G. R. No.

126115 - January 26, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALFONSO BALGOS, Alias "Lupog," accused-

appellant.

PER CURIAM:

In a criminal Complaint, dated 9 November 1995, Alfonso Balgos, alias "Lupog," was accused by
Crisselle Ilanga Fuentes, a six (6) year old child, of the crime of rape. The complaint 1 reads:

The undersigned complainant accuses ALFONSO BALGOS, alias "LUPOG", a resident of Brgy.
Libas, Roxas City, Philippines, of the crime of RAPE, defined and penalized under Article 335, par.
3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, committed as follows:

That on October 8, 1995 at about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, in the City of Roxas, Philippines,
and within the Jurisdiction (sic) of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had (sic) carnal knowledge with the undersigned who
is six (6) years old, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant in such amount as may be
awarded to her under the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Upon arraignment on 21 February 1996, the accused-appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio,

pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged.

The facts are as follows:

On the fateful day of 8 October 1995, at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Crisselle Fuentes
went to the house of the accused-appellant to play with Michelle and Waday, both surnamed
Balgos and nieces of the accused-appellant.2 Since the house of the accused-appellant abuts a
river, the three girls played near the window so they could watch the small crabs (calamangi)
wallowing in the said river. While they were playing, the accused-appellant went up to Michelle
and asked her to go outside and buy cheese curls. When Michelle left the house, the accused-
appellant directed her attention towards Crisselle. He opened the zipper of his pants. 3 He then
took Crisselle by the right forearm and made her hold his penis for a short time. 4 When Michelle
came back, the accused-appellant asked her and Waday to go outside and buy more cheese curls.
The two girls acceded and left Crisselle with the accused-appellant. Whereupon, he closed the
door and locked the same. He then removed Crisselle's shorts and underwear, took off his own
pants and brief and laid her down on a mat.5 The accused-appellant next went on top of Crisselle
and used his hand to direct his penis towards the opening of her vagina.6 He made a push and
pull movement with his penis into Crisselle's vagina which caused her to feel pain.7 However, the
accused-appellant could not penetrate Crisselle's vagina and was only able to push his penis
against the opening of the same.8 Because of this, he re-positioned his penis and tried again to
penetrate Crisselle's organ.9 Despite this effort, he still failed.10 The accused-appellant stopped
his bestial act when he noticed through the window that Michelle and Waday were returning and
were about to unlock the door. He then put on his pants, covered Crisselle with a blanket and
had her put on her underwear. When Michelle and Waday entered the house, Crisselle was still
covered with a blanket.

Crisselle did not tell anybody about the incident. However, on 12 October 1995, Crisart Fuentes,
the older brother of Crisselle, told his mother, Criselda Fuentes, that Michelle and Waday had
informed him that Crisselle was raped by the accused-appellant.11 Criselda then asked Crisart to
call Michelle and Waday to confirm his story. Upon being asked if Crisselle was raped by the
accused-appellant, Michelle and Waday answered in the affirmative.12 Thereupon, Criselda
informed her husband, Arturo Fuentes, about the incident.13 The spouses Fuentes asked Crisselle
if the story was true. Crisselle cried and confirmed that she was raped by the accused-
appellant.14 Thereafter, Crisselle and her parents went to their Barangay Captain, Loreto Araw-
araw, to report the incident.15 The Barangay Captain, together with two of his tanods, picked up
the accused-appellant and brought him to the Barangay Hall for questioning. Asked if he indeed
raped Crisselle, the accused-appellant denied the accusation.16 The Barangay Captain then asked
Crisselle about the incident. Crisselle recounted her harrowing experience at the hands of the
accused-appellant.17 After finishing his inquiry, the Barangay Captain brought Crisselle, her
parents and the accused-appellant to the police station for further investigation.18

