Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Rape Jurists

    Uploaded by

    geraldine vilet

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rape Jurists

    Uploaded by

    geraldine vilet
    1 views6 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1 views6 pages

    Rape Jurists

    Uploaded by

    geraldine vilet

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    G.R. No.

    107204

    FIRST DIVISION
    G.R. No. 107204, May 06, 1994
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
    VS. BENITO SALINAS Y SILLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

    DECISION

    CRUZ, J.:

    In seeking the reversal of his conviction for the rape of


    a 13-year old girl, the appellant raises only questions of
    credibility and invokes the constitutional presumption of
    innocence in his favor. This does not necessarily mean
    that the appeal should be automatically rejected on the
    basis of the settled doctrine that the factual findings of
    the trial court are as a rule received with respect and
    even as conclusive by the appellate court. What it does
    mean is that the accepted exceptions to this principle
    must be established by the defense if the appeal is
    to succeed and the judgment of the court a quo is to be
    set aside.

    The appellant is a 25-year old neighbor of the alleged


    victim, Merly Alonzo, who was living just across the
    street from his house in Pandacan, Manila, at the time
    of the incident in question. She claimed that at about
    [1]

    half past two in the early morning of December 19,


    1991, while she was sleeping alone in her bedroom, she
    was awakened by the sound of the closing of the door
    leading to the terrace on the second floor of her house.
    As she sat up, Benito Salinas, whom she recognized
    immediately by the light in her room, covered her
    mouth with one hand and pointed a fan knife at her
    neck, threatening her to keep quiet. Shirtless, he
    completed his nakedness by pulling off his short pants
    and briefs. He ordered her to lie down, yanked off her
    short pants and panty and lay on top of her. He mashed
    her breasts and kissed her lips and other parts of her
    body. She was struggling all the while, and when he
    came down to her vagina she pulled his hair. He tried to
    penetrate her vagina with his penis but succeeded not
    even halfway because she kept resisting him and
    turning on her side to prevent entry. Only the head of
    the penis could force its way. Even so, she felt intense
    pain. Frustrated in his blunt efforts to engage her,
    Salinas withdrew. After repeating his threat to kill her if
    she reported the attack, he put on his short pants and
    while holding his briefs jumped down from the terrace. [2]

    The girl kept quiet until two days later, when she finally
    told her brother, Alexander, what had happened. The [3]

    two of them then related the outrage to their parents,


    who lost no time in reporting it to the authorities. That [4]

    same day, Merly underwent a medical and physical


    examination made by Dr. Ma. Cristina B. Freyra of the
    Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame. In due time, the
    [5]

    corresponding information for rape was filed against


    Salinas before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. [6]

    The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the


    testimonies of Merly herself and the examining
    physician, who also submitted a written report. While
    [7]

    affirming that there was no external sign of violence on


    Merly's person, particularly her vagina, the doctor also
    said it was possible for this organ to be penetrated
    without tearing of the hymen. [8]

    In his defense, Salinas pleaded alibi, claiming that at


    the precise time of the alleged rape, he was sleeping in
    his house when he was awakened by the knocking on
    their door of his sister Glenda, who was returning from
    a party with a friend. Glenda corroborated this
    [9]

    statement and added that Salinas was still sleeping on


    the sofa when she left at 4:00 a.m. to hear a misa de
    gallo. Salinas also suggested that he was charged with
    [10]

    rape by Merly because she had earlier unjustly


    suspected him of peeping at her. [11]
    After considering the evidence of the parties, Judge
    Domingo D. Panis rendered judgment on August 14,
    1992, finding Benito Salinas guilty beyond reasonable
    doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer
    the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The accused was also
    ordered to indemnify Merly Alonzo in the sum of
    P20,000.00, "and the further sum of P30,000.00 as and
    by way of moral damages.” [12]

    In his brief, the appellant now faults the trial court for
    disbelieving his alibi and giving credence instead to
    Merly's testimony despite its many inconsistencies. He
    stresses that his whereabouts at the time of the alleged
    incident were clearly established by him and his sister
    and that, by contrast, Merly's testimony had no
    corroboration, not even from the physician who
    examined her after the claimed rape.

    The defense also emphasizes that during the supposed


    attack, Merly offered no resistance and made no outcry
    although her brother and sister were sleeping in the
    other rooms on the same floor and her parents were
    with their niece and nephews downstairs. Incredibly, it
    took all of two days before it occurred to her to report
    the outrage to her parents. Most importantly, the lack
    of any sign of external violence on her vagina and her
    intact hymen belied her claimed defilement.

