THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 182924. December 24, 2008.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . JOSE PEREZ @

DALEGDEG , accused-appellant.

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO , J : p

For review is the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02235
dated 26 November 2007 which a rmed with modi cations the decision 2 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 50, in Criminal
Case No. 15685, nding appellant Jose Perez @ Dalegdeg guilty of statutory rape
committed against AAA. 3 The Court of Appeals reduced the death penalty imposed by
the trial court to reclusion perpetua, and, in addition to the grant of civil indemnity and
moral damages, awarded exemplary damages. SHTaID

On 18 January 2000, an information was led before the RTC of Palawan and
Puerto Princesa City charging appellant with statutory rape. The accusatory portion
thereof reads:
That on or about the 19th day of September, 1999 at around 9:00 o'clock
in the evening, at Barangay XXX, Municipality of XXX, Province of Palawan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
with lewd design and by the use of force and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one, AAA, a
minor of six (6) years old, against her will and consent, to her damage and
prejudice. 4
A warrant of arrest was issued against appellant who was arrested and detained,
with no bail recommended, at the Provincial Jail of Puerto Princesa City. 5
When arraigned on 5 June 2000, appellant, with the assistance of counsel de
oficio, pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. 6
During the pre-trial conference held on 6 September 2000, appellant tried to plea
bargain by manifesting that he was willing to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense
of Acts of Lasciviousness to which the public prosecutor, upon conferring with the
offended party, refused to consent. At said pre-trial conference, appellant likewise
admitted the following: (1) that the victim was a six (6)-year-old minor; (2) that the
victim was from Barangay XXX, Municipality of XXX; and (3) that on September 19,
1999, accused Jose Perez was in Barangay XXX, Municipality of XXX. 7
The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely: BBB, 8 the victim's mother;
the victim AAA; 9 CCC, 1 0 the victim's father; Dr. Jerry Gundayao, 1 1 Municipal Health
O cer, Rural Health Clinic of XXX, Palawan; and psychologist Shiela Chan. 1 2 Their
collective testimonies reveal:
On September 19, 1999, at around 8:00 p.m., CCC, together with his children DDD,
EEE and six-year-old AAA, 1 3 was at the house of Florencio Bumanlag at Barangay XXX,
Municipality of XXX, Palawan, watching a movie. At said place, CCC and his two boys,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 DDD and EEE, were seated in the middle row while AAA was at the front part of the
movie house. When the movie ended at around 9:00 p.m., CCC, along with DDD and EEE,
went out of the movie house. Noticing that AAA was not with them, CCC instructed his
eldest son, DDD, to go back inside and fetch her. As DDD went back, he chanced upon
AAA already going out. While DDD and AAA were on their way out of the movie house,
CCC noticed AAA crying. He asked AAA what happened, and she told him that appellant
hit her on her right eye with a stone and punched her on the abdomen. They proceeded
home.
Upon arriving at their house at around 10:00 p.m., BBB, AAA's mother who was
taking care of her infant child, immediately noticed AAA crying. After learning from her
husband what happened to their daughter, BBB examined AAA's injuries and also
noticed that AAA's private part was bleeding. She simply cleaned up AAA and changed
her clothes. Thereafter, she asked AAA why her vagina was bleeding, AAA did not
answer and began trembling. She told her daughter to sleep and rest. IDAaCc

