People vs.

Bolo

800 SCRA 276, G.R. No. 217024 August 15, 2016

DOCTRINE:

In resolving rape cases, the Court has always given primordial consideration to the
credibility of the victim’s testimony. Since rape is a crime that is almost always committed in
isolation, usually leaving only the victims to testify on the commission of the crime, for as long
as the victim’s testimony is logical, credible, consistent and convincing, the accused may be
convicted solely on the basis thereof.

FACTS:

In an Information dated April 13, 2007, accused-appellant Rodel Bolo was charged with
the crime of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, in relation to Article 266-B
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), committed by inserting his finger into the vagina of his 4-
year-old daughter, AAA, against her will and without her consent.

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, during
trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim, AAA, the Medico-Legal Officer,
Police S/Insp. Dr. Marianne S. Ebdane (S/Insp. Ebdane), and PO1 Simeon Masangaya.

According to AAA, while she was standing by the gate of her maternal aunt’s house in
the evening of April 9, 2007, appellant kissed her on the neck and inserted his finger in her
vagina. Consequently, she felt pain and, thereafter, she told the incident to her grandmother, who
brought her to the police station. Two (2) days after, acting on a request from Police Supt.
Constante Agpaoa, Police S/Insp. Dr. Ebdane conducted a genital examination on AAA. In her
Initial Medico-Legal Report, she stated that there was no evidence of injury or laceration on
AAA’s hymen. She explained that, generally, an insertion of a finger can cause irritation or
redness of a victim’s genetalia. But from the time of the occurrence of the incident up to the
genital examination, however, fourteen (14) hours had already lapsed indicating that any redness
or irritation may have been already cured. She further explained that her finding that “there is no
evident injury at the time of the examination and medical evaluation cannot exclude sexual
abuse,” meant that it was still possible for penetration to occur without injury on the hymen
because AAA was only four (4) years old and the hymen of a child was elastic.

In contrast, the defense presented the lone testimony of appellant himself, who simply
denied the charges against him.10 He claimed that while he was indeed with AAA, he could not
have possibly raped his own daughter for at the time of the alleged incident he was engaged in a
drinking session with a kumpadre. He added that the charge was merely fabricated by his
mother-in-law who was mad at him for using sumpak and disturbing their place.
 The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA the amount of
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages, plus costs of the suit.

The CA affirmed affirmed the RTC’s decision with modification as to the imposable
penalty.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in convicting the accused appellant.

RULING:

No, the Court affirm appellant’s conviction, but not of rape by sexual assault in its
qualified form.

The enactment of Republic Act (RA) No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997,
revolutionized the concept of rape with the reclassification of rape as a crime against persons and
the introduction of rape by “sexual assault” as differentiated from the traditional “rape through
carnal knowledge” or “rape through sexual intercourse.”

Under the new provision, therefore, rape can now be committed in two ways: (1) through
sexual intercourse under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, also known as “organ rape” or “penile
rape,” the central element of which is carnal knowledge, which must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt; and (2) by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, also called
“instrument or object rape,” or “gender-free rape,” which must be attended by any of the
circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1.

In the instant case, both the trial and appellate courts conclusively found appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape by sexual assault for inserting his finger inside his
daughter’s vagina. Accordingly, the Court does not find any reason to depart from the findings of
the courts below. In resolving rape cases, the Court has always given primordial consideration to
the credibility of the victim’s testimony. Since rape is a crime that is almost always committed in
isolation, usually leaving only the victims to testify on the commission of the crime, for as long
as the victim’s testimony is logical, credible, consistent and convincing, the accused may be
convicted solely on the basis thereof.

Here, the courts below expressly found that AAA testified on the event that transpired in
a straightforward, consistent and coherent manner. As aptly observed by the RTC, she clearly
narrated on the fact that while she was standing by the gate of her maternal aunt’s house one
evening, appellant kissed her on the neck and inserted his finger in her vagina.

It is evident from AAA’s positive and consistent testimony that appellant inserted his
finger inside her vagina. Thus, unless there appears certain facts or circumstances of weight and
value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered,
would alter the result of the case, the trial court’s conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in
rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality.

