THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 136144 January 15, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROQUE ESTOPITO @ KIKING, accused-appellant.
VITUG, J.:
Appellant Roque Estopito alias "Kiking" was charged with the crime of rape in a criminal complaint, dated 22 November 1994, viz:
"I, LUCIA RAMAS y BATULAN, of legal age, Filipino, married, and resident of. Davao City, in my minor 12-year [old] daughter BRENDA RAMAS y BATULAN's behalf, swear under the law, and charges the Accused ROQUE ESTOPITO alias "Kiking" of the felony of RAPE under article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended) because:
"Last 20 November 1994, at or about 5:00 in the afternoon, in the premises of the back of Magsaysay Elementary School, Daliao, Toril, Davao City, Philippines and within this HONORABLE COURT'S jurisdiction, the ACCUSED, against my 12-year old minor daughter Brenda B. Ramas' will and consent, through force and intimidation, laid down the minor Brenda on a certain cemented floor, embraced, kissed her, touched her body and vagina, removed her underwear ('panty'), and penetrated his penis into her vagina, and thus, the Accused had carnal knowledge with my daughter Brenda."1
The complaint was certified and forthwith filed by the prosecutor as being the accusatory information against Estopito.
Arraigned, the accused entered a plea of "not guilty;" the reception of evidence followed.
Evidence for the Prosecution. -
About five o'clock in the afternoon of 20 November 1994, a Sunday, complainant Brenda Ramas, a Grade III pupil, was playing outside their house with friends in Magsaysay, Toril, Davao. Accused Roque Estopito, a neighbor, showed up and asked Brenda to buy cigarettes for him at a nearby store. After Brenda had bought the cigarettes and handed them over to him, the accused pulled her and had her ride with him on his bicycle. Brenda attempted to shout for help but she was prevailed upon to keep quiet. He took the young girl to Magsaysay Elementary School located some two hundred meters away. Upon reaching the school campus, he ordered her to lie down on the cemented floor. He removed her panty. Half-naked, the accused placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. Brenda cried in pain. After satisfying his lust, he left but not before giving Brenda a stern warning not to tell anyone about what had just happened.
SPO2 Teodoro Estoce, Sr., testified that on the evening of 20 November 1994, around six o'clock, he and a fellow officer were on mobile patrol when they received a call from the radio operator about a reported rape incident in San Roque, Daliao, Toril, Davao City. Proceeding to the vicinity, the officers found the accused already under guard by some people in the area. After he was turned over to them, the police officers repaired to the police station where they placed the accused in the custody of the desk officer .
The next day, 21 November 1994, Brenda was brought to Dr. Danilo Ledesma, a medico-legal officer, for physical examination. In his medical report, Dr. Ledesma found Brenda to have sustained a 2-cm. abrasion at the fourchette of her genitalia and a linear abrasion in the vestibule. The hymen, however, was still intact.
Evidence for the Defense. -
Taking the witness stand, the accused denied the accusation and claimed that on the day of the supposed incident, he was at "Moring and Son's Welding Shop" working. At 11:30 a.m., he went to the house of his employer, Bonifacio Chatto, to partake of lunch. An hour later, appellant, together with his employer and other co-workers, had a drinking and singing session. At past five o'clock in the afternoon, he was fetched by Boy Ramas, an uncle of Brenda Ramas, at the residence of his employer. Proceeding to the house of the Ramases, he was surprised to find a group of people in the house. At around 6:15 p.m., a police vehicle arrived and police officers started to interview Brenda. He, Brenda and the latter's aunt were then invited to the police station. The accused was immediately put inside a detention cell while Brenda continued to be interrogated. The accused later learned that he was being accused of rape.
The alibi given by the accused was corroborated by Rosario Chatto who testified that the accused worked at the welding shop of her husband in the morning of 20 November 1994, had lunch with them and then proceeded to a drinking session and "videoke" singing which lasted up until six o'clock in the evening. The accused, she narrated, did not leave their company except once for about 20 minutes.1âwphi1.nęt
In its decision, dated 23 February 1998, the court a quo found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged; it adjudged:
"FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, this Court finds accused ROQUE ESTOPITO alias 'KIKING' 'GUILTY,' beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of REClUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties provided by law.
"Accused is hereby directed to indemnify the victim the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos."2
In his appeal, Roque Estopito urges the Court to reverse judgment of the trial court for what he believes to be a failure of the prosecution to amply prove his guilt.
It may be well to presently reiterate the three precepts that have guided the Court in reviewing rape convictions, i.e., (1) that an accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (2) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, there is need to scrutinize the testimony of the complainant with extreme caution; and (3) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and it cannot be allowed to draw its strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.3 The Court likewise constantly keeps in mind the constitutional presumption of innocence requiring it to assure itself that in any judgment of conviction the guilt of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt.
Closely examining the records, the Court merely finds the following relevant portions of Brenda's testimony on the alleged rape; thus -
"Q. What was he doing?
"A. I was told to buy cigarette.
"Q. Who told you to buy cigarette?
"A. Kiking.
"Q. Where were you when he called you and told you to buy cigarette for him?
"A. I was playing.
"Q. Where were you playing?
"A. In our neighbor.
"Q. Who is that neighbor?
"A. Joy-Joy.
"Q. How far is that from the house of Vina?
"A. Adjacent.
"Q. Now, what did you do when he told you to buy cigarette?
"A. I handed [it] to him.
"Q. What did you give?
