PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 117472.  June 25, 1996]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

            Sometime in the afternoon of April 1994, while Rodessa was looking after her three brothers in their house as her mother attended a gambling session in another place, she heard her father, order her brothers to go out of the house.  As soon as her brothers left, Leo Echegaray approached Rodessa and suddenly dragged her inside the room.  Before she could question the appellant, the latter immediately removed her panty and made her lie on the floor.  Thereafter, likewise removed his underwear and immediately placed himself on top of Rodessa.  Subsequently, forcefully inserted his penis into Rodessa's organ causing her to suffer intense pain.Rodessa's plea proved futile as appellant continued with his act.  After satisfying his bestial instinct, Leo Echegray, threatened to kill her mother if she would divulge what had happened.  Scared that her mother would be killed, Rodessa kept to herself the ordeal she suffered.  She was very afraid  because most of the time he was high on drugs.  The same sexual assault happened up to the fifth time and this usually took place when her mother was out of the house.  However, after the fifth time, Rodessa decided to inform her grandmother, Asuncion Rivera, who in turn told Rosalie, Rodessa's mother.  Rodessa and her mother proceeded to the Barangay Captain where Rodessa confided the sexual assaults she suffered.  Thereafter, Rodessa was brought to the precinct where she executed an affidavit. From there, she was accompanied to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for medical examination.

Rodessa testified that the said sexual assaults happened only during the time when her mother was pregnant.  Rodessa added that at first, her mother was on her side.  However, when appellant was detained, her mother kept on telling her: “KawawanamanangTataymo, nakakulong”.

Rodessa was examined by the medico-legal officer in the person of Dra.Ma. Cristina B. Preyna, the complainant was described as physically on a non-virgin state, as evidenced by the presence of laceration of the hymen of said complainant.

On the other hand, Rosalie Echegaray(wife, mother of Rodessa), asserted that the RAPE charge against the accused was only the figment of her mother's dirty mind, Rodessa's complaint was forced upon her by her grandma and the answers in the sworn statement of were coached.  Accusation of RAPE was motivated by Rodessa's grandmother's greed over the lot situated at the Madrigal Estate-NHA Project, Barangay San Antonio, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, which her grandmother's paramour-Conrado Alfonso, gave to the accused in order to persuade the latter(accused) to admit that Rodessa executed an affidavit of desistance after it turned out that her complaint of attempted homicide was substituted with the crime of RAPE at the instance of her mother.  When her mother came to know about the affidavit of desistance, she placed her granddaughter under the custody of the Barangay Captain.That her mother(asuncion Rivera) was never a real mother to her.

She(Asuncion Rivera) stated that her complaint against accused was for attempted homicide as her husband(Leo Echegaray) poured alcohol on her body and attempted to burn her.  That the Certification based on the Masterlistindicates that the property is co-owned by accused and Conrado Alfonso.  That Rodessa is her daughter sired by Conrado Alfonso, the latter being the paramour of her mother.  That Conrado Alfonso waived his right and participation over the lot in favor of the accused in consideration of the latter's accepting the fact that he is the father of Rodessa to simulate the love triangle and to conceal the nauseating sex orgies from Conrado Alfonso's real Wife.

Accused testified on his behalf, that the grandmother has a strong motive in implicating of the crime of RAPE, since she was interested to become the sole owner of a property awarded to her live-in partner by the Madrigal Estate-NHA Project.  That he could not have committed the imputed crime because he considers Rodessa as his own daughter.  That he is a painter-contractor and on the date of the alleged commission of the crime, he was painting the house of one DivinaAng of Barangay Vitalis, Parañaque, Metro Manila.  The travel time between his work place to his residence is three (3) hours considering the condition of traffic.  That the painting contract is evidenced by a document denominated 'Contract of Services' duly accomplished.  He asserted that he has a big sexual organ which when used to a girl 11 years old like Rodessa, the said female organ will be 'mawawarak.' That it is abnormal to report the imputed commission of the crime to the grandmother of the victim.Accused further stated that her(sic) mother-in-law trumped-up a charge of drug pushing earlier and he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of using drugs.  The decretal portion of the judgment of conviction ordering the accused to be confined at the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center irked the grandmother of Rodessa because it was her wish that accused should be meted the death penalty.

Mrs. Punzalan was presented as third defense witness.  She said that she is the laundry woman and part time baby sitter of the family of accused.  That at one time, she saw Rodessa reading sex books and the Bulgar newspaper.  That while hanging washed clothes on the vacant lot she saw Rodessa masturbating by tinkering her private parts.  The masturbation took sometime.

This sexual fling of Rodessa were corroborated by SilvestraEchegaray, the fourth and last witness for the defense.  She stated that she tried hard to correct the flirting tendency of Rodessa and that she scolded her when she saw Rodessa viewing an X-rated tape.  Rodessa according to her was fond of going with friends of ill-repute.  That (sic) she corroborated the testimony of MrsPunzalan by stating that she herself saw Rodessa masturbating inside the room of her house.

In finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, the lower court dismissed the defense of alibi and lent credence to the straightforward testimony of the ten-year old victim to whom no ill motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant can be attributed.