Article 266-B of the RPC provides that rape by sexual assault is punishable by prisión
mayor. When, however, the rape is committed with any of the ten (10) aggravating/qualifying
circumstances mentioned in said article, the penalty shall then be reclusion temporal. The first
circumstance31 qualifies the offense when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is
a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Hence, for a conviction of
qualified rape, the prosecution must prove that (1) the victim is under eighteen years of age at the
time of the rape, and (2) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of
the victim. Verily, jurisprudence dictates that the minority of the victim and the relationship of
the offender to the victim must both be alleged in the Information and duly proved clearly and
indubitably as the crime itself. They must be lumped together and their concurrence constitutes
only one special qualifying circumstance.33 In other words, it is the concurrence of both the
minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender that will be considered as a special
qualifying circumstance.

In the instant case, the relationship of the appellant as father of AAA was admitted in
open court by appellant, which is conclusive to prove his relationship with the victim.35
However, although there is no showing that appellant similarly admitted AAA’s minority, the
RTC and the CA were correct in taking judicial notice of the age of the victim, she being alleged
to be merely four (4) years old at the time of the commission of the offense on April 9, 2007 and
five (5) years of age when she testified in court on June 24, 2008.

True, the Court laid down the controlling guidelines in appreciating age, either as an
element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance in People v. Pruna.

Nevertheless, despite the foregoing and in the interest of justice and fairness, the pieces
of evidence and the circumstances of the instant case should be appreciated in determining
whether the age of the victim was actually established by the prosecution.

In the case at bar, several documents were presented in court indicating the very young
age of the victim; first, while assisted by her grandmother, AAA stated in her Sinumpaang
Salaysay38 that she was five (5) years of age; second, the Request for Genital Exam39 indicated
that AAA was five (5) years old; third, the Sexual Crime (Protocol) Form40 stated that the age of
AAA was five (5) years old; fourth, the Initial Medico-Legal Report41 showed that AAA was
five (5) years of age; fifth, Medico-Legal Report No. R07-757 reflected that AAA was five (5)
years old; sixth, the personal circumstances of the victim when she testified on June 24, 2008
stated that AAA was five (5) years old and she likewise answered that she was five (5) years old
when asked about her age;42 and seventh, the accused failed to controvert that AAA was four (4)
years old at the time the crime was committed when the court inquired about it while he was
testifying.

In this particular case, these pieces of evidence, together with the physical appearance of
the victim when she testified, would have been sufficient basis for the lower court to ascertain
the tender age of the victim when the crime was committed. Furthermore, the Medico-Legal
Report prepared by Police S/Insp. Dr. Ebdane, a government physician who took an oath as a
civil service official, means that she is competent to examine persons and issue medical
certificates which will be used by the government. As such, the Medico-Legal Report carries the
presumption of regularity in the performance of her functions and duties. As regards the other
documents, under Section 44,45 Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records
made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. To
be sure, in the absence of proof to the contrary, law enforcement agencies of the government
similarly enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functions.46
Verily, if baptismal certificates or school records are allowed to be presented in court to establish
the age of the victim in the absence of a birth certificate, with more reason should Medico-Legal
Reports and comparable documents be allowed to ascertain such circumstance in similar cases.

Consequently, notwithstanding the fact that AAA’s original or duly certified birth
certificate, baptismal certificate or school records, were never presented by the prosecution, the
Court agrees with the lower court and the appellate court that AAA’s minority was duly
established by the evidence on record. Additionally, the CA, citing People v. Tipay,47 aptly
concluded that the presentation of the certificate of birth is not at all times necessary to prove
minority. The minority of a victim of tender age who may be below the age of ten is quite
manifest and the court can take judicial notice thereof. The crucial years pertain to the ages of
fifteen to seventeen where minority may seem to be dubitable due to one’s physical appearance.

Wherefore, the Court Affirms the CA finding appellant Rodel Bolo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A,
paragraph 2, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 8353, directing him to pay AAA the amount of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as
moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, with modifications that the
indeterminate penalty imposed shall be nine (9) years of prisión mayor, as minimum, to fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and that an
interest be imposed on all damages awarded at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from
the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.