The following day, Criselda brought Crisselle to the Roxas Memorial General Hospital for medical
examination. Crisselle was attended to by Dr. Ma. Lourdes B. Lañada, a gynecologist-obstetrician,
who, after her examination, issued a medical certificate19 which states:

Physical Examination : No bruises, hematoma noted

I.E. Vagina - Introitus - admit one index finger with ease

Hymen - + 0.2 CM. Lacerated wound at 3 o'clock position (-) bleeding noted

Discharges- Negative

Spermatozoa Determination - Negative20

In his defense, the accused-appellant denied raping Crisselle but claimed that he only inserted
his left index finger into her vagina because he was sexually aroused at that time.21 In support of
this contention, the accused-appellant testified that if his penis, with a circumference of 3 1/2
inches,22 had entered the vagina of Crisselle, the laceration of her hymen would have been bigger
and not just 0.2 cm.23 On cross-examination, the accused-appellant admitted that on 8 October
1995, he asked Michelle and Waday to go outside to buy food24 but he was never left alone with
Crisselle since his first cousin, Enecito Dalton, and his uncle, Rogelio Manalo, were also inside the
house and listening to the radio.25 He also admitted that he covered Crisselle with a blanket, but
claimed that it was not only Crisselle who was under the blanket but also himself and his two (2)
nieces, Michelle and Waday.
In its Decision, dated 19 July 1996, the trial court believed what it described as the
"straightforward, clear and convincing" open court declarations of Crisselle as against the
uncorroborated testimony of the accused-appellant.26 It debunked the defense of the accused-
appellant that he merely inserted his finger inside the vagina of Crisselle, saying that this was
merely a last ditch effort to save himself from criminal responsibility.27 The trial court also noted
four circumstances that pointed towards the criminal culpability of the accused-appellant. First,
his admission that he asked Michelle and Waday to buy food and leave the house showed his
intention to create an opportunity to commit his "beastly act" against Crisselle.28 Second, his
disposition to play with young girls revealed his "libidinal predilection" which he wanted gratified
even on young girls like Crisselle.29 Third, his admission that he was sexually aroused exposed his
lustful desire for flesh.30 Fourth, his failure to show that Crisselle was motivated by ill-will in
fabricating her accusation lent credence to the testimony of his victim. 31 In the light of these
observations, the trial court convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of rape and imposed
the supreme penalty of death, to wit:

WHEREFORE, finding accused Alfonso Balgos alias "Lupog" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape defined and punished under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA
7659, judgment is hereby rendered imposing upon him the supreme penalty of death. He is
likewise, ordered to indemnify private complainant Crisselle Fuentes fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) as civil damages.32

In accordance with Section 10, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, the case is now before us for
automatic review.

In his lone assignment of error, the accused-appellant contends that:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF RAPE AND NOT OF
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM HERSELF AND THE
ACCUSED APPELLANT.33

The accused-appellant again plays up the fact that Dr. Lañada's medical examination showed that
the hymen of Crisselle only had a 0.2 cm. laceration.34 On this score, the accused-appellant
admits that something was indeed inserted in Crisselle's vagina. However, he points out that it
was only his finger that inflicted the said laceration and not his penis with a 3 1/2 inch
circumference.35 He insists that if his penis was the one inserted in the victim's vagina, the
laceration would have been more severe and she would have died from hemorrhaging. 36 The
accused-appellant, likewise, asserts that since the prosecution claimed that there was an actual
penetration, it must prove, therefore, that the small laceration in the victim's hymen was caused
by the accused-appellant's sex organ. Considering the physical evidence adduced in the case, the
accused-appellant claims that he should have only been convicted of acts of lasciviousness and
not rape.
After a meticulous review of the evidence in this case, we find no cogent reason to disturb the
findings of the trial court. The evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the accused-appellant
beyond reasonable doubt.