At around 3:00 a.m. of the next day, AAA woke up and told BBB that she wanted
to urinate. BBB told AAA to just continue sleeping since the wounds in her vagina were
still fresh. AAA started crying claiming that her vagina was not wounded. After she
stopped crying, AAA revealed to BBB what really happened to her. AAA told her that
appellant struck her eye with a stone and then punched her stomach. Appellant then
brought her at the back of the house of one Oring Ragote where appellant inserted his
nger into her vagina followed by his sex organ. 1 4 While appellant was inserting his
organ into AAA's vagina, she lost consciousness because of the pain.
That same morning, after hearing what befell their daughter, BBB accompanied
AAA to the Barangay O ce at XXX, XXX, Palawan and reported the matter to the
Barangay Captain. She was instructed to have AAA medically examined. Heeding the
advice, AAA, this time accompanied by CCC, proceeded to the Health Center in
Barangay Poblacion, XXX, Palawan where he requested AAA to be examined. 1 5 Dr.
Gundayao conducted the examination and found that AAA had a hematoma and
abrasion in the right eye, and contusion on her right dorsal thigh and lower back; her
vulva also had contusions and swelling; the labia majora had swelling and hematoma
and she had fresh hymenal lacerations at 6:00 and 9:00 o'clock positions. 1 6 Based on
his findings, he concluded that AAA had indeed been sexually abused.
After the examination, AAA and CCC proceeded to the XXX Police Station where
they executed their affidavits and filed charges against appellant. 1 7
A year after the incident, AAA was brought to a psychologist to be examined.
Sheila Chan diagnosed AAA to be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Per
Psychological Report dated 3 October 2000, AAA was assessed to have "moderate
di culty in social relationships and symptoms of trauma are expressed through
nightmares, dissociation, and conflict with parents and siblings". 1 8
On 28 May 2001, the prosecution formally offered 1 9 its documentary evidence
consisting of Exhibits A to F, with sub-markings, to which the defense led its
comment. 2 0 The trial court admitted all the exhibits on 27 June 2001.
For the defense, appellant and his father, Leonardo Perez, took the stand.
Jose Perez testi ed that he lives in Barangay Malaud in the small island of
Buenavista, in Coron, Palawan. To go to Baragay XXX, where his relatives lived and
where he delivered sh, he sometimes rode his brother's pump boat. On September 19,
1999, he went to Barangay XXX to attend the birthday celebration of his friend, but
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 which he was not able to. He returned to Baragay Malaud at about 5:00 o'clock in the
afternoon upon the prodding of his brother who was in a hurry to set out to sea and
fish. DSacAE

Appellant denied raping AAA, claiming that he was at home with his parents when
the alleged rape was committed. He disclosed that he knew how to operate a pump
boat and that he used his brother's pump boat in going to and from Barangays Malaud
and XXX. He said he had no knowledge of any reason or motive why AAA charged him
with rape.
Leonardo Perez testi ed that on September 19, 1999, he, together with his wife
and son, the appellant, watched a movie at the house of Florencio Bumanlag. He saw
CCC and his children watching the lm. Just before the show started, he saw CCC and
his daughter, AAA, go out of the movie house. Later, he noticed that his son Jose Perez
was carrying AAA and handed her over to CCC. He claimed that no untoward incident
happened to AAA or to any of the people at the film showing.
In its decision dated 2 September 2005, the trial court convicted appellant of
statutory rape and imposed on him the capital punishment. The dispositive portion of
the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the accused JOSE PEREZ ALIAS
DALEGDIG is hereby sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH. He is
also ordered to pay the victim AAA the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex
delicto which is mandatory upon the nding of the fact of rape; and P75,000.00
as moral damages, even without need of proof since it is assumed that the
victim has suffered moral injuries.
Further, accused is ordered to pay the cost of suit. 2 1

The trial court was convinced that AAA was raped by appellant on that fateful
night of 19 September 1999. It accorded credence to the testimony of the victim who,
at seven years old, testi ed in a straightforward and credible manner. She positively
identi ed appellant as the one who committed the dastardly act to her. It found that it
was inconceivable for the victim, who was six years old when the sexual assault was
perpetrated, to fabricate the charge of de oration and undergo the medical
examination of her private parts, subject herself to public trial and tarnish her family's
honor and reputation, unless she was motivated by a potent desire to seek justice for
the wrong committed against her. The victim's testimony was further supported by the
ndings of the Dr. Jerry Gundayao who, upon genital examination, found lacerations in
her hymen at the 6:00 o'clock and the 4:00 o'clock positions. Consistent with his
ndings, Dr. Gundayao concluded that AAA had lost her virginity. In addition, the trial
court agreed with the ndings of psychologist Shiela Chan that the victim's behavior
after the incident was compatible with the behavior of a child subjected to abuse. cSDIHT

The trial court brushed aside appellant's defenses of denial and alibi. It said that
the defenses of appellant had con icting versions. Appellant's claim that he was not at
the crime scene at the time when the rape was committed was contradicted by his own
father, who said that he was there and saw him handing AAA over to her father CCC.
The trial court added that since the crime scene, according to appellant, was only an
hour away by boat, and that appellant had access to a pump boat which he knew how
to operate, it was not impossible for him to be at the locus criminis during the time in
question. Inherently weak, appellant's denial must similarly fail in light of his
identification by AAA.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 The death penalty having been imposed, the trial court forwarded the records of
the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of
the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, pursuant to Our ruling in People v.
Mateo, 2 2 the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and
disposition. 2 3
On 26 November 2007, the Court of Appeals a rmed appellant's conviction but
modi ed the decision of the trial court by reducing the penalty imposed from capital
punishment to reclusion perpetua, and by awarding exemplary damages. The decretal
portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 2005 is AFFIRMED
with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. The death penalty imposed is reduced to RECLUSION PERPETUA
pursuant to Republic Act 9346 without eligibility for parole under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.
2. The accused is ORDERED to pay AAA the amount of P50,000.00
as exemplary damages, in addition to the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 and
moral damages of P75,000.00 already imposed.
Costs of suit to be paid by the accused. 2 4
On 4 January 2008, appellant led a Notice of Appeal. 2 5 With the Notice of
Appeal having been timely led, the Court of Appeals gave due course thereto and
directed the elevation of the records of the case to this Court for automatic review. 2 6
Thereafter, in our resolution dated 21 July 2008, we noted the elevation of the records,
accepted the appeal and noti ed the parties that they may le their respective
supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within thirty (30) days from notice. 2 7 The
parties opted not to le a supplemental brief on the ground they had fully argued their
positions in their respective briefs. 2 8 IDTSEH