ISSUES

1.     THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING ACCUSED GUILTY AS CHARGEDOF RAPE WHICH POINTS OUT CERTAIN INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTINMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

2.     THE COURT BELOW OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE HEALED LACERATIONS AT 3 AND 7 O'CLOCK COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE PUMPING OF THE PENIS OF ACCUSED TO THE VAGINA OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, HENCE IT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED COMMITTED THE CRIME CHARGED, NOTWITHSTANDING VEHEMENT DENIAL.

3.     THE COURT A QUO WHIMSICALLY IGNORED THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI THAT ACCUSED WAS IN PARAÑAQUE ON THE DATE AND TIME OF THE IMPUTED CRIME HENCE, IT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ALIBI IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE CASE AT BAR."[6]

RULING

Considering that a rape charge, in the light of the reimposition of the death penalty, requires a thorough and judicious examination of the circumstances relating thereto, this Court remains guided by the following principles in evaluating evidence in cases of this nature:  (a) An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused though innocent to disprove; (b) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) The evidence for the prosecution must stand and fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

Anent the first assigned error, no amount of persuasion can convince this Court to tilt the scales of justice in favor of the accused-appellant notwithstanding that he cries foul insisting that the rape charge was merely concocted and strongly motivated by greed over a certain lot.

This Court has stated time and again that minor inconsistencies in the narration of a witness do not detract from its essential credibility as long as it is on the whole coherent and intrinsically believable.  Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witness is telling the truth and has not been rehearsed as it is not to be expected that he will be able to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."After due deliberation, this Court finds that the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses deserves our utmost respect in the absence of arbitrariness.

With respect to the second assigned error, the records of the instant case are bereft of clear and concrete proof of the accused-appellant's claim as to the size of his penis and that if that be the fact, it could not have merely caused shallow healed lacerations at 3:00 and 7:00 o'clock. In his testimony, the accused- appellant stated that he could not have raped Rodessa because of the size of his penis which could have ruptured her vagina had he actually done so.  This Court gives no probative value on the accused-appellant's self-serving statement in the light of our ruling the presence of healed lacerations in various parts of the vaginal wall, though not as extensive as appellant might have expected them to be, indicate traumatic injury to the area within the period when the incidents were supposed to have occurred.  In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element thereof.   A mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape as full entry into the victim's vagina is not required to sustain a conviction.   In the case, Dr. Freyra, the medico-legal examiner, categorically testified that the healed lacerations of Rodessa on her vagina were consistent with the date of the commission of the rape as narrated by the victim to have taken place in April, 1994.

Lastly, the third assigned error deserves scant consideration.  The accused-appellant erroneously argues that the Contract of Services offered as evidence in support of the accused-appellant's defense of alibi need not be corroborated because there is no law expressly requiring so.   In view of our finding that the prosecution witnesses have no motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellant, the defense of alibi, in this case, uncorroborated by other witnesses, should be completely disregarded. More importantly, the defense of alibi which is inherently weak becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused-appellant as perpetrator of the crime of rape by his victim, Rodessa.

The Contract of Services whereby the accused-appellant obligated himself to do some painting Job at the house of one DivinaAng in Paranaque, Metro Manila, within 25 days from April 4, 1994, is not proof of the whereabouts of the accused-appellant at the time of the commission of the offense.

The accused-appellant in this case is charged with Statutory Rape on the basis of the complaint, dated July 14, 1994.  The gravamen of the said offense, as stated in paragraph 3, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years old.Rodessa positively identified his father accused-appellant, succeeded in consummating his grievous and odious sexual assault on her is free from any substantial self-contradiction.  It is highly inconceivable that it is rehearsed and fabricated upon instructions from Rodessa's maternal grandmother Asuncion Rivera as asserted by the accused-appellant.  The words of Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando, speaking for the Court, more than two decades ago, are relevant and worth reiterating, thus:

"x xx it is manifest in the decisions of this Court that where the offended parties are young and immature girls like the victim in this case, (Cited cases omitted) there is marked receptivity on its part to lend credence to their version of what transpired.  It is not to be wondered at.  The state, as parens patria, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those, who, because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully.  Those of tender years deserve its utmost protection.  Moreover, the injury in cases of rape is not inflicted on the unfortunate victim alone.  The consternation it causes her family must also be taken into account.  It may reflect a failure to abide by the announced concern in the fundamental law for such institution.  There is all the more reason then for the rigorous application of the penal law with its severe penalty for this offense, whenever warranted.  It has been aptly remarked that with the advance in civilization, the disruption in public peace and order it represents defies explanation, much more so in view of what currently appears to be a tendency for sexual permissiveness.  Where the prospects of relationship based on consent are hardly minimal, self-restraint should even be more marked.

The fact that the ten-year old Rodessa referred to the accused-appellant as "Papa" is reason enough to conclude that accused-appellant is either the father or stepfather of Rodessa.  Thus, the act of sexual assault perpetrated by the accused on his young victim has become all the more repulsive and perverse.  The victim's tender age and the accused-appellant's moral ascendancy and influence over her are factors which forced Rodessa to succumb to the accused's selfish and bestial craving.  The law has made it inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the accused-appellant face the supreme penalty of death.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104.

SO ORDERED.