Prefatorily, we note the well-established rule that the trial court's evaluation of the testimonies
of witnesses is given great respect by the appellate court in the absence of proof that it was
arrived at capriciously or that the trial court disregarded material facts which might affect the
outcome of the case.37 The rationale behind this rule is that the credibility of a witness can best
be determined by the trial court since it has the opportunity to observe the candor and demeanor
of the witnesses.38

In the present case, the trial court is correct in giving credence to Crisselle's testimony over that
of the accused-appellant. Crisselle's testimony was simple, concise and cohesive.

Q When Michele (sic) and Waday left the house what did Alfonso Balgos do, if there were any?

A He closed the door and then locked it and then he undress (sic) me and he also undress (sic)
himself and took off his brief.

Q When you said undress you meaning Alfonso Balgos removed your entire clothing?

A I have (sic) my clothes on only the short (sic) and panty were taken off.

Q When your panty and short (sic) was (sic) already removed by Alfonso Balgos and he already
removed his pants and briefs (sic), what did Alfonso Balgos do, if any?

A He lay (sic) on top of me and his penis he put it on my organ.

Q Where did you lay (sic) down?

A On the mat without a pillow.

Q You said Alfonso Balgos while you were lying down on the mat without a pillow placed himself
on top of you, did he placed (sic) his penis in your organ?

ATTY. POTATO:

Objection, leading.

COURT:

Already testified.

PROSECUTOR:
Q When Alfonso Balgos placed his sex organ into your vagina, what was Alfonso Balgos doing?

A His organ, he pushed it in and out of my organ.

Q When Alfonso Balgos placed his organ into your vagina in and out, what did you feel?

A Pain.

Q About how long did Alfonso Balgos placed (sic) his organ into your vagina in and out about how
long?

Q For a short period.

COURT:

Q Did his organ enter your vagina?

A No sir.

PROSECUTOR:

Q But you can feel that it touched your vagina?

ATTY. POTATO:

Objection, leading.

COURT:

Sustained.

PROSECUTOR:

Q When Alfonso Balgos stopped placing his organ into your vagina but having it in and out what
did Alfonso Balgos do?

A He again put his penis and push (sic) it in and out motion.

COURT:

Q What happened to your vagina if anything happened to it?

A Nothing.

Q You said that the accused pushed his again in and out of your vagina, how long did he do that?
A For a short period.

PROSECUTOR:

Q When did Alfonso Balgos stop placing his organ into your vagina?

A When Michele (sic) and Waday arrived.

Q How did you know that Michele (sic) and Waday arrived already?

A Because they were coming and they can be seen through the window and Alfonso Balgos out
on his pants.

Q How about you?

A He covered me with a blanket and he (sic) let me put on my panty because Michele (sic) and
Waday were unlocking the door.

Q Was (sic) Michele (sic) and Waday able to enter the house?

A Yes sir.

Q When Michele (sic) and Waday was (sic) already inside the house you were still covered with a
blanket?

ATTY. POTATO:

Objection, question is leading.

COURT:

Let her answer.

A Yes sir.

PROSECUTOR:

Q What did Alfonso Balgos tell you if there was any?

ATTY. POTATO:

Objection, question is leading.

COURT:
No basis.

PROSECUTOR:

Q Did you report of what Alfonso Balgos did to you in the afternoon of October 8, 1995 to your
parents?

ATTY. POTATO:

Objection, question is leading.

COURT:

No basis.

PROSECUTOR:

Q Did you meet your mother and father in the afternoon of that day?

A Yes sir.

Q Did you tell your parents about what happened to you?

ATTY. POTATO:

Objection, leading.

COURT:

Q Did you have any conversation with your father and mother?

A Yes sir.

PROSECUTOR:

Q What was your conversation with your parents?

A As to what Alfonso Balgos did to me that he wrestled me (gin dumog).

Q If Alfonso Balgos is inside the court room now, will you point to the Honorable Court where he
is?

A There (witness pointing to a person sitting on the side bench wearing orange t-shirt when asked
of his name answered Alfonso Balgos.)
PROSECUTOR:

That would be all.