Appellant makes a lone assignment of error:

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF
THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS
GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
In trying to exonerate himself, appellant advances the following arguments, to
wit: (1) the truth cannot be determined from the testimony of AAA because the same
was made up and coached. The prosecutor was practically suggesting to AAA how the
latter should answer. Although leading questions may be asked on direct examination,
especially when the witness is a child, the prosecutor should not put words in the
mouth of the witness because a young child is open to ideas which, if persistently
rammed into her mind, will appear real to her; (2) no eyewitnesses were presented to
pinpoint the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime; (3) nobody in the movie house
noticed anything untoward happen to AAA or hear AAA cry or make any sound to show
that she was being molested or attacked; (4) the public health o cer did not say that
the fresh hymenal injuries on AAA were compatible with rape; and (5) no seminal uids
were found in AAA's vaginal area.
To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are
guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with
facility and while the accusation is di cult to prove, it is even more di cult for the
accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only
two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense. 2 9
After examining the testimony of the AAA, we find that it was neither made up nor
coached. The questions propounded to AAA were leading. A question that suggests to
the witness the answer, which the examining party wants, is a leading question. As a
rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules provide for exceptions when
the witness is a child of tender years, as it is usually di cult for such child to state
facts without prompting or suggestion. Leading questions are necessary to coax the
truth out of their reluctant lips. 3 0 HIDCTA

Section 10, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A question
which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is
a leading question. It is not allowed, except:
xxx xxx xxx

(c) When there is di culty in getting direct and intelligible

answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of
feeble mind, or a deaf mute.

In the case at bar, the trial court was thus justi ed in allowing leading questions
to AAA, as she was merely seven years old when and was not yet going to school when
she testified. As further explained in People v. Daganio: 3 1
The trend in procedural law is to give wide latitude to the courts in
exercising control over the questioning of a child witness. The reasons are
spelled out in our Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, which took effect on
December 15, 2000, namely, (1) to facilitate the ascertainment of the truth, (2) to
ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental
level of the child, (3) to protect children from harassment or undue
embarrassment, and (4) avoid waste of time. Leading questions in all stages of
examination of a child are allowed if the same will further the interests of
justice.
We agree with the Court of Appeals when it said:
[T]he accused's contention, that AAA was a coached witness, was entirely
baseless.
The leading questions made to AAA did not take the form of coaching a
child witness, because even the accused himself was unaware of any reason
why AAA should accuse him of rape if it was false. The testimony of a rape
victim is credible where she has no ill motive to testify against the accused. The
failure of the accused to offer any explanation as to why the complainant
implicated him in a very serious accusation indicated that no improper motive
had impelled her to charge him thus.
There was also no basis in his suggestion that the answers given by AAA
had been merely suggested to her, or that the idea of rape had been rammed
into her head, or that words were simply placed in the mouth of AAA. For, how
could a child so young and so ignorant of worldly ways be expected to
consistently point to the accused as her de ler and to narrate the incidents of
the rape in an unaffected manner unless she had really gone through the
harrowing experience. It was doubtful that she would even remember the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 supposed coaching or that she could memorize the coached answers
considering her inability to recall even her own age. 3 2 cSTCDA

We quote the testimony of AAA on direct examination:

ATTY. ANDA:

(to witness) AAA, do you know Jose Perez alias Dalegdeg?

A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Can you point him to us now?

COURT:

(to Interpreter) Witness pointing to the person wearing a white T-shirt, a

person pointed to stood up, gave his name as Jose Perez alias Dalegdeg.,

ATTY. ANDA:
Did Jose Perez alias Dalegdeg hit your right eye with the piece of stone?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And did he also punch your stomach?
A: Yes ma'am.

Q: And thereafter did he insert his finger into your sex organ?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And that later, did he insert his sex organ into your vagina?
A: Yes ma'am.

