People v. Derpo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Beda Derpo, offered to shoulder the educational expenses of Rhodora Hara, who was born on November 21, 1959. Rhodora's father accepted the offer, and Rhodora stayed in the appellant's house to attend high school. On July 16, 1971, at midnight, appellant allegedly kissed Rhodora while she was asleep and warned her not to tell anyone, threatening to kill her if she disobeyed. On August 22, 1971, appellant allegedly entered Rhodora's room, gave her a tablet for her toothache, causing her to become drowsy. Upon waking, she found appellant on top of her, engaged in sexual intercourse. He again threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. Similar incidents allegedly occurred on September 30, 1971, and October 3, 1971. On November 27, 1971, appellant allegedly entered Rhodora's room with a bladed instrument and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her. Rhodora's movement caused a noise that awakened appellant's wife, leading to a quarrel. Rhodora escaped and reported the incidents to her parents. She was examined by Dr. Reynaldo Instrella on December 2, 1971, who issued a medical certificate stating findings of slight congestion in the vulva, an enlarged vaginal opening beyond that of a normal virgin woman, and multiple healed and slightly fresh/partially healed lacerations of the hymen, concluding that penetration was very positive and had occurred recently. Procedural History: The accused was charged with rape in four separate criminal complaints before the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon. The cases were tried jointly, and the lower court rendered a joint judgment of conviction, sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each offense and to indemnify the offended party. The accused appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant sought reversal of his conviction, assigning twelve errors to the trial court, primarily questioning the credibility of the victim and her parents, the validity of the medical findings, and the conclusion that rape was committed.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in not considering the testimony of Augusto Hara regarding a prior medical examination by Dr. Arturo Perdigon. Whether the trial court erred in finding that Rhodora Hara was not engaged in habitual sexual intercourse. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that Rhodora Hara and her parents were simple barrio folks incapable of fabricating charges, and that the charges were not products of concoction. Whether the trial court erred in finding that rape was committed on August 22, 1971, September 30, 1971, and October 3, 1971, when Rhodora was under twelve years of age. Whether the trial court erred in finding that rape was committed on November 27, 1971, through force and intimidation. Whether the trial court erred in its findings regarding the healed and fresh lacerations of the hymen. Whether the trial court erred in finding that Rhodora Hara was given a sleeping tablet by the accused. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court with modification, increasing the indemnity to P20,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged prior medical examination by Dr. Arturo Perdigon: The Court held that the trial court was not required to state all facts found in the records, and the omission of Augusto Hara's testimony before a previous judge did not mean it was overlooked. The Court agreed with the trial court that Augusto Hara was incompetent to testify on the findings of Dr. Perdigon, and the medical certificate itself was the best evidence. Furthermore, the defense failed to introduce the alleged medical certificate or present Dr. Perdigon as a witness, rendering this assignment of error without merit. On the issue of habitual sexual intercourse: The Court stated that whether the victim was engaged in habitual sexual intercourse is immaterial in a rape case. Rape is committed if the act of sexual intercourse is attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, regardless of the victim's prior sexual history. On the credibility of Rhodora Hara and her parents and the alleged concoction of charges: The Court found the appellant's arguments untenable. The trial court's conclusion regarding the simplicity of the barrio folks was based not only on their residence but also on the observed demeanor and manner of the witnesses. The court considered Rhodora's tender age, the possible motives of her parents, their scant education, and the manner in which Rhodora narrated the details of her ordeal. The court also noted the candidness of Augusto Hara in admitting a prior examination, which strengthened the conclusion of his simplicity. The claim of concoction failed against the positive indications of virginity found by Dr. Instrella and the lack of any valid motive for Rhodora and her parents to implicate the appellant. On the commission of rape on victims below twelve years of age: The Court reiterated that carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve years old is always rape, even without force or intimidation, and even if the victim consented or was unconscious. This principle applies to Criminal Case Nos. 271, 272, and 273. The Court found evidence that the complainant was awakened during the acts, indicating force, and that the appellant's threats instilled fear, making her an "easy prey." On the commission of rape on November 27, 1971, through force and intimidation: For Criminal Case No. 274, where Rhodora was over twelve years old, the element of force or intimidation was material. The evidence showed that the appellant used threats and held a bladed instrument, establishing the use of force and intimidation. On the findings regarding hymenal lacerations: The Court found no error in the trial court's conclusion that healed lacerations indicated previous connections with the accused, and that fresh lacerations could have been caused by the incident on November 27, 1971, as substantiated by Dr. Instrella's expert testimony. The attempt to blame someone else failed due to the lack of motive for Rhodora and her parents to fabricate charges. On the administration of a sleeping tablet: The Court dismissed the contention, stating it was a pretext to render the child drowsy and helpless to consummate his sexual desire, and that he was successful in both counts. On the guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found sufficient evidence on record pointing to the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. On the denial of motion for new trial: The denial of the motion for a new trial was proper as the conditions for newly discovered evidence were not met.
Main Doctrine
Carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve (12) years old is always rape, even if the accused did not use force or intimidation and even if the victim was not deprived of reason or otherwise made unconscious, and even if she had agreed. The presence of healed and fresh lacerations in the hymen, coupled with the victim's testimony and the medical findings, sufficiently establishes the commission of rape.