
anddoinganupwardanddownwardmovement.
(Witnessdemonstratedapushing,orpumpingmovement)
Q.ForhowlongdidCongressmanJalosjosperformthatact,pushingorpumpingmovementwhilehis
penis,or"angariniyaaynakatutokatidinidiindiinyongariniyasaarimo?"
A.Idontknow.
Q. And what did you feel when Congressman Jalosjos was making that movement, pushing, or
pumping?
A.IfeltpainandthenIcried.
Q.Wheredidyoufeelthepain?
A.Insidemyvagina,sir.
xxxxxxxxx.30
Thechildsnarrationoftherapesequenceisrevealing.Theactof"idinikitdikitniya"wasfollowedby"itinutokniya
xxxatidiniindiinniya."The"idiniindiinniya"wassucceededby"Masakitpo."Paininsideher"ari"isindicativeof
consummatedpenetration.
Theenvironmentalcircumstancesdisplayedbythegraphicnarrationofwhattookplaceattheappellantsroom
from June 14 to June 16 and June 21 to June 22, 1996 are consistent with the complainants testimony which
showsthatrapewaslegallyconsummated.

InthecaseofPeoplev.Campuhan,thevictimputuparesistancebyputtingherlegsclosetogetherwhich,
althoughfutile,somehowmadeitinconvenient,ifnotdifficult,fortheaccusedappellanttoattemptpenetration.On
theotherhand,theeasewithwhichaccusedappellanthereinperpetratedthesexualabuse,nottomentionthe
absence of time constraint, totally distinguishes the instant case from Campuhan.Here, the victim was passive
and even submissive to the lecherous acts of accusedappellant. Thus, even assuming that his penis then was
flaccid,hisactofholding,guidingandassistinghispeniswithhisonehand,whiletouching,pokingandpressing
the same against Rosilyn's vagina, would surely result in even the slightest contact between the labia of the
pudendumandaccusedappellant'ssexorgan.
ConsideringthatRosilynisaselfconfessedsexworker,andthecircumstancesoftheallegedsexualassaultat
bar, the defense argued that it is highly improbable and contrary to human experience that accusedappellant
exercisedaSpartanlikedisciplineandrestrainedhimselffromfullyconsummatingthesexualactwhentherewas
infactnoreasonforhimnottodoso.Inthesamelight,thedefenselikewisebrandedasunnaturalthetestimony
of Rosilyn that accusedappellant contented himself with rubbing his penis clipped between her thighs until he
reachedorgasmanddesistedfromfullypenetratingher,whenRosilynwasthenentirelyathisdisposal.
Thedefenseseemstoforgetthatthereisnostandardformofbehaviorwhenitcomestogratifyingonesbasic
sexual instinct. The human sexual perversity is far too intricate for the defense to prescribe certain forms of
conduct.Eventheword"perverse"isnotentirelyprecise,aswhatmaybeperversetoonemaynotbetoanother.
Using a child of tender years who could even pass as ones granddaughter, to unleash what others would call
downright bestial lust, may be utterly nauseating and repulsive to some, but may peculiarly be a festive
celebration of salacious fantasies to others. For all we know, accusedappellant may have found a distinct and
completesexualgratificationinsuchkindoflibidinousstuntsandmaneuvers.
Nevertheless, accusedappellant may not have fully and for a longer period penetrated Rosilyn for fear of
perpetratinghisnamethroughachildfromthewombofaminororbecauseofhispreviousagreementwithhis
"suking bugaw," Simplicio Delantar, that there would be no penetration, otherwise the latter would demand a
higherprice.ThismaybethereasonwhySimplicioDelantargavehismockingfatherlyadvicetoRosilynthatitis
bad if accusedappellant inserts his penis into her sex organ, while at the same time ordering her to call him if
accusedappellant would penetrate her. Such instance of penile invasion would prompt Simplicio to demand a
higherprice,whichis,afterall,astheSolicitorGeneralcallsit,thepeculiarityofprostitution.
