EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 127126, September 17, 1998 ]PEOPLE v. RODRIGO CALMA Y SACDALAN +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODRIGO CALMA Y SACDALAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PEOPLE v. RODRIGO CALMA Y SACDALAN +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODRIGO CALMA Y SACDALAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
This Court repeats: men who rape children, worse, their own daughters, are "filthier than the slime where they belong. Whatever punishment is imposed on them can never expiate their loathsome offense, for which forgiveness itself from a mortal court, at
least, would be a sin".[1]
There is no fathoming the deluge of rape cases, often involving children, that has swamped the Court. But this particular case is by far, the most bizarre. Not just one but three young girls have been left precipitately stigmatized by the bestial violence perpetrated on them by their own father. The very person who should have protected them with his life, destroyed theirs. What strikes this Court as extremely perverse is that he spared no one, not even his daughter of the tenderest age of 5.
Accused-appellant Rodrigo Calma was charged with two (2) counts of Rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, and one (1) count of Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Sec. 5(b) of Art. III of Republic Act No. 7610[2], before the Regional Trial Court, 3rd Judicial Region, Malolos Bulacan, Branch 14[3] in the following three (3) separate Informations:
The evidence of the prosecution established that between May 1995 and March 8, 1996, accused-appellant forced himself on his two daughters, namely, Annalyn and Roselyn, born on July 11, 1981[7] and December 28, 1985[8], respectively. During the same period, accused-appellant inserted his finger into the sex organ of his youngest daughter, Irene, born on June 29, 1991[9]
At ages 15, 11 and 5 years, Annalyn, Roselyn, and Irene, respectively, testified thus:
Seeking to help accused-appellant, his mother, Catalina Calma, his neighbor, Gloria Ceraus, his mother's laundrywoman, Eugenia Lontoc, his sister-in-law, Lolita Calma, family friend, Rosalie Ofrecio, and a confidante of Annalyn, Larry Laurora, attested to the close family ties of the Calmas. They testified that accused-appellant's daughters, especially Annalyn, showed much affection towards their father. Catalina Calma, Lolita Calma and Larry Laurora even insinuated that Annalyn was in love with her father and was seducing him.
On September 25, 1996, the trial court convicted the accused on all three (3) charges. It ruled:
In his Brief dated October 21, 1997, accused-appellant interposed a single error, thus:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."[15]
We find on record overwhelming evidence of the guilt of accused-appellant. The testimony of the three victims, his own daughters, withstood the test of cross-examination. They spontaneously, clearly and credibly spoke of the details of their defilement. The defense did not dispute the time, the place, the manner and the frequency of the sexual abuses. Neither did the defense show that their hymenal lacerations, as found by Dr. Jesusa Nieves Vergara, the medico-legal officer who examined them, were the results of other causes. Dr. Vergara testified, thus:
The law presumes that an accused is innocent and this presumption stands until it is overturned by competent and credible proof. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt should necessarily pertain to the facts constitutive of the crime charged.[21] Discrepancies that touch on significant facts are crucial on the guilt or innocence of an accused.[22] Conversely, inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal.[23] The rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has never been regarded as positive, mandatory, or inflexible.[24]
Surmises and conjectures have no place in a judicial inquiry and are especially anathema in a criminal prosecution.[25] In a criminal prosecution a reasonable doubt can be created by many things but to be sufficient to prevent a conviction, it must arise from the evidence adduced or from the lack of evidence, and can arise from no other legitimate source.[26] While no test definitively determines which is and which is not considered reasonable doubt under the law, it must necessarily involve genuine and irreconcilable contradictions based, not on suppositional thinking, but on the hard facts constituting the elements of the crime. It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.[27] It should not be vague, speculative or whimsical, but intelligent, reasonable and impartial and based on a careful examination and conscious consideration of all the evidence in the case.[28] A reasonable doubt is not such a doubt as any man may start by questioning for the sake of a doubt; nor a doubt suggested or surmised without foundation in facts or testimony, for it is possible always to question any conclusion derived from testimony, but such questioning is not what is reasonable doubt. Rather, it is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the mind of the judge in that condition that he cannot say that he feels an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.[29] Absolute certainty is not demanded by the law to convict of any criminal charge but moral certainty is required, and this certainty must attend every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense.[30] Absolute, mathematical, or metaphysical certainty is not essential, and besides, in judicial investigation, it is wholly unattainable. Moral certainty is all that can be required.
