G.R. No.

117472 June 25, 1996

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.

PER CURIAM:p

Amidst the endless debates on whether or not the reimposition of the death penalty is indeed
a deterrent as far as the commission of heinous crimes is concerned and while the attendant
details pertaining to the execution of a death sentence remain as yet another burning issue,
we are tasked with providing a clear-cut resolution of whether or not the herein accused-
appellant deserves to forfeit his place in human society for the infliction of the primitive and
bestial act of incestuous lust on his own blood.

Before us for automatic review is the judgment of conviction, dated September 7, 1994, for
the crime of Rape, rendered after marathon hearing by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 104, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused LEO

ECHEGARAY Y PILO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE
as charged in the complaint, aggravated by the fact that the same was
commited by the accused who is the father/stepfather of the complainant, he
is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH, as provided for under
RA. No. 7659, to pay the complainant Rodessa Echegaray the sum
of P50,000.00 as damages, plus all the accessory penalties provided by law,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.1

We note, however, that the charge had been formulated in this manner:

COMPLAINT

The undersigned accuses LEO ECHEGARAY Y PILO of the crime of RAPE,

committed as follows:

That on or about the month of April 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned
complainant, his daughter, a minor, 10 years of age, all against her will and
without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW2

Upon being arraigned on August 1, 1994, the accused-appellant, assisted by his counsel de
oficio, entered the plea of "not guilty."

These are the pertinent facts of the case as summarized by the Solicitor-General in his brief:

This is a case of rape by the father of his ten-year old daughter.

 Complainant RODESSA ECHEGARAY is a ten-year old girl and a fifth-
grader, born on September 11, 1983. Rodessa is the eldest of five siblings.
She has three brothers aged 6, 5 and 2, respectively, and a 3-month old baby
sister. Her parents are Rosalie and Leo Echegaray, the latter being the
accused-appellant himself. The victim lives with her family in a small house
located at No. 199 Fernandez St., Barangay San Antonio, San Francisco Del
Monte, Quezon City (pp. 5-9, Aug. 9, 1994, TSN).

Sometime in the afternoon of April 1994, while Rodessa was looking after her
three brothers in their house as her mother attended a gambling session in
another place, she heard her father, the accused-appellant in this case, order
her brothers to go out of the house (pp. 10-11, ibid). As soon as her brothers
left, accused-appellant Leo Echegaray approached Rodessa and suddenly
dragged her inside the room (p. 12, ibid). Before she could question the
appellant, the latter immediately, removed her panty and made her lie on the
floor (p. 13, ibid). Thereafter, appellant likewise removed his underwear and
immediately placed himself on top of Rodessa. Subsequently, appellant
forcefully inserted his penis into Rodessa's organ causing her to suffer
intense pain (pp. 14-15, ibid). While appellant was pumping on her, he even
uttered. "Masarap ba, masarap ba?" and to which Rodessa answered: "Tama
na Papa, masakit" (p. 16, ibid). Rodessa's plea proved futile as appellant
continued with his act. After satisfying his bestial instinct, appellant threatened
to kill her mother if she would divulge what had happened. Scared that her
mother would be killed by appellant, Rodessa kept to herself the ordeal she
suffered. She was very afraid of appellant because the latter, most of the
time, was high on drugs (pp. 17-18, ibid.). The same sexual assault happened
up to the fifth time and this usually took place when her mother was out of the
house (p. 19, ibid.). However, after the fifth time, Rodessa decided to inform
her grandmother, Asuncion Rivera, who in turn told Rosalie, Radessa's
mother. Rodessa and her mother proceeded to the Barangay Captain where
Rodessa confided the sexual assaults she suffered. Thereafter, Rodessa was
brought to the precinct where she executed an affidavit (p. 21, ibid.). From
there, she was accompanied to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory for medical examination (p. 22, ibid.).

