G.R. No. 134084 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DOMINICO LICANDA Y BOLANTI, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused DOMINICO LICANDA y BOLANTI guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape, as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 7659. Accordingly, he shall serve the penalty of Death . By way of damages, and pursuant to Article 2202 of the Civil Code and Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, the accused shall pay complaining witness Nelita Mahinay the sum of P50,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. . . . . In this appeal, accused-appellants sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in convicting him despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [14] First. Accused-appellant capitalizes on Nelitas testimony that her father had his briefs on when he went on top of her and raped her. He contends that this proves that the rape was not consummated. [15] The contention has no merit. Admittedly, rape under the first paragraph of Art. 335 [16] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is consummated when there is penetration, no matter how slight, of the victims genitalia [17] under any of the circumstances enumerated therein. [18] It is also settled that inconsistencies between two statements of a witness should be determined not by considering words or phrases separately, but by the entire impression or effect of what has been said or done. [19] In this case, Nelita categorically stated that accused-appellant was able to have sexual intercourse with her (" Kinantot niya ako ") for less than an hour by threatening her with a bladed weapon, as a result of which she felt pain in her genitalia. This is an assertion that accused-appellant was able to consummate the rape. Her statement that her father was wearing briefs should be taken to mean, as the lower court said, [20] that accused-appellant was wearing briefs but he subsequently removed or lowered it during the sexual act to expose his penis. It is to be remembered that accused-appellant was sleeping beside his wife about a meter away from Nelita. It was unlikely then that he would pull down his briefs before moving over to Nelitas side. Indeed, when a woman ¾ in this case, a girl barely in her teens ¾ says she has been raped, she in effect says all that is necessary to show that she has been raped, provided her testimony is credible. [21] In this case, the trial court noted: [22] . . . . Despite her tender age and being unlettered, the complaining witness tearfully narrated the harrowing experiences she went through with her father, starting from the time she was only 12 years of age in Samar up to the time the family moved to Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. Complainants tearful testimony abundantly demonstrated her anguish, even anger. She was emotionally bruised and scarred for life. For instead of being protected and showered with the loving care of the very person