    Salinas' alibi was corroborated only by his own sister,


    whose credibility would naturally be suspect. Moreover,
    assuming she was telling the truth, we do not find it
    impossible for Salinas to sprint to the house across the
    street at 2:30 a.m., rape Merly, and return to his sofa
    before 4 a.m., when Glenda found him still sleeping
    there. That kind of alibi cannot stand against his
    positive identification by the victim herself, who had
    known him since childhood and saw him clearly by the
    [13]

    light in her room that morning. [14]

    It is not true that she did not resist Salinas' attack for
    the record shows that she tried to push him away and
    pulled his hair and averted her face from him. She kept
    turning on her side to avoid his penis. If she did not cry
    out for help, it was because of the knife he was carrying
    to command her submission and silence. Even if he
    might have laid the weapon down as he attacked her, it
    was still there within his reach to daunt the 13-year old
    girl, who could have been intimidated enough by the
    mere strength and presence of the unwelcome man in
    her room.

    As for the intact hymen, this is no proof that no rape


    had been committed. A broken hymen is not an
    essential element of rape, not even where the victim is
    an innocent child like Merly. As the trial court correctly
    observed:

    The fact that the hymen has not been lacerated is of no


    moment. The victim being of tender age, the
    penetration of the male organ could go only as deep as
    the labia. In any case, for rape to be committed, full
    penetration is not required. It is enough that there is
    proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia or
    pudendum of the female organ. Even the slightest
    penetration is sufficient to consummate the crime of
    rape. Perfect penetration, rupture of the hymen or
    laceration of the vagina are not essential for the offense
    of consummated rape. Entry, to the least extent, of the
    labia or lips of the female organ is sufficient. Remaining
    a virgin does not negate rape (People vs. Castro, 196
    SCRA 679, 685).

    In rape cases, there are no half measures or even


    quarter measures nor is their gravity graduated by the
    inches of entry. Partial penile penetration is as serious
    as full penetration; the rape is deemed consummated in
    either case. In a manner of speaking, bombardment of
    the drawbridge is invasion enough even if the troops do
    not succeed in entering the castle.

    The claimed inconsistencies in Merly's testimony do not


    vitiate it but only stress her difficulties in estimating
    time and distance, as when she said the incident took
    place at about 2:30 a.m. when it could have been earlier
    or later; or that Salinas inserted his penis in her vagina
    for ten minutes when it could have been for a shorter
    period; or that he stayed in her room for one and a half
    hour although a half hour or less was more believable;
    or that he jumped down from a height of ten meters
    when it was actually about only ten feet. These flaws, if
    flaws they are, would only stress the believability of
    Merly's unrehearsed and imperfect testimony and, in
    any case, do not impair its essential veracity and
    consistency.

    Finally, we hold that the cases of People v. Villarin and


    [15]

    People v. Dulay, where the accused were acquitted,


    [16]

    are not applicable to the case at bar. In both cases, an


    amorous relationship was established between the
    parties to negate the charge of intimidation and
    violence upon the complainants. No such relationship
    was shown to exist between Salinas and Merly.

    We are satisfied that sufficient evidence has been


    established against the appellant to overcome the
    constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor and
    establish his guilt of the crime charged beyond
    reasonable doubt. We shall therefore sustain the
    appealed judgment except only as to the monetary
    award.

    WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the


    challenged decision is AFFIRMED. The award of civil
    indemnity and moral damages is, however, hereby
    reduced to P30,000.00. Costs against the appellant.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Quiason, and Kapunan,


    JJ., concur.
    [1]
    TSN, July 20, 1992, p. 3.

    TSN, February 26, 1992, pp. 5-15; TSN, March 2,


    [2]

    1992, pp. 6-24.


    [3]
    TSN, February 26, 1992, pp. 11-12.
    [4]
    Ibid., pp. 13-14.
    [5]
    Id., p. 14.
    [6]
    Original Rec., p. 1.
    [7]
    Ibid., p. 5.
    [8]
    TSN, March 9, 1992, pp. 6-7.
    [9]
    TSN, July 20, 1992, pp. 4-5.
    [10]
    TSN, July 21, 1992, pp. 3-5.
    [11]
    TSN, July 20, 1992, p. 9.
    [12]
    Rollo, p. 19.
    [13]
    TSN, February 26, 1992, p. 5.
    [14]
    Ibid., p. 6.
    [15]
    218 SCRA 165.
    [16]
    217 SCRA 132.

    You might also like