In the instant case, accused-appellant exhorts this court to consider the lack of internal ejaculation and the absence of any injury on the part of the victims, which were testified to by the prosecution witnesses themselves, and their continuous show of affection towards their father, as testified to by the defense witnesses, as indicia of reasonable doubt warranting his acquittal. They lied, argues accused-appellant, because their testimony is improbable, if not impossible, and their affectionate behavior towards him, their alleged rapist, was a contradiction in terms.
We agree with the Solicitor General that these contentions are conjectural. On the charge that the narrations of the victims were fabricated for the purpose of evading the questions as to why no spermatozoa was found in them during the physical examinations and why they did not get pregnant, the Solicitor General correctly noted that Annalyn and Roselyn were last sexually abused by appellant in March 1996 while the physical examinations were conducted on May 3, 1996 or almost two (2) months thereafter. Hence, even assuming that he ejaculated while they had intercourse, the spermatozoa would have been washed off by May 3, 1996, not to mention that the lifetime of spermatozoa definitely does not run to two (2) months. In any event, the presence or absence of spermatozoa in the vagina is not even determinative of the commission of rape because a sperm test is not a sine qua non for the successful prosecution of a rape case.[31] The important element in rape is penetration of the pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid.[32]
The Court is also not impressed by accused-appellant's claim that he could not have raped Annalyn and Roselyn because they continued to be close to him, i.e., they still hugged and kissed him in public and continued to sleep with him in one room. They were also allegedly able to continue attending their classes and obtain good grades at the time they were supposedly molested by him.
It was Catalina Calma, mother of accused-appellant, , who testified about Annalyn's and Roselyn's supposed show of affection towards him and their supposed normal life during that trying period. But Catalina's testimony is hard to believe. Annalyn herself testified that at that time, she was cutting classes and in school, her classmates saw her crying at the library.[33] Roselyn, on her part, testified that she was greatly bothered by what appellant had done to her and after the case was filed, she felt at peace and was able to continue with her studies.[34]
There is also nothing commendable in accused-appellant's contention that the forceful insertion of a normal-size adult male penis into the vagina of girls of victims' ages would have required hospitalization and medical attention. Again, we sustain the Solicitor General's argument that full penetration of the vagina is not necessary to constitute the consummated crime of rape. It is settled that the mere entry of the penis into the labia majora of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen, suffices to warrant a conviction of rape.[35]
The arguments of accused-appellant are premised on the misconception that reasonable doubt is anything and everything that removes a statement from the matrix of certitude. Were we to agree with him and treat every unlikely or uncommon trait characterizing a person, each strange or unusual event in the occurrence of a crime, or just any unexplained, irregular or dysfunctional behavior on the part of the accused or his victims, as basis for reasonable doubt, no criminal prosecution would prevail. It bears repeating that even inconsistencies and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, unless treating of the elements of the crime, would not necessarily bring about a judgment of acquittal. In this case, there is not even any inconsistency or discrepancy to speak of. Accused-appellant denied criminal liability by simply insisting that his daughters, with coaching from their mother, lied on the witness stand. But during cross examination, they never flinched in their testimony. They spoke in simple, direct words customary of children of their ages, and they maintained their testimony amidst warnings[36] by the court and the defense counsel that their father may be meted out the death penalty if found guilty of the crimes that they were charging him with. Significantly, their testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of vaginal lacerations on all three victims and their non-virgin state.[37] Neither may any of the defense evidence be attributed with having materially negated the positive testimony of accused-appellant's daughters regarding their defilement in the hands of their father. The defense witnesses may have testified that they remained affectionate towards their father and continued to earn high grades in school, but they denied these statements and countered that they had cut classes and were sometimes seen crying in the library by some of their classmates.[38] All things considered, we find the evidence against the accused-appellant established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is HEREBY DENIED, and the judgment of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court, 3rd Judicial Region, Malolos Bulacan, Branch 14, finding Rodrigo Calma y Sacdalan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two (2) counts of Rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, and one (1) count of Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Sec. 5(B) of Art. III of Republic Act No. 7610, is AFFIRMED with the slight modification that the civil indemnity in each of the three offenses is increased to P75,000.00 in accordance with the latest jurisprudence[39]on the matter. Accused-appellant RODRIGO CALMA Y SACDALAN is hereby sentenced:
In Criminal Case No. 752-M-96
To the penalty of death to be carried out in accordance with law; and to indemnify Annalyn Calma in the amount of P75,000.00, and to pay her the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages;
In Criminal Case No. 753-M-96
To the penalty of death to be carried out in accordance with law; and to indemnify Roselyn Calma in the amount of P75,000.00, and to pay her the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
In Criminal Case No. 754-M-96
To the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period; and to indemnify Irene Calma in the amount of P50,000.00, and to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Four (4) Members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People v. Echegaray[40] that R.A. No. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the penalty of DEATH is unconstitutional, nevertheless, submit to the ruling of the Court, by a majority vote, that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.