COURT:

Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. ALBERT POTATO:

xxx-xxx-xxx

Q Now you also testified that Alfonso Balgos placed his sexual organ inside your vagina and push
(sic) it in and out, is that correct?

A Yes sir.

Q Did you feel the sexual organ of Alfonso Balgos inside your vagina?

A No sir.

Q You mean it never touched your vagina, the sexual organ of Alfonso Balgos never touched your
vagina?

A It touched the top.

COURT:

Q On what part of your vagina did the penis of Alfonso Balgos touches (sic)?

A In the hole.

Q But it did not enter the hole of the vagina.

A No sir.

ATTY. POTATO:

Q Now you said that Alfonso Balgos was on top of you, was it not?

A Yes sir.

Q So, you could not see what was actually touching your vagina because she was on top of you?

A No sir.
COURT:

Q How did you come to know that it was the organ of the accused which touches (sic) the hole
of your vagina?

A I know because with his hand he held his organ and put it in my vagina.

ATTY. POTATO:

Q But as you have stated he was on top of you and you could not see what was touching your
vagina whether it was a sex organ, the sex organ of Alfonso Balgos or the finger of Alfonso Balgos,
is it not?

A No sir.

Q Have you ever felt before, prior to this incident in question, ever felt the touch of a male organ
to your vagina?

A No sir.

Q So, you cannot distinguish whether what touched your vagina was a male organ or a finger to
your vagina?

A While we were watching TV in our neighbor's house, it was his finger that he put inside my
vagina.

COURT:

Q When did the accused place his finger in your vagina while watching TV, was it before the
incident in question?

A No sir.

Q How many times before the incident in question did he place his finger in your vagina?

A Only ones (sic).

Q In what place did he did (sic) that?

A In our neighbor's house.

Q Was it inside your neighbor's house or outside?

A Inside our neighbor's house.

ATTY. POTATO:

Q Were there people inside the house of your neighbor at that time?

A Yes sir.

Q There were people watching?

A Yes sir.

COURT:

Q Watching what?

A Watching power ranger in (sic) the TV.

xxx-xxx-xxx

ATTY. POTATO:

Q During the incident in question you could not definitely tell whether the accused placed his
sexual organ in your vagina or just his finger, am I correct?

A His organ.

Q Did you see his sexual organ actually placed in your vagina, by the accused?

A No sir.

ATTY. POTATO:

That's all Your Honor.39

As shown in the above testimony, the trial court is correct in observing that the victim recounted
her ordeal in a "straightforward, clear and convincing" manner.40 Her testimony is very typical of
an innocent child whose virtue has been violated.41

On the other hand, accused-appellant's assertion that he merely put his finger into the victim's
vagina is incredible and contrary to the evidence. If this was all that he did, why did he have to
pull down the zipper of his pants, put his penis out, lay himself on top of her, put his organ into
hers, move it in and out of her organ, meaning doing a push and pull movement? And while he
was doing this, Crisselle said she felt pain. On top of this, the medical examination conducted on
her showed a lacerated wound in her organ positioned at 3 o'clock. If Crisselle's story was the
product of her imagination, as the accused-appellant would like this Court to believe, she would
have painted for the court a more dastardly and gruesome picture of her ordeal. But true to her
innocence and coyness, being only six years old, the words she used on cross-examination were
mild. She mentioned that his penis did not penetrate her vagina 42 but that it only touched its
"hole,"43 that the attempt of the accused-appellant to satisfy his lust for flesh was only for a short
period,44 that nothing happened to her vagina after the accused-appellant tried to insert his penis
with an "in and out" motion,45 and that she did not actually see the penis of the accused-
appellant enter her vagina.46 These are telltale signs of the victim's honesty and candor in relating
her unsavory experience at the hands of accused-appellant. It has been stressed often enough
that the testimony of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence. 47

In any case, even if his organ merely touched the "hole" of Crisselle's vagina, this already
constitutes rape since the complete penetration of the penis into the female organ is not
necessary.48 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.49 Since the labia is
the outer lip of the genital organ,50 accused-appellant's act of repeatedly placing his organ in the
"hole" of Crisselle's vagina was rape.