The defense contends that the testimony of Rosilyn that accusedappellant ejaculated on her thighs and not in
hervagina,onlyprovesthattherewasnorape.ItshouldbenotedthatthisportionofRosilynstestimonyrefersto
theJune15and21,1996chargesofactsoflasciviousness,andnottherapecharges.Inanyevent,grantingthat
itoccurredduringthetwininstancesofrapeonJune18andJuly20,1996,theejaculationonthevictimsthighs
wouldnotprecludethefactofrape.
ThereisnotruthtothecontentionofthedefensethatRosilyndidnotseethepenisofaccusedappellant.Ascan
be gleaned from the abovequoted portions of the transcripts, Rosilyn unequivocally testified that accused
appellantheldhispenisthenpokedhervaginawithit.And even if she did not actually see accusedappellants
penisgoinsideher,surelyshecouldhavefeltwhetheritwashispenisorjusthisfinger.
We now come to the issue of whether or not Rosilyn was below twelve (12) years of age at the time the rape
complainedofoccurred.TobolsterthedeclarationofRosilynthatshewasthenelevenyearsold,theprosecution
presentedthefollowingdocuments:
(1)RosilynsbirthcertificateshowingherbirthdayasMay11,198531
(2)RosilynsbaptismalcertificateshowingherbirthdayasMay11,198532
(3)MasterListofLiveBirthsstatingthatMa.RosilynDelantarwasbornonMay11,1985toLibradaTelen
asthemother33
(4)MarkedpagesoftheCordDressingRoomBook34
(5)SummaryoftheCordDressingBook,showingherbirthdayasMay11,1985andherparents(Librada
TelenandSimplicioDelantar)patientfilenumber(391071)35
(6) Record of admission showing her parents patient number (391071) and confinement at the Jose
FabellaMemorialHospitalfromMay514,1985.36
Itissettledthatincasesofstatutoryrape,theageofthevictimmaybeprovedbythepresentationofherbirth
certificate. In the case at bar, accusedappellant contends that the birth certificate of Rosilyn should not have
been considered by the trial court because said birth certificate has already been ordered cancelled and
expunged from the records by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 38, in Special Proceedings No. 97

81893,datedApril11,1997.37However,itappearsthatthesaiddecisionhasbeenannulledandsetasidebythe
CourtofAppealsonJune10,1999,inCAG.R.SPNo.45289.ThedecisionoftheCourtofAppealswasappealed
to this Court by petition for review, docketed as G.R. No. 140305. Pending the final outcome of that case, the
decision of the Court of Appeals is presumed valid and can be invoked as prima facie basis for holding that
Rosilynwasindeedelevenyearsoldatthetimeshewasabusedbyaccusedappellant.
However, even assuming the absence of a valid birth certificate, there is sufficient and ample proof of the
complainantsageintherecords.
RosilynsBaptismalCertificatecanlikewiseserveasproofofherage.InPeoplev.Liban,38weruledthatthebirth
certificate,orinlieuthereof,anyotherdocumentaryevidencethatcanhelpestablishtheageofthevictim,such
asthebaptismalcertificate,schoolrecords,anddocumentsofsimilarnature,canbepresented.
And even assuming ex gratia argumenti that the birth and baptismal certificates of Rosilyn are inadmissible to
proveherage,theMasterListofLiveBirthsandtheCordDressingBookofDr.JoseFabellaMemorialHospital
where Rosilyn was born are sufficient evidence to prove that her date of birth was May 11, 1985. These
documents are considered entries in official records, admissible as prima facie evidence of their contents and
corroborativeofRosilynstestimonyastoherage.
Thus,Rule130,Section44,oftheRulesofCourtstates:
Entries in official records. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public
officerofthePhilippines,orbyapersonintheperformanceofadutyespeciallyenjoinedbylaw,areprima
facieevidenceofthefactsthereinstated.
InAfricav.Caltex,etal.,(Phil),Inc.,etal.,39theCourtlaiddowntherequisitesfortheapplicationoftheforegoing
rule,thus:
(a)Thattheentrywasmadebyapublicofficer,orbyanotherpersonspeciallyenjoinedbylawtodoso
(b)Thatitwasmadebythepublicofficerintheperformanceofhisdutiesorbysuchotherpersoninthe
performanceofadutyspeciallyenjoinedbylawand
(c) That the public office or the other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which
musthavebeenacquiredbyhimpersonallyorthroughofficialinformation.
