People v. Espino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Emmanuel Espino y Cobe, was charged with Rape for allegedly having carnal knowledge of Felisa Gaerlan, who was below 12 years of age, on February 26, 1990, by means of force, violence, and intimidation. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Third Judicial Region, Branch 58, Angeles City, convicted the accused-appellant of Rape under Article 335(3) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the victim, and to pay the costs. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision, arguing that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, citing the findings of the physician and alleged contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape. Whether the medical findings and alleged inconsistencies in witness testimonies warrant acquittal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the RTC, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under Article 335(3) of the Revised Penal Code. The sentence of reclusion perpetua was affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused-appellant for statutory rape: The Court held that the crime of statutory rape, as defined under Article 335(3) of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by the mere fact of sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve years of age. Violence or intimidation is not required, and even the consent of the minor is not a defense because a child less than twelve years of age cannot be considered to have a will of her own. In this case, it was uncontroverted that the complainant, Felisa Gaerlan, was only ten years, eleven months, and sixteen days old on the date of the incident. Therefore, a conclusive showing of sexual intercourse with her would justify conviction. The prosecution successfully made such a showing through the testimonies of the complainant and the eyewitness, Ruben Aquino. On the medical findings and alleged inconsistencies: The Court found the medical findings of Dr. Eugenio R. Yosuico to be compatible with the commission of statutory rape. The absence of fresh laceration wounds or semen in the complainant's sexual organ did not negate the offense, as statutory rape does not require force or intimidation. Dr. Yosuico himself admitted that it was possible for rape to occur even without lacerations or semen if the perpetrator had a small penis and did not ejaculate, which was consistent with the complainant's testimony that the act lasted only for a short while and the police intervention that interrupted the act. The Court also found the alleged inconsistencies between the testimonies of the complainant and Ruben Aquino to be minor and did not negate the commission of the crime or the identification of the accused-appellant. The testimonies were found to be credible and complementary, and there was no showing of improper motive for the witnesses to falsely accuse the accused-appellant.
Main Doctrine
The crime of statutory rape under Article 335(3) of the Revised Penal Code is committed by the mere fact of sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve years of age, irrespective of the presence or absence of force, intimidation, or consent, as a minor below twelve years of age cannot be considered to have a will of her own.