Rodessa testified that the said sexual assaults happened only during the time
when her mother was pregnant. Rodessa added that at first, her mother was
on her side. However, when appellant was detained, her mother kept on
telling her. "Kawawa naman ang Tatay mo, nakakulong" (pp. 39-40, ibid.).

When Rodessa was examined by the medico-legal officer in the person of

Dra. Ma. Cristina B. Preyna,3 the complainant was described as physically on
a non-virgin state, as evidenced by the presence of laceration of the hymen of
said complainant (TSN, Aug. 22, 1995, pp. 8-9).4

On the other hand, the accused-appellant's brief presents a different story:

. . . the defense presented its first witness, Rosalie Echegaray. She asserted
that the RAPE charge against the accused was only the figment of her
mothers dirty mind. That her daughter's complaint was forced upon her by her
grandma and the answers in the sworn statement of Rodessa were coached.
That the accusation of RAPE was motivated by Rodessa's grandmother's
greed over the lot situated at the Madrigal Estate-NHA Project, Barangay San
Antonio, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, which her grandmother's
paramour, Conrado Alfonso gave to the accused in order to persuade the
latter to admit that Rodessa executed an affidavit of desistance after it turned
out that her complaint of attempted homicide was substituted with the crime of
RAPE at the instance of her mother. That when her mother came to know
about the affidavit of desistance, she placed her granddaughter under the
custody of the Barangay Captain. That her mother was never a real mother to
her.

She stated that her complaint against accused was for attempted homicide as
her husband poured alcohol on her body and attempted to burn her. She
identified the certification issued by the NHA and Tag No. 87-0393 (Exh. 2).
That the Certification based on the Masterlist (Exh. 3) indicates that the
property is co-owned by accused and Conrado Alfonso. That Rodessa is her
daughter sired by Conrado Alfonso, the latter being the paramour of her
mother. That Conrado Alfonso waived his right and participation over the lot in
favor of the accused in consideration of the latter's accepting the fact that he
is the father of Rodessa to simulate the love triangle and to conceal the
nauseating sex orgies from Conrado Alfonso's real wife.

Accused testified in his behalf and stated that the grandmother of the
complainant has a very strong motive in implicating him to the crime of RAPE
since she was interested to become the sole owner of a property awarded to
her live-in partner by the Madrigal Estate-NHA Project. That he could not
have committed the imputed crime because he considers Rodessa as his
own daughter. That he is a painter-contractor and on the date of the alleged
commission of the crime, he was painting the house of one Divina Ang of
Barangay Vitalis, Parañaque, Metro Manila (Exh. 4). The travel time between
his work place to his residence is three (3) hours considering the condition of
traffic. That the painting contract is evidenced by a document denominated
"Contract of Services" duly accomplished (see submarkings of Exh. 4). He
asserted that he has a big sexual organ which when used to a girl 11 years
old like Rodessa, the said female organ will be "mawawarak." That it is
abnormal to report the imputed commission of the crime to the grandmother
of the victim.

Accused further stated that her (sic) mother-in-law trumped-up a charge of

drug pushing earlier and he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of using drugs.
The decretal portion of the judgment of conviction ordering the accused to be
confined at the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center irked the grandmother of
Rodessa because it was her wish that accused should be meted the death
penalty.

Accused remain steadfast in his testimony perorating the strong motive of

Rodessa's grandmother in implicating him in this heinous crime because of
her greed to become the sole owner of that piece of property at the National
Housing Authority-Madrigal Project, situated at San Francisco del Monte,
Quezon City, notwithstanding rigid cross-examination. He asserted that the
imputed offense is far from his mind considering that he treated Rodessa as
his own daughter. He categorically testified that he was in his painting job site
on the date and time of the alleged commission of the crime.

Mrs. Punzalan was presented as third defense witness. She said that she is
the laundry woman and part time baby sitter of the family of accused. That at
one time, she saw Rodessa reading sex books and the Bulgar newspaper.
 That while hanging washed clothes on the vacant lot, she saw Rodessa
masturbating by tinkering her private parts. The masturbation took sometime.

