G.R. No. L-70744 - MAY 1985 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-70744May 31, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Ramirez G.R. No. L-23524May 31, 1985Republic of the Philippines vs. Gabriel V. Valero G.R. No. L-45637May 31, 1985Roberto Juntilla vs. Clemente Fontanar, et al. G.R. No. L-56022May 31, 1985Gemiliano C. Lopez, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-56744May 31, 1985Romualdo Avellaneda, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-63729May 31, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Deus G.R. No. L-64204May 31, 1985Del Rosario & Sons Logging Ent., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-65689May 31, 1985Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-68032May 31, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Florencio V. Hinsoy G.R. No. L-69098May 31, 1985Georgia G. Tumang vs. J. Odilon I. Bautista G.R. No. L-69437May 31, 1985Siegfredo D. Obias, et al. vs. Melecio B. Borja G.R. No. L-69623May 31, 1985Masagana Telamart, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-69907May 31, 1985Prudential Bank vs. Jose P. Castro G.R. Nos. L-57627 & 58966May 31, 1985Rolando Tinio vs. J. Jose P. Castro G.R. No. 70185May 27, 1985Sms-Nfl vs. J. Cresencio B. Trajano, et al. G.R. No. L-27718May 27, 1985Industrial Textiles Manufacturing Company of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Comm. of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-39388May 27, 1985Raymundo Erfe vs. J. Willelmo C. Fortun G.R. No. L-41412May 27, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Sancho Nepomuceno G.R. No. L-42419May 27, 1985Paciencia Vda. De Pongan vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-44258May 27, 1985Cenen G. Dizon vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-57051May 27, 1985Merly M. Pagalunan vs. Station Commander Angeles City Police Station, et al. G.R. No. L-61549May 27, 1985Francisco De Asis, et al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-63535May 27, 1985PISC vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. A.C. No. 2481May 24, 1985Leoncio Dela Cruz vs. Ricardo A. Fabros G.R. No. L-34856May 24, 1985Ireneo Miralles vs. Pedro Oro G.R. No. L-62465May 24, 1985Ernesto S. Nieto, et al. vs. Romeo D. Magat G.R. No. L-65848May 24, 1985Hernando C. Layno, Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. L-68212May 24, 1985Sea-Land Service, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-35645May 22, 1985United States of America vs. Hon. V. M. Ruiz G.R. No. L-40118May 22, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Ignacio Z. Panuelos, et al. G.R. No. L-46126May 22, 1985Narciso C. Cruz vs. National Bureau of Investigation, et al. G.R. No. L-65555May 22, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Antinomenes Duero A.M. No. 2864-PMay 16, 1985Office of the Court Administrator vs. Amando S. Soriano, et al. G.R. No. L-52292May 16, 1985Federation of Free Workers vs. Eduardo P. Caguioa G.R. No. L-57348May 16, 1985Francisco Depra vs. Agustin Dumlao G.R. No. L-66371May 15, 1985Armando Ang vs. J. Jose P. Castro, et al. G.R. No. L-50345May 14, 1985Agustin Fiesta, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-52832May 14, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Henry Samiano G.R. No. L-60504May 14, 1985Meliton C. Geronimo vs. Fidel V. Ramos G.R. No. L-20395May 13, 1985Elton W. Chase vs. Dr. Victor Buencamino, Sr., et al. G.R. No. L-45382May 13, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Serrano, et al. G.R. No. L-59879May 13, 1985Patricio Sinaon vs. Andres Soroñgon G.R. No. L-68126May 13, 1985Mactan Rural Bank, Inc. vs. Vicente Leogardo, Jr. G.R. No. L-69261May 13, 1985Rajah Lahuy Mining Company, et al. vs. James B. Pajares, et al. A.C. No. 2131May 10, 1985Adriano E. Dacanay vs. Baker & Mckenzie, et al. G.R. No. L-62354May 9, 1985Rosalinda Godizano vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-32737May 8, 1985Gregorio A. Concon vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-43086May 8, 1985Felipe Z. Cañete, et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-45234May 8, 1985R and B Surety & Insurance Company, Inc., et al. vs. J. Victorino A. Savellano G.R. No. L-60509May 8, 1985Leopoldo Tolosa vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-58912May 7, 1985Roberto R. De Luzuriaga, Sr. vs. J. Midpantao L. Adil G.R. No. L-66547May 7, 1985Francisco Mogueis, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-67540May 7, 1985Florenda Salcedo vs. J. Esther Nobles Bans, et al. G.R. No. L-69800May 7, 1985Alfredo Montelibano, et al. vs. Bacolod Murcia-Milling Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-56893May 3, 1985Pedro Sison, Jr., vs. Ministry of National Defense G.R. No. L-59787May 3, 1985Joseph Olayer, et al. vs. Fabian C. Ver, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Felipe RamirezRepublic of the Philippines vs. Gabriel V. ValeroRoberto Juntilla vs. Clemente Fontanar, et al.Gemiliano C. Lopez, Jr. vs. Commission on ElectionsRomualdo Avellaneda, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto DeusDel Rosario & Sons Logging Ent., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Florencio V. HinsoyGeorgia G. Tumang vs. J. Odilon I. BautistaSiegfredo D. Obias, et al. vs. Melecio B. BorjaMasagana Telamart, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPrudential Bank vs. Jose P. CastroRolando Tinio vs. J. Jose P. CastroSms-Nfl vs. J. Cresencio B. Trajano, et al.Industrial Textiles Manufacturing Company of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Comm. of Internal RevenueRaymundo Erfe vs. J. Willelmo C. FortunPeople of the Philippines vs. Sancho NepomucenoPaciencia Vda. De Pongan vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al.Cenen G. Dizon vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Merly M. Pagalunan vs. Station Commander Angeles City Police Station, et al.Francisco De Asis, et al. vs. Court of AppealsPISC vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.Leoncio Dela Cruz vs. Ricardo A. FabrosIreneo Miralles vs. Pedro OroErnesto S. Nieto, et al. vs. Romeo D. MagatHernando C. Layno, Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.Sea-Land Service, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.United States of America vs. Hon. V. M. RuizPeople of the Philippines vs. Ignacio Z. Panuelos, et al.Narciso C. Cruz vs. National Bureau of Investigation, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Antinomenes DueroOffice of the Court Administrator vs. Amando S. Soriano, et al.Federation of Free Workers vs. Eduardo P. CaguioaFrancisco Depra vs. Agustin DumlaoArmando Ang vs. J. Jose P. Castro, et al.Agustin Fiesta, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Henry SamianoMeliton C. Geronimo vs. Fidel V. RamosElton W. Chase vs. Dr. Victor Buencamino, Sr., et al.People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Serrano, et al.Patricio Sinaon vs. Andres SoroñgonMactan Rural Bank, Inc. vs. Vicente Leogardo, Jr.Rajah Lahuy Mining Company, et al. vs. James B. Pajares, et al.Adriano E. Dacanay vs. Baker & Mckenzie, et al.Rosalinda Godizano vs. Employees' Compensation CommissionGregorio A. Concon vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Felipe Z. Cañete, et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation CommissionR and B Surety & Insurance Company, Inc., et al. vs. J. Victorino A. SavellanoLeopoldo Tolosa vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al.Roberto R. De Luzuriaga, Sr. vs. J. Midpantao L. AdilFrancisco Mogueis, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Florenda Salcedo vs. J. Esther Nobles Bans, et al.Alfredo Montelibano, et al. vs. Bacolod Murcia-Milling Company, Inc., et al.Pedro Sison, Jr., vs. Ministry of National DefenseJoseph Olayer, et al. vs. Fabian C. Ver, et al.The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