Q: And did it hurt you?

A: Yes ma'am.
Q: Because of what by (sic) Jose Perez alias Dalegdeg did to you, what
happened to you? CIDcHA

A: I was painted (sic) (Nalipong) .

COURT:
Quote in quote (Nalipong) .

Q: Did you bleed after that?

A: Yes ma'am.
Q: Did you cry?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: Did you tell to your father what happened to you?

A: Yes ma'am.
Q: Did you tell your mother?

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 A: Yes ma'am.

COURT:
(to Atty. Anda)
You asked her why she cried?
ATTY. ANDA
Yes Your Honor.

Q: Why did you cry?

A: Because it was painful ma'am. 3 3

AAA's testimony on cross-examination clearly shows that she was not coached.
After a thorough and extensive examination by counsel for the accused, AAA never
wavered in pointing to appellant as her ravisher.
Q: Madam witness, do you know Dalegdeg?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Why do you know this Dalegdeg?
A: Because we stayed in one place.

Q: For how long have you known this Dalegdeg, madam witness?
A: I've (sic) known him for a long time sir.
Q: Do you know madam witness, what Dalegdeg have done to you?
A: Yes sir.

Q: What was that?

A: He hit me (pokpok) .
Q: Why you was (sic) hit by Dalegdeg?
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. ANIGAN:

(to witness) When you were hit by Dalegdeg, what are you doing at that
time?

A: None sir.
Q: Do you remember the time when you were hit by Dalegdeg?
A: Yes sir.
Q: At what time? HDTISa

A: At night time sir.

Q: Was the place dark or was lighted?

A: It was dark.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Q: Were you able to see Dalegdeg's face?
A: Yes sir.

Q: Why did you know that it was Dalegdeg who hit you?
A: Yes sir, I know him.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Why did she know Jose Perez alias Dalegdeg at that time?
A: Because I recognized him ma'am.

Q: How were you able to recognized (sic) Dalegdeg?

A: Because I can identify him.
ATTY. ANIGAN:
(to witness) In what way or manner madam witness were you able to
identify him?
ATTY. ANDA:
(to court) She already answered a while ago that Dalegdeg stayed in their
area and live there.
ATTY. ANIGAN:

(to witness) My question is how was she able to identify him in what way?
A: I was able to identify him because he also stayed in the same place where
we reside.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Can you demonstrate to us madam witness how Dalegdeg sexually
abused you? aETDIc

A: I was carried by Dalegdeg in his arms.

Q: You were walked by Dalegdeg?
A: Yes sir.

Q: After you suddenly walked by Dalegdeg, what did Dalegdeg do to you?

A: He hit my eyes.
Q: Did you resist madam witness when you were struggled by Dalegdeg?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Why did you gave (sic) your consent, when you were carried by Dalegdeg?

A: I was afraid to (sic) him.

Q: Why, are you alone outside your house at the time of the incident?
A: Yes sir, I was alone outside the house because my companion is watching
the movie.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Q: Why are you outside in your house at that time?
A: We are watching movie.
Q: You are watching movie, in the movie house?

A: Yes sir.
Q: How far this movie house from you house?
A: It's near.
Q: Did you reach it by walking?
A: Yes sir.

Q: When you go to the movie house, madam witness, are you alone?
A: My companion is my father. DCAEcS

Q: So, you are watching movie together with your father?

A: Yes sir.

Q: When you got by Dalegdeg where is your father?

A: He was at the movie house sir.
Q: Why did Dalegdeg able to get you?
A: Because my father was not with me when Dalegdeg took me.
Q: You were outside the movie house?

A: Yes sir.
Q: How about your father he was watching the movie while Dalegdeg get
you?
A: Yes sir.
Q: After you were sexually abused what did you do madam witness?
A: I fell (sic) the pain sir.
Q: When did your father know this incident madam witness?

A: Yes sir.
Q: When?
A: My father came to know, when he went out in the movie house already.
Q: Are you sure madam witness that it is Jose Perez alias Dalegdeg who
sexually abused you?
A: Yes sir. 3 4

Both lower courts gave full faith and credence to the testimony of AAA. They
found the same su cient to convict appellant of the crime charged. There being
overwhelming evidence showing that on 19 September 1999 appellant had carnal
knowledge of private complainant by means of force and intimidation, we nd no
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 compelling reason to deviate from the ndings of the trial court as a rmed by the
Court of Appeals. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves
great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or
oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and in uence. The reason is obvious.
Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner
of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate
testimonial evidence properly. 3 5 In the case at bar, even though the testimony of AAA
was not flawless in all the particulars, it bore the earmarks of truth.
AIaSTE