This sexual fling of Rodessa were corroborated by Silvestra Echegaray, the

fourth and last witness for the defense. She stated that she tried hard to
correct the flirting tendency of Rodessa and that she scolded her when she
saw Rodessa viewing an X-rated tape. Rodessa according to her was fond of
going with friends of ill-repute. That (sic) she corroborated the testimony of
Mrs. Punzalan by stating that she herself saw Rodessa masturbating inside
the room of her house.5

In finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, the
lower court dismissed the defense of alibi and lent credence to the straightforward testimony
of the ten-year old victim to whom no ill motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant
can be attributed. The lower court likewise regarded as inconsequential the defense of the
accused-appellant that the extraordinary size of his penis could not have insinuated itself
into the victim's vagina and that the accused is not the real father of the said victim.

The accused-appellant now reiterates his position in his attempt to seek a reversal of the
lower court's verdict through the following assignment of errors:

1. THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE

SINISTER MOTIVE OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S
GRANDMOTHER? THAT PRECIPITATED THE FILING OF
THE CHARGE OF RAPE, HENCE IT ERRED IN HOLDING
ACCUSED GUILTY AS CHARGED.

2. THE COURT BELOW OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT

THE HEALED LACERATIONS AT 3 AND 7 O'CLOCK COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE PUMPING OF THE PENIS
OF ACCUSED TO THE VAGINA OF PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT, HENCE IT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
ACCUSED COMMITTED THE CRIME CHARGED,
NOTWITHSTANDING VEHEMENT DENIAL.

3. THE COURT A QUO WHIMSICALLY IGNORED THE

DEFENSE OF ALIBI THAT ACCUSED WAS IN PARAÑAQUE
ON THE DATE AND TIME OF THE IMPUTED CRIME
HENCE, IT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ALIBI IS NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN THE CASE AT BAR.6

Considering that a rape charge, in the light of the reimposition of the death penalty, requires
a thorough and judicious examination of the circumstances relating thereto, this Court
remains guided by the following principles in evaluating evidence in cases of this nature: (a)
An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for
the accused though innocent to disprove; (b) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of
rape where only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) The evidence for the prosecution must stand and
fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense. 7

Anent the first assigned error, no amount of persuasion can convince this Court to tilt the
scales of justice in favor of the accused-appellant notwithstanding that he cries foul insisting
that the rape charge was merely concocted and strongly motivated by greed over a certain
lot situated at the NHA-Madrigal Estate Housing Project, Barangay San Antonio, San
Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. The accused-appellant theorizes that prosecution
witness Asuncion Rivera, the maternal grandmother of the victim Rodessa, concocted the
charge of rape so that, in the event that the accused-appellant shall be meted out a death
sentence, title to the lot will be consolidated in her favor. Indeed, the lot in question is co-
owned by the accused-appellant and Conrado Alfonso, the live-in partner of Asuncion
Rivera, according to the records of the National Housing Authority (Exh. "3"). The accused-
appellant would want us to believe that the rape charge was fabricated by Asuncion Rivera
in order to eliminate the accused-appellant from being a co-owner. So, the live-in partners
would have the property for their own.8

We believe, as did the Solicitor-General, that no grandmother would be so callous as to

instigate her 10-year old granddaughter to file a rape case against her own father simply on
account of her alleged interest over the disputed lot.9

It is a well-entrenched jurisprudential rule that the testimony of a rape victim is credible

where she has no motive to testify against the accused. 10

We find no flaws material enough to discredit the testimony of the ten-year old Rodessa
which the trial court found convincing enough and unrebutted by the defense. The trial court
not surprisingly noted that Rodessa's narration in detail of her father's monstrous acts had
made her cry.11 Once again, we rule that:

. . . The testimony of the victim who was only 12 years old at the time of the
rape as to the circumstances of the rape must be given weight, for testimony
of young and immature rape victims are credible (People v. Guibao, 217
SCRA 64 [1993]). No woman especially one of tender age, practically only a
girl, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private
parts and thereafter expose herself to a public trial, if she were not motivated
solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished (People v.
Guibao, supra). 12