Accused-appellant compounded the incredibility of his defense when he, through his
collaborating counsel, Atty. Benjamin R. Perez, filed a supplemental brief putting up an
inconsistent story.51 He now asserts that he was earlier persuaded by his lead counsel, Atty.
Albert I. Potato, to admit that what he did to the victim was to insert her finger into her vagina
so as to characterize his crime merely as acts of lasciviousness. He claims that he could not have
possibly raped Crisselle since he was then at sea engaged in deep sea fishing on 6 October 1995
and it was only on 8 October 1995, at around three o'clock in the afternoon, when he returned
to shore. He was the last one to leave the boat since he was tasked to properly store their fishing
equipment. Upon his arrival at his house, he listened to the radio with Enecito Dalton and Rogelio
Manalo, then took his dinner and went to sleep. He further avers that it was only upon his arrival
from another fishing expedition on 13 October 1995 that he learned from the Barangay Captain
of the accusations against him.

The Court is not persuaded. Accused-appellant's new defense of alibi is the weakest of all
defenses.52 It cannot prevail over his positive identification by the victim whose testimony on the
events that happened on that ill-fated day was direct and convincing.53 Moreover, his shift of
theory, upon realizing the futility of his earlier defense, rather than help his cause, only further
damaged his credibility.54

The trial is court correct in imposing the supreme penalty of death on the accused-appellant.
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No.
7659,55 the penalty of death shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed against a child
below seven (7) years of age. In the present case, there is no dispute that the victim was six (6)
years of age when the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with her. The victim's age was
duly established by the prosecution, through the testimony of the victim's mother, Criselda
Fuentes, and further corroborated by Crisselle's Certificate of Live Birth.56 Criselda Fuentes
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR VICTOR POSADAS:

FISCAL POSADAS:

Q Criselda Fuentes, do you know a certain Crisselle Fuentes?

A Yes sir, my daughter.

Q How old is your daughter Crisselle Fuentes?

A 7 years old.

Q Do you know when is the date of birth of your daughter?

A November 24,1988.

Q Do you have any documents to show that Crisselle Fuentes is your daughter and that your
daughter Crisselle Fuentes was born on November 24, 1988?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, I am showing to you a Certificate of Live Birth, will you please go over this if this is the
document which you said?

A Yes, sir.

FISCAL POSADAS:

I request, Your Honor for the purpose of comparison, I am showing this certified original of the
Birth Certificate of Crisselle Fuentes to be compared with the machine copy, You Honor I request
Atty. Potato to compare the original with the machine copy.

ATTY. POTATO:

Admitted, your honor.

COURT:

Noted.57

With respect to the award of damages, we have recently held that if the commission of rape is
effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the penalty of death may be
imposed,58 the civil indemnity for the victim shall not be less than Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos
(P75,000.00).59 Based on the foregoing judicial prescription, the trial court's award of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity60 should be increased to Seventy-Five Thousand
Pesos (P75,000.00). Moreover, the victim is entitled to moral damages under Article 2219 of the
Civil Code,61 without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.62 In line with current
jurisprudence, accused appellant's victim is entitled to moral damages in the amount of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).63

Four members of the Court maintain their position that Republic Act No. 7659, insofar as it
prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional; nevertheless they submit to the ruling of the
Court, by a majority vote, that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should be
accordingly imposed.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant Alfonso

Balgos, alias "Lupog," guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him
to suffer the penalty of death is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the accused-
appellant is ordered to indemnify the victim in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos
(P75,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal
Code, upon finality of this Decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the
Office of the President for possible exercise of executive clemency or pardoning power.

No pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, P