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 the pardoning power. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing, and Purisima, JJ., concur.
[1] People v. Desuyo, 164 SCRA 210, 214-215 (1988).
[2] "Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period."
[3] Presided by Judge Roland B. Jurado.
[4] Information dated May 24, 1996, Rollo, p. 5.
[5] Information dated May 24, 1996, Rollo, p. 8.
[6] Information dated May 24, 1996, Rollo, p. 10.
[7] Birth Certificate of Annalyn I. Calma, Original Records, p. 19-A.
[8] Birth Certificate of Roselyn I. Calma, Original Records, p. 19.
[9] Birth Certificate of Irene Ignacio, Original Records, p. 20.
[10] TSN dated July 29, 1996, pp. 95-120.
[11] TSN dated August 12, 1996, pp. 8-19.
[12] TSN dated August 12, 1996, pp. 58-64.
[13] Decision of the Regional Trial Court, pp. 8-10, Rollo, pp. 27-29.
[14] Id., p. 10, Rollo, p. 29.
[15] Accused-Appellant's Brief, p. 1, Rollo, p. 47.
[16] TSN dated August 26, 1996, pp. 9, 14-29.
[17] Id., pp. 30-35, 39.
[18] Accused-appellant's Brief, pp. 8-9, Rollo, pp. 54-55.
[19] Id., p. 13, Rollo, p. 59.
[20] Id., pp. 13-15, Rollo, pp. 59-61.
[21] People v. Aguilar, 222 SCRA 394, 408 (1993).
[22] People v. Salangga and Lopez, 234 SCRA 407, 417 (1994).
[23] People v. Lagmay 215 SCRA 218, 226 (1992).
[24] People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676, 718 (1995).
[25] People v. Furugganan, 193 SCRA 471, 480 (1991).
[26] 23 C.J.S., Sec. 910, pp. 596-597.
[27] People v. Umali, CA G.R. No. 02980-CR, April 26, 1965.
[28] Words and Phrases, supra, p. 489, citing State v. Brown, Del., 80 A. 146, 150, 2 Boyce, 405.
[29] Id., p. 488, citing Bridgeman v. U.S., 140 F. 577, 592, 72 C.C.A. 145.
[30] United States v. Lasada, supra, p. 97.
[31] People v. Paciente, 210 SCRA 86, 94 (1992).
[32] People v. Bondoy, 222 SCRA 216, 228 (1993).
[33] TSN dated July 29, 1996, p. 159.
[34] TSN dated August 12, 1996, p. 53.
[35] People v. Bacalzo, 195 SCRA 557, 564 (1991).
[36] TSN dated July 29, 1996, p. 173; TSN dated August 12, 1996, p. 46.
[37] Testimony of Dr. Jesus Nieves Vergara, PNP Crime Laboratory Medico Legal Officer, TSN dated August 26, 1996, pp. 16-18; 25-26; 29.
[38] TSN dated July 29, 1996, p. 159; TSN dated August 12, 1996, p. 53.
[39] People v. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998; People v. Victor, G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998.