In order for a book to classify as an official register and admissible in evidence, it is not necessary that it be
requiredbyanexpressstatutetobekept,northatthenatureoftheofficeshouldrenderthebookindispensable
itissufficientthatitbedirectedbytheproperauthoritytobekept.Thus,officialregisters,thoughnotrequiredby
law,keptasconvenientandappropriatemodesofdischargingofficialduties,areadmissible.40
Entriesinpublicorofficialbooksorrecordsmaybeprovedbytheproductionofthebooksorrecordsthemselves
orbyacopycertifiedbythelegalkeeperthereof.41Itisnotnecessarytoshowthatthepersonmakingtheentryis
unavailablebyreasonofdeath,absence,etc.,inorderthattheentrymaybeadmissibleinevidence,forhisbeing
excused from appearing in court in order that public business be not deranged, is one of the reasons for this
exceptiontothehearsayrule.42
Corollarythereto,PresidentialDecreeNo.651,asamendedbyP.D.No.766,43mandateshospitalstoreportand
registerwiththelocalcivilregistrarthefactofbirth,amongothers,ofbabiesbornundertheircare.SaidDecree
imposesapenaltyofafineofnotlessthatP500.00normorethanP1,000.00orimprisonmentofnotlessthan
three(3)monthsnormorethansix(6)months,orboth,inthediscretionofthecourt,incaseoffailuretomake
thenecessaryreporttothelocalcivilregistrar.
Hence, under the abovecited P.D. 651, as amended, in connection with Rule 30, Section 44, of the Rules of
Court,itisclearthattheCordDressingRoomBookwherethefactofbirth,nameofthemotherandotherrelated
entries are initially recorded, as well as the Master List of Live Births of the hospital, are considered entries in
official record, being indispensable to and appropriate modes of recording the births of children preparatory to
registrationofsaidentrieswiththelocalcivilregistrar,incompliancewithadutyspecificallymandatedbylaw.
Itmattersnotthatthepersonpresentedtotestifyonthesehospitalrecordswasnotthepersonwhoactuallymade
thoseentrieswaybackin1985,butAmelitaAvenante,therecordscustodianofthehospitalin1995.Toreiterate,
these records may be proved by the presentation of the record itself or by a certified copy or the legal keeper
thereof.Proofoftheunavailabilityofthepersonwhomadethoseentriesisnotarequisitefortheiradmissibility.
WhatisimportantisthattheentriestestifiedtobyAvenanteweregatheredfromtherecordsofthehospitalwhich
wereaccomplishedincompliancewithadutyspecificallymandatedbylaw.

Therefore, the Cord Dressing Room Book and the Master List of Live Births of the hospital are admissible as
evidenceofthefactsstatedtherein.
ThepreparationofthesehospitaldocumentsprecededthatofthebirthandbaptismalcertificatesofRosilyn.They
establish independent and material facts prepared by unbiased and disinterested persons under environmental
circumstances apart from those that may have attended the preparation of the birth and baptismal certificates.
Hence,thesehospitalrecords,toreiterate,aresufficienttosupportthetestimonyofRosilynastoherage.
Consequently,thetestimonyofSimplicioDelantarthattheentriesinthebirthcertificateofRosilynarefalseand
thathemerelymadethemup,particularlyherdateofbirth,wascorrectlydisregardedbythetrialcourt.Itshould
be noted that the criminal charges for child abuse filed by Rosilyn against him was the direct cause of his
incarceration.ThisraisesapossibilitythatSimpliciofalselytestifiedinthepresentcase,togetevenwithRosilyn.
Likewise, the trial court correctly disregarded the testimonies of Gloria Binay and Angelito Intruzo because the
defensefailedtoprovethattheywereknowledgeableastothecircumstancesofRosilynsbirth.Theirtestimonies
consist mainly of observations tending to show that Rosilyns appearance belie her claim that she was born on
May11,1985.