That on the 30th day of June 1983, at 12:00 o'clock noon, at barangay Telaje, in the municipality of Tandag, province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, FELIPE RAMIREZ, by means of force, violence and intimidation did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the ALMA LAWANGON, a woman of 14 years of age, against the will of the latter to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. (Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code) with the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed with abuse and confidence and that advantage was taken of superior strength. (Expediente,p. 2.)

Premises considered, this court finds Felipe Ramirez guilty beyond doubt of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 335, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code. With one mitigating circumstance of being 70 years old, and applying the Intermediate Sentence Law, this court hereby impose upon Felipe Ramirez an intermediate imprisonment ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum; and he is hereby ordered to pay P10,000.00 as moral damages to Alma Lawangon. (Id.,p. 78.)

WHEREFORE, with the sole modification as to the penalty which should be raised toreclusion perpetuaas provided by law, the appealed judgment, being in all other respects in accordance with law and the evidence, should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED, with costs. Since under the Judiciary Act, the penalty ofreclusion perpetuaor life imprisonment can only be imposed by the Supreme Court, We refrain from entering judgment and forthwith, We hereby certify this case and elevate the entire records hereof to the Supreme Court for review (People vs. Daniel, 86 SCRA 511; People vs. Ramos, 88 SCRA 486, 490; People vs. Centeno, 108 SCRA 712.)