This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are
young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman,
especially of tender age, would concoct a story of de oration, allow an examination of
her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she
was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed
against her. 3 6 Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. 3 7 It is highly
improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world,
would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true. 3 8
In this case, considering that the victim was of tender age, who has undergone a
traumatic experience and exposed herself to the rigors of public trial, we nd it very
unlikely that she would impute so grave a crime to appellant.
Appellant contends that AAA's testimony is not su cient to convict him because
the prosecution did not present eyewitnesses to pinpoint him as the culprit, and
nobody in the movie house noticed anything untoward happen to AAA or hear AAA cry
or make any sound to show that she was being molested or attacked.
We nd such argument untenable. Settled of course is the rule that in the
determination of the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not
numbered. Accordingly, the testimony of a single witness may be su cient to produce
a conviction, if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable. If credible and
convincing, that alone would be su cient to convict the accused. 3 9 It is of judicial
notice that the crime of rape is usually committed in a private place where only the
aggressor and the rape victim are present. 4 0 The testimony of the hapless victim alone
is su cient to convict her offender. No law or rule requires the corroboration of the
testimony of a single witness in a rape case. 4 1
In the case at bar, AAA positively identi ed appellant as the person who sexually
assaulted her. As explained above, we nd AAA to be a credible witness. As such, her
sole testimony is su cient to convict. Moreover, no other person in the movie house
witnessed the dastardly act, because the same was committed not in the said place
but in another place beyond the prying eyes of would-be witnesses. As testi ed to by
BBB, her daughter, AAA told her that she was brought by appellant to the rear of the
house of one Oring Ragote where she was violated.
Appellant's argument — that there could not have been any rape because the
public health o cer who examined AAA did not say that the hymenal injuries on AAA
were compatible with rape, and that there was no seminal uid found in AAA's vaginal
area — does not persuade.
The injuries sustained by AAA are indicated in the document issued by Dr. Jerry R.
Gundayao entitled Living Case No. 92099-01.
General and Physical Findings:
xxx xxx xxx
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Contusion hematoma (R) lower eye with linear abrasion, (R) nasal
Bridge.
Contussion (sic) right (R) lower back
Contussion (sic) right (R) dorsal thigh
xxx xxx xxx

Genital Examination:
Vulva with contusion noted
Absence of pubic hair, contusion Labia Majora with hematoma HSaIDc

U-shaped posterior fourchette

Hymenal laceration, deep, fresh, at 6:00 o'clock position and
shallow, fresh hymenal laceration at 4:00 o'clock position corresponding to
the face of a watch, vaginal canal admits
Remarks:
1) With evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted on the body
of the subject at the time of examination.

2) Fresh deep and shallow hymenal laceration present

Conclusion: Subject is of non-virgin state 4 2
Explaining his ndings and conclusion on the medical examination he conducted
on AAA, Dr. Gundayao testified as follows:
COURT:
Aside from your external findings did you make any internal findings?

A: Well in addition to that external ndings Your Honor, there is also a

contusion at the right lower back, here, if you don't mind Your Honor I'll
show it.
COURT:

Witness stood up pointing to the portion of his body referring to the middle
spinal co[l]umn.
A: I ask the victim, what happened to that: Basta mayroong sumuntok daw sa
kanya rito, because during the time I saw that patient talagang swelling
dahil sa kanyang edad, naisip ko baka bumagsak siya pero nakapagtataka
bakit swelling and then on my genital examination although the child has
absence of pubic hair, the vulva has contusion meaning namamaga ang
vulva there is swelling. Ang vulva po ay nakikita natin na may pubic hair
although there is no pubic hair in the little girl, doon po dapat ang vulva in
other words sa singit, nagtataka kami bakit namamaga.

Q: Now, besides the vulva any other nding as a result of your genital
examination? EAcCHI

A: Yes ma'am, there is also on the labia majora and labia majora Your Honor,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 yong tinatawag natin sa layman yong kuntil makapal, yong babae kasi
may dalawang kuntil, yong inner part yong labia minora yong outer part
yong minora napansin po namin na ang labia majora niya ay namamaga
and at the same time may hematoma. Then going on the deeper part of
ndings on the hymenal part there is six 6:00 o'clock fresh deep laceration
and at the same time there is fresh laceration at four 4 o'clock and the
hymenal shape is normally V shape meaning yong hymen niya ay hindi pa
nagagalaw and then because of this laceration that happened to the
fourchette it become U shape, because there is hymenal torn resulting to
abnormality of the fourchette, which is normally V shape in virgin.
However, due to the hymenal torn, there is a nding of U shape which is
abnormal in nature.
COURT:

Concluding that the child has been subjected to sexual abuse?