[40] 267 SCRA 682 (1997).
There is no fathoming the deluge of rape cases, often involving children, that has swamped the Court. But this particular case is by far, the most bizarre. Not just one but three young girls have been left precipitately stigmatized by the bestial violence perpetrated on them by their own father. The very person who should have protected them with his life, destroyed theirs. What strikes this Court as extremely perverse is that he spared no one, not even his daughter of the tenderest age of 5.
Accused-appellant Rodrigo Calma was charged with two (2) counts of Rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, and one (1) count of Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Sec. 5(b) of Art. III of Republic Act No. 7610[2], before the Regional Trial Court, 3rd Judicial Region, Malolos Bulacan, Branch 14[3] in the following three (3) separate Informations:
In Crim. Case No. 752-M-96, for Rape:On May 31, 1996, the three cases were jointly tried upon motion of the prosecution.
"The undersigned upon the prior sworn complaint of the offended party, fourteen (14) year old minor Annalyn Calma, accuses RODRIGO CALMA Y SACDALAN of Rape, defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Sec. 11 of Republic Act [No.] 7659, committed as follows:
"That in between the period May 1995 to March 8, 1996, in Marilao, Bulacan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the biological father of the offended party Annalyn Calma, with lewd designs and by means of threat and violence by arming himself with bladed weapon, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and had sexual intercourse with private complainant Annalyn Calma against her will and consent.
"CONTRARY TO LAW."[4]
In Crim. Case No. 752-M-96, also for Rape:
"The undersigned upon the prior sworn complaint of the offended party, ten (10) year old minor Roselyn Calma, assisted by her mother Myrna Calma y Ignacio, accuses RODRIGO CALMA Y SACDALAN of Rape, defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Sec. 11 of Republic Act [No.] 7659, committed as follows:
"That in between the period May 1995 to March 8, 1996, in Marilao, Bulacan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the biological father of the offended party Roselyn Calma, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and had sexual intercourse with private complainant Roselyn Calma against her will and consent.
"CONTRARY TO LAW."[5]
In Crim. Case no. 754-M-96, for Acts of Lasciviousness:
"The undersigned upon the prior sworn complaint of Myrna Calma y Ignacio in behalf of her Four (4) year old daughter Irene Calma, the offended party, accuses RODRIGO CALMA Y SACDALAN of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS defined and penalized under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5 (b), Art. III of Republic Act [No.] 7610, committed as follows:
"That in between the period May 1995 to March 8, 1996, in Marilao, Bulacan and with the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by taking advantage of his natural daughter, Four (4) year old Irene Calma, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with lewd designs, touched the private parts of the above-stated offended party.
"CONTRARY TO LAW."[6]
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The evidence of the prosecution established that between May 1995 and March 8, 1996, accused-appellant forced himself on his two daughters, namely, Annalyn and Roselyn, born on July 11, 1981[7] and December 28, 1985[8], respectively. During the same period, accused-appellant inserted his finger into the sex organ of his youngest daughter, Irene, born on June 29, 1991[9]
At ages 15, 11 and 5 years, Annalyn, Roselyn, and Irene, respectively, testified thus:
Annalyn on the witness stand:Accused-appellant denied his daughters' accusations. He charged that Myrna Ignacio, his common law wife and mother of his children, coached his daughters to lie. He claimed that he had seriously hurt her in the past, twice by electrocution on suspicion of infidelity. He also accused her of using the criminal cases to force him to waive his ownership rights over their house and lot in her favor.
Roselyn on the witness stand:
Irene on the witness stand:
Seeking to help accused-appellant, his mother, Catalina Calma, his neighbor, Gloria Ceraus, his mother's laundrywoman, Eugenia Lontoc, his sister-in-law, Lolita Calma, family friend, Rosalie Ofrecio, and a confidante of Annalyn, Larry Laurora, attested to the close family ties of the Calmas. They testified that accused-appellant's daughters, especially Annalyn, showed much affection towards their father. Catalina Calma, Lolita Calma and Larry Laurora even insinuated that Annalyn was in love with her father and was seducing him.
