People v. Llamo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Romeo Llamo y Bolivar was charged with rape for allegedly having sexual intercourse with his own daughter, Arlyn Llamo, who was 12 years old at the time. The incident allegedly occurred in October 1996 in Barangay Bismartz, Municipality of Don Carlos, Province of Bukidnon. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Branch 8, found Romeo Llamo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to suffer the maximum penalty of death under Republic Act No. 7659. He was also ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically questioning the medical findings in relation to the alleged date of the rape.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant committed rape against his daughter. Whether the medical finding of old healed lacerations in the victim's hymen negates the commission of rape. Whether the penalty of death was correctly imposed, considering the victim's age and the offender's relationship to her.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding the accused-appellant Romeo Llamo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and imposing the penalty of death. The Court ordered the accused-appellant to pay the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. The records were ordered to be forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of pardoning power.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused-appellant: The Court found the testimony of the 12-year-old victim, Arlyn Llamo, to be credible, simple, straightforward, and consistent. Despite her apparent low mental endowment, she provided a clear account of the incident. Her testimony was corroborated by an eyewitness, Dionesio Lora, who testified to seeing the accused-appellant on top of his daughter in a sugarcane field. The Court gave credence to the victim's positive assertion that her father was the perpetrator, finding it unlikely that a daughter would fabricate such a serious accusation against her own father. The trial court's observation of the victim's distress (involuntary urination when her father's name was mentioned) further supported her credibility. On the medical evidence: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the absence of fresh lacerations in the complainant's hymen does not prove she was not raped, and healed lacerations do not negate rape. The physician's finding of old healed lacerations was consistent with the possibility of prior sexual abuse, and did not contradict the victim's testimony or the eyewitness account of the incident on October 18, 1996. The Court cited previous rulings where healed lacerations did not prevent conviction for rape. On the penalty of death: The Court affirmed the imposition of the death penalty based on Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659. Specifically, the Court noted that the law mandates the death penalty when the crime of rape is committed with the attendant circumstance that the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent of the victim. In this case, Arlyn was 12 years old, and Romeo Llamo was her father. Both elements were alleged in the information and proven during the trial, including the admission of paternity and the victim's minority. The Court acknowledged that four justices maintained their stance on the unconstitutionality of the death penalty but submitted to the majority ruling that the law was constitutional and applicable.
Main Doctrine
The crime of rape committed by a parent on his daughter under eighteen (18) years of age warrants the imposition of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 7659, as amended. The presence of healed lacerations in the hymen does not negate the commission of rape, and the victim's testimony, if credible, is sufficient for conviction.