A: Yes Your Honor.

Q: Now, what does this finding indicated as sexual abuse doctor? TcSHaD

A: Well the state of virginity has been damaged.

Q: When you conducted the corresponding examination what did you ask to
the child or to her father?

A: Even the child could answer during that time, well I asked to that child. May
gumalaw ba sa iyo, o may pumatong ba sa iyo, she answered yes
mayroon po.
xxx xxx xxx

Q: You also mentioned a while ago that the abnormalities that you observed
as a result of the genital examination, can you say what are those
abnormalities?

A: The vulva is with contusion as I said before, the vulva is found on the
portion where there is pubic hair, sa singit po, although the child has no
pubic hair, there is a contusion on the labia majora with hematoma and the
positive fourchette is U shape as I said before normally it is V-shape.
Q: Yes, and the other one is her (sic) the vaginal canal admits, will normally
(sic) to that child?
COURT:
Admits what?

A: Admits one finger.

Q: What should be the normal condition?

A: It should be closed.

COURT:
And what could have possibly caused that abnormalities as you have
observed in your findings?

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 A: Your Honor there might be a penetration.
COURT:

Penetration by a hard object, like what, like penis?

A: Probably Your Honor. cCESTA

COURT:

Finger?
A: Probably Your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx

COURT:

On the questioning of the court, there has been an answer a matter of fact
what could possibly caused such abnormality have what object could be
nger or penis have caused such abnormality and he said it is could it
possible. That is the answer of this witness.
Q: Based on your experience doctor was that possibly made?

A: Will most cases like I said before I handled a year ago two cases there is
penetration by things those two cases because they came to me . . .

Q: Penetration of what?

A: By penis.
Q: And you have been so sure with the same ndings like this case for
abnormalities?

A: In all of those abnormal findings I believe that penetration has been made.
xxx xxx xxx

Q: Mr. Witness you said that there is an abnormality in the fourchette or V

shape, and you said also that abnormality was caused by insertion of hard
thing, is that correct?
A: Yes sir.

Q: There are many circumstances that might cause the said abnormality?
A: Other circumstances that there is. . .

Q:Y es like what?

A: Well I had also one case when the child was found riding on a bicycle then
she accidentally fell out from the bicycle and then she was possibly hit by
the bicycle.

COURT:

She fell from the bicycle?

A: No, saddle that's possible, however the laceration is very different. 4 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 From the foregoing testimony, Dr. Gundayao was certain that AAA was subjected
to sexual abuse. The hymenal laceration inflicted on AAA was caused by the penetration
of a penis or even by a nger which is consistent with AAA's declaration that appellant
rst inserted his nger into her vagina followed by his penis. Moreover, the
abnormalities in AAA's genital area was not caused by any accident ( i.e., falling from a
bicycle) or by other factors, but by full penile penetration. ScCIaA

The Court of Appeals found:

The violent physical and sexual assault were too much for AAA's young
and fragile body that she fainted from the excruciating pain when the accused
forced his penis into her vagina. As a result, she profusely bled, and in fact, her
bleeding continued until the next day when she was examined by the doctor.
The penile penetration had lacerated her posterior fourchette, giving it a "U"
shape (instead of the "V" shape in the case of a virgin). Such bloody and deep
extent of her vaginal injuries could only mean that the penis of the accused
went beyond merely touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the
pudendum and effected a full penetration. . . . . 4 4
As to the absence of semen in AAA's vaginal area, such would not preclude the
fact that rape has been committed on AAA. The absence of spermatozoa is not a
negation of rape. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial since it is
penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes the crime of rape. Besides, the absence
of spermatozoa in the vagina could be due to a number of factors, such as the vertical
drainage of the semen from the vagina, the acidity of the vagina, or the washing of the
vagina immediately after sexual intercourse. 4 5 The absence of sperm samples in the
vagina of the victim does not negate rape, because the absence of spermatozoa is not
an element thereof. 4 6 It is a settled rule that for rape to be consummated, the hymen of
the private complainant need not be penetrated or ruptured. It is enough that the penis
reaches the pudendum, or at the very least, the labia. The briefest of contacts under
circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration of the
hymen, is deemed to be rape in our jurisprudence. The mere introduction of the penis
into the aperture of the female organ, thereby touching the labia of the pudendum,
already consummates the crime of rape. 4 7
In this case, the absence of sperm can be explained by the fact that AAA's
mother and the midwife who assisted Dr. Gundayao in his examination of AAA, cleaned
AAA's private part. 4 8 The absence of spermatozoa in the victim's vagina is, therefore,
not fatal to AAA's cause. Her credible testimony alone su ces to establish appellant's
guilt. The medical report of Dr. Gundayao further corroborated her claim that she was
raped. The ndings of multiple and deep lacerations and other injuries in AAA's vagina
indicated that AAA was no longer a virgin. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh,
are the best evidence of forcible de oration. 4 9 And when the consistent and forthright
testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical ndings, there is su cient basis
to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been
established. 5 0
Against a deluge of damning evidence from the prosecution, appellant merely
raises the defenses of denial and alibi. He denies raping AAA claiming that at that time
of the incident, he was with his parents in their house which was an hour away by boat
from the scene of the crime.
His denial, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. Mere denial,
if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be
given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim. 5 1 Denial is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion. 5 2 HcSaAD

