PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOERAL GALLENO G.R. No. 123546.

July 2, 1998 PER CURIAM: EN BANC

FACTS: Evelyn Obligar Garganera 5year old daughter of Rosita Obligar Garganera, together with her 3-year old Eleazar brother, live under the care and custody of their uncle, Emetario Obligar, and aunt, Penicola Obligar. Less than kilometer away from their place of residence lived accused-appellant, 19-year old Joeral Galleno, known well Evelyn's family. On August 16, 1994, at around 4pm, JOERAL GALLENO passed by the Obligars' residence and found the two children left to themselves. According to Prosecution JOERAL took advantage of the situation by sexually molesting Evelyn. The penetration caused the child's vagina to bleed, making her cry in pain Accused tried to stop the bleeding by applying, with his finger, the sap of "madre de cacao" leaves on her vagina. Unsuccessful in his attempt, he left Evelyn grimacing and crying in pain. Shortly, Emeterio and Penicola came home from work. They arrived to find Evelyn crying. Emetario noticed that there was blood in Evelyn's dress and she was pressing a rug against her genital organ. He saw that her vagina had been lacerated and blood was oozing therefrom. He summoned a "quack" doctor who applied herbal medicine on Evelyns's vagina but did not stop the bleeding. The following day, August 17, 1994, Emeterio brought Evelyn to the clinic of Dr. Alfonso D. Orosco, the Rural Health Physician of Maayon, Capiz. After examining EVELYN, he affirmed that Evelyn's vaginal laceration could have been by blunt instrument inserted into the vigina, that it was possible that a human penis in full erection had been forcibly inserted into her vagina, and that a human penis in full errection is considered a blunt intrument. While he was examining Evelyn, Dr. Orosco asked Evelyn what caused her injuries. The child told him that a penis was inserted into her vagina and that its insertion caused her pain. Since his clinic lacked the proper medical facilities needed to treat Evelyn, Dr. Orosco, after dressing the victim's wound which continued to bleed, advised Emeterio and Penicola to bring the child to the hospital for further medical treatment On August 18, 1994, Emeterio brought Evelyn to the Roxas Memorial General Hospital were she was examined by resident physician Dr. Ma. Lourdes Laada. Dr. Laada, upon examining Evelyn found that "there was a 3 cm. lacerated wound at the left anterior onethird of the vagina" and "the pressence of about 10-15cc of blood" at the vaginal vault. Dr. Laada opined that "a lot of things will cause the lacerated wound in the vagina. According to Dr. Laada, the vaginal laceration may be caused (1) by trauma to the area, when a girl falls and hits her genital area on a blunt instrument; (2) by medical instrumentation, like the insertion of a speculum into the vagina; or (3) by the insertion of blunt foreign object into the vagina, like a finger or a penis of a man in full erection.

On August 19, 1994, Emetario brought Evelyn back to the Roxas Memorial General Hospital where she was attended to by Dr. Machael Toledo, the resident physician on duty, who found blood clots and minimal bleeding in the genital area. Dr. Toledo " pack(ed) the area to prevent further bleeding and (he) admitted the patient for possible repair of the laceration and blood transfusion because she has anaemia 2ndary to bleeding." Two hundred fifty five (255) cc of blood was transfused to Evelyn and she was given antibiotics to prevent infection. Five days later, Evelyn was discharged and sent home with medication. Upon his examination of Evelyn on August 19, 1994, Dr. Toledo disclosed that the child suffered severe compound laceration which could have been caused by a normal and fully developed penis of a man in a state of erection that was forcibly inserted into her vagina and that the insertion caused her vagina to hemorrhage which thus required the transfusion of 255 cc of blood Prior to her confinement in the Roxas Memorial General Hospital on August 19, Emetario and Penicola Obligar brought Evelyn to the Maayon Police Station on August 18, 1994, where they reported the crime to SPO1 Paulino Durana. That same day, appellant was apprehended in a house near the Balighot Elementary School and brought to the police station

Defense allegation. Accused-appellant testified that when he arrived at the Obligar residence that afternoon of August 16, 1994, he found the two children, Evelyn and Eleazar While seated at the balcony, accused-appellant was approached by Evelyn, who knew him. He cajoled her by throwing her up and down, his right hand holding the child and his left hand covering her vagina. Upon lifting up the child the first time, his left ring finger was accidentally inserted into the vagina of child since his fingernail was long and the child was not wearing any underwear. Consequently, Evelyn began to cry because her vagina started to bleed. Upon seeing this, he immediately went down the house and got some bark or leaves of madre de cacao tree and applied the sap on the child's wound. The bleeding ceased and Evelyn stopped crying. Thereafter, accused-appellant went home Accused's father Raul Galleno was called to the witness stand and he testified that he learned about the arrest of his son on August 18, 1994. The following day, he went to the house of the Obligars to ask Evelyn what happened to her. The child allegedly answered that a finger was accidentally inserted into her genital organ, but that Penicola who was then present, butted into the conversation and told Raul Galleno that the penis of accused-appellant was likewise inserted.

ISSUE: WON the accused raped the victim Evelyn Obligar?

RULING:

As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give opinions. It is the court's duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form opinions upon the facts proved. However, conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received in many cases, and are not confined to expert testimony, based on the principle that either because of the special skill or expert knowledge of the witness, or because of the nature of the subject matter under observation, of for other reasons, the testimony will aid the court in reaching a judgment. The trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with the aid of the expert testimony of doctors who gave their opinions as to the possible cause of the victim's laceration, but also the testimony of the other prosecution witness, especially the victim herself. In other words, the trial court did not rely solely on the testimony of the expert witnesses. Such expert testimony merely aided the trial court in the exercise of its judgment on the facts. Hence, the fact that the experts enumerated various possible causes of the victim's laceration does not mean the trial court's interference is wrong. The absence of spermatozoa in the victim's vagina does not negate the conclusion that it was his penis which was inserted in the victim's vagina. In rape, the important consideration is not the emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. Verily, it is entirely probable that climax on the part of accused-appellant was not reached due to the cries of pain of the victim and the profuse bleeding of her vagina. Section 4, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides that "(e)vidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nor-existence." This simply means that relevancy is determinable by the rules of logic and human experience. There is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law. However, the determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of the court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday experience There is no explanation how the left ring finger (allegedly with long fingernail) of accusedappellant penetrated the victim's vagina by a depth of one fourth of an inch. The trial court's conclusions finds supports in the testimony of accused-appellant's own witness, Dr. Lourdes Laada (who was earlier presented during the trial as a prosecution witness), who testified that a laceration is caused by a blunt instrument and that a fingernail is not a blunt but a sharp instrument.