InthefourinstancesofactsoflasciviousnessallegedlycommittedonJune29,June30,July2,andJuly3,1996
(CriminalCasesNos.961994,961995,961996,and961997,respectively),thetrialcourtacquittedaccused
appellantonthegroundofreasonabledoubtasthedefensewasabletoprovethataccusedappellantwasnotin
Manila but either in Dipolog or Dapitan City at the time the lascivious acts were supposedly committed. The
evidenceofthedefenseestablishedthataccusedappellantflewtoDipologonJune28,1996,andstayedthere
untilJuly9,1996.
InCriminalCasesNos.961991and961998,fortwocountsofactsoflasciviousnessallegedlycommittedbothin
the early mornings of June 19 and July 21, 1996, Rosilyn merely testified that she felt somebody touching her
privatepartbutfailedtoidentifythepersonwhowasperformingthoselecherousactsasshewastoosleepyto
wakeup.Hence,accusedappellantwaslikewiseacquittedinthesecasesonthegroundofreasonabledoubt.
Withrespect,however,totheactsoflasciviousnesscommittedinthemorningofJune15and22,1996,andin
the evening of June 14, 15, 18, and 21, 1996, as well as the rape perpetrated on June 18, 1996 and July 20,
1996, accusedappellant failed to account for his whereabouts. A careful review of the pertinent transcript of
stenographic notes reveals that accusedappellant did not give any testimony as to where he was at the time
thesecrimeswerecommitted.Clearly,therefore,thetrialcourtcorrectlydisregardedhisunsubstantiateddefense
ofdenial,whichcannotprevailoverhispositiveidentificationbyRosilynastheculprit.
As regards the charge of acts of lasciviousness committed in the morning of June 16, 1996, accusedappellant
claimedthatitwasimpossibleforhimtohavecommittedthesamebecauseheflewtoDipologonthatday.The
recordsdisclose,however,thataccusedappellantsflightwasat9:40a.m.Thepossibility,therefore,ofaccused
appellants having performed the lascivious acts on the victim before he went off to the airport is not at all
precluded.ForhisfailuretoprovethephysicalimpossibilityofhispresenceattheRitzTowersinthemorningof
June16,1996,whenthesexualabuseofRosilynwascommitted,hisdefenseofalibimustfail.
ArticleIII,Section5ofRepublicActNo.7610,states:
ChildProstitutionandotherSexualAbuse.Children,whethermaleorfemale,whoformoneyorprofit,or
any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other
sexualabuse.
The penalty of reclusiontemporal in its medium period to reclusionperpetua shall be imposed upon the
following:
xxxxxxxxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in
prostitutionorsubjectedtoothersexualabuseProvided,Thatwhenthevictimisundertwelve(12)yearsof
age,theperpetratorsshallbeprosecutedunderArticle335,paragraphs3,forrapeandArticle336ofAct
No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be:
Provided,Thatthepenaltyforlasciviousconductwhenthevictimisundertwelve(12)yearsofageshallbe
reclusiontemporalinitsmediumperiodxxx.(Emphasissupplied.)
InPeoplev.Optana,44theCourt,citingthecaseofPeoplev.Larin,45 explained the elements of the offense of
violationofSection5(b)ofR.A.7610,ortheChildAbuseLaw,asfollows:
1.Theaccusedcommitstheactofsexualintercourseorlasciviousconduct.

2.Thesaidactisperformedwithachildexploitedinprostitutionorsubjectedothersexualabuse.
3.Thechild,whethermaleorfemale,isbelow18yearsofage.
A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child indulges in
sexualintercourseorlasciviousconduct(a)formoney,profit,oranyotherconsiderationor(b)underthe
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group. Under RA 7610, children are "persons below
eighteenyearsofageorthoseunabletofullytakecareofthemselvesorprotectthemselvesfromabuse,
neglect,cruelty,exploitationordiscriminationbecauseoftheirageormentaldisabilityorcondition."
"Lascivious conduct" is defined under Article XIII, Section 32 of the Implementing Rules and Regulation of R.A.
7610,asfollows:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
thigh,orbuttocks,ortheintroductionofanyobjectintothegenitalia,anusormouth,ofanyperson,whether
ofthesameoroppositesex,withanintenttoabuse,humiliate,harass,degrade,orarouseorgratifythe
sexualdesireofanyperson,bestiality,masturbation,lasciviousexhibitionofthegenitalsorpubicareaofa
person.
