G.R. Nos. 137834-40 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DOMINGO DOGAOJO Y MORANTE, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds accused DOMINGO DOGAOJO y MORANTE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of seven (7) counts of Rape defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and hereby sentences him to suffer seven (7) DEATH penalties (one for each count) and to pay private complainant Melinda Dogaojo the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages. With costs." [20] In this appeal, accused-appellant raises the lone assignment of error: "The trial court gravely erred in finding the accused guilty of seven (7) counts of rape despite the fact that the physical evidence failed to corroborate the charges." [21] Accused-appellant contends that Melinda's testimony should not be given credence as it is not corroborated by physical evidence. He harps on the medico-legal report indicating that the hymen of the alleged victim is still intact. The Office of the Solicitor General, instead of filing an appellee's brief, filed a manifestation and motion in lieu thereof. It is the position of the Solicitor General that the crime committed was merely attempted rape. It argues that although it was shown that accused-appellant has done several acts leading to the consummation of the crime, the prosecution failed to prove the element of carnal knowledge. It asserts that the evidence of the prosecution regarding carnal knowledge are conflicting. On one hand, Melinda testified that Domingo made a push and pull movement and she felt pain in her private part. On the other hand, the medico-legal report showed that there was no sexual contact as evidenced by the fact that the victim's hymen was found to be intact. These conflicting evidence, it is argued, put to doubt proof of carnal knowledge. We sustain the factual findings of the trial court. Accused-appellant was charged with qualified rape of an under-aged relative which is classified as heinous crime by Section 11 of RA 7659. [22] To convict the accused of the offense, the prosecution must allege and prove the ordinary elements of (1) sexual congress, (2) with a woman, (3) by force and without consent, and in order to warrant the imposition of death penalty, the additional elements that (4) the victim is under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape, and (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim. [23] In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to prove the existence of all these elements beyond a shadow of doubt. The defense did not dispute the fact that Melinda is the daughter of accused-appellant and that she was only eleven years old at the time of the alleged commission of the offense. They did not present evidence refuting the testimony of Melinda that accused-appellant is her father [24] and that she was born an November 19, 1984. [25] In fact, in their testimonies, both Domingo and Mila Dogaojo referred to Melinda as their daughter. [26] Moreover, when ask