"A. Cigarette.
"Q. Where did you buy the cigarette?
"A. At Vina.
"Q. You mean to say that Vina is a store?
"A. Yes, Ma'am.
"Q. Now, how far was he from the store when you gave the cigarette to him?
"INTERPRETER:
Witness pointed to a distance which is about five (5) to six (6) meters.
"PROSECUTOR CALIZO:
"Q. So, upon handing the cigarette to him, what did he do or say to you?
"A. Nothing.
"Q. What did he do after?
"A. Nothing.
"Q. What about you, what did you do after giving the cigarette?
"A. I was pulled.
"Q. Who pulled you?
"A. Kiking.
"Q. To where? What direction?
"A. At Magsaysay.
"Q. How did you and Kiking go to Magsaysay?
"A. We rode a bicycle.
"Q. You said he was riding a bicycle. At the time he was asking you to buy a cigarette, was he riding already a bicycle?
"A. Yes.
"Q. Now, Magsaysay is how far from the store of Vina?
"A. It is far.
"Q. Now, when you were made to ride the bicycle, did you not say anything to him?
"A. None.
"Q. What about him, did he say anything to you?
"A. He told me to keep quiet.
"Q. So, did you reach Magsaysay?
"A. Yes, Ma'am.
"Q. Now, is Magsaysay a big school?
"A. Yes, Ma'am.
"Q. Is it fenced?
"A. No.
"Q. To what portion were you brought by Kiking when you said he brought you to Magsaysay Elementary School?
"A. In front of the school.
"Q. Can you remember what day that was, whether that was a school day or not?
"A. It was a Sunday.
"Q. Upon reaching Magsaysay Elementary School, what did he do?
"A. GIPAHUBO ANG PANTALON UG BRIEF (Remove the pants and brief).
"Q. you are referring to whom when you said 'remove the pants and brier'?
"A. Kiking.
"Q. After he removed his pants and his brief, what did he do next?
"A. My panty was removed.
"Q. Who removed your panty?
"A. Kiking.
"Q. Now, aside from the panty, what were you wearing in the lower portion of your body?
"A. I was wearing dress with panty.
"Q. Now, he removed your panty. What about your dress?
"A. I was still wearing the dress.
"Q. What was your position when Kiking removed your panty?
"A. Lying down.
"Q. Why were you lying down?
"A. Because he told me to lie down.
"Q. After he removed your panty, what did he do?
"A. I cried.
"PROSECUTOR CALIZO:
May we ask that the answer 'I cried' be recorded, Your Honor.
"Q. What about him, what did he do?
"A. His penis was inserted to my vagina.
"Q. What did you do when he was doing that?
"A. I felt pain.
"Q. What did you do because you felt pain?
"A. I cried.
"Q. How long did he do that?
"A. Several times.
"Q. After that, what did he do after he did that several times. When you said he inserted his penis, did he ever stop?
"A. No.
"Q. When did he stop if at all? After that, did he stand up?
"A. Yes.
"Q. How long after did he stand up?
"A. When I stood up.
"Q. What about him, what did he do to you after he stood up?
"A. None.
"Q. So, what did you do when he already stood up?
"A. I stood up also.
"Q. After that, what did you do after you stood up?
"A. We parted our ways.
"Q. Did he say anything before you separated?
"A. Yes, Ma'am.
"Q. What did he say?
"A. Do not squeal.
"Q. So, what about your dress, what did you do?
"A. I cried."4
The crime of rape, under the provisions of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, could be committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of these circumstances - (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. A conviction would require the essential elements of the offense to all be properly alleged in the complaint or information and proved at the trial.
In the case at bar, the element of carnal knowledge was properly alleged and proved. The second element, similarly required to be alleged and proved, i.e., that carnal knowledge had been committed under any of the three circumstances hereinabove mentioned - (1) by using force or intimidation, (2) when the woman was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (3) the fact that the woman was under twelve years of age or was demented - would appear to be wanting. The criminal complaint or information indeed alleged force and intimidation as having been employed by the accused. Nowhere in the narration of Brenda, however, would one find any categorical statement that appellant used force or intimidation in accomplishing the lustful deed. The next circumstance of the woman having been deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious was neither alleged nor proved that would bring us to the only other and last circumstance of the woman being under twelve years of age or demented. The criminal complaint or information, however, explicitly stated that the victim was a "12-year old minor."
The law is unmistakable on statutory rape. The woman must be under twelve years of age. While the prosecution did try in the course of the hearing to show the victim's actual age to only be 11 years at the time of the commission of the offense, such an attempt, nevertheless, is futile. It is a fundamental rule that every element of the crime charged must be aptly alleged in the information so that the accused can be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Anything less would be an infringement of his constitutional rights.
Needless to say, the prosecution regrettably fell short in its bounden duty to exercise the diligence expected of it. All that could have been done was to accurately state the age of the victim in the accusatory information and not to exclusively rely on the complaint made by her mother. 1âwphi1.nęt
WHEREFORE, the Court is constrained to REVERSE the judgment appealed from and to thus ACQUIT appellant of the crime of rape. He is ordered to be immediately RELEASED unless he is being detained for some other lawful purpose. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, J.J., concur.
Footnote
1 Records, p. 1.
2 Rollo, pp.77-78. 3
3 People vs. Butron, 272 SCRA 352; People vs. Manggasin, 306 SCRA 228.
4 TSN, 06 Apri11995, pp. 8-12.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