Moreover, appellant's statement that he did not know of any reason why AAA
charged him with rape 5 3 further bolstered the credibility of AAA. When there is no
evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the rape victim to testify falsely
against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical
conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence. 5 4
Petitioner likewise interposes the defense of alibi. No jurisprudence in criminal
law is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to
contrive and difficult to disprove, and for which reason it is generally rejected. 5 5 For the
defense of alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused establish two elements: (1)
he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was
physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission. 5 6
Petitioner failed to do so.
In the case at bar, petitioner avers that he was in his house at Barangay Malaud in
the small island of Buenavista in Coron, Palawan when AAA was sexually assaulted. He
said that it takes an hour by pump boat to travel from his residence to Barangay XXX
where the crime was committed. Thus, it was not possible for him to have been at the
scene of the crime when it was committed. On top of this, his own father contradicted
his statement that he was not in Barangay XXX when the crime was committed.
Appellant's father categorically said appellant was with them (father and mother) in the
movie house when AAA was raped. In fact, his father saw him carrying AAA inside the
movie house and then handing her over to her father.
The felony was committed on 19 September 1999. The provisions of Republic
Act No. 8353, 5 7 which was the law in effect on the day when the rape was committed,
shall apply.
The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual congress with a woman by force
and without consent. If the woman is under 12 years of age, proof of force is not an
element of statutory rape, but the absence of a free consent is presumed. Conviction
will therefore lie, provided sexual intercourse is proven. But if the woman is 12 years of
age or over at the time she was violated, sexual intercourse must be proven; and also
the fact that it was done through force, violence, intimidation or threat. 5 8
As provided for in the Revised Penal Code, 5 9 sexual intercourse with a girl below
12 years old is statutory rape. The two elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the
accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman was below 12
years of age. Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape. 6 0 STIcEA

In the present case, appellant was charged with statutory rape. The rst element
was proved by the testimony of the victim herself, while the second element was
established by appellant's admission and the presentation of AAA's Certi cate of Live
Birth showing that she was born on 22 March 1993. When the crime was committed on
19 September 1999, AAA was only six years old.
For one to be convicted of quali ed rape, at least one of the
aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 266-B 6 1 must be alleged in
the information and duly proved during the trial. In the instant case, since the
aggravating/qualifying circumstance of the victim's minority (below seven years of age)
had been properly alleged in the information and proved during trial, the trial court's
imposition of the penalty of death on appellant was justified.
With the effectivity, 6 2 however, of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled "An Act
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines", the imposition of the
supreme penalty of death has been prohibited. Pursuant to Section 2 thereof, the
penalty to be meted out to appellant shall be reclusion perpetua. Said section reads: DHcESI

SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:

(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes
use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not
make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
Thus, the Court of Appeals properly reduced the penalty imposed on appellant
from death penalty to reclusion perpetua.
Notwithstanding the reduction of the penalty imposed on appellant, he is not
eligible for parole following Section 3 of said law, which provides:
SEC. 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of
this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
As to the award of damages, the trial court awarded P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages. In addition thereto, the Court of Appeals
awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00. The amount awarded is
proper, since P75,000.00 is the amount awarded if the crime is quali ed by
circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty. 6 3 With respect to
the award of moral damages, the P75,000.00 is to be granted without need of pleading
or proof of basis thereof. 6 4 Due to the presence of the aggravating/qualifying
circumstance of minority (below seven years of age), the award of exemplary damages
by the Court of Appeals is in order, but the same should be reduced to P25,000.00. 6 5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated
26 November 2007 nding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape
is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is reduced
to P25,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-
Hormachuelos and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-24. IDTSaC

2.Records, pp. 140-146.

