People v. Basas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Leonardo Basas, Nestor Gregorio, Rogelio Cadag, and Gerardo Maingat appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila convicting them of rape and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. The victim, Gloria Badilla, 18, a first-year high school student, was accosted by the four appellants after alighting from a jeepney. They dragged her to a vacant hut, removed her clothes, and took turns sexually abusing her while others held her. A lookout warned them of approaching individuals, causing the appellants to flee. The victim identified the appellants to the barangay chairman on the same night. Medical examination revealed no laceration of the hymen but a fresh contusion and hyperemia, indicating penetration without ejaculation. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted the accused of rape and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Gerardo Maingat withdrew his appeal. The trial court convicted the accused of one crime of rape despite separate informations. The Petition: Appellants Basas, Gregorio, and Cadag contended that the testimonies of the victim and the lookout were incredible, that they were not positively identified, and that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the appellants for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the absence of hymen laceration and sperm cells in the victim's vagina negates the consummation of rape. Whether the appellants are guilty of one or four counts of rape. Whether nocturnity and abuse of superior strength are aggravating circumstances. Whether the minority of the appellants constitutes a privileged mitigating circumstance.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court on the appellants Basas, Gregorio, and Cadag is modified. They are each sentenced to four indeterminate penalties of nine years of prision mayor medium as minimum to fifteen years of reclusion temporal medium as maximum and to pay solidarily Gloria Badilla an indemnity of P20,000. Costs de oficio. The Court also brought the case to the attention of the President of the Philippines for the purpose of reducing the penalties.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the guilt of the appellants for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found no reason to doubt the credibility of the victim and the lookout. Their identification of the appellants was made within two hours after the perpetration of the acts complained of, leaving no shadow of doubt as to their guilt. The testimonies of Gloria and Ruben prove beyond reasonable doubt appellants' complicity in the rape. On Whether the absence of hymen laceration and sperm cells in the victim's vagina negates the consummation of rape: The Court held that the rupturing of the hymen is not indispensable to a conviction of the consummated crime of rape. Entry of the labia of the female organ without rupture or laceration is generally held to be sufficient. The medical findings of a fresh contusion of the hymen and hyperemia of the hymen and perihymeneal tissue, despite the absence of laceration and sperm cells, indicated penetration. The Court cited established jurisprudence that penetration without laceration is sufficient for consummated rape. On Whether the appellants are guilty of one or four counts of rape: The Court ruled that the trial court erred in holding that there was only one rape. It is settled that in multiple rape, each defendant is responsible not only for the rape committed by him personally but also for the rape committed by the others, because each one of them cooperated in the consummation of the rape committed by the others, by acts without which it could not have been accomplished. Hence, four rapes were committed in this case. On Whether nocturnity and abuse of superior strength are aggravating circumstances: The Court held that nocturnity is not aggravating as there was no clear evidence that it was purposely sought by the accused. The ruling in People vs. De Guzman and De la Cruz that abuse of superior strength is aggravating in rape perpetrated by three persons was deemed not applicable because the circumstance that the rape was committed by two or more persons was already taken into account in fixing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for this kind of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. On Whether the minority of the appellants constitutes a privileged mitigating circumstance: The Court found that the three appellants, Cadag, Basas, and Gregorio, were entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority as they were over 15 but below 18 years old when the crime was committed. Consequently, their penalty must be lowered by one degree, from reclusion perpetua to reclusion temporal. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty imposable on them was taken from prision mayor medium and the maximum from reclusion temporal medium, with four such penalties imposed subject to the three-fold rule and the forty-year limit.
Main Doctrine
The rupturing of the hymen is not indispensable to a conviction of the consummated crime of rape; entry of the labia of the female organ without rupture or laceration is generally held to be sufficient. Penetration of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, constitutes consummated rape. The minority of the accused, being over 15 but below 18 years old, entitles them to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, lowering the penalty by one degree.