On September 25, 1996, the trial court convicted the accused on all three (3) charges. It ruled:
"The defense's position that the charges were fabricated and that the private complainants were coached is untenable. A teenage unmarried lass would not ordinarily file a rape complaint against anybody much less her own father if it were not true (People v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613). A daughter, especially one of tender age would not accuse her own father of this heinous crime had she really not have been aggrieved (People v. Dusohan, 227 SCRA 87; People v. Magpayo, 226 SCRA 13). In their childhood innocence and naivete they could not have concocted the story of how they were wantonly ravished and sexually assaulted (see People v. Magallanes, 218 SCRA 109; People v. Joya, 227 SCRA 9).Accordingly, accused-appellant was meted out the following penalties:
"Neither is there no [sic] merit in the accused's argument that the abuses if true could not have been endured by the private complainants for almost a year without telling anyone. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for sometime the assaults on their virtue because of the rapist's threats on their lives. Delay or vaccilation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of the witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained (People v. Errojo, 229 SCRA 49 x x x). The fact that there was no outcry from the offended party is immaterial in the rape of a child below twelve years old (People v. Ylarde, 224 SCRA 405). Also, the precise date when complainant was sexually abused is not an essential element of the offense (People v. Ocampo, 206 SCRA 223).
"The defense also argues that there was no external evidence of the use of force. In the case of People v. Coloma it has held that "previous passivity of a daughter in allowing her father to have carnal knowledge of her for eight (8) years is not a valid defense against unconsented intercourse. The kind of force or violence, threat or intimidation as between father and daughter need not be of such nature and degree as would be required in other cases, for the father in this particular instance exercises strong moral and physical influence and control over his daughter (People v. Coloma, 222 SCRA 255). In a rape case committed by a father against his own daughter the father's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation (People v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613).
"It was held in People v. Ignacio, 233 SCRA 1, that courts may take judicial notice of the interesting fact that among poor couples with big families living in small quarters, copulation does not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons around them. Rape can be committed even if the victim is sleeping on the same bed with others (People v. Villorente, 210 SCRA 647). Thus it was not impossible for the accused to commit the abuses on his daughters simply because they were sleeping on the same bed.
"It was also argues [sic] that the extent of the injuries sustained by the two younger complainants are not enough to support the charges. Suffice it to say that healed lacerations in the hymen do not negate rape; neither does the absence of spermatozoa in the vaginal canal (People v. Liquiran, 228 SCRA 62; People v. Magallanes, 218 SCRA 109). Even if there were no lacerations of the hymen this fact alone does not necessarily mean that there was no rape. The merest introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is sufficient. The mere penetration of the penis by the entry thereof into the labia majora of the female organ even without rupture of the hymen suffices to warrant a conviction for rape (People v. Sanchez, 250 SCRA 14). Annalyn and Roselyn testified that there was penetration and that it was very painful. The pain could be nothing but the result of penile penetration, sufficient to constitute rape (People v. Sanchez, supra).
"The mother of the accused, as well as his sister-in-law imply (sic) that an amorous relationship could exist between the accused and Annalyn, and such is one of the theories of the defense. However, where the accused adopted the theory that the victim consented to his sexual desires, the sexual act itself is deemed admitted except as to consent [but] x x x as contrary evidence showed the victim sustained physical injuries consistent with her claim that she was sexually abused without her consent (People v. Saluna, 226 SCRA 447). The charge that the complainant in a rape case has loose morals must be supported by strong evidence (People v. Coloma, 222 SCRA 255). Such a claim could only lead this court to believe that the defense would try to exculpate the accused by blaming the victim, which this court is not inclined to do.
"The accused imputes false motive in the filing of these case[s] on the part of Myrna. It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to embarassment and even stigma (People v. Ching, 240 SCRA 267; People v. Ignacio, 233 SCRA 1). No mother would stoop so low as to subject her daughter to physical hardship and shame concommittant to a rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt feelings (People v. Rejano, 237 SCRA 627).