The accused-appellant points out certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of the

prosecution witnesses in his attempt to bolster his claim that the rape accusation against him
is malicious and baseless. Firstly, Rodessa's testimony that the accused-appellant was
already naked when he dragged her inside the room is inconsistent with her subsequent
testimony that the said accused-appellant was still wearing short pants when she was
dragged inside the room. Secondly, Rodessa's sworn statement before the police
investigator which indicated that, while the accused was executing pumping acts, he uttered
the words "Masarap ba?", differ from her testimony in court wherein she related that, when
the accused took out his penis from her vagina, the accused said "Masarap, tapos na."
Thirdly, the victim's grandmother, Asuncion Rivera, recounted in her sworn statement that it
was the accused who went to see her to apprise her of the rape committed on her
granddaughter. However, in her testimony in court , Asuncion Rivera claimed that she was
the one who invited the accused-appellant to see her in her house so as to tell her a
secret.13 These alleged discrepancies merely pertain to minor details which in no way pose
serious doubt as to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Whether or not the accused
was naked when he dragged Rodessa inside the room where he sexually assaulted her
bears no significant effect on Rodessa's testimony that she was actually raped by the
accused-appellant. Moreover, a conflicting account of whatever words were uttered by the
accused-appellant after he forcefully inserted his penis into Rodessa's private organ against
her will cannot impair the prosecution's evidence as a whole. A determination of which
version earmarks the truth as to how the victim's grandmother learned about the rape is
inconsequential to the judgment of conviction.
As we have pronounced in the case of People v. Jaymalin: 14

This Court has stated time and again that minor inconsistencies in the
narration of the witness do not detract from its essential credibility as long as
it is on the whole coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in
fact suggest that the witness is telling the truth and has not been rehearsed
as it is not to he expected that he will be able to remember every single detail
of an incident with perfect or total recall.

After due deliberation, this Court finds that the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of
the prosecution witnesses deserves our utmost respect in the absence of arbitrariness.

With respect to the second assigned error, the records of the instant case are bereft of clear
and concrete proof of the accused-appellant's claim as to the size of his penis and that if that
be the fact, it could not have merely caused shallow healed lacerations at 3:00 and 7:00
o'clock. 15 In his testimony, the accused-appellant stated that he could not have raped
Rodessa because of
the size of his penis which could have ruptured her vagina had he actually done so. 16 This
Court gives no probative value on the accused-appellant's self-serving statement in the light
of our ruling in the case of People v. Melivo, supra,17 that:

The vaginal wall and the hymenal membrane are elastic organs capable of
varying degrees of distensibility. The degree of distensibility of the female
reproductive organ is normally limited only by the character and size of the
pelvic inlet, other factors being minor. The female reprodructive canal being
capable of allowing passage of a regular fetus, there ought to be no difficulty
allowing the entry of objects of much lesser size, including the male
reproductive organ, which even in its largest dimensions, would still be
considerably smaller than the full-term fetus.

xxx xxx xxx

In the case at bench, the presence of healed lacerations in various parts of

he vaginal wall, though not as extensive as appellant might have expected
them to be, indicate traumatic injury to the area within the period when the
incidents were supposed to have occurred. (At pp. 13-14, emphasis supplied)

In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element thereof. 18 A mere knocking at
the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the
crime of rape as full entry into the victim's vagina is not required to sustain a conviction. 19
In the case, Dr. Freyra, the medico-legal examiner, categorically testified that the healed
lacerations of Rodessa on her vagina were consistent with the date of the commission of the
rape as narrated by the victim to have taken place in April, 1994. 20

