G.R. Nos. 148869-74 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. REMARIO PALMA Y ROMERA ALIAS "MARIO,".D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered finding accused Remario Palma y Romera, alias `Mario' GUILTY of two counts of rape and three counts of acts of lasciviousness perpetrated against one AAA. "As a consequence of this judgment and as provided for in Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, accused Palma being the victim's guardian and uncle and therefore, a relative within the third degree of affinity, each count of rape committed by him is punishable by death, which penalty shall be enforced by way of lethal injection. "For the counts of acts of lasciviousness, he shall serve the penalty of imprisonment for a period of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum for each count. He shall serve his sentence for these three crimes successively. "Accused is also ordered to pay private complainant a civil indemnity of One Hundred Fifty Thousand (P150,000.00) Pesos for the two counts of rape committed by him; P30,000.00 for the three acts of lasciviousness and moral damages in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos. "Any period of detention served by accused shall be credited in his favor conformably with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code. "He shall serve his sentence at the Bureau of Prisons facility at Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila." [8] Appellant, in an automatic appeal of his case to this Court, would contend that- "I "THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES OF RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. "II "THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE INACCURATE DESIGNATION IN THE INFORMATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE ACCUSED." [9] According to appellant, the testimony of AAA should not be given credence for it would be inconceivable, as well as contrary to human experience, for her to be able to accurately say that "only a part [two-thirds] of the penis [has been] inserted into her vagina." With respect to the second conviction for rape, appellant argues that the mere epidermal contact or a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the vagina or mons pubis of the victim is not, and does not constitute, rape. [10] Appellant seeks, at all events, the reversal of his conviction in each of the six criminal cases, including the three counts for acts of lasciviousness, claiming that the charges against him have all been fabricated. Finally, appellant questions the imposition on him by the trial court of the death penalty. Like the court a quo, this Court finds the testimony of AAA to be forthright, spontaneous and unflawed in almost all material respects. In open court, AAA testified: "Q Now in the second week of October 1997, in the morning do you recall where you were at that time? "A I remember, sir. "Q Where were you? "A I was in our house, sir. "Q Where is thi