"A violation of a woman's chastity becomes doubly repulsive where the outrage is perpetrated on one's own flesh and blood, for the culprit is reduced to a level lower than a beast (People v. Dusohan, 227 SCRA 87). Because of the acts of the accused the private complainants have been denied their right to grow up and discover the wonders of womanhood in the natural way, and an award of moral indemnification in the amount of P50,000.00 is proper (People v. Escoto, 229 SCRA 430; People v. Mejorada, 224 SCRA 857), as well as an award of exemplary damages as correction for the public good (People v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613), in the amount of P25,000.00."[13]
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:On automatic appeal because of its twin sentences imposing the death penalty, the foregoing decision of the trial court is now before us.
"In Criminal Case No. 752-M-96
"Finding the accused Rodrigo Calma y Sacdalan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to the penalty of death to be carried out in accordance with law; and to indemnify Annalyn Calma in the amount of P50,000.00, to pay her the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages;
"In Criminal Case No. 753-M-96
"Finding accused Rodrigo Calma y Sacdalan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to the penalty of death to be carried out in accordance with law; and to indemnify Roselyn Calma in the amount of P50,000.00, to pay her the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
"In Criminal Case No. 754-M-96
"Finding the accused Rodrigo Calma y Sacdalan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the [crime of] acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and R.A. [No.] 7610, and sentencing him to the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, to indemnify Irene Calma in the amount of P50,000.00, to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
"SO ORDERED."[14]
In his Brief dated October 21, 1997, accused-appellant interposed a single error, thus:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."[15]
We find on record overwhelming evidence of the guilt of accused-appellant. The testimony of the three victims, his own daughters, withstood the test of cross-examination. They spontaneously, clearly and credibly spoke of the details of their defilement. The defense did not dispute the time, the place, the manner and the frequency of the sexual abuses. Neither did the defense show that their hymenal lacerations, as found by Dr. Jesusa Nieves Vergara, the medico-legal officer who examined them, were the results of other causes. Dr. Vergara testified, thus:
At most, during cross-examination, the defense got Dr. Vergara to concede that hymenal lacerations can also be caused by a fall on a sharp object. The defense, however, failed to establish that the three victims had, on specific occasions, met an accident of that nature. Thus goes the cross-examination of Dr. Vergara:
Accused-appellant next submits that the evidence of the prosecution should not be given credence by this Court because of their inherent improbabilities. He pleads this Court to consider his daughters to have lied under oath because:
1. Annalyn and Roselyn both testified that he always withdrew his penis and ejaculated outside them, but such self-control and willpower is impossible for a man who lusted even for his own daughters.[18]All these, accused-appellant submits, cast reasonable doubt on his guilt.
2. His daughters did not behave like rape victims. They continued to be close and affectionate towards him, hugging and kissing him in public. They always slept together in one room. They continuously attended their classes and even got high grades.[19]
3. His daughters should have died or suffered some serious physical injury if it were true that his penis forcefully penetrated their vaginas.[20]
The law presumes that an accused is innocent and this presumption stands until it is overturned by competent and credible proof. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt should necessarily pertain to the facts constitutive of the crime charged.[21] Discrepancies that touch on significant facts are crucial on the guilt or innocence of an accused.[22] Conversely, inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal.[23] The rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has never been regarded as positive, mandatory, or inflexible.[24]
Surmises and conjectures have no place in a judicial inquiry and are especially anathema in a criminal prosecution.[25] In a criminal prosecution a reasonable doubt can be created by many things but to be sufficient to prevent a conviction, it must arise from the evidence adduced or from the lack of evidence, and can arise from no other legitimate source.[26] While no test definitively determines which is and which is not considered reasonable doubt under the law, it must necessarily involve genuine and irreconcilable contradictions based, not on suppositional thinking, but on the hard facts constituting the elements of the crime. It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.[27] It should not be vague, speculative or whimsical, but intelligent, reasonable and impartial and based on a careful examination and conscious consideration of all the evidence in the case.[28] A reasonable doubt is not such a doubt as any man may start by questioning for the sake of a doubt; nor a doubt suggested or surmised without foundation in facts or testimony, for it is possible always to question any conclusion derived from testimony, but such questioning is not what is reasonable doubt. Rather, it is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the mind of the judge in that condition that he cannot say that he feels an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.[29] Absolute certainty is not demanded by the law to convict of any criminal charge but moral certainty is required, and this certainty must attend every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense.[30] Absolute, mathematical, or metaphysical certainty is not essential, and besides, in judicial investigation, it is wholly unattainable. Moral certainty is all that can be required.