Inthecaseatbar,accusedappellantsactsofkissingRosilynonthelips,fondlingherbreast,insertinghisfinger
intohervaginaandplacinghispenisbetweenherthighs,allconstitutelasciviousconductintendedtoarouseor
gratifyhissexualdesire.Hence,thetrialcourtcorrectlyconvictedaccusedappellantofviolationofSection5(b)of
R.A.7610,ortheChildAbuseLaw,inCriminalCasesNos.961987,961988,961989,961990,961992,and
961993,charginghimwiththeabovedescribedlasciviousacts.
ThepenaltyforviolationofSection5(b)ofR.A.7610,ortheChildAbuseLaw,wherethevictimisbelow12years
ofage,isreclusiontemporalinitsmediumperiod.
Therecordsshowthatonatleastnine(9)separateoccasions,theaccusedappellantinsertedhisfingerintothe
complainantsvagina.Theseinsertionstookplacein1996.Ayearlater,CongressenactedRepublicActNo.8353,
theAntiRapelawof1997.Itdoesnotapplytothiscasebutitindicatesstatepolicyonrape.TheRevisedPenal
Codeisnowamendedtoreadasfollows:
Article266A.RapeWhenandHowCommitted.Rapeiscommitted
1.Byamanwhohavecarnalknowledgeofawomanunderanyofthefollowingcircumstances:
a)Throughforce,threatorintimidation
b)Whentheoffendedpartyisdeprivedofreasonorotherwiseunconscious
c)Bymeansoffraudulentmachinationorgraveabuseofauthorityand
d)Whentheoffendedpartyisundertwelve(12)yearsofageorisdemented,eventhoughnoneof
thecircumstancesmentionedabovebepresent.
2.Byanypersonwho,underanyofthecircumstancesmentionedinparagraph1hereof,shallcommitan
actofsexualassaultbyinsertinghispenisintoanotherpersonsmouthoranalorificeoranyinstrumentor
object,intothegenitaloranalorificeofanotherperson.(Emphasissupplied.)
Indicativeofthecontinuingstatepolicytowardsrape,theAntiRapeLawof1997nowclassifiesthecrimeasan
offenseagainstpersons.Anypublicprosecutor,notnecessarilythevictimorherparents,canprosecutethecase.
Thepenaltiesforthecrimeofrapeinthelightofvariouscircumstances,whicharenowsetforthandcontainedin
Article266BoftheRevisedPenalCode,havealsobeenincreased.
Considering that there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the trial court correctly imposed on
accusedappellant the maximum penalty of fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion
temporal,whichiswithinthemediumperiodofreclusiontemporalmedium,pursuanttoourrulinginDullav.Court
ofAppeals.46NotwithstandingthatR.A.7610isaspeciallaw,accusedappellantmayenjoyaminimumtermof
the indeterminate sentence to be taken within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the
Code.47However,thetrialcourterroneouslyfixedtheminimumtermoftheindeterminatesentenceateight(8)
years,eight(8)monthsandone(1)dayofprisionmayorinitsmediumperiod.IntheaforesaidcaseofDulla,48
weheldthatthepenaltynextlowerindegreetoreclusiontemporalmediumisreclusiontemporalminimum,the
rangeofwhichisfromtwelve(12)yearsandone(1)daytofourteen(14)yearsandeight(8)months.Hence,for
violation of Article III, Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610, accusedappellant shall suffer the indeterminate sentence of

twelveyears(12)andone(1)dayofreclusiontemporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and


twenty(20)daysofreclusiontemporalasmaximum.
Atthetimeofcommissionofthecrimescomplainedofhereinin1996,statutoryrapewaspenalizedunderSection
11ofR.A.7659,whichamendedArticle335oftheRevisedPenalCode,towit:
When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under
anyofthefollowingcircumstances:
1.Byusingforceorintimidation
2.Whenthewomanisdeprivedofreasonorotherwiseunconsciousand
3.Whenthewomanisundertwelveyearsofageorisdemented.