Lastly, the third assigned error deserves scant consideration. The accused-appellant
erroneously argues that the Contract of Services (Exhibit 4) offered as evidence in support of
the accused-appellant's defense of alibi need not be corroborated because there is no law
expressly requiring so. 21 In view of our finding that the prosecution witnesses have no
motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellant, the defense of alibi, in this case,
uncorroborated by other witnesses, should be completely disregarded. 22 More importantly,
the defense of alibi which is inherently weak becomes even weaker in the face of positive
identification of the accused-appellant as perpetrator of the crime of rape by his victim,
Rodessa. 23
The Contract of Services whereby the accused-appellant obligated himself to do some
painting job at the house of one Divina Ang in Parañaque, Metro Manila, within 25 days from
April 4, 1994, is not proof of the whereabouts of the accused-appellant at the time of the
commission of the offense.

The accused-appellant in this case is charged with Statutory Rape on the basis of the
complaint, dated July 14, 1994. The gravamen of the said offense, as stated in paragraph 3,
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve
years old. 24 Rodessa positively identified his father accused-appellant, as the culprit of
Statutory Rape. Her account of how the accused-appellant succeeded in consummating his
grievous and odious sexual assault on her is free from any substantial self-contradiction. It is
highly inconceivable that it is rehearsed and fabricated upon instructions from Rodessa's
maternal grandmother Asuncion Rivera as asserted by the accused-appellant. The words of
Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando, speaking for the Court, more than two decades ago, are
relevant and worth reiterating, thus:

. . . it is manifest in the decisions of this Court that where the offended parties
are young and immature girls like the victim in this case, (Cited cases
omitted) there is marked receptivity on its, part to tend credence to their
version of what transpired. It is not to be wondered at. The state, as parens
patria, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those, who,
because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully.
Those of tender years deserve its utmost protection. Moreover, the injury in
cases of rape is not inflicted on the unfortunate victim alone. The
consternation it causes her family must also be taken into account It may
reflect a failure to abide by the announced concern in the fundamental law for
such institution There is all the more reason then for the rigorous application
of the penal law with its severe penalty for this offense, whenever warranted.
It has been aptly remarked that with the advance in civilization, the disruption
in public peace and order it represents defies explanation, much more so in
view of what currently appears to be a tendency for sexual permissiveness.
Where the prospects of relationship based on consent are hardly minimal,
self-restraint should even be more marked. 25

Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 often referred to as the Death Penalty Law, Art.
335 of the Revised Penal Code was amended, to wit:

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with
any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. When the victim is under eigthteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim.

xxx xxx xxx

(Emphasis supplied)

Apparently, as a last glimpse of hope, the accused-appellant questions the penalty imposed
by the trial court by declaring that he is neither a father, stepfather or grandfather of Rodessa
although he was a confirmed lover of Rodessa's mother. 26 On direct examination, he
admitted that before the charge of rape was riled against him, he had treated Rodessa as his
real daughter and had provided for her food, clothing, shelter and education. 27 The Court
notes that Rodessa uses the surname of the accused-appellant, not Rivera (her mother's
maiden name) nor Alfonso (her grandmother's live-in partner). Moreover, Rodessa's mother
stated during the cross-examination that she, the accused-appellant, and her five children,
including Rodessa, had been residing in one house only. 28 At any rate, even if he were not
the father, stepfather or grandfather of Rodessa, this disclaimer cannot save him from the
abyss where perpetrators of heinous crimes ought to be, as mandated by law. Considering
that the accused-appellant is a confirmed lover of Rodessa's mother, 29 he falls squarely
within the aforequoted portion of the Death Penalty Law under the term "common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim."

The fact that the ten-year old Rodessa referred to the accused-appellant as "Papa" is reason
enough to conclude that accused-appellant is either the father or stepfather of Rodessa.
Thus, the act of sexual assault perpetrated by the accused on his young victim has become
all the more repulsive and perverse. The victim's tender age and the accused-appellant's
moral ascendancy and influence over her are factors which forced Rodessa to succumb to
the accused's selfish and bestial craving. The law has made it inevitable under the
circumstances of this case that the accused-appellant face the supreme penalty of death.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
104.

SO ORDERED.