In the instant case, accused-appellant exhorts this court to consider the lack of internal ejaculation and the absence of any injury on the part of the victims, which were testified to by the prosecution witnesses themselves, and their continuous show of affection towards their father, as testified to by the defense witnesses, as indicia of reasonable doubt warranting his acquittal. They lied, argues accused-appellant, because their testimony is improbable, if not impossible, and their affectionate behavior towards him, their alleged rapist, was a contradiction in terms.
We agree with the Solicitor General that these contentions are conjectural. On the charge that the narrations of the victims were fabricated for the purpose of evading the questions as to why no spermatozoa was found in them during the physical examinations and why they did not get pregnant, the Solicitor General correctly noted that Annalyn and Roselyn were last sexually abused by appellant in March 1996 while the physical examinations were conducted on May 3, 1996 or almost two (2) months thereafter. Hence, even assuming that he ejaculated while they had intercourse, the spermatozoa would have been washed off by May 3, 1996, not to mention that the lifetime of spermatozoa definitely does not run to two (2) months. In any event, the presence or absence of spermatozoa in the vagina is not even determinative of the commission of rape because a sperm test is not a sine qua non for the successful prosecution of a rape case.[31] The important element in rape is penetration of the pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid.[32]
The Court is also not impressed by accused-appellant's claim that he could not have raped Annalyn and Roselyn because they continued to be close to him, i.e., they still hugged and kissed him in public and continued to sleep with him in one room. They were also allegedly able to continue attending their classes and obtain good grades at the time they were supposedly molested by him.
It was Catalina Calma, mother of accused-appellant, , who testified about Annalyn's and Roselyn's supposed show of affection towards him and their supposed normal life during that trying period. But Catalina's testimony is hard to believe. Annalyn herself testified that at that time, she was cutting classes and in school, her classmates saw her crying at the library.[33] Roselyn, on her part, testified that she was greatly bothered by what appellant had done to her and after the case was filed, she felt at peace and was able to continue with her studies.[34]
There is also nothing commendable in accused-appellant's contention that the forceful insertion of a normal-size adult male penis into the vagina of girls of victims' ages would have required hospitalization and medical attention. Again, we sustain the Solicitor General's argument that full penetration of the vagina is not necessary to constitute the consummated crime of rape. It is settled that the mere entry of the penis into the labia majora of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen, suffices to warrant a conviction of rape.[35]
The arguments of accused-appellant are premised on the misconception that reasonable doubt is anything and everything that removes a statement from the matrix of certitude. Were we to agree with him and treat every unlikely or uncommon trait characterizing a person, each strange or unusual event in the occurrence of a crime, or just any unexplained, irregular or dysfunctional behavior on the part of the accused or his victims, as basis for reasonable doubt, no criminal prosecution would prevail. It bears repeating that even inconsistencies and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, unless treating of the elements of the crime, would not necessarily bring about a judgment of acquittal. In this case, there is not even any inconsistency or discrepancy to speak of. Accused-appellant denied criminal liability by simply insisting that his daughters, with coaching from their mother, lied on the witness stand. But during cross examination, they never flinched in their testimony. They spoke in simple, direct words customary of children of their ages, and they maintained their testimony amidst warnings[36] by the court and the defense counsel that their father may be meted out the death penalty if found guilty of the crimes that they were charging him with. Significantly, their testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of vaginal lacerations on all three victims and their non-virgin state.[37] Neither may any of the defense evidence be attributed with having materially negated the positive testimony of accused-appellant's daughters regarding their defilement in the hands of their father. The defense witnesses may have testified that they remained affectionate towards their father and continued to earn high grades in school, but they denied these statements and countered that they had cut classes and were sometimes seen crying in the library by some of their classmates.[38] All things considered, we find the evidence against the accused-appellant established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is HEREBY DENIED, and the judgment of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court, 3rd Judicial Region, Malolos Bulacan, Branch 14, finding Rodrigo Calma y Sacdalan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two (2) counts of Rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, and one (1) count of Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Sec. 5(B) of Art. III of Republic Act No. 7610, is AFFIRMED with the slight modification that the civil indemnity in each of the three offenses is increased to P75,000.00 in accordance with the latest jurisprudence[39]on the matter. Accused-appellant RODRIGO CALMA Y SACDALAN is hereby sentenced:
In Criminal Case No. 752-M-96
To the penalty of death to be carried out in accordance with law; and to indemnify Annalyn Calma in the amount of P75,000.00, and to pay her the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages;
In Criminal Case No. 753-M-96
To the penalty of death to be carried out in accordance with law; and to indemnify Roselyn Calma in the amount of P75,000.00, and to pay her the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
In Criminal Case No. 754-M-96
To the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period; and to indemnify Irene Calma in the amount of P50,000.00, and to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Four (4) Members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People v. Echegaray[40] that R.A. No. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the penalty of DEATH is unconstitutional, nevertheless, submit to the ruling of the Court, by a majority vote, that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.