3.This is pursuant to the ruling of this Court in People of the Philippines v. Cabalquinto (G.R.
No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419), wherein this Court resolved to withhold
the real name of the victims-survivors and to use ctitious initials instead to represent
her in its decisions. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the victims-survivors or any
other information tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of
their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed. The names of
such victims, and of their immediate family members other than the accused, shall
appear as "AAA", "BBB", "CCC", and so on. Addresses shall appear as "XXX" as in "No.
XXX Street, XXX District, City of XXX".
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The Supreme Court took note of the legal mandate on the utmost con dentiality of
proceedings involving violence against women and children set forth in Sec. 29 of
Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as Special Protection of Children Against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act; Sec. 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise
known as Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004; and Sec. 40 of
A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children
effective November 15, 2004.

4.Records, p. 1.

5.Id. at 11.
6.Id. at 16.

7.Id. at 23.
8.TSN, 11 October 2000.

9.TSN, 18 October 2000.

10.TSN, 8 November 2000.

11.TSN, 7 February 2001.

12.TSN, 9 May 2001.

13.Exh. B; Records, p. 77.

14.TSN, 11 October 2000, p. 17; Exh. A; id. at 76.

15.Exh. D; id. at 79.

16.Exh. E; id. at 80-81.

17.Exhs. A and C; id. at 76 and 78.

18.Exh. F; id. at 82-85.

19.Id. at 72-85. DaIAcC

20.Id. at 86.
21.Id. at 146.

22.G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.

23.CA rollo, p. 25.

24.Rollo, pp. 23-24.

25.CA rollo, p. 115.

26.Id. at 123.

27.Rollo, p. 30.

28.Id. at 31-33, 34-36.

29.People v. Bascugin, G.R. No. 144195, 25 May 2004, 429 SCRA 140, 146.

30.People v. Escultor, G.R. Nos. 149366-67, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 651, 664-665.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 31.425 Phil. 186, 193 (2002).
32.Rollo, pp. 101-102.

33.TSN, 4 October 2000, pp. 5-7.

34.TSN, 4 October 2000, pp. 8-15.

35.People v. Escultor, supra note 30 at 661.

36.People v. Villafuerte, G.R. No. 154917, 18 May 2004, 428 SCRA 427, 433.
37.People v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 138742, 15 June 2004, 432 SCRA 86, 99.

38.People v. Andales, 466 Phil. 873, 887 (2004).

39.People v. Balajadia, G.R. No. 96988, 2 August 1993, 225 SCRA 22, 28.

40.People v. Dela Cruz, 342 Phil. 150, 158 (1997).

41.People v. Limon, 366 Phil. 29, 38 (1999).

42.Exh. B; records, pp. 80-81. IHDCcT

43.TSN, 7 February 2001, pp. 10-19.

44.Rollo, p. 20.

45.People v. Freta, 406 Phil. 854, 861 (2001).

46.People v. Padilla, 420 Phil. 671, 674 (2001).

47.People v. Arango, G.R. No. 168442, 30 August 2006, 500 SCRA 259, 279.

48.TSN, 11 October 2000, p. 6, 7 February 2001, p. 20.

49.People v. Limio, G.R. Nos. 148804-06, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 597, 610.
50.Id. at 611.

51.People v. Esperas, 461 Phil. 700, 713 (2003).

52.People v. Agsaoay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 132125-26, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 450, 466.

53.TSN, 22 January 2003, p. 22.

54.People v. Malabago, 338 Phil. 177, 190 (1997); People v. Gagto, 323 Phil. 539, 556 (1996).
55.People v. Sanchez, 426 Phil. 19, 31 (2002).

56.People v. Flora, 389 Phil. 601, 611 (2000).

57.AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME
AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS
AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as The Anti-Rape Law of 1997,
took effect on 22 October 1997.
58.People v. Dimaano, G.R. No. 168168, 14 September 2005, 469 SCRA 647, 665.

59.Art. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 1)By any man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a)Through force, threat, or intimidation;

xxx xxx xxx

d)When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
60.People v. Jusayan, G.R. No. 149785, 28 April 2004, 428 SCRA 228, 234-235.

61.Art. 266-B. Penalties. . . .

xxx xxx xxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of
the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
xxx xxx xxx

5)When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old.

62.Republic Act No. 9346 took effect immediately after its publication in two newspapers of
general circulation, namely Malaya and Manila Times on 29 June 2006 in accordance
with Section 5 thereof. IcHTAa

63.People v. Barcena, G.R. No. 168737, 16 February 2006, 482 SCRA 543, 561.

64.People v. Alfaro, 458 Phil. 942, 963 (2003).

65.In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of civil liability may be imposed when
the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. (Art. 2230, Civil
Code).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com