Thecrimeofrapeshallbepunishedbyreclusionperpetua.xxx.
In statutory rape, mere sexual congress with a woman below twelve years of age consummates the crime of
statutoryraperegardlessofherconsenttotheactorlackofit.Thelawpresumesthatawomanoftenderage
doesnotpossessdiscernmentandisincapableofgivingintelligentconsenttothesexualact.Thus, it was held
that carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old even if she is engaged in prostitution is still considered
statutory rape. The application of force and intimidation or the deprivation of reason of the victim becomes
irrelevant.Theabsenceofstruggleoroutcryofthevictimorevenherpassivesubmissiontothesexualactwillnot
mitigatenorabsolvetheaccusedfromliability.49
In the case at bar, the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that accusedappellant had carnal
knowledgeofRosilyn.Moreover,theprosecutionsuccessfullyprovedthatRosilynwasonlyelevenyearsofageat
thetimeshewassexuallyabused.Assuch,theabsenceofproofofanystruggle,orforthatmatterofconsentor
passive submission to the sexual advances of accusedappellant, was of no moment. The fact that accused
appellanthadsexualcongresswithelevenyearoldRosilynissufficienttoholdhimliableforstatutoryrape,and
sentencedtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.
Astoaccusedappellant'scivilliability,theamountofmoraldamagesawardedbythetrialcourtforeachcountof
acts of lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610 should be increased from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00.50
Ontheotherhand,theawardoftheamountofP50,000.00asmoraldamagesforeachcountofstatutoryrape
wascorrect.
InPeoplev.Lor,51citingthecasesofPeoplev.Victor,52andPeoplev.Gementiza,53weheldthattheindemnity
authorizedbyourcriminallawascivilindemnityexdelictofortheoffendedparty,intheamountauthorizedbythe
prevailing judicial policy and aside from other proven actual damages, is itself equivalent to actual or
compensatorydamagesincivillaw.Saidcivilindemnityismandatoryuponfindingofthefactofrapeitisdistinct
from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural foundations and
assessedbythecourtintheexerciseofsoundjudicialdiscretion.54Hence,accusedappellantshouldbeordered
topaytheoffendedpartyanotherP50,000.00ascivilindemnityforeachcountofrapeandactsoflasciviousness.
WHEREFORE,theDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakati,Branch62,inCriminalCaseNos.961985and
961986 finding accusedappellant Romeo Jalosjos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of statutory
rape,andsentencinghimtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuaforeachcount,isAFFIRMED.Likewise,the
appealedDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakati,Branch62inCriminalCaseNos.961987,961988,96
1989, 961990, 961992, and 961993, finding accusedappellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of
lasciviousnessinsixcounts,isAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONS.Asmodified,accusedappellantissentencedto
suffer,foreachcountofactsoflasciviousness,theindeterminatepenaltyoftwelveyears(12)andone(1)dayof
reclusiontemporal,asminimum,tofifteen(15)years,six(6)monthsandtwenty(20)daysofreclusiontemporal
asmaximum.Further,accusedappellantisorderedtopaythevictim,Ma.RosilynDelantar,theadditionalamount
ofP50,000.00ascivilindemnityforeachcountofstatutoryrapeandactsoflasciviousness.Finally,theawardof
moraldamagesforeachcountofactsoflasciviousnessisincreasedtoP50,000.00.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr., CJ., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, De
Leon,Jr.,SandovalGutierrez,andCarpio,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Peoplev.Nazareno,80SCRA484,491[1977].

2Peoplev.Sangil276SCRA532[1997].
3Peoplev.Herrick,187SCRA364[1990].
4Rollo,p.325
5PennedbyJudgeRobertoC.Diokno
6Rollo,p.25.
7Rollo,p.27.
8CriminalCasesNos.961987961988961989961990961992and961993.Rollo,pp.2952.
9Annex"G",Records,p.1854.
10Exhibit"145".
11Exhibit"145"and"145C".
12Rollo,pp.195197.
13Rollo,pp.327328.
14Peoplev.Garcia,271SCRA621,629[1997].
15Peoplev.Paredes,264SCRA578,583[1996]
16320SCRA584,[1999]
1717SCRA934[1966].