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 the pardoning power. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing, and Purisima, JJ., concur.
[1] People v. Desuyo, 164 SCRA 210, 214-215 (1988).
[2] "Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period."
[3] Presided by Judge Roland B. Jurado.
[4] Information dated May 24, 1996, Rollo, p. 5.
[5] Information dated May 24, 1996, Rollo, p. 8.
[6] Information dated May 24, 1996, Rollo, p. 10.
[7] Birth Certificate of Annalyn I. Calma, Original Records, p. 19-A.
[8] Birth Certificate of Roselyn I. Calma, Original Records, p. 19.
[9] Birth Certificate of Irene Ignacio, Original Records, p. 20.
[10] TSN dated July 29, 1996, pp. 95-120.
[11] TSN dated August 12, 1996, pp. 8-19.
[12] TSN dated August 12, 1996, pp. 58-64.
[13] Decision of the Regional Trial Court, pp. 8-10, Rollo, pp. 27-29.
[14] Id., p. 10, Rollo, p. 29.
[15] Accused-Appellant's Brief, p. 1, Rollo, p. 47.
[16] TSN dated August 26, 1996, pp. 9, 14-29.
[17] Id., pp. 30-35, 39.
[18] Accused-appellant's Brief, pp. 8-9, Rollo, pp. 54-55.
[19] Id., p. 13, Rollo, p. 59.
[20] Id., pp. 13-15, Rollo, pp. 59-61.
[21] People v. Aguilar, 222 SCRA 394, 408 (1993).
[22] People v. Salangga and Lopez, 234 SCRA 407, 417 (1994).
[23] People v. Lagmay 215 SCRA 218, 226 (1992).
[24] People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676, 718 (1995).
[25] People v. Furugganan, 193 SCRA 471, 480 (1991).
[26] 23 C.J.S., Sec. 910, pp. 596-597.
[27] People v. Umali, CA G.R. No. 02980-CR, April 26, 1965.
[28] Words and Phrases, supra, p. 489, citing State v. Brown, Del., 80 A. 146, 150, 2 Boyce, 405.
[29] Id., p. 488, citing Bridgeman v. U.S., 140 F. 577, 592, 72 C.C.A. 145.
[30] United States v. Lasada, supra, p. 97.
[31] People v. Paciente, 210 SCRA 86, 94 (1992).
[32] People v. Bondoy, 222 SCRA 216, 228 (1993).
[33] TSN dated July 29, 1996, p. 159.
[34] TSN dated August 12, 1996, p. 53.
[35] People v. Bacalzo, 195 SCRA 557, 564 (1991).
[36] TSN dated July 29, 1996, p. 173; TSN dated August 12, 1996, p. 46.
[37] Testimony of Dr. Jesus Nieves Vergara, PNP Crime Laboratory Medico Legal Officer, TSN dated August 26, 1996, pp. 16-18; 25-26; 29.
[38] TSN dated July 29, 1996, p. 159; TSN dated August 12, 1996, p. 53.
[39] People v. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998; People v. Victor, G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998.
[40] 267 SCRA 682 (1997).