The Prosecution's evidence discloses that Conchita Villa was a laundrywoman of appellant Felipe Ramirez. Their houses were some 200 meters apart in Bgy. Telaje, Tandag, Surigao del Sur. At about 11:00 a.m. of June 20, 1983, Conchita sent Alma Lawangon, her 14-year old daughter by her first marriage, to Ramirez' house to get clothes for laundering. When she reached Ramirez' house, Alma entered the bedroom to get the clothes and as she was counting the pieces of clothing to be laundered, Ramirez silently entered the room and wrapped a diaper across her mouth. As Alma tried to remove the diaper, Ramirez threatened her with a knife, then wrapped a nylon rope around her body including her arms. Again, she tried to resist but Ramirez threatened her with a knife. After tying her up, he carried her to the bed, took off his short pants and her panty and went on top of her. He inserted his fingers into her vagina and later his penis and while he was having intercourse with her, Conchita called for her. Ramirez told Alma to keep quiet otherwise he would kill her. After Conchita had caged thrice, Ramirez stood up, untied her, put on his short pants and while still buttoning his pants, he proceeded to the door and opened it. Conchita saw Ramirez still buttoning his pants as he opened the door and she asked him what he had done to Alma but Ramirez replied that he did not do anything. Alma then emerged from Ramirez' house looking very pale and nervous. Conchita asked Alma what Ramirez had done to her but the latter did not answer and then both mother and daughter headed for home. When they arrived home, Conchita again asked Alma what appellant had done to her but Alma did not answer and despite Conchita's asking, Alma persisted in her silence. The next morning, June 21, 1983, Alma revealed to her mother what Ramirez had done to her. Conchita took Alma to the Surigao del Sur Provincial Hospital at about 3:00 p.m. where Alma was found by Dr. Joey L. Hugo to have suffered lacerations in her hymen at 3:00 o'clock, 9:00 o'clock and 11:00 o'clock positions. The lacerations were incompletely healed and no spermatozoa was found inside her vagina which admitted one finger with no resistance and two fingers with difficulty and pain.

On July 5,1983, Alma gave her statement to the Tandag Police and, on the same day, she subscribed to a complaint for rape before the Municipal Trial Judge of Tandag, Surigao del Sur. On July 6, 1983, Conchita also gave her statement.

The appellant's version, on the other hand, is that Alma voluntarily offered herself to him provided that he would give her money which she needed very badly. He claimed that he agreed to her request and told her to go inside his room because he would first lull his grandchild which he was babysitting to sleep; that he later followed Alma inside his room and found her already lying in bed; that he sat by her side, raised her skirt and discovered that she had already removed her underwear; that he kissed her and touched her private parts such as her breast and vagina while Alma looked up and smiled at him; that he continued touching her private parts but he discovered that his own genital organ could no longer stand erect so he asked her to hold the same in order to arouse him; that despite Alma's consent, his organ would no longer respond so he told Alma that it was useless; and that it was in such situation when Conchita Villa called out for Alma so he immediately put on his pants and opened the door.

x x x           x x x          x x x

Appellant also questions the sufficiency of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, pointing to the alleged inconsistencies and lack of trustworthiness of Alma and of her mother Conchita. Specifically, he points to the two women's version that it took them 30 minutes to negotiate the distance between their house and that of the appellant which was only 200 meters. A cautious reading of the transcript reveals that neither Alma nor Conchita declared that it took them 30 minutes to negotiate the distance of 200 meters between their house and that of the appellant. Conchita simply stated that Alma was sent by her to the appellant's house at 11:00 a.m. but when Alma did not return immediately, she (Conchita) herself went after her and reached the appellant's house at 12:00 noon (pp. 4-5, tsn., Sept. 20, 1983; p. 41, tsn., Sept. 21, 1983).

Appellant also assails as incredible Alma's version that she was gagged with a diaper, tied with a nylon rope and restrained with a piece of wood; that since the rape was allegedly committed in a room, it was not necessary for him to bring such materials to fulfill his lustful desire; and that there was absence of bruises, contusions or hematoma on Alma's body.

We find the appellant's claim to be scarcely meritorious. He did not have to equip himself with such items because normally, a diaper, a piece of rope and wood are articles commonly found in a house and particularly so in the appellant's abode because he had an infant grandchild which he was babysitting. Moreover, it was necessary for the appellant to tie up Alma otherwise he may not be able to accomplish his purpose because he was 70 years old and Alma was only 14 years old. The absence of bruises, contusions and hematoma in Alma's body can be explained by the fact that there was actually no physical struggle because Alma was threatened with the appellant's knife and the rape took place in the appellant's bed.

Appellant also claims that the medical certificate showed that the lacerations in her hymen were already healed. We find this assertion to be incorrect because what the medical certificate states is that the lacerations were incompletely healed or, as Dr. Joey Hugo explained, the lacerations were in the process of healing at the time of his examination. This is plausible because the rape occurred on June 20, 1983 while the hymenal examination took place on the afternoon of the next day, June 21, 1983 and, according to said doctor, the lacerations of the hymen usually heal within two or three days.

On the other hand, appellant's version that it was complainant Alma Lawangon herself who voluntarily agreed to submit to sexual intercourse with him in consideration of P25.00 appears highly incredible.ℒαwρhi৷Alma was absolutely without motive to testify falsely against the appellant (People vs. Terobias, 103 SCRA 321; People vs. Tejada, 107 SCRA 176). Considering her extreme youth, her virginity, the fact that she and the appellant were neighbors and that the amount allegedly proved by the appellant of P25.00 was too small and insignificant, the appellant's version defies belief. On the other hand, the fact that Alma went through the embarrassment of submitting herself to an examination of her private parts and to a police investigation and the absence of any motive by her to concoct the charge against the appellant all heavily militate against the appellant's pretense of voluntariness of the complainant (People vs. Sambangan, 125 SCRA 726).