18Id.,p.607.
19Decision,p.35Rollop.3,315.
20Peoplev.Bernal,254SCRA659,669[1997].
21329SCRA270,282[2000].
22Decisionp.39Rollo,p.3,319.
23Peoplev.Salimbago,314SCRA282,291292[1999].
24281SCRA123,129[1997].
25281SCRA577,592[1997].
26329SCRA270,279280[2000].
27Id.,281282.
28Peoplev.Salinas,232SCRA274,279[1994].
29TSN,April16,1997,pp.2441.
30TSN,April17,1997,pp.2730.
31Exhibit"A".
32Exhibit"F".
33Exhibit"E".

34Exhibit"C".
35Exhibit"B".
36Exhibit"D".
37ExhibitB6,Records,pp.18411844.
38G.R.No.136247and138330,November22,2000.
3916SCRA448,452[1996]citing3Moran,CommentsontheRulesofCourt,p.398[1957].
40VIIFrancisco,TheRevisedRulesofCourtinthePhilippines,PartI,pp.618619[1997]citingKyburgv.

Perkins,6Cal.674.andBellv.Kendrick,25Fla.778.
41Id.,pp.620621,citing4JonesonEvidence,2ded.,1704
42Id.,p.620,citing3WigmoreonEvidence,1621.
43 SECTION 1. Registration of births. All babies born in hospitals, maternity clinics, private home, or

elsewhere within the period staring from January 1, 1974 up to the date when this decree becomes
effective,irrespectiveofthenationality,race,culture,religionorbeliefoftheparents,whetherthemotheris
apermanentresidentortransientinthePhilippines,andwhosebirthshavenotyetbeenregisteredmustbe
reportedforregistrationintheofficeofthelocalcivilregistraroftheplaceofbirthbythephysician,nurse,
midwife,hilot,orhospitalorclinicadministratorwhoattendedthebirthorindefaultthereof,byeitherparent
oraresponsiblememberofthefamilyorarelative,oranypersonwhohasknowledgeofthebirthofthe
individualchild.
The report referred to above shall be accompanied with an affidavit describing the circumstances
surroundingthedelayedregistration.
SEC.2.Periodofregistrationofbirths.Theregistrationofthebirthofbabiesreferredtointhepreceding
sectionmustbedonewithinsixty(60)daysfromthedateofeffectivityofthisdecreewithoutfineorfeeof
any kind. Babies born after the effectivity of this decree must be registered in the office of the local civil
registraroftheplaceofbirthwithinthirty(30)daysafterbirth,bytheattendingphysician,nurse,midwife,
hilotorhospitalorclinicadministratoror,indefaultofthesame,byeitherparentoraresponsiblemember
ofthefamilyoranypersonwhohasknowledgeofthebirth.
The parents or the responsible member of the family and the attendant at birth or the hospital or clinic
administratorreferredtoaboveshallbejointlyliableincasetheyfailtoregisterthenewbornchild.
xxxxxxxxx
SEC.9.Penalty.Any person required under this decree to report for registration any fact concerning the
civil status of persons and who fails to do so, or who deliberately makes false statements in the birth or
death form and presents the same for registration, or who violates any rule or regulation which may be
issued pursuant to this decree, and any local public health officer who fails to perform his duties as
providedforinthisdecree,shalluponconviction,bepunishedbyafineofnotlessthanP500.00normore
thanP1,000.00orimprisonmentofnotlessthanthree(3)monthsnormorethansix(6)months,orboth,in
thediscretionofthecourt.
44G.R.No.133922,February12,2001.
45297SCRA309[1998].
46326SCRA32,48[2000]seealsoArticle65oftheRevisedPenalCode.
47Peoplev.Simon,234SCRA555[1994].
48Supra.
49Peoplev.Quinagoran,315SCRA508,516517[1999].
50Peoplev.Optana,supra.

51G.R.No.133190,July19,2001.
52292SCRA186,200[1998].
53285SCRA478,492[1998].
54 People v. De los Santos, 295 SCRA 583, 605 n1998] citing People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411, 430

[1998].
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation