EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 132875-76. February 3, 2000]

PEOPLE OF TE P!L!PP!NE", plaintif-appellee,
vs. RO#EO G. $%LO"$O", accused-appellant.
R E " O L & T ! O N
'N%RE"-"%NT!%GO, J.(
The accused-appellant, Romeo G. Jalosjos is a full-fedged
meme! of Cong!ess "ho is no" con#ned at the national
penitentia!$ "hile his con%iction fo! statuto!$ !ape on t"o
counts and acts of lasci%iousness on si& counts
'()
is pending
appeal. The accused-appellant #led this motion as*ing that
he e allo"ed to full$ discha!ge the duties of a
Cong!essman, including attendance at legislati%e sessions
and committee meetings despite his ha%ing een con%icted
in the #!st instance of a non-ailale o+ense.
The issue !aised is one of #!st imp!ession.
,oes meme!ship in Cong!ess e&empt an accused f!om
statutes and !ules "hich appl$ to %alidl$ inca!ce!ated
pe!sons in gene!al- .n ans"e!ing the /ue!$, "e a!e called
upon to alance !ele%ant and conficting facto!s in the
judicial inte!p!etation of legislati%e p!i%ilege in the conte&t
of penal la".
The accused-appellant0s 12otion To Be Allo"ed To ,ischa!ge
2andate As 2eme! of 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es1 "as #led
on the g!ounds that 4
(. Accused-appellant0s !eelection eing an
e&p!ession of popula! "ill cannot e !ende!ed
inutile $ an$ !uling, gi%ing p!io!it$ to an$
!ight o! inte!est 4 not e%en the police po"e! of
the 5tate.
6. To dep!i%e the electo!ate of thei! elected
!ep!esentati%e amounts to ta&ation "ithout
!ep!esentation.
7. To a! accused-appellant f!om pe!fo!ming
his duties amounts to his suspension8!emo%al
and moc*s the !ene"ed mandate ent!usted to
him $ the people.
9. The electo!ate of the :i!st ,ist!ict of
;amoanga del No!te "ants thei! %oice to e
hea!d.
<. A p!ecedent-setting =.5. !uling allo"ed a
detained la"ma*e! to attend sessions of the
=.5. Cong!ess.
>. The 3ouse t!eats accused-appellant as
a bona fde meme! the!eof and u!ges a co-
e/ual !anch of go%e!nment to !espect its
mandate.
?. The concept of tempo!a!$ detention does
not necessa!il$ cu!tail the dut$ of accused-
appellant to discha!ge his mandate.
@. Accused-appellant has al"a$s complied
"ith the conditions8!est!ictions "hen allo"ed
to lea%e jail.
The p!ima!$ a!gument of the mo%ant is the 1mandate of
so%e!eign "ill.1 3e states that the so%e!eign electo!ate of
the :i!st ,ist!ict of ;amoanga del No!te chose him as thei!
!ep!esentati%e in Cong!ess. 3a%ing een !e-elected $ his
constituents, he has the dut$ to pe!fo!m the functions of a
(
Cong!essman. 3e calls this a co%enant "ith his constituents
made possile $ the inte!%ention of the 5tate. 3e adds that
it cannot e defeated $ insupe!ale p!ocedu!al !est!aints
a!ising f!om pending c!iminal cases.
T!ue, election is the e&p!ession of the so%e!eign po"e! of
the people. .n the e&e!cise of su+!age, a f!ee people e&pects
to achie%e the continuit$ of go%e!nment and the
pe!petuation of its ene#ts. 3o"e%e!, inspite of its
impo!tance, the p!i%ileges and !ights a!ising f!om ha%ing
een elected ma$ e enla!ged o! !est!icted $ la". Au! #!st
tas* is to asce!tain the applicale la".
Be sta!t "ith the incontestale p!oposition that all top
oCcials of Go%e!nment-e&ecuti%e, legislati%e, and judicial
a!e suject to the majest$ of la". The!e is an unfo!tunate
misimp!ession in the pulic mind that election o!
appointment to high go%e!nment oCce, $ itself, f!ees the
oCcial f!om the common !est!aints of gene!al la". D!i%ilege
has to e g!anted $ la", not infe!!ed f!om the duties of a
position. .n fact, the highe! the !an*, the g!eate! is the
!e/ui!ement of oedience !athe! than e&emption.
The immunit$ f!om a!!est o! detention of 5enato!s and
meme!s of the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es, the latte!
customa!il$ add!essed as Cong!essmen, a!ises f!om a
p!o%ision of the Constitution. The histo!$ of the p!o%ision
sho"s that the p!i%ilege has al"a$s een g!anted in a
!est!icti%e sense. The p!o%ision g!anting an e&emption as a
special p!i%ilege cannot e e&tended e$ond the o!dina!$
meaning of its te!ms. .t ma$ not e e&tended $
intendment, implication o! e/uitale conside!ations.
The (E7< Constitution p!o%ided in its A!ticle F. on the
Gegislati%e ,epa!tmentH
5ec. (<. The 5enato!s and 2eme!s of the
3ouse of Rep!esentati%es shall in all cases
e&cept t!eason, felon$, and !each of the
peace e p!i%ileged f!om a!!est du!ing thei!
attendance at the sessions of Cong!ess, and
in going to and !etu!ning f!om the sameI &&&.
Because of the !oad co%e!age of felon$ and !each of the
peace, the e&emption applied onl$ to ci%il a!!ests. A
cong!essman li*e the accused-appellant, con%icted unde!
Title Ele%en of the Re%ised Denal Code could not claim
pa!liamenta!$ immunit$ f!om a!!est. 3e "as suject to the
same gene!al la"s go%e!ning all pe!sons still to e t!ied o!
"hose con%ictions "e!e pending appeal.
The (E?7 Constitution !oadened the p!i%ilege of immunit$
as follo"sH
A!ticle F..., 5ec. E. A 2eme! of the Batasang
Damansa shall, in all o+enses punishale $
not mo!e than si& $ea!s imp!isonment, e
p!i%ileged f!om a!!est du!ing his attendance
at its sessions and in going to and !etu!ning
f!om the same.
:o! o+enses punishale $ mo!e than si& $ea!s
imp!isonment, the!e "as no immunit$ f!om a!!est. The
!est!icti%e inte!p!etation of immunit$ and the intent to
con#ne it "ithin ca!efull$ de#ned pa!amete!s is illust!ated
$ the concluding po!tion of the p!o%ision, to "itH
&&& ut the Batasang Damansa shall
su!!ende! the meme! in%ol%ed to the
custod$ of the la" "ithin t"ent$ fou! hou!s
afte! its adjou!nment fo! a !ecess o! fo! its
ne&t session, othe!"ise such p!i%ilege shall
cease upon its failu!e to do so.
The p!esent Constitution adhe!es to the same !est!icti%e
!ule minus the oligation of Cong!ess to su!!ende! the
suject Cong!essman to the custod$ of the la". The
6
!e/ui!ement that he should e attending sessions o!
committee meetings has also een !emo%ed. :o! !elati%el$
mino! o+enses, it is enough that Cong!ess is in session.
The accused-appellant a!gues that a meme! of Cong!ess0
function to attend sessions is unde!sco!ed $ 5ection (> J6K,
A!ticle F. of the Constitution "hich states that4
J6K A majo!it$ of each 3ouse shall constitute a
/uo!um to do usiness, ut a smalle! nume!
ma$ adjou!n f!om da$ to da$ and ma$ compel
the attendance of asent 2eme!s in such
manne!, and unde! such penalties, as such
3ouse ma$ p!o%ide.
3o"e%e!, the accused-appellant has not gi%en an$ !eason
"h$ he should e e&empted f!om the ope!ation of 5ection
((, A!ticle F. of the Constitution. The meme!s of Cong!ess
cannot compel asent meme!s to attend sessions if the
!eason fo! the asence is a legitimate one. The con#nement
of a Cong!essman cha!ged "ith a c!ime punishale $
imp!isonment of mo!e than si& months is not me!el$
autho!iLed $ la", it has constitutional foundations.
Accused-appellant0s !eliance on the !uling in Aguinaldo v.
Santos
'6)
, "hich states, inte! alia, that 4
The Cou!t should ne%e! !emo%e a pulic
oCce! fo! acts done p!io! to his p!esent te!m
of oCce. To do othe!"ise "ould e to dep!i%e
the people of thei! !ight to elect thei! oCce!s.
Bhen a people ha%e elected a man to oCce,
it must e assumed that the$ did this "ith the
*no"ledge of his life and cha!acte!, and that
the$ dis!ega!ded o! fo!ga%e his fault o!
misconduct, if he had een guilt$ of an$. .t is
not fo! the Cou!t, $ !eason of such fault o!
misconduct, to p!acticall$ o%e!!ule the "ill of
the people.
"ill not e&t!icate him f!om his p!edicament. .t can e !eadil$
seen in the ao%e-/uoted !uling that the Aguinaldo case
in%ol%es the administ!ati%e !emo%al of a pulic oCce! fo!
acts done prior to his p!esent te!m of oCce. .t does not
appl$ to imp!isonment a!ising f!om the enfo!cement of
c!iminal la". 2o!eo%e!, in the same "a$ that p!e%enti%e
suspension is not !emo%al, con#nement pending appeal is
not !emo%al. 3e !emains a cong!essman unless e&pelled $
Cong!ess o!, othe!"ise, dis/uali#ed.
Ane !ationale ehind con#nement, "hethe! pending appeal
o! afte! #nal con%iction, is pulic self-defense. 5ociet$ must
p!otect itself. .t also se!%es as an e&ample and "a!ning to
othe!s.
A pe!son cha!ged "ith c!ime is ta*en into custod$ fo!
pu!poses of the administ!ation of justice. As stated in United
States v. Gustilo,
'7)
it is the inju!$ to the pulic "hich 5tate
action in c!iminal la" see*s to !ed!ess. .t is not the inju!$ to
the complainant. Afte! con%iction in the Regional T!ial Cou!t,
the accused ma$ e denied ail and thus sujected to
inca!ce!ation if the!e is !is* of his asconding.
'9)
The accused-appellant states that the plea of the electo!ate
"hich %oted him into oCce cannot e supplanted $
unfounded fea!s that he might escape e%entual punishment
if pe!mitted to pe!fo!m cong!essional duties outside his
!egula! place of con#nement.
.t "ill e !ecalled that "hen a "a!!ant fo! accused-
appellant0s a!!est "as issued, he fed and e%aded captu!e
despite a call f!om his colleagues in the 3ouse of
Rep!esentati%es fo! him to attend the sessions and to
su!!ende! %olunta!il$ to the autho!ities. .!onicall$, it is no"
the same od$ "hose call he initiall$ spu!ned "hich
accused-appellant is in%o*ing to justif$ his p!esent motion.
This can not e countenanced ecause, to !eite!ate, aside
f!om its eing cont!a!$ to "ell-de#ned Constitutional
7
!est!ains, it "ould e a moc*e!$ of the aims of the 5tate0s
penal s$stem.
Accused-appellant a!gues that on se%e!al occasions, the
Regional T!ial Cou!t of 2a*ati g!anted se%e!al motions to
tempo!a!il$ lea%e his cell at the 2a*ati Cit$ Jail, fo! oCcial o!
medical !easons, to "itH
aK to attend hea!ings of the 3ouse Committee
on Ethics held at the Batasan Comple&,
MueLon Cit$, on the issue of "hethe! to
e&pel8suspend him f!om the 3ouse of
Rep!esentati%esI
K to unde!go dental e&amination and
t!eatment at the clinic of his dentist in 2a*ati
Cit$I
cK to unde!go a tho!ough medical chec*-up at
the 2a*ati 2edical Cente!, 2a*ati Cit$I
dK to !egiste! as a %ote! at his hometo"n in
,apitan Cit$. .n this case, accused-appellant
commuted $ cha!te!ed plane and p!i%ate
%ehicle.
3e also calls attention to %a!ious instances, afte! his t!ansfe!
at the Ne" Biliid D!ison in 2untinlupa Cit$, "hen he "as
li*e"ise allo"ed8pe!mitted to lea%e the p!ison p!emises, to
"itH
aK to join 1li%ing-out1 p!isone!s on 1"o!*-
%oluntee! p!og!am1 fo! the pu!pose of (K
estalishing a mahogan$ seedling an* and
6K planting mahogan$ t!ees, at the NBD
!ese!%ation. :o! this pu!pose, he "as assigned
one gua!d and allo"ed to use his o"n %ehicle
and d!i%e! in going to and f!om the p!oject
a!ea and his place of con#nement.
K to continue "ith his dental t!eatment at the
clinic of his dentist in 2a*ati Cit$.
cK to e con#ned at the 2a*ati 2edical Cente!
in 2a*ati Cit$ fo! his hea!t condition.
The!e is no sho"ing that the ao%e p!i%ileges a!e peculia! to
him o! to a meme! of Cong!ess. Eme!genc$ o! compelling
tempo!a!$ lea%es f!om imp!isonment a!e allo"ed to all
p!isone!s, at the disc!etion of the autho!ities o! upon cou!t
o!de!s.
Bhat the accused-appellant see*s is not of an eme!genc$
natu!e. Allo"ing accused-appellant to attend cong!essional
sessions and committee meetings fo! #%e J<K da$s o! mo!e
in a "ee* "ill %i!tuall$ ma*e him a f!ee man "ith all the
p!i%ileges appu!tenant to his position. 5uch an ae!!ant
situation not onl$ ele%ates accused-appellant0s status to
that of a special class, it also "ould e a moc*e!$ of the
pu!poses of the co!!ection s$stem. Af pa!ticula! !ele%ance in
this !ega!d a!e the follo"ing ose!%ations of the Cou!t
in Martinez v. Morfe:
'<)
The ao%e conclusion !eached $ this Cou!t is
olste!ed and fo!ti#ed $ polic$
conside!ations. The!e is, to e su!e, a full
!ecognition of the necessit$ to ha%e meme!s
of Cong!ess, and li*e"ise delegates to the
Constitutional Con%ention, entitled to the
utmost f!eedom to enale them to discha!ge
thei! %ital !esponsiilities, o"ing to no othe!
fo!ce e&cept the dictates of thei! conscience.
Necessa!il$ the utmost latitude in f!ee speech
should e acco!ded them. Bhen it comes to
f!eedom f!om a!!est, ho"e%e!, it "ould
amount to the c!eation of a p!i%ileged class,
9
"ithout justi#cation in !eason, if
not"ithstanding thei! liailit$ fo! a c!iminal
o+ense, the$ "ould e conside!ed immune
du!ing thei! attendance in Cong!ess and in
going to and !etu!ning f!om the same. The!e
is li*el$ to e no dissent f!om the p!oposition
that a legislato! o! a delegate can pe!fo!m his
functions eCcientl$ and "ell, "ithout the
need fo! an$ t!ansg!ession of the c!iminal la".
5hould such an unfo!tunate e%ent come to
pass, he is to e t!eated li*e an$ othe! citiLen
conside!ing that the!e is a st!ong pulic
inte!est in seeing to it that c!ime should not
go unpunished. To the fea! that ma$ e
e&p!essed that the p!osecuting a!m of the
go%e!nment might unjustl$ go afte! legislato!s
elonging to the mino!it$, it suCces to
ans"e! that p!ecisel$ all the safegua!ds
th!o"n a!ound an accused $ the
Constitution, solicitous of the !ights of an
indi%idual, "ould constitute an ostacle to
such an attempt at ause of po"e!. The
p!esumption of cou!se is that the judicia!$
"ould !emain independent. .t is t!ite to sa$
that in each and e%e!$ manifestation of
judicial endea%o!, such a %i!tue is of the
essence.
The accused-appellant a%e!s that his constituents in the
:i!st ,ist!ict of ;amoanga del No!te "ant thei! %oices to e
hea!d and that since he is t!eated as bona fde meme! of
the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es, the latte! u!ges a co-e/ual
!anch of go%e!nment to !espect his mandate. 3e also
claims that the concept of tempo!a!$ detention does not
necessa!il$ cu!tail his dut$ to discha!ge his mandate and
that he has al"a$s complied "ith the conditions8!est!ictions
"hen he is allo"ed to lea%e jail.
Be !emain unpe!suaded.
No less than accused-appellant himself admits that li*e an$
othe! meme! of the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es 1'h)e is
p!o%ided "ith a cong!essional oCce situated at Room N-6(9,
No!th Bing Building, 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es Comple&,
Batasan 3ills, MueLon Cit$, manned $ a full complement of
sta+ paid fo! $ Cong!ess. Th!ough 'an) inte!-depa!tment
coo!dination, he is also provided with an ofce at the
Adinistration !uilding, "ew !ilibid #rison, Muntinlupa $it%,
where he attends to his constituents.1 Accused-appellant
fu!the! admits that "hile unde! detention, he has #led
se%e!al ills and !esolutions. .t also appea!s that he has
een !ecei%ing his sala!ies and othe! moneta!$ ene#ts.
5uccinctl$ stated, accused-appellant has een discha!ging
his mandate as a meme! of the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%e
consistent "ith the !est!aints upon one "ho is p!esentl$
unde! detention. Being a detainee, accused-appellant
should not e%en ha%e een allo"ed $ the p!ison autho!ities
at the National Dentientia!$ to pe!fo!m these acts.
Bhen the %ote!s of his dist!ict elected the accused-appellant
to Cong!ess, the$ did so "ith full a"a!eness of the
limitations on his f!eedom of action. The$ did so "ith the
*no"ledge that he could achie%e onl$ such legislati%e
!esults "hich he could accomplish "ithin the con#nes of
p!ison. To gi%e a mo!e d!astic illust!ation, if %ote!s elect a
pe!son "ith full *no"ledge that he is su+e!ing f!om a
te!minal illness, the$ do so *no"ing that at an$ time, he
ma$ no longe! se!%e his full te!m in oCce.
.n the ultimate anal$sis, the issue efo!e us oils do"n to a
/uestion of constitutional e/ual p!otection.
The Constitution gua!anteesH 1& & & no! shall an$ pe!son e
denied the e/ual p!otection of la"s.1
'>)
This simpl$ means
that all pe!sons simila!l$ situated shall e t!eated ali*e oth
in !ights enjo$ed and !esponsiilities imposed.
'?)
The o!gans
of go%e!nment ma$ not sho" an$ undue fa%o!itism o!
hostilit$ to an$ pe!son. Neithe! pa!tialit$ no! p!ejudice shall
e displa$ed.
<
,oes eing an electi%e oCcial !esult in a sustantial
distinction that allo"s di+e!ent t!eatment- .s eing a
Cong!essman a sustantial di+e!entiation "hich !emo%es
the accused-appellant as a p!isone! f!om the same class as
all pe!sons %alidl$ con#ned unde! la"-
The pe!fo!mance of legitimate and e%en essential duties $
pulic oCce!s has ne%e! een an e&cuse to f!ee a pe!son
%alidl$ in p!ison. The duties imposed $ the 1mandate of the
people1 a!e multifa!ious. The accused-appellant asse!ts that
the dut$ to legislate !an*s highest in the hie!a!ch$ of
go%e!nment. The accused-appellant is onl$ one of 6<N
meme!s of the 3ouse of Rep!esentati%es, not to mention
the 69 meme!s of the 5enate, cha!ged "ith the duties of
legislation. Cong!ess continues to function "ell in the
ph$sical asence of one o! a fe" of its meme!s. ,epending
on the e&igenc$ of Go%e!nment that has to e add!essed,
the D!esident o! the 5up!eme Cou!t can also e deemed the
highest fo! that pa!ticula! dut$. The impo!tance of a function
depends on the need fo! its e&e!cise. The dut$ of a mothe!
to nu!se he! infant is most compelling unde! the la" of
natu!e. A docto! "ith uni/ue s*ills has the dut$ to sa%e the
li%es of those "ith a pa!ticula! aOiction. An electi%e
go%e!no! has to se!%e p!o%incial constituents. A police
oCce! must maintain peace and o!de!. Ne%e! has the call of
a pa!ticula! dut$ lifted a p!isone! into a di+e!ent
classi#cation f!om those othe!s "ho a!e %alidl$ !est!ained $
la".
A st!ict sc!utin$ of classi#cations is essential lest "ittingl$ o!
othe!"ise, insidious disc!iminations a!e made in fa%o! of o!
against g!oups o! t$pes of indi%iduals.
'@)
The Cou!t cannot %alidate adges of ine/ualit$. The
necessities imposed $ pulic "elfa!e ma$ justif$ e&e!cise of
go%e!nment autho!it$ to !egulate e%en if the!e$ ce!tain
g!oups ma$ plausil$ asse!t that thei! inte!ests a!e
dis!ega!ded.
'E)
Be, the!efo!e, #nd that election to the position of
Cong!essman is not a !easonale classi#cation in c!iminal
la" enfo!cement. The functions and duties of the oCce a!e
not sustantial distinctions "hich lift him f!om the class of
p!isone!s inte!!upted in thei! f!eedom and !est!icted in
lie!t$ of mo%ement. Ga"ful a!!est and con#nement a!e
ge!mane to the pu!poses of the la" and appl$ to all those
elonging to the same class.
'(N)
.mp!isonment is the !est!aint of a man0s pe!sonal lie!t$I
coe!cion e&e!cised upon a pe!son to p!e%ent the f!ee
e&e!cise of his po"e! of locomotion.
'(()
2o!e e&plicitl$, 1imp!isonment1 in its gene!al sense, is the
!est!aint of one0s lie!t$. As a punishment, it is !est!aint $
judgment of a cou!t o! la"ful t!iunal, and is pe!sonal to the
accused.
'(6)
The te!m !efe!s to the !est!aint on the pe!sonal
lie!t$ of anothe!I an$ p!e%ention of his mo%ements f!om
place to place, o! of his f!ee action acco!ding to his o"n
pleasu!e and "ill.
'(7)
.mp!isonment is the detention of
anothe! against his "illdepriving hi of his power of
locootion
'(9)
and it 1'is) something mo!e than me!e loss of
f!eedom. .t includes the notion of restraint within liits
defned b% wall or an% e&terior barrier.1
'(<)
.t can e seen f!om the fo!egoing that inca!ce!ation, $ its
natu!e, changes an indi%idual0s status in societ$.
'(>)
D!ison
oCcials ha%e the diCcult and often than*less jo of
p!ese!%ing the secu!it$ in a potentiall$ e&plosi%e setting, as
"ell as of attempting to p!o%ide !ehailitation that p!epa!es
inmates fo! !e-ent!$ into the social mainst!eam. Necessa!il$,
oth these demands !e/ui!e the cu!tailment and elimination
of ce!tain !ights.
'(?)
D!emises conside!ed, "e a!e const!ained to !ule against the
accused-appellant0s claim that !e-election to pulic oCce
gi%es p!io!it$ to an$ othe! !ight o! inte!est, including the
police po"e! of the 5tate.
>
)EREFORE, the instant motion is he!e$ ,EN.E,.
"O OR*ERE*.
'apunan, #anganiban, (uisubing, #urisia, #ardo,
!uena, and )e *eon, +r., ++., concu!.
Gonzaga,-e%es, +., see sepa!ate concu!!ing opinion.
)avide, +r., $.+., !ellosillo, Melo, #uno, .itug, and Mendoza,
++., concu!s in the main and sepa!ate opinion.
EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 132875-76. No+e,ber 16, 2001]
PEOPLE OF TE P!L!PP!NE", plaintif-appellee, +s.,
RO#EO G. $%LO"$O", accused-appellant.
* E - ! " ! O N
'N%RE"-"%NT!%GO, J.(
This Cou!t has decla!ed that the state polic$ on the
heinous o+ense of !ape is clea! and unmista*ale. =nde!
ce!tain ci!cumstances, some of them p!esent in this case,
the o+ende! ma$ e sentenced to a long pe!iod of
con#nement, o! he ma$ su+e! death. The c!ime is an
assault on human dignit$. No legal s$stem "o!th$ of the
name can a+o!d to igno!e the t!aumatic conse/uences fo!
the unfo!tunate %ictim and g!ie%ous inju!$ to the peace and
good o!de! of the communit$.
'()
Rape is pa!ticula!l$ odious, one "hich #gu!ati%el$
sc!apes the ottom of the a!!el of mo!al dep!a%it$, "hen
committed against a mino!.
'6)
.n %ie" of the int!insic natu!e of the c!ime of !ape "he!e
onl$ t"o pe!sons a!e usuall$ in%ol%ed, the testimon$ of the
complainant is al"a$s sc!utiniLed "ith e&t!eme caution.
'7)
.n the p!esent case, the!e a!e ce!tain pa!ticula!s "hich
impelled the cou!t to de%ote an e%en mo!e painsta*ing and
meticulous e&amination of the facts on !eco!d and a
simila!l$ conscientious e%aluation of the a!guments of the
pa!ties. The %ictim of !ape in this case is a mino! elo"
t"el%e J(6K $ea!s of age. As na!!ated $ he!, the details of
the !ape a!e mesme!icall$ so!did and !epulsi%e. The %ictim
"as peddled fo! comme!cial se& $ he! o"n gua!dian "hom
she t!eated as a foste! fathe!. Because the complainant "as
a "illing %ictim, the acts of !ape "e!e p!eceded $ se%e!al
acts of lasci%iousness on distinctl$ sepa!ate occasions. The
accused is also a most unli*el$ !apist. 3e is a meme! of
Cong!ess. .nspite of his ha%ing een cha!ged and con%icted
$ the t!ial cou!t fo! statuto!$ !ape, his constituents li*ed
him so much that the$ *no"ingl$ !e-elected him to his
cong!essional oCce, the duties of "hich he could not
pe!fo!m.
5tatuto!$ !ape committed $ a distinguished
Cong!essman on an ele%en J((K $ea! old comme!cial se&
"o!*e! is ound to att!act "idesp!ead media and pulic
attention. .n the "o!ds of accused-appellant, Phe has een
demoniLed in the p!ess most unfai!l$, his image
t!ansmog!i#ed into that of a dasta!dl$, og!e, out to get his
slim$ hands on innocent and naQ%e gi!ls to satiate his lustful
desi!es.R
'9)
This Cou!t, the!efo!e, punctiliousl$ conside!ed
accused-appellant0s claim that he su+e!ed Pin%idiousl$
disc!iminato!$ t!eatment.R Rega!ding the ao%e allegation,
the Cou!t has asce!tained that the e&tensi%e pulicit$
gene!ated $ the case did not !esult in a mist!ialI the
?
!eco!ds sho" that the accused had ample and f!ee
oppo!tunit$ to adduce his defenses.
This is an appeal f!om the decision
'<)
of the Regional
T!ial Cou!t of 2a*ati, B!anch >6, in C!iminal Case Nos. E>-
(E@< and E>-(E@>, con%icting accused-appellant Romeo
Jalosjos of t"o J6K counts of statuto!$ !ape, and in C!iminal
Case Nos. E>-(E@?, E>-(E@@, E>-(E@E, E>-(EEN, E>-(EE6,
and E>-(EE7, fo! si& J>K counts of acts of lasci%iousness
de#ned and penaliLed unde! A!ticle 77> of the Re%ised Denal
Code, in !elation to 5ection <JK of Repulic Act No. ?>(N,
also *no"n as the Child Ause Ga".
The!e "e!e si& J>K othe! cases, C!iminal Case Nos. E>-
(EE(, E>-(EE9, E>-(EE<, E>-(EE>, E>-(EE?, and E>-(EE@,
"he!e the accused-appellant "as ac/uitted of the cha!ges
of acts of lasci%iousness fo! failu!e of the p!osecution to
p!o%e his guilt e$ond !easonale dout.
An ,eceme! (>, (EE>, t"o J6K info!mations fo! the
c!ime of statuto!$ !apeI and t"el%e J(6K fo! acts of
lasci%iousness de#ned and penaliLed unde! A!ticle 77> of
the Re%ised Denal Code, in !elation to 5ection <JK of
Repulic Act No. ?>(N, "e!e #led against accused-
appellant. The accusato!$ po!tion of said info!mations fo!
the c!ime of statuto!$ !ape stateH
/n $riinal $ase "o. 01,2034:
The unde!signed, upon p!io! s"o!n complaint $ the
o+ended pa!t$, ele%en J((K $ea! old mino! RA5.GSN
,EGANTAR, accuses RA2EA JAGA5JA5 of the c!ime of RADE
de#ned and penaliLed unde! A!t. 77< J7K of the Re%ised
Denal Code, committed as follo"sH
That on o! aout June (@, (EE> at Room No.(?N6, RitL
To"e!s, 2a*ati Cit$, and "ithin the ju!isdiction of this
3ono!ale Cou!t, the ao%e-named accused, did then and
the!e "illfull$, unla"full$ and feloniousl$ ha%e ca!nal
*no"ledge "ith 5sic6 ele%en $ea! old mino! Rosil$n ,elanta!
against he! "ill, "ith damage and p!ejudice.
CANTRARS TA GAB.
'>)
/n $riinal $ase "o. 01,2031:
The unde!signed, upon p!io! s"o!n complaint $ the
o+ended pa!t$, ele%en J((K $ea! old mino! RA5.GSN
,EGANTAR, accuses RA2EA JAGA5JA5 of the c!ime of RADE
de#ned and penaliLed unde! A!t. 77< J7K of the Re%ised
Denal Code, committed as follo"sH
That on o! aout June 6N, (EE> at Room No. (?N6, RitL
To"e!s, 2a*ati Cit$, and "ithin the ju!isdiction of this
3ono!ale Cou!t, the ao%e-named accused, did then and
the!e "illfull$, unla"full$ and feloniousl$ ha%e ca!nal
*no"ledge "ith 5sic6 ele%en $ea! old mino! Rosil$n ,elanta!
against he! "ill, "ith damage and p!ejudice.
CANTRARS TA GAB.
'?)
:o! acts of lasci%iousness, the info!mations
'@)
unde!
"hich accused-appellant "as con%icted "e!e identical
e&cept fo! the di+e!ent dates of commission on June (9,
(EE>I June (<, (EE>I June (>, (EE>I June 6N, (EE>I June 6(,
(EE>I and June 66, (EE>, to "itH
The unde!signed, upon p!io! s"o!n complaint $ the
o+ended pa!t$, ele%en J((K-$ea! old mino! RA5.GSN
,EGANTAR accuses RA2EA JAGA5JA5 of the c!ime of ACT5
A: GA5C.F.A=5NE55 in !elation to 5ection < JK, A!ticle ... of
Repulic Act No. ?>(N, othe!"ise *no"n as the 5pecial
D!otection of Child!en against Ause, E&ploitation and
,isc!imination Act, committed as follo"sH
That in the e%ening of June (9, (EE>, o! the!eaout, in Room
No. (?N6, RitL To"e!s, 2a*ati Cit$, 2et!o-2anila and "ithin
@
the ju!isdiction of this 3ono!ale Cou!t, the ao%e-named
accused, "ith le"d design, did then and the!e "ilfull$,
unla"full$ and feloniousl$ *iss, ca!ess and fondle said
complainantTs face, lips, nec*, !easts, "hole od$, and
%agina, suc* he! nipples and inse!t his #nge! and then his
tongue into he! %agina, place himself on top of he!, then
inse!t his penis in et"een he! thighs until ejaculation, and
othe! simila! lasci%ious conduct against he! "ill, to he!
damage and p!ejudice.
CANTRARS TA GAB.
.n C!iminal Cases Nos. E>-(E@@I E>-(EENI and E>-(EE7,
the!e "e!e added a%e!ments that on the di+e!ent dates, the
accused ga%e the complainant D(N,NNN.NN, D<,NNN.NN and
D<,NNN.NN !especti%el$.
=pon a!!aignment on Janua!$ 6E, (EE?, accused-
appellant !efused to ente! a plea. 3ence, the t!ial cou!t
ente!ed a plea of not guilt$ fo! him. At the t!ial, the
p!osecution p!esented eight J@K main "itnesses and se%en
J?K !euttal "itnesses as "ell as documenta!$ e%idences
ma!*ed as E&hiits A to EEEE, inclusi%e of suma!*ings. The
defense, on the othe! hand p!esented t"ent$-si& J6>K
"itnesses. .ts documenta!$ e%idence consists of E&hiits (
to (<7, inclusi%e of suma!*ings. The !eco!ds of the case
a!e e&t!emel$ %oluminous.
The Deople0s %e!sion of the facts, culled mainl$ f!om the
testimon$ of the %ictim, a!e as follo"sH
2a!ia Rosil$n ,elanta! "as a slim, ele%en-$ea! old lass
"ith long, st!aight lac* hai! and almond-shaped lac*
e$es. 5he g!e" up in a t"o-sto!e$ apa!tment in Dasa$ Cit$
unde! the ca!e of 5implicio ,elanta!, "hom she t!eated as
he! o"n fathe!. 5implicio "as a #ft$-si& $ea! old
homose&ual "hose ostensile sou!ce of income "as
selling longganiza and tocino and accepting oa!de!s at his
house. An the side, he "as also engaged in the s*in t!ade
as a pimp.
Rosil$n ne%e! got to see he! mothe!, though she had
*no"n a $ounge! !othe!, 5hand!o, "ho "as also unde! the
ca!e of 5implicio. At a %e!$ $oung age of <, fai! and smooth-
comple&ioned Rosil$n "as e&posed $ 5implicio to his illicit
acti%ities. 5he and he! !othe! "ould tag along "ith
5implicio "hene%e! he deli%e!ed p!ostitutes to his
clients. Bhen she tu!ned E, Rosil$n "as o+e!ed $ 5implicio
as a p!ostitute to an A!aian national *no"n as 2!.
3ammond. Thus egun he! o!deal as one of the gi!ls sold
$ 5implicio fo! se&ual fa%o!s.
Rosil$n #!st met accused-appellant, Romeo Jalosjos,
sometime in :e!ua!$ (EE> at his oCce located nea!
Roinson0s Galle!ia. Rosil$n and 5implicio "e!e !ought
the!e and int!oduced $ a talent manage! $ the name of
Edua!do 5ua!eL. Accused-appellant p!omised to help
Rosil$n ecome an act!ess. Bhen he sa" Rosil$n, accused-
appellant as*ed ho" old she "as. 5implicio ans"e!ed,
P(N. 5he is going to e (( on 2a$ ((.R Accused-appellant
in/ui!ed if Rosil$n *no"s ho" to sing. 5implicio told Rosil$n
to sing, so she sang the song, PTell 2e Sou Go%e
2e.R Accused-appellant then as*ed if Rosil$n has nice legs
and then !aised he! s*i!t up to the mid-thighs. 3e as*ed if
she "as al!ead$ menst!uating, and 5implicio said
$es. Accused-appellant fu!the! in/ui!ed if Rosil$n al!ead$
had !easts. Bhen nood$ ans"e!ed, accused-appellant
cupped Rosil$n0s left !east. The!eafte!, accused-appellant
assu!ed them that he "ould help Rosil$n ecome an act!ess
as he "as one of the p!oduce!s of the TF
p!og!ams, 7.aliente8 and 79at !ulaga.8
5implicio and 5ua!eL then discussed the e&ecution of a
cont!act fo! Rosil$n0s mo%ie ca!ee!. Accused-appellant, on
the othe! hand, said that he "ould adopt Rosil$n and that
the latte! "ould ha%e to li%e "ith him in his condominium at
the RitL To"e!s. Befo!e 5implicio and Rosil$n "ent home,
accused-appellant ga%e Rosil$n D6,NNN.NN.
The second time Rosil$n met accused-appellant "as at
his condominium unit, located at Room (?N6, RitL To"e!s,
2a*ati Cit$. Accused-appellant and 5implicio discussed the
E
cont!act and his plan to #nance Rosil$n0s studies. Accused-
appellant ga%e 5implicio D<NN.NN, the!eafte!, Rosil$n,
5hand!o and 5implicio left.
The thi!d meeting et"een Rosil$n and accused-
appellant "as also at RitL To"e!s to discuss he! acting
ca!ee!. Accused-appellant !efe!!ed the p!epa!ation of
Rosil$n0s cont!act to his la"$e!, "ho "as also p!esent. Afte!
the meeting, 5implicio and Rosil$n left. As the$ "e!e
"al*ing to"a!ds the ele%ato!, accused-appellant app!oached
them and ga%e Rosil$n D7,NNN.NN.
An June (9, (EE>, at aout @H7N to EHNN p.m., 5implicio
and Rosil$n !etu!ned to accused-appellant0s condominium
unit at RitL To"e!s. Bhen accused-appellant came out of his
ed!oom, 5implicio told Rosil$n to go inside the ed!oom,
"hile he and accused-appellant sta$ed outside. Afte! a
"hile, accused-appellant ente!ed the ed!oom and found
Rosil$n "atching tele%ision. 3e "al*ed to"a!ds Rosil$n and
*issed he! on the lips, then left the !oom again. 5implicio
came in and id he! good$e. Rosil$n told 5implicio that
accused-appellant *issed he! to "hich 5implicio
!eplied, 7:ali; lang naan.8
Rosil$n "as left alone in the ed!oom "atching
tele%ision. Afte! some time, accused-appellant came in and
ente!ed the ath!oom. 3e came out clad in a long "hite T-
shi!t on "hich "as p!inted the "o!d, 7)a;a;.8 .n his hand
"as a plain "hite T-shi!t. Accused-appellant told Rosil$n
that he "anted to change he! clothes. Rosil$n p!otested
and told accused-appellant that she can do it he!self, ut
accused-appellant ans"e!ed, 7)add% o naan
a;o.8 Accused-appellant then too* o+ Rosil$n0s louse and
s*i!t. Bhen he "as aout to ta*e o+ he! panties, Rosil$n
said, 7:uwag po.8 Again, accused-appellant told he!, PAfte!
all, . am $ou! ,add$.R Accused-appellant then !emo%ed he!
panties and d!essed he! "ith the long "hite T-shi!t.
The t"o of them "atched tele%ision in ed. Afte!
sometime, accused-appellant tu!ned o+ the lamp and the
tele%ision. 3e tu!ned to Rosil$n and *issed he! lips. 3e then
!aised he! shi!t, touched he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge!
into he! %agina. Rosil$n felt pain and c!ied out, 7<aa na
po.8 Accused-appellant stopped. 3e continued to *iss he!
lips and fondle he! !easts. Gate!, accused-appellant told
Rosil$n to sleep.
The follo"ing mo!ning, Rosil$n "as a"a*ened $
accused-appellant "hom she found ent o%e! and *issing
he!. 3e told he! to get up, too* he! hand and led he! to the
ath!oom. 3e !emo%ed Rosil$n0s shi!t and ga%e he! a ath.
Bhile accused-appellant !ued soap all o%e! Rosil$n0s
od$, he ca!essed he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge! into
he! %agina. Afte! that, he !insed he! od$, d!ied he! "ith a
to"el and applied lotion on he! a!ms and legs. Then, he
d!ied he! hai! and told he! to d!ess up. Rosil$n put on he!
clothes and "ent out of the ath!oom, "hile accused-
appellant too* a sho"e!.
Accused-appellant ate !ea*fast "hile Rosil$n sta$ed in
the ed!oom "atching tele%ision. Bhen accused-appellant
ente!ed the !oom, he *nelt in f!ont of he!, !emo%ed he!
panties and placed he! legs on his shoulde!s. Then, he
placed his tongue on he! %agina. The!eafte!, he ga%e
Rosil$n D(N,NNN.NN and told his housemaid to ta*e he!
shopping at 5hoema!t. Bhen she !etu!ned to the RitL
To"e!s, 5implicio "as "aiting fo! he!. The t"o of them "ent
home. Rosil$n na!!ated to 5implicio "hat accused-appellant
did to he!, and pleaded fo! him not to !ing he! ac* to the
RitL To"e!s. 5implicio told he! that e%e!$thing "as al!ight
as long as accused-appellant does not ha%e se&ual
inte!cou!se "ith he!.
That same e%ening, at a!ound EHNN to EH7N in the
e%ening, 5implicio again !ought Rosil$n to the RitL To"e!s.
Afte! 5implicio left, accused-appellant !emo%ed Rosil$n0s
clothes and d!essed he! "ith the same long T-shi!t. The$
"atched tele%ision fo! a "hile, then accused-appellant sat
eside Rosil$n and *issed he! on the lips. 3e made Rosil$n
lie do"n, lifted he! shi!t ao%e he! !easts, and inse!ted his
#nge! into he! %agina. Then, accused-appellant !emo%ed his
o"n clothes, placed his penis et"een Rosil$n0s thighs and
(N
made th!usting motions until he ejaculated on he!
thighs. The!eafte!, accused-appellant *issed he! and told
he! to sleep.
The ne&t da$, June (>, (EE>, accused-appellant !oused
he! f!om sleep and athed he!. Again, he !ued soap all
o%e! he! od$, "ashed he! hai!, and the!eafte! !insed he!
od$ and d!ied he! hai!. Bhile accused-appellant "as
athing Rosil$n, he as*ed he! to fondle his penis "hile he
ca!essed he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge! into he!
%agina. Afte! thei! sho"e!, accused-appellant ate
!ea*fast. 3e ga%e Rosil$n D<,NNN.NN and told he! to just
"ait fo! 5implicio in the condominium unit. An thei! "a$
home, 5implicio told Rosil$n that if accused-appellant t!ies
to inse!t his penis into he! %agina, she should !efuse.
At a!ound @HNN p.m. of June (@, (EE>, 5implicio !ought
Rosil$n to the RitL To"e!s. The$ found accused-appellant
sitting on the ed in his ed!oom. 5implicio told Rosil$n to
app!oach accused-appellant, then he left. Accused-
appellant too* o+ Rosil$n0s clothes and d!essed he! "ith a
long T-shi!t on "hich "as p!inted a pictu!e of accused-
appellant and a "oman, "ith the caption, PCong. Jalosjos
"ith his To$.R The$ "atched tele%ision fo! a "hile, then
accused-appellant la$ eside Rosil$n and *issed he! on the
lips. 3e !aised he! shi!t and pa!ted he! legs. 3e positioned
himself et"een the sp!ead legs of Rosil$n, too* o+ his o"n
shi!t, held his penis, and po*ed and p!essed the same
against Rosil$n0s %agina. This caused Rosil$n pain inside he!
se& o!gan. The!eafte!, accused-appellant fondled he!
!easts and told he! to sleep.
Bhen Rosil$n "o*e up the follo"ing mo!ning, June (E,
(EE>, accused-appellant "as no longe! a!ound ut she
found D<,NNN.NN on the tale. Ea!lie! that mo!ning, she had
felt someod$ touching he! p!i%ate pa!ts ut she "as still
too sleep$ to #nd out "ho it "as. Rosil$n too* a ath, then
"ent o+ to school "ith 5implicio, "ho a!!i%ed to fetch he!.
The ne&t encounte! of Rosil$n "ith accused-appellant
"as on June 6(, (EE>, at aout EHNN o0cloc* in the e%ening
in his ed!oom at the RitL To"e!s. Accused-appellant
st!ipped he! na*ed and again put on he! the long shi!t he
"anted he! to "ea!. Afte! "atching tele%ision fo! a "hile,
accused-appellant *nelt eside Rosil$n, !aised he! shi!t,
ca!essed he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge! into he!
%agina. Then, he clipped his penis et"een Rosil$n0s thighs,
and made th!usting motions until he ejaculated. The!eafte!,
Rosil$n "ent to sleep.
The ne&t da$, June 66, (EE>, Rosil$n "as a"a*ened $
accused-appellant "ho "as *issing he! and fondling he! se&
o!gan. 5he, ho"e%e!, igno!ed him and "ent ac* to
sleep. Bhen she "o*e up, she found the D<,NNN.NN "hich
accused-appellant left and ga%e the same to 5implicio
,elanta!, "hen the latte! came to pic* he! up.
An June 6E, (EE>, Rosil$n again "ent to the RitL
To"e!s. ,u!ing that %isit, accused-appellant too*
photog!aphs of Rosil$n. 3e as*ed he! to pose "ith he! T-
shi!t pulled do"n the!e$ e&posing he! !easts. 3e also
too* he! photog!aphs "ith he! T-shi!t !olled up to the pel%is
ut "ithout sho"ing he! puis, and #nall$, "hile st!addled
on a chai! facing the ac*!est, sho"ing he! legs.
Befo!e Rosil$n "ent to sleep, accused-appellant *issed
he! lips, fondled he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge! into he!
%agina. The follo"ing mo!ning, she "o*e up and found the
D<,NNN.NN left $ accused-appellant on the tale. 5he
!ecalled that ea!lie! that mo!ning, she felt someod$
ca!essing he! !easts and se& o!gan.
An Jul$ 6, (EE> at ?HNN p.m., Rosil$n and 5implicio
!etu!ned to the RitL To"e!s. Rosil$n had to "ait fo! accused-
appellant, "ho a!!i%ed et"een (6HNN to (HNN a.m. 3e
again d!essed he! "ith the long "hite shi!t simila! to "hat
he "as "ea!ing. Bhile sitting on the ed, accused-appellant
*issed he! lips and inse!ted his tongue into he! mouth. 3e
then fondled he! !easts and inse!ted his #nge! into he!
%agina, causing he! to c!$ in pain. Accused-appellant
stopped and told he! to sleep.
((
The ne&t mo!ning, accused-appellant athed he!
again. Bhile he soaped he! od$, he fondled he! !easts
and inse!ted his #nge! in he! %agina. Rosil$n felt pain and
sho%ed his hand a"a$. Afte! athing he!, accused-appellant
had !ea*fast. Befo!e he left, he ga%e Rosil$n
D<,NNN.NN. As soon as 5implicio a!!i%ed, Rosil$n ga%e he!
the mone$ and then the$ left fo! school.
An Jul$ 6N, (EE>, 5implicio again !ought Rosil$n to the
RitL To"e!s. Accused-appellant "as "aiting in his
ed!oom. 3e too* o+ Rosil$n0s clothes, including he!
panties, and d!essed he! "ith a long T-shi!t simila! to "hat
he "as "ea!ing. Afte! "atching tele%ision, accused-
appellant *issed Rosil$n on the lips, inse!ted his tongue in
he! mouth and fondled he! !easts. Then, he made Rosil$n
lie on the ed, sp!ead he! legs apa!t and placed a pillo"
unde! he! ac*. 3e inse!ted his #nge! in he! %agina and
mounted himself et"een he! legs "ith his hands !ested on
he! sides. Afte! that, he lifted his shi!t, then pointed and
p!essed his penis against he! %agina. Accused-appellant
made th!usting motions, "hich caused Rosil$n
pain. The!eafte!, accused-appellant told he! to sleep.
.n the ea!l$ mo!ning of Jul$ 6(, (EE>, Rosil$n felt
someod$ touching he! se& o!gan, ut she did not "a*e
up. Bhen she "o*e up late!, she found D<,NNN.NN on the
tale, and she ga%e this to 5implicio "hen he came to fetch
he!.
An August (<, (EE>, Rosil$n and 5implicio "ent to the
RitL To"e!s at a!ound ?HNN p.m. Accused-appellant "as
aout to lea%e, so he told them to come ac* late! that
e%ening. The t"o did not !etu!n.
The follo"ing da$, Rosil$n !an a"a$ f!om home "ith the
help of Samie Est!eta, one of thei! oa!de!s. Samie
accompanied Rosil$n to the Dasa$ Cit$ Dolice, "he!e she
e&ecuted a s"o!n statement against 5implicio
,elanta!. Rosil$n "as the!eafte! ta*en to the custod$ of the
,epa!tment of 5ocial Belfa!e and ,e%elopment
J,5B,K. The National Bu!eau of .n%estigation JNB.K
conducted an in%estigation, "hich e%entuall$ led to the
#ling of c!iminal cha!ges against accused-appellant.
An August 67, (EE>, Rosil$n "as e&amined $ ,!.
Emmanuel G. A!anas at Camp C!ame. The e&amination
$ielded the follo"ing !esultsH
EUTERNAG AN, EUTRAGEN.TAG
:ai!l$ de%eloped, fai!l$ nou!ished and cohe!ent female
suject. B!easts a!e conical "ith pin*ish !o"n a!eola and
nipples f!om "hich no sec!etions could e p!essed
out. Adomen is fat and soft
GEN.TAG
The!e is mode!ate g!o"th of puic hai!. Gaia majo!a a!e
full, con%e& and coaptated "ith the pin*ish !o"n laia
mino!a p!esenting in et"een. An sepa!ating the same
disclosed an elastic, fesh$ t$pe h$men, "ith shallo" healed
lace!ation at 7 oTcloc* position and deep healed lace!ation
at @ oTcloc* position. E&te!nal %aginal o!i#ce o+e!s
mode!ate !esistance to the int!oduction of the e&amining
inde& #nge! and the %i!gin siLed %aginal speculum. Faginal
canal is na!!o" "ith p!ominent !ugosities. Ce!%i& is #!m and
closed.
CANCG=5.ANH
5uject is in non-%i!gin state ph$sicall$.
The!e a!e no e&te!nal signs of application of an$ fo!m of
%iolence.
'E)
,u!ing the t!ial, accused-appellant !aised the defense of
denial and alii. 3e claimed that it "as his !othe!,
,ominado! PJunR Jalosjos, "hom Rosil$n had met, once at
accused-appellant0s ,a*a* oCce and t"ice at the RitL
(6
To"e!s. Accused-appellant insisted that he "as in the
p!o%ince on the dates Rosil$n claimed to ha%e een se&uall$
aused. 3e att!iuted the #ling of the cha!ges against him
to a small g!oup of lac*maile!s "ho "anted to e&to!t
mone$ f!om him, and to his political opponents, pa!ticula!l$
E&-Cong!essman A!temio AdaLa, "ho a!e allegedl$
dete!mined to dest!o$ his political ca!ee! and oost thei!
pe!sonal agenda.
2o!e speci#call$, accused-appellant claims that on June
(>, (EE>, he "as on the Dhilippine Ai!lines JDAGK EH9N a.m.
fight f!om 2anila to ,ipolog. 3e sta$ed in ,ipolog until
June (@, (EE>. 3e sumitted in e%idence ai!line tic*et no.
(N?E6969,
'(N)
sho"ing that he "as on oa!d :light DR (><I
the said fight0s passenge!0s manifest,
'(()
"he!e the name
JAGA5JA58R282R appea!sI and photog!aphs sho"ing
accused-appellant0s constituents "elcoming his a!!i%al and
sho"ing accused-appellant tal*ing "ith fo!me! 2a$o!
3e!manico Ca!!eon and :iscal Empainado.
Accused-appellant fu!the! alleges that on June 6@, (EE>,
he again too* the EH9N a.m. fight f!om 2anila to ,ipolog
Cit$. An the same fight, he met A!mando Nocom of the
Dhilippine ,ail$ .n/ui!e!. =pon a!!i%al and afte! tal*ing to his
!ep!esentati%es, he p!oceeded to his !esidence *no"n as
PBa!anga$ 3ouseR in Taguinon, ,apitan, nea! ,a*a* Beach
!eso!t, and spent the night the!e.
An June 6E, (EE>, accused-appellant attended the #esta
at Ba!anga$ 5an Ded!o. 3e sta$ed in the house of Ba!anga$
Captain 2ila Sap until <H7N p.m. Then, togethe! "ith some
f!iends, he %isited the RiLal 5h!ine and the Di!ate Ba! at
,a*a* Beach Reso!t. The!eafte!, he !eti!ed in the PBa!anga$
3ouseR in Taguilon.
An June 7N, (EE>, accused-appellant alleges that he
attended a cit$-"ide consultation "ith his political leade!s at
the Blue Room of ,a*a*, "hich lasted till the afte!noon. .n
the e%ening, he "ent home and slept in the PBa!anga$
3ouse.R
An Jul$ (, (EE>, he attended the "hole da$ cele!ation
of ,ipolog ,a$. 3e spent the night in the PBa!anga$
3ouse.R
An Jul$ 6, (EE>, he attended the inaugu!ation of the
!eception hall of ,a*a* Beach Reso!t. The lessing
ce!emon$ "as oCciated $ Assistant Da!ish D!iest Adelmo
Gaput.
An Jul$ 7, (EE>, he "as the guest in the inagu!ation of
the 7
!d
Enginee!ing ,ist!ict of ,apitan Cit$. Afte! the mass,
he %isited the Jamo!ee site in Ba!anga$ Taguilon, ,apitan
Cit$.
3e fu!the! contended that afte! his a!!i%al in ,ipolog on
June 6@, (EE>, the!e "as ne%e! an instance "hen he "ent to
2anila until Jul$ E, (EE>, "hen he attended a confe!ence
called $ the D!esident of the Dhilippines.
Accused-appellant li*e"ise alleged that on Jul$ 6(,
(EE>, he too* the <HNN a.m. fight of DAG f!om 2anila to
,umaguete Cit$. :!om the!e, he "as fo"n $ a p!i%ate
plane to ,ipolog, "he!e he sta$ed until the D!esident of the
Dhilippines a!!i%ed.
To utt!ess the theo!$ of the defense, ,ominado! PJunR
Jalosjos testi#ed that he "as the one, and not accused-
appellant, "hom Rosil$n met on th!ee occasions. These
occu!!ed once du!ing the #!st "ee* of 2a$ (EE>, at
accused-appellant0s ,a*a* oCce "he!e Rosil$n and
5implicio ,elanta! "e!e int!oduced to him $ Edua!do
5ua!eL, and t"ice at the RitL To"e!s "hen he inte!%ie"ed
Rosil$n, and late! "hen Rosil$n and 5implicio follo"ed up
the p!oposed ent!$ of Rosil$n into the sho" usiness.
,ominado!0s admission of his meetings "ith Rosil$n on
th!ee instances "e!e limited to inte!%ie"ing he! and
assessing he! singing and modeling potentials. 3is
testimon$ made no mention of an$ se&ual encounte! "ith
Rosil$n.
(7
Afte! t!ial, the cou!t !ende!ed the assailed decision, the
dispositi%e po!tion of "hich !eadsH
B3ERE:ARE, p!emises conside!ed, judgment is he!e$
!ende!ed as follo"sH
(. .n C!iminal Cases Nos. E>-(E@< and E>-(E@>, the
p!osecution has p!o%en e$ond !easonale dout the guilt
of the accused, RA2EA JAGA5JA5 $ GARC.A, as p!incipal in
the t"o J6K counts of statuto!$ !ape de#ned and penaliLed
unde! A!ticle 77< of the Re%ised Denal Code. 3e is he!e$
decla!ed CANF.CTE, in each of these cases.
6. Acco!dingl$, he is sentenced toH
6a. su+e! the penalt$ of reclusion perpetua in each of
these cases.
6. indemnif$ the %ictim, 2A. RA5.GSN ,EGANTAR, in the
amount of :.:TS T3A=5AN, DE5A5 JD<N,NNN.NNK as mo!al
damages fo! each of the cases.
7. .n C!iminal Cases Nos. E>-(E@?, E>-(E@@, E>-(E@E, E>-
(EEN, E>-(EE6 and E>-(EE7, the p!osecution has p!o%en
e$ond !easonale dout the guilt of the accused, RA2EA
JAGA5JA5 $ GARC.A, as p!incipal in si& J>K counts of acts of
lasci%iousness de#ned unde! A!ticle 77> of the Re%ised
Denal Code and penaliLed unde! 5ection < JK of R.A. ?>(N
othe!"ise *no"n as the Child Ause Ga". 3e is he!e$
decla!ed CANF.CTE, in each of these casesI
9. Acco!dingl$ he is sentenced toH
9.a. su+e! in each of the cases an indete!minate p!ison
te!m of f!om eight J@K $ea!s, eight J@K months and one J(K
da$ of prision a%or in its medium pe!iod, as ma&imum, to
#fteen J(<K $ea!s, si& J>K months and t"ent$ J6NK da$s
of reclusion teporal in its medium pe!iod, as ma&imumI
9.. indemnif$ the %ictim, 2A RA5.GSN ,EGANTAR, in the
amount of TBENTS T3A=5AN, JD6N,NNN.NNK as mo!al
damages fo! each of the casesI
<. .n C!iminal Case Nos. E>-(EE(, E>-(EE9, E>-(EE<, E>-
(EE>, E>-(EE? and E>-(EE@, the p!osecution has failed to
p!o%e e$ond !easonale dout the guilt of the accused,
RA2EA JAGA5JA5 $ GARC.A, in si& J>K counts of acts of
lasci%iousness. The!efo!e, on the g!ound of !easonale
dout, the accused in these cases is he!e$ ACM=.TTE,.
5A AR,ERE,.
'(6)
3ence, the instant appeal. Accused-appellant contendsH
%.
T3E TR.AG CA=RT GR.EFA=5GS ERRE, .N CANF.CT.NG
T3E ACC=5E,-ADDEGGANT BA5E, AN TE5T.2ANS A:
T3E DR.FATE CA2DGA.NANT, CAN5.,ER.NG T3E
ATTEN,ANT .N,.C.A A: .NCAN5.5TENC.E5 AN,
=NTR=T35.
..
T3E TR.AG CA=RT GR.EFA=5GS ERRE, .N
,.5REGAR,.NG T3E 5.GN.:.CANCE A: T3E
CAN:G.CT.NG 5TATE2ENT5 G.FEN BS T3E DR.FATE
CA2DGA.NANT.
-.
T3E TR.AG CA=RT GR.EFA=5GS ERRE, .N
,.5REGAR,.NG T3E 5.GN.:.CANCE A: DR.FATE
CA2DGA.NANT05 :A.G=RE TA .,ENT.:S T3E ACC=5E,-
ADDEGGANT.
*.
(9
T3E TR.AG CA=RT GR.EFA=5GS ERRE, .N R=G.NG T3AT
T3E DR.FATE CA2DGA.NANT BA5 A 2.NAR GE55 T3AN
TBEGFE SEAR5 A: AGE B3EN T3E CGA.2E, .NC.,ENT5
AGGEGE,GS TAAV DGACE.
E.
T3E TR.AG CA=RT GR.EFA=5GS ERRE, .N :.N,.NG T3AT
RADE BA5 CA22.TTE, AGA.N5T T3E DR.FATE
CA2DGA.NANT.
'(7)
.n this ju!isdiction, the testimon$ of the p!i%ate
complainant in !ape cases is sc!utiniLed "ith utmost
caution. The constitutional p!esumption of innocence
!e/ui!es no less than mo!al ce!taint$ e$ond an$ scintilla of
dout. This applies "ith mo!e %igo! in !ape cases "he!e the
e%idence fo! the p!osecution must stand o! fall on its o"n
me!its and is not allo"ed to d!a" st!ength f!om the
"ea*ness of the e%idence of the defense. As an ine%itale
conse/uence, it is the !ape %ictim he!self that is actuall$ put
on t!ial. The case at a! is no e&ception. Bent on
dest!o$ing the %e!acit$ of p!i%ate complainant0s testimon$,
the e!!o!s assigned $ accused-appellant, pa!ticula!l$ the
#!st th!ee, a!e focused on the issue of c!ediilit$.
Accused-appellant ma*es much of his ac/uittal in
C!iminal Case Nos. E>-(EE(, E>-(EE9, E>-(EE<, E>-(EE>,
E>-(EE?, and E>-(EE@, fo! acts of lasci%iousness. Acco!ding
to him, the fact that the t!ial cou!t sustained his defense of
alii in the said cases onl$ sho"s that Rosil$n concocted he!
sto!ies and the !est of he! testimon$ ought not to e
elie%ed. 5tated di+e!entl$, accused-appellant u!ges the
application of the doct!ine of =falsus in uno falsus in
onibus8 Jfalse in pa!t, false in e%e!$thingK.
'(9)
The contention is "ithout me!it. >alsus in uno falsus in
onibus is not an asolute !ule of la" and is in fact !a!el$
applied in mode!n ju!isp!udence.
'(<)
Thus, in#eople v.
?anson,)uancas,
'(>)
citing #eople v. *i !un +uan,
'(?)
this
Cou!t held thatH
... .n this connection it must e o!ne in mind that the
p!inciple falsus in uno falsus in omnius is not an asolute
one, and that it is pe!fectl$ !easonale to elie%e the
testimon$ of a "itness "ith !espect to some facts and
diselie%e it "ith !espect to othe! facts. .n Deople %s. Velle!,
9> A.G. No. ?, pp. 7666-7667, the follo"ing "as /uoted "ith
app!o%al $ the Cou!t of Appeals f!om ( 2oo!e on :acts, p.
67H
P(@. <estion% a% be partl% credited and partl%
re@ected. --- T!ie! of facts a!e not ound to elie%e all that
an$ "itness has saidI the$ ma$ accept some po!tions of his
testimon$ and !eject othe! po!tions, acco!ding to "hat
seems to them, upon othe! facts and ci!cumstances to e
the t!uthW E%en "hen "itnesses a!e found to ha%e
delie!atel$ falsi#ed in some mate!ial pa!ticula!s, the ju!$
a!e not !e/ui!ed to !eject the "hole of thei! unco!!oo!ated
testimon$, ut ma$ c!edit such po!tions as the$ deem
"o!th$ of elief.R Jp. E9<K
'(@)
Being in the est position to disc!iminate et"een the
t!uth and the falsehood, the t!ial cou!tTs assignment of
%alues and "eight on the testimon$ of Rosil$n should e
gi%en c!edence. 5igni#cantl$, it should e o!ne in mind
that the issue at hand hinges on c!ediilit$, the assessment
of "hich, as oft-!epeated, is est made $ the t!ial cou!t
ecause of its unt!ammeled oppo!tunit$ to ose!%e he!
demeano! on the "itness stand.
An the demeano! and manne! of testif$ing sho"n $
the complainant, the t!ial cou!t statedH
Guided $ the fo!egoing p!inciples, this cou!t found no
!eason "h$ it should not elie%e Rosil$n "hen she claimed
she "as !aped. Testimonies of !ape %ictims especiall$ those
"ho a!e $oung and immatu!e dese!%e full c!edence JDeople
%. Gi/ui!an, 66@ 5CRA >6 J(EE7K conside!ing that Pno "oman
"ould concoct a sto!$ of defo!ation, allo" an e&amination
of he! p!i%ate pa!ts and the!eafte! allo" he!self to e
(<
pe!%e!ted in a pulic t!ial if she "as not moti%ated solel$ $
the desi!e to ha%e the culp!it app!ehended and
punished.R JDeople %. Bu$o*, 67< 5CRA >66 '(EE>)K.
Bhen as*ed to desc!ie "hat had een done to he!, Rosil$n
"as ale to na!!ate spontaneousl$ in detail ho" she "as
se&uall$ aused. 3e! testimon$ in this !ega!d "as #!m,
candid, clea! and st!aightfo!"a!d, and it !emained to e so
e%en du!ing the intense and !igid c!oss-e&amination made
$ the defense counsel.
'(E)
Accused-appellant ne&t a!gues that Rosil$n0s di!ect and
!edi!ect testimonies "e!e !ehea!sed and lac*ing in
candidness. 3e points to the supposed hesitant and e%en
idiotic ans"e!s of Rosil$n on c!oss and !e-c!oss
e&aminations. 3e added that she "as t!ained to gi%e
ans"e!s such as, 7Ano poA8, 7#arang po,8 7Med%o
po,8 and 7Sa tingin ;o po.8
Accused-appellant0s a!guments a!e fa! f!om
pe!suasi%e. A !eading of the pe!tinent t!ansc!ipt of
stenog!aphic notes !e%eals that Rosil$n "as in fact #!m and
consistent on the fact of !ape and lasci%ious conduct
committed on he! $ accused-appellant. 5he ans"e!ed in
clea!, simple and natu!al "o!ds customa!$ of child!en of he!
age. The ao%e ph!ases /uoted $ accused-appellant as
utte!ed $ Rosil$n a!e, as co!!ectl$ pointed out $ the
5olicito! Gene!al, t$pical ans"e!s of child "itnesses li*e he!.
At an$ !ate, e%en assuming that Rosil$n, du!ing he!
length$ o!deals on the "itness stand, ma$ ha%e gi%en some
amiguous ans"e!s, the$ !efe! me!el$ to mino! and
pe!iphe!al details "hich do not in an$ "a$ det!act f!om he!
#!m and st!aightfo!"a!d decla!ation that she had een
molested and sujected to lasci%ious conduct $ accused-
appellant. 2o!eo%e!, it should e o!ne in mind that e%en
the most candid "itness oftentimes ma*es mista*es and
confused statements. At times, fa! f!om e!oding the
e+ecti%eness of the e%idence, such lapses could, indeed,
constitute signs of %e!acit$.
'6N)
Then, too, accused-appellant capitaliLes on the alleged
asence of an$ allegation of !ape in the #%e J<K s"o!n
statements e&ecuted $ Rosil$n as "ell as in the inte!%ie"s
and case stud$ conducted $ the !ep!esentati%es of the
,5B,. .n pa!ticula!, accused-appellant points to the
follo"ing documentsH
J(K 5"o!n statements dated August 66 and 6>,
(EE>, e&ecuted efo!e 5DA< 2ilag!os A. Ca!!asco
of the Dasa$ Cit$ DoliceI
J6K 5"o!n statements dated 5epteme! <, ((, and
(E, (EE>, e&ecuted efo!e NB. Agents C$nthia G.
2a!iano and 5upe!%ising NB. Agent A!lis E. FelaI
J7K The .nitial .nte!%ie" of Rosil$n $ the ,5B,
dated August 7N, (EE>I
J9K ,5B, :inal Case 5tud$ Repo!t dated Janua!$
(N, (EE?.
.t must e st!essed that P!apeR is a technical te!m, the
p!ecise and accu!ate de#nition of "hich could not ha%e
een unde!stood $ Rosil$n. .ndeed, "ithout the assistance
of a la"$e!, "ho could e&plain to he! the int!icacies of !ape,
she e&pectedl$ could not distinguish in he! aCda%its and
conse/uentl$ disclose "ith p!o#cient e&actitude the act o!
acts of accused-appellant that unde! the contemplation of
la" constitute the c!ime of !ape. This is especiall$ t!ue in
the p!esent case "he!e the!e "as no e&hausti%e and clea!-
cut e%idence of full and complete penet!ation of the %ictim0s
%agina. .t ma$ "ell e that Rosil$n thought, as an$ la$man
"ould p!oal$ do, that the!e must e the fullest
penet!ation of the %ictim0s %agina to /ualif$ a se&ual act to
!ape.
.n #eople v. $apuhan,
'6()
"e !uled that !ape is
consummated P$ the slightest penet!ation of the female
o!gan, i.e., touching of eithe! laia of the pudendum $ the
penis.R The!e need not e full and complete penet!ation of
the %ictim0s %agina fo! !ape to e consummated. The!e
eing no sho"ing that the fo!egoing technicalities of !ape
(>
"as full$ e&plained to Rosil$n on all those occasions that she
"as inte!%ie"ed $ the police, the NB. agents and ,5B,
social "o!*e!s, she could not the!efo!e e e&pected to
intelligil$ decla!e that accused-appellant0s act of p!essing
his se& o!gan against he! laia "ithout full ent!$ of the
%aginal canal amounted to !ape.
.n the decision of the t!ial cou!t, the testimon$ on one of
the !apes is cited plus the cou!t0s mention of the
ju!isp!udence on this issue, to "itH
MH Sou said that "hen Cong!essman Jalosjos inse!ted
his #nge! into $ou! %agina, $ou! ac* "as !ested on a
pillo" and $ou! legs "e!e sp!ead "ide apa!t, "hat
else did he do-
AH 3e lifted his shi!t, and held his penisI and again
Pidini*it-di*it ni$a ang a!i ni$a sa a!i
*o.R 5underscoring supplied6
MH And, afte! doing thatH P.dini*it-di*it ni$a $ong a!i ni$a
sa a!i *oRI "hat else did he do-
AH Afte! that, P.tinuto* ni$a po $ong a!i ni$a at idiniin-
diin ni$a ang a!i ni$a sa a!i *o.R Junderscoring
supplied6
Jpp. 67, 6< to 7N, T5N, (> Ap!il (EE?K
.t is "ell-ent!enched in this ju!isdiction that !ape can e
committed e%en "ithout full penet!ation of the male o!gan
into the %agina of the "oman. .t is enough that the!e e
p!oof of the ent!ance of the male o!gan "ithin the laia of
the pudendum of the female o!gan. JDeople %s. 2angalino,
(@6 5CRA 76EI Deople %s. Tismo, 6N9 5CRA <7<I Deople %s.
Bacani, (@( 5CRA 7E7K. PDenet!ation of the penis $ ent!$
into the lips of the female o!gan suCces to "a!!ant a
con%iction.R JDeople %s. Galima, G.R. No. (((<>7->9,
:e!ua!$ 6N, (EE> citing Deople %s. Aonada, (>E 5CRA
<7NK. 3ence, "ith the testimon$ of Rosil$n that the accused
p!essed against JPidiniinRK and pointed to JPitinuto*RK
Rosil$n0s %agina his se&ual o!gan on t"o J6K occasions, t"o
J6K acts of !ape "e!e consummated.
'66)
2o!eo%e!, it must e o!ne in mind that Rosil$n0s
pu!pose in e&ecuting the aCda%its on August 66 and 6>,
(EE> efo!e the Dasa$ Cit$ Dolice "as to cha!ge 5implicio
,elanta!, not accused-appellant. As aptl$ pointed out $
the t!ial cou!t, it is p!eposte!ous to e&pect Rosil$n to ma*e
an e&hausti%e na!!ation of the se&ual ause of accused-
appellant "hen he "as not the oject of the said complaint.
Additionall$, Rosil$n0s statements, gi%en to the NB. on
5epteme! (( and (E, (EE>, conce!ned mainl$ the
identi#cation of pictu!es. The!e "as thus no occasion fo!
he! to na!!ate the details of he! se&ual encounte! "ith
accused-appellant.
As to the inte!%ie"s and studies conducted $ the
,5B,, suCce it to state that said meetings "ith Rosil$n
"e!e speciall$ focused on the emotional and ps$chological
!epe!cussions of the se&ual ause on Rosil$n, and had
nothing to do "ith the legal actions eing p!epa!ed as a
conse/uence the!eof. Thus, the documents pe!taining to
said inte!%ie"s and studies cannot e !elied upon to !e%eal
e%e!$ minute aspect of the se&ual molestations complained
of.
At an$ !ate, the inconsistencies et"een the aCda%its
and Rosil$n0s testimon$, if at all the$ e&isted, cannot
diminish the p!oati%e %alue of Rosil$n0s decla!ations on the
"itness stand. The consistent !uling of this Cou!t is that, if
the!e is an inconsistenc$ et"een the aCda%it of a "itness
and he! testimonies gi%en in open cou!t, the latte!
commands g!eate! "eight than the fo!me!.
'67)
.n the thi!d assigned e!!o!, accused-appellant attempts
to imp!ess upon this Cou!t that Rosil$n ga%e the name
Cong!essman Romeo Jalosjos as he! ause! onl$ ecause
that "as the name gi%en to he! $ the pe!son to "hom she
"as int!oduced. That same name, accused-appellant
claims, "as me!el$ pic*ed up $ Rosil$n f!om the name
(?
plate, pla/ue, and memo pad she sa" on accused-
appellant0s oCce des*. Accused-appellant p!esented his
!othe!, ,ominado! PJunR Jalosjos, in an attempt to cast
dout on his culpailit$. .t "as ,ominado! PJunR Jalosjos "ho
allegedl$ met and inte!%ie"ed Rosil$n at the ,a*a*
oCce. .n ad%ancement of this theo!$, accused-appellant
cites the fact that out of a total of (> pictu!es p!esented to
Rosil$n fo! identi#cation, she pic*ed up onl$ 9, "hich depict
,ominado! PJunR Jalosjos. .n the same %ein, accused-
appellant claims that the !esulting ca!tog!aphic s*etch f!om
the facial cha!acte!istics gi%en $ Rosil$n to the
ca!tog!aphe!, !esemles the facial appea!ance of
,ominado! PJunR Jalosjos. Accused-appellant also points out
that Rosil$n failed to gi%e his co!!ect age o! state that he
has a mole on his lo"e! !ight ja".
Cont!a!$ to the contentions of accused-appellant, the
!eco!ds !e%eal that Rosil$n positi%el$ and unhesitatingl$
identi#ed accused-appellant at the cou!t!oom. 5uch
identi#cation du!ing the t!ial cannot e diminished $ the
fact that in he! s"o!n statement, Rosil$n !efe!!ed to
accused-appellant as he! ause! ased on the name she
hea!d f!om the pe!son to "hom she "as int!oduced and on
the name she sa" and !ead in accused-appellant0s
oCce. Fe!il$, a pe!son0s identit$ does not depend solel$ on
his name, ut also on his ph$sical featu!es. Thus, a %ictim
of a c!ime can still identif$ the culp!it e%en "ithout *no"ing
his name. 5imila!l$, the Cou!t, in Deople %. Fas/ueL,
'69)
!uled
thatH
.t matte!s little that the e$e"itness initiall$ !ecogniLed
accused-appellant onl$ $ faceW 'the "itness) W acted li*e
an$ o!dina!$ pe!son in ma*ing in/ui!ies to #nd out the name
that matched 'appellant0s) face. 5igni#cantl$, in open cou!t,
he une/ui%ocall$ identi#ed accused-appellant as thei!
assailant.
E%en in the case of Deople %. Timon,
'6<)
!elied upon $
accused-appellant to disc!edit his identi#cation, this Cou!t
said that e%en assuming that the out-of-cou!t identi#cation
of accused-appellant "as defecti%e, thei! suse/uent
identi#cation in cou!t cu!ed an$ fa" that ma$ ha%e initiall$
attended it.
.n light of the fo!egoing, Rosil$n0s failu!e to identif$
accused-appellant out of the (> pictu!es sho"n to he! does
not fo!eclose the c!ediilit$ of he! un/uali#ed identi#cation
of accused-appellant in open cou!t. The same holds t!ue
"ith the suject ca!tog!aphic s*etch "hich, incidentall$,
!esemles accused-appellant. As noted $ the t!ial cou!t,
accused-appellant and his !othe! ,ominado! Jalosjos ha%e
a st!i*ing simila!it$ in facial featu!es. Natu!all$, if the s*etch
loo*s li*e ,ominado!, it logicall$ follo"s that the same
d!a"ing "ould de#nitel$ loo* li*e accused-appellant.
Gi*e"ise, Rosil$n0s failu!e to co!!ectl$ app!o&imate the
age of accused-appellant and to state that he has a mole on
the lo"e! !ight ja", cannot a+ect the %e!acit$ of accused-
appellant0s identi#cation. At a $oung age, Rosil$n cannot e
e&pected to gi%e the accu!ate age of a <> $ea!-old
pe!son. As to accused-appellant0s mole, the 5olicito!
Gene!al is co!!ect in contending that said mole is not so
distincti%e as to captu!e Rosil$n0s attention and
memo!$. Bhen she "as as*ed to gi%e additional info!mation
aout accused-appellant, Rosil$n desc!ied him as ha%ing a
Pp!ominent ell$.R This, to ou! mind, is indeed a mo!e
distinguishing featu!e that "ould natu!all$ catch the
attention of an ele%en $ea!-old child li*e Rosil$n.
.n his #fth assigned e!!o!, accused-appellant insists that
the "o!ds 7idini;it,8 7itinuto;,8 and 7idiniin,diin,8 "hich
Rosil$n used to desc!ie "hat accused-appellant did to he!
%agina "ith his genitals, do not constitute consummated
!ape. .n addition, the defense a!gued that Rosil$n did not
actuall$ see accused-appellant0s penis in the supposed
se&ual contact. .n fact, the$ st!essed that Rosil$n decla!ed
that accused-appellant0s semen spilled in he! thighs and not
in he! se& o!gan.
2o!eo%e!, in his Repl$ B!ief, accused-appellant,
citing #eople v. $apuhan, a!gued that, assuming that his
(@
penis touched o! !ushed Rosil$n0s e&te!nal genitals, the
same is not enough to estalish the c!ime of !ape.
T!ue, in #eople v. $apuhan,
'6>)
"e e&plained that the
ph!ase, Pthe me!e touching of the e&te!nal genitalia $ the
penis capale of consummating the se&ual act is suCcient
to constitute ca!nal *no"ledge,R means that the act of
touching should e unde!stood he!e as inhe!entl$ pa!t of the
ent!$ of the penis into the laia of the female o!gan and not
me!e touching alone of the mons puis o! the
pudendum. Be fu!the! elucidated thatH
The pudendum o! %ul%a is the collecti%e te!m fo! the female
genital o!gans that a!e %isile in the pe!ineal
a!ea, e.g., mons puis, laia majo!a, laia mino!a, the
h$men, the clito!is, the %aginal o!i#ce, etc. The mons puis
is the !ounded eminence that ecomes hai!$ afte! pue!t$,
and is instantl$ %isile "ithin the su!face. The ne&t la$e! is
the laia majo!a o! the oute! lips of the female o!gan
composed of the oute! con%e& su!face and the inne!
su!face. The s*in of the oute! con%e& su!face is co%e!ed
"ith hai! follicles and is pigmented, "hile the inne! su!face
is a thin s*in "hich does not ha%e an$ hai!s ut has man$
seaceous glands. ,i!ectl$ eneath the laia majo!a is the
laia mino!a. Ju!isp!udence dictates that the laia majo!a
must e ente!ed fo! !ape to e consummated, and not
me!el$ fo! the penis to st!o*e the su!face of the female
o!gan. Thus, a g!aLing of the su!face of the female o!gan o!
touching the mons puis of the pudendum is not suCcient
to constitute consummated !ape. Asent an$ sho"ing of
the slightest penet!ation of the female o!gan, i.e., touching
of eithe! laia of the pudendum $ the penis, the!e can e
no consummated !apeI at most, it can onl$ e attempted
!ape, if not acts of lasci%iousness.
'6?)
.n the p!esent case, the!e is suCcient p!oof to estalish
that the acts of accused-appellant "ent e$ond Pst!a#ng of
the citadel of passionR o! Pshelling of the castle of o!gasmic
potenc$,R as depicted in the $apuhan case, and
p!og!essed into Poma!dment of the d!a"!idge '"hich) is
in%asion enough,R
'6@)
the!e eing, in a manne! of spea*ing, a
con/uest of the fo!t!ess of ignition. Bhen the accused-
appellant !utel$ mounted et"een Rosil$n0s "ide-sp!ead
legs, unfette!edl$ touching, po*ing and p!essing his penis
against he! %agina, "hich in he! position "ould then e
natu!all$ "ide open and !ead$ fo! copulation, it "ould
!e/ui!e no fe!tile imagination to elie the h$poc!is$ claimed
$ accused-appellant that his penis o! that of someone "ho
loo*ed li*e him, "ould unde! the ci!cumstances me!el$
touch o! !ush the e&te!nal genital of Rosil$n. The
ine%itale contact et"een accused-appellant0s penis, and
at the %e!$ least, the laia of the pudendum of Rosil$n, "as
con#!med "hen she felt pain inside he! %agina "hen
the 7idiniin8 pa!t of accused appellant0s se& !itual "as
pe!fo!med.
The incident on June (@, (EE> "as desc!ied $ Rosil$n
as follo"sH
DRA5. ;=NAH
M. And, afte! *issing $ou! lipsI afte! *issing $ou in $ou!
lips, "hat else did he do-
A. Afte! that, he "as lifting m$ shi!t.
M. No", "hile he "as lifting $ou! shi!t, "hat "as $ou!
positionI "ill $ou tell the cou!t-
A. . "as l$ing, si!.
M. G$ing on "hat-
A. An the ed, si!.
M. And, afte! lifting $ou! shi!t, "hat else did he do-
A. 3e sp!ead m$ legs si!.
M. And, afte! sp!eading $ou! legs apa!tI "hat did he do-
A. Afte! that, he lifted his shi!t and held his penis.
M. And "hile he "as holding his penisI "hat did he do-
(E
A. 3e p!essed it in m$ %agina.
ATTS. :ERNAN,E;H
2a$ "e !e/uest that the %e!nacula! e used-
A. <apos po, idini;it,di;it po ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa ari ;o.
DRA5. ;=NAH
2a$ . !espectfull$ mo%e that the "o!dH 7idini;it,di;it ni%a
ang ari ni%a sa ari ;o,8 e inco!po!ated-
M. And "hile he "as doing thatI acco!ding to
$ou, 7idini;it,di;it ni%a ang ari ni%a sa ari oB8 "hat
did $ou feel-
A. . "as af!aid and then, . c!ied.
M. Bill $ou tell the Cou!t "h$ $ou felt af!aid and "h$
$ou c!ied-
A. Because . "as af!aid he might inse!t his penis into
m$ %agina.
M. And, fo! ho" long did Cong!essman Jalosjos pe!fo!m
that act, "hich acco!ding to $ou, 7idini;it,di;it ni%a
%ong ari ni%a sa ari ;oA8
CA=RTH
Dlace the Tagalog "o!ds, into the !eco!ds.
A. Sandali lang po %on.
M. Bhat pa!t of $ou! %agina, o! 7ari8 "as eing touched
$ the ari o! penis-
& & & & & & & &
&
M. Sou said that $ou feltW . "ithd!a" that
/uestion. 3o" did $ou *no" that Cong!essman
Jalosjos "as doing, 7idini;it,di;it ni%a %ung ari ni%a sa
ari ;oA8
A. Because . could feel it, si!.
M. No", $ou said $ou could feel it. Bhat pa!t of the
%aginaW in "hat pa!t of $ou! %agina "as
Cong!essman Jalosjos, acco!ding to $ou, 7idini;it,
di;it ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa ari oA8
A. .n f!ont of m$ %agina, si!.
M. .n f!ont of $ou! %agina- A.V.I "ill $ou tell the Cou!t
the position-
Bill $ou desc!ie the position of Cong!essman
Jalosjos "hen he "as doing that. 7/dini;it,di;it ni%a
sa ari ;oA8
A. /de,deonstrate ;o po baA
:.5CAG ;=NAH
M. Can $ou demonst!ate-
& & & & & & & &
&
A. 3e "as holding me li*e this "ith his one handI and
"as holding his penis "hile his othe! hand, o! his f!ee
hand "as on the ed.
& & & & & & & &
&
DRA5. ;=NAH
No", acco!ding to $ou, $ou don0t *no" ho" to sa$ itI o!
"hat "as done to $ou. No", "ill $ou tell the Cou!t
ho" can $ou desc!ie "hat "as done to $ou-
A. Afte! he 7dini;it,di;it ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa ari ;oB
itinuto; naan ni%a ito.8
M. A.V. $ou said 7itinuto; ni%a itoB8 "hat else did he do-
DRA5. ;=NAH
5he is no" t!$ing to desc!ie.
6N
CA=RTH
T!anslate.
A. 3e seems to e 7parang idinidiin po ni%a.8
M. No", "hat did $ou feel, "hen acco!ding to $ouI as .
"ould /uoteH 7parang idinidiin ni%aA8
A. Masa;it po.
M. And, just to ma*e it clea! in TagalogH Ano itong
idinidiin ni%aA
CA=RTH
M. Sabi o itinuto;. "a;ita o bang itinuto;A
A. . sa" him na na;aganuon po sa ano ni%a.
DRA5. ;=NAH
M. A.V., cla!if$. Sou said 7na;aganuon si%a8 "hat do
$ou mean $ 7na;aganuon si%aA8
A. 3e "as holding his penis, and then, that "as the one
"hich he itinuto; sa a!i *o.
DRA5. ;=NAH
M. And, "hen $ou said 7idinidiin po ni%aB8 to "hich $ou
a!e !efe!!ing- Bhat is this 7idinidiin ni%aA8
A. /dinidiin ni%a ang ari ni%a sa ari ;o.
M. And "hat did $ou feel "hen $ou saidH he
"as 7idinidiin ni%a ang ari ni%a sa ari ;oA8
A. Masa;it po.
CA=RTH
The ans"e! is 7asa;it po.8
D!oceed.
DRA5. ;=NAH
M. Bhe!e did $ou feel the pain-
A. .nside m$ ari po. 5Sa loob po ng ari ;o.6
& & & & & & & &
&
DRA5. ;=NAH
M. And then, afte! that, "hat else did he do
A. Afte! that, he touched m$ !east, si!.
M. And, afte! touching $ou! !east, "hat did he do-
A. And afte! that . felt that he "as J"itness
demonst!ating to the cou!t, "ith he! inde& #nge!,
!uing against he! open left palmK
M. And afte! doing that, "hat else did he do-
A. Afte! that, he inst!ucted me to go to sleep.
& & & & & & & &
&
A. . put do"n m$ clothes and then, . c!ied m$self to
sleep, si!.
M. Bh$ did $ou c!$- Bill $ou tell the cou!t, "h$ did $ou
c!ied afte! putting do"n $ou! clothes-
A. Because . felt pit$ fo! m$self.
5"aaawa po a;o sa sarili ;o.6
& & & & & & & &
&.
JEmphasis supplied.K
'6E)
E%en the Jul$ 6N, (EE> encounte! et"een Rosil$n and
accused-appellant "ould not ta& the s*etch$ %isualiLation of
the naQ%e and uninitiated to conclude that the!e "as indeed
penile in%asion $ accused-appellant of Rosil$n0s laia. An
that occasion, accused-appellant "as simila!l$ ensconced
6(
et"een the pa!ted legs of Rosil$n, e&cept that, this time,
Rosil$n "as con%enientl$ !ested on, and ele%ated "ith a
pillo" on he! ac* "hile accused-appellant "as touching,
po*ing and p!essing his penis against he! %agina. Topped
"ith the th!usting motions emplo$ed $ accused-appellant,
the !esulting pain felt $ Rosil$n in he! se& o!gan "as no
dout a conse/uence of consummated !ape.
The pe!tinent po!tions of Rosil$n0s account of the Jul$
6N, (EE> incident is as follo"sH
DRA5. ;=NAH
& & & & & & & &
&
M. The moment "hen Cong. Jalosjos inse!ted his #nge!
into $ou! %agina, "hat "as $ou! position-
.NTERDRETERH
The "itness is as*ing he 5sic6 she has to
demonst!ate-
:.5CAG ;=NAH
M. /paliwanag o langA
A. 2$ ac* "as !ested on a pillo" and m$ legs "e!e
sp!ead apa!t.
M. Sou said that "hen Cong!essman Jalosjos inse!ted
his #nge! into $ou! %agina, $ou! ac* "as !ested on a
pillo" and $ou! legs "e!e sp!ead "ide apa!t, "hat
else did he do-
A. 3e lifted his shi!t, and held his penisI and
again 7idini;it,di;it ni%a ang ari ni%a sa ari ;o.8
M. And "hat did $ou feel "hen he "as doing that "hich
acco!ding to $ou and . "ould /uote in
TagalogH 7idini;it,di;it ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa ari ;oA8
A. . "as af!aid si!.
M. And, afte! doing thatH 7idini;it,di;it ni%a %ong ari
ni%a sa ari ;o,8 "hat else did he do-
A. Afte! that, 7itinuto; ni%a po %ong ari ni%a at idiniin,
diin ni%a ang ari ni%a sa ari ;o.8
M. Sou saidH 7$ongressan +alos@os itinuto; ni%a %ong
ari ni%a sa ari ;oB at idiniin,diin ni%a %ong ari ni%a sa
ari ;oB8 No", "hile he "as doing that act, "hat "as
the position of Cong!essman Jalosjos-
A. 3is t"o J6K hands "e!e on m$ side and since m$ legs
"e!e sp!ead apa!tI he "as in-et"een them, and
doing an up"a!d and do"n"a!d mo%ement.
JBitness demonst!ated a pushing, o! pumping
mo%ementK
M. :o! ho" long did Cong!essman Jalosjos pe!fo!m that
act, pushing o! pumping mo%ement "hile his penis,
o! 7ang ari ni%a a% na;atuto; at idinidiin,diin %ong ari
ni%a sa ari oA8
A. . don0t *no".
M. And "hat did $ou feel "hen Cong!essman Jalosjos
"as ma*ing that mo%ement, pushing, o! pumping-
A. . felt pain and then . c!ied.
M. Bhe!e did $ou feel the pain-
A. .nside m$ %agina, si!.
& & & & & & & &
&.
'7N)
The child0s na!!ation of the !ape se/uence is
!e%ealing. The act of 7idini;it,di;it ni%a8 "as follo"ed
$ 7itinuto; ni%a &&& at idiniin,diin ni%a.8 The7idiniin,diin
ni%a8 "as succeeded $ 7Masa;it po.8 Dain inside
he! 7ari8 is indicati%e of consummated penet!ation.
The en%i!onmental ci!cumstances displa$ed $ the
g!aphic na!!ation of "hat too* place at the appellant0s !oom
66
f!om June (9 to June (> and June 6( to June 66, (EE> a!e
consistent "ith the complainant0s testimon$ "hich sho"s
that !ape "as legall$ consummated.
.n the case of #eople v. $apuhan, the %ictim put up a
!esistance --- $ putting he! legs close togethe! --- "hich,
although futile, someho" made it incon%enient, if not
diCcult, fo! the accused-appellant to attempt
penet!ation. An the othe! hand, the ease "ith "hich
accused-appellant he!ein pe!pet!ated the se&ual ause, not
to mention the asence of time const!aint, totall$
distinguishes the instant case f!om $apuhan. 3e!e, the
%ictim "as passi%e and e%en sumissi%e to the leche!ous
acts of accused-appellant. Thus, e%en assuming that his
penis then "as faccid, his act of holding, guiding and
assisting his penis "ith his one hand, "hile touching, po*ing
and p!essing the same against Rosil$nTs %agina, "ould
su!el$ !esult in e%en the slightest contact et"een the laia
of the pudendum and accused-appellantTs se& o!gan.
Conside!ing that Rosil$n is a self-confessed se& "o!*e!,
and the ci!cumstances of the alleged se&ual assault at a!,
the defense a!gued that it is highl$ imp!oale and cont!a!$
to human e&pe!ience that accused-appellant e&e!cised a
5pa!tan-li*e discipline and !est!ained himself f!om full$
consummating the se&ual act "hen the!e "as in fact no
!eason fo! him not to do so. .n the same light, the defense
li*e"ise !anded as unnatu!al the testimon$ of Rosil$n that
accused-appellant contented himself "ith !uing his penis
clipped et"een he! thighs until he !eached o!gasm and
desisted f!om full$ penet!ating he!, "hen Rosil$n "as then
enti!el$ at his disposal.
The defense seems to fo!get that the!e is no standa!d
fo!m of eha%io! "hen it comes to g!atif$ing one0s asic
se&ual instinct. The human se&ual pe!%e!sit$ is fa! too
int!icate fo! the defense to p!esc!ie ce!tain fo!ms of
conduct. E%en the "o!d Ppe!%e!seR is not enti!el$ p!ecise,
as "hat ma$ e pe!%e!se to one ma$ not e to
anothe!. =sing a child of tende! $ea!s "ho could e%en pass
as one0s g!anddaughte!, to unleash "hat othe!s "ould call
do"n!ight estial lust, ma$ e utte!l$ nauseating and
!epulsi%e to some, ut ma$ peculia!l$ e a festi%e
cele!ation of salacious fantasies to othe!s. :o! all "e *no",
accused-appellant ma$ ha%e found a distinct and complete
se&ual g!ati#cation in such *ind of liidinous stunts and
maneu%e!s.
Ne%e!theless, accused-appellant ma$ not ha%e full$ and
fo! a longe! pe!iod penet!ated Rosil$n fo! fea! of
pe!pet!ating his name th!ough a child f!om the "om of a
mino!I o! ecause of his p!e%ious ag!eement "ith
his 7su;ing bugaw,8 5implicio ,elanta!, that the!e "ould e
no penet!ation, othe!"ise the latte! "ould demand a highe!
p!ice. This ma$ e the !eason "h$ 5implicio ,elanta! ga%e
his moc*ing fathe!l$ ad%ice to Rosil$n that it is ad if
accused-appellant inse!ts his penis into he! se& o!gan, "hile
at the same time o!de!ing he! to call him if accused-
appellant "ould penet!ate he!. 5uch instance of penile
in%asion "ould p!ompt 5implicio to demand a highe! p!ice,
"hich is, afte! all, as the 5olicito! Gene!al calls it, the
peculia!it$ of p!ostitution.
The defense contends that the testimon$ of Rosil$n that
accused-appellant ejaculated on he! thighs and not in he!
%agina, onl$ p!o%es that the!e "as no !ape. .t should e
noted that this po!tion of Rosil$n0s testimon$ !efe!s to the
June (< and 6(, (EE> cha!ges of acts of lasci%iousness, and
not the !ape cha!ges. .n an$ e%ent, g!anting that it occu!!ed
du!ing the t"in instances of !ape on June (@ and Jul$ 6N,
(EE>, the ejaculation on the %ictim0s thighs "ould not
p!eclude the fact of !ape.
The!e is no t!uth to the contention of the defense that
Rosil$n did not see the penis of accused-appellant. As can
e gleaned f!om the ao%e-/uoted po!tions of the
t!ansc!ipts, Rosil$n une/ui%ocall$ testi#ed that accused-
appellant held his penis then po*ed he! %agina "ith it. And
e%en if she did not actuall$ see accused-appellant0s penis go
inside he!, su!el$ she could ha%e felt "hethe! it "as his
penis o! just his #nge!.
67
Be no" come to the issue of "hethe! o! not Rosil$n "as
elo" t"el%e J(6K $ea!s of age at the time the !ape
complained of occu!!ed. To olste! the decla!ation of
Rosil$n that she "as then ele%en $ea!s old, the p!osecution
p!esented the follo"ing documentsH
J(K Rosil$n0s i!th ce!ti#cate sho"ing he! i!thda$
as 2a$ ((, (E@<I
'7()
J6K Rosil$n0s aptismal ce!ti#cate sho"ing he!
i!thda$ as 2a$ ((, (E@<I
'76)
J7K 2aste! Gist of Gi%e Bi!ths stating that 2a. Rosil$n
,elanta! "as o!n on 2a$ ((, (E@< to Gi!ada
Telen as the mothe!I
'77)
J9K 2a!*ed pages of the Co!d ,!essing Room Boo*I
'79)
J<K 5umma!$ of the Co!d ,!essing Boo*, sho"ing
he! i!thda$ as 2a$ ((, (E@< and he! pa!ents0
JGi!ada Telen and 5implicio ,elanta!K patient #le
nume! J7E-(N-?(KI
'7<)
J>K Reco!d of admission sho"ing he! pa!ents0
patient nume! J7E-(N-?(K and con#nement at
the Jose :aella 2emo!ial 3ospital f!om 2a$ <-
(9, (E@<.
'7>)
.t is settled that in cases of statuto!$ !ape, the age of
the %ictim ma$ e p!o%ed $ the p!esentation of he! i!th
ce!ti#cate. .n the case at a!, accused-appellant contends
that the i!th ce!ti#cate of Rosil$n should not ha%e een
conside!ed $ the t!ial cou!t ecause said i!th ce!ti#cate
has al!ead$ een o!de!ed cancelled and e&punged f!om the
!eco!ds $ the Regional T!ial Cou!t of 2anila, B!anch 7@, in
5pecial D!oceedings No. E?-@(@E7, dated Ap!il ((, (EE?.
'7?)
3o"e%e!, it appea!s that the said decision has een
annulled and set aside $ the Cou!t of Appeals on June (N,
(EEE, in CA-G.R. 5D No. 9<6@E. The decision of the Cou!t of
Appeals "as appealed to this Cou!t $ petition fo! !e%ie",
doc*eted as G.R. No. (9N7N<. Dending the #nal outcome of
that case, the decision of the Cou!t of Appeals is p!esumed
%alid and can e in%o*ed as pria facie asis fo! holding
that Rosil$n "as indeed ele%en $ea!s old at the time she
"as aused $ accused-appellant.
3o"e%e!, e%en assuming the asence of a %alid i!th
ce!ti#cate, the!e is suCcient and ample p!oof of the
complainant0s age in the !eco!ds.
Rosil$n0s Baptismal Ce!ti#cate can li*e"ise se!%e as
p!oof of he! age. .n Deople %. Gian,
'7@)
"e !uled that the
i!th ce!ti#cate, o! in lieu the!eof, an$ othe! documenta!$
e%idence that can help estalish the age of the %ictim, such
as the aptismal ce!ti#cate, school !eco!ds, and documents
of simila! natu!e, can e p!esented.
And e%en assuming e& gratia arguenti that the i!th
and aptismal ce!ti#cates of Rosil$n a!e inadmissile to
p!o%e he! age, the 2aste! Gist of Gi%e Bi!ths and the Co!d
,!essing Boo* of ,!. Jose :aella 2emo!ial 3ospital "he!e
Rosil$n "as o!n a!e suCcient e%idence to p!o%e that he!
date of i!th "as 2a$ ((, (E@<. These documents a!e
conside!ed ent!ies in oCcial !eco!ds, admissile as pria
facie e%idence of thei! contents and co!!oo!ati%e of
Rosil$n0s testimon$ as to he! age.
Thus, Rule (7N, 5ection 99, of the Rules of Cou!t statesH
9ntries in ofcial records. ,,, Ent!ies in oCcial !eco!ds made
in the pe!fo!mance of his dut$ $ a pulic oCce! of the
Dhilippines, o! $ a pe!son in the pe!fo!mance of a dut$
especiall$ enjoined $ la", a!e pria facie e%idence of the
facts the!ein stated.
.n Africa v. $alte&, et al., 5#hil6, /nc., et al.,
'7E)
the Cou!t
laid do"n the !e/uisites fo! the application of the fo!egoing
!ule, thusH
JaK That the ent!$ "as made $ a pulic oCce!, o!
$ anothe! pe!son speciall$ enjoined $ la" to
do soI
69
JK That it "as made $ the pulic oCce! in the
pe!fo!mance of his duties o! $ such othe!
pe!son in the pe!fo!mance of a dut$ speciall$
enjoined $ la"I and
JcK That the pulic oCce o! the othe! pe!son had
suCcient *no"ledge of the facts $ him stated,
"hich must ha%e een ac/ui!ed $ him
pe!sonall$ o! th!ough oCcial info!mation.
.n o!de! fo! a oo* to classif$ as an oCcial !egiste! and
admissile in e%idence, it is not necessa!$ that it e
!e/ui!ed $ an e&p!ess statute to e *ept, no! that the
natu!e of the oCce should !ende! the oo* indispensaleI it
is suCcient that it e di!ected $ the p!ope! autho!it$ to e
*ept. Thus, oCcial !egiste!s, though not !e/ui!ed $ la",
*ept as con%enient and app!op!iate modes of discha!ging
oCcial duties, a!e admissile.
'9N)
Ent!ies in pulic o! oCcial oo*s o! !eco!ds ma$ e
p!o%ed $ the p!oduction of the oo*s o! !eco!ds
themsel%es o! $ a cop$ ce!ti#ed $ the legal *eepe!
the!eof.
'9()
.t is not necessa!$ to sho" that the pe!son
ma*ing the ent!$ is una%ailale $ !eason of death,
asence, etc., in o!de! that the ent!$ ma$ e admissile in
e%idence, fo! his eing e&cused f!om appea!ing in cou!t in
o!de! that pulic usiness e not de!anged, is one of the
!easons fo! this e&ception to the hea!sa$ !ule.
'96)
Co!olla!$ the!eto, D!esidential ,ec!ee No. ><(, as
amended $ D.,. No. ?>>,
'97)
mandates hospitals to !epo!t
and !egiste! "ith the local ci%il !egist!a! the fact of i!th,
among othe!s, of aies o!n unde! thei! ca!e. 5aid ,ec!ee
imposes a penalt$ of a #ne of not less that D<NN.NN no!
mo!e than D(,NNN.NN o! imp!isonment of not less than th!ee
J7K months no! mo!e than si& J>K months, o! oth, in the
disc!etion of the cou!t, in case of failu!e to ma*e the
necessa!$ !epo!t to the local ci%il !egist!a!.
3ence, unde! the ao%e-cited D.,. ><(, as amended, in
connection "ith Rule 7N, 5ection 99, of the Rules of Cou!t, it
is clea! that the Co!d ,!essing Room Boo* "he!e the fact of
i!th, name of the mothe! and othe! !elated ent!ies a!e
initiall$ !eco!ded, as "ell as the 2aste! Gist of Gi%e Bi!ths of
the hospital, a!e conside!ed ent!ies in oCcial !eco!d, eing
indispensale to and app!op!iate modes of !eco!ding the
i!ths of child!en p!epa!ato!$ to !egist!ation of said ent!ies
"ith the local ci%il !egist!a!, in compliance "ith a dut$
speci#call$ mandated $ la".
.t matte!s not that the pe!son p!esented to testif$ on
these hospital !eco!ds "as not the pe!son "ho actuall$
made those ent!ies "a$ ac* in (E@<, ut Amelita
A%enante, the !eco!ds custodian of the hospital in (EE<. To
!eite!ate, these !eco!ds ma$ e p!o%ed $ the p!esentation
of the !eco!d itself o! $ a ce!ti#ed cop$ o! the legal *eepe!
the!eof. D!oof of the una%ailailit$ of the pe!son "ho made
those ent!ies is not a !e/uisite fo! thei! admissiilit$. Bhat
is impo!tant is that the ent!ies testi#ed to $ A%enante "e!e
gathe!ed f!om the !eco!ds of the hospital "hich "e!e
accomplished in compliance "ith a dut$ speci#call$
mandated $ la".
The!efo!e, the Co!d ,!essing Room Boo* and the 2aste!
Gist of Gi%e Bi!ths of the hospital a!e admissile as e%idence
of the facts stated the!ein.
The p!epa!ation of these hospital documents p!eceded
that of the i!th and aptismal ce!ti#cates of Rosil$n. The$
estalish independent and mate!ial facts p!epa!ed $
uniased and disinte!ested pe!sons unde! en%i!onmental
ci!cumstances apa!t f!om those that ma$ ha%e attended the
p!epa!ation of the i!th and aptismal ce!ti#cates. 3ence,
these hospital !eco!ds, to !eite!ate, a!e suCcient to suppo!t
the testimon$ of Rosil$n as to he! age.
Conse/uentl$, the testimon$ of 5implicio ,elanta! that
the ent!ies in the i!th ce!ti#cate of Rosil$n a!e false and
that he me!el$ made them up, pa!ticula!l$ he! date of i!th,
"as co!!ectl$ dis!ega!ded $ the t!ial cou!t. .t should e
noted that the c!iminal cha!ges fo! child ause #led $
Rosil$n against him "as the di!ect cause of his
6<
inca!ce!ation. This !aises a possiilit$ that 5implicio falsel$
testi#ed in the p!esent case, to get e%en "ith Rosil$n.
Gi*e"ise, the t!ial cou!t co!!ectl$ dis!ega!ded the
testimonies of Glo!ia Bina$ and Angelito .nt!uLo ecause the
defense failed to p!o%e that the$ "e!e *no"ledgeale as to
the ci!cumstances of Rosil$n0s i!th. Thei! testimonies
consist mainl$ of ose!%ations tending to sho" that
Rosil$n0s appea!ance elie he! claim that she "as o!n on
2a$ ((, (E@<.
.n the fou! instances of acts of lasci%iousness allegedl$
committed on June 6E, June 7N, Jul$ 6, and Jul$ 7, (EE>
JC!iminal Cases Nos. E>-(EE9, E>-(EE<, E>-(EE>, and E>-
(EE?, !especti%el$K, the t!ial cou!t ac/uitted accused-
appellant on the g!ound of !easonale dout as the defense
"as ale to p!o%e that accused-appellant "as not in 2anila
ut eithe! in ,ipolog o! ,apitan Cit$ at the time the
lasci%ious acts "e!e supposedl$ committed. The e%idence
of the defense estalished that accused-appellant fe" to
,ipolog on June 6@, (EE>, and sta$ed the!e until Jul$ E,
(EE>.
.n C!iminal Cases Nos. E>-(EE( and E>-(EE@, fo! t"o
counts of acts of lasci%iousness allegedl$ committed oth in
the ea!l$ mo!nings of June (E and Jul$ 6(, (EE>, Rosil$n
me!el$ testi#ed that she felt someod$ touching he! p!i%ate
pa!t ut failed to identif$ the pe!son "ho "as pe!fo!ming
those leche!ous acts as she "as too sleep$ to "a*e
up. 3ence, accused-appellant "as li*e"ise ac/uitted in
these cases on the g!ound of !easonale dout.
Bith !espect, ho"e%e!, to the acts of lasci%iousness
committed in the mo!ning of June (< and 66, (EE>, and in
the e%ening of June (9, (<, (@, and 6(, (EE>, as "ell as the
!ape pe!pet!ated on June (@, (EE> and Jul$ 6N, (EE>,
accused-appellant failed to account fo! his "he!eaouts. A
ca!eful !e%ie" of the pe!tinent t!ansc!ipt of stenog!aphic
notes !e%eals that accused-appellant did not gi%e an$
testimon$ as to "he!e he "as at the time these c!imes "e!e
committed. Clea!l$, the!efo!e, the t!ial cou!t co!!ectl$
dis!ega!ded his unsustantiated defense of denial, "hich
cannot p!e%ail o%e! his positi%e identi#cation $ Rosil$n as
the culp!it.
As !ega!ds the cha!ge of acts of lasci%iousness
committed in the mo!ning of June (>, (EE>, accused-
appellant claimed that it "as impossile fo! him to ha%e
committed the same ecause he fe" to ,ipolog on that
da$. The !eco!ds disclose, ho"e%e!, that accused-
appellant0s fight "as at EH9N a.m. The possiilit$, the!efo!e,
of accused-appellant0s ha%ing pe!fo!med the lasci%ious acts
on the %ictim efo!e he "ent o+ to the ai!po!t is not at all
p!ecluded. :o! his failu!e to p!o%e the ph$sical impossiilit$
of his p!esence at the RitL To"e!s in the mo!ning of June (>,
(EE>, "hen the se&ual ause of Rosil$n "as committed, his
defense of alii must fail.
A!ticle ..., 5ection < of Repulic Act No. ?>(N, statesH
$hild #rostitution and other Se&ual Abuse. --- Child!en,
"hethe! male o! female, "ho fo! mone$ o! p!o#t, o! an$
othe! conside!ation o! due to the coe!cion o! infuence of
an$ adult, s$ndicate o! g!oup, indulge in se&ual inte!cou!se
o! lasci%ious conduct a!e deemed to e child!en e&ploited in
p!ostitution and othe! se&ual ause.
The penalt$ of reclusion teporal in its medium pe!iod
to reclusion perpetua shall e imposed upon the follo"ingH
&&& &&& &&&
JK Those "ho commit the act of se&ual inte!cou!se o!
lasci%ious conduct "ith a child e&ploited in p!ostitution o!
sujected to othe! se&ual auseI #rovided, That "hen the
%ictim is unde! t"el%e J(6K $ea!s of age, the pe!pet!ato!s
shall e p!osecuted unde! A!ticle 77<, pa!ag!aphs 7, fo!
!ape and A!ticle 77> of Act No. 7@(<, as amended, the
Re%ised Denal Code, fo! !ape o! lasci%ious conduct, as the
case ma$ eH #rovided, That the penalt$ fo! lasci%ious
conduct "hen the %ictim is unde! t"el%e J(6K $ea!s of age
6>
shall e reclusion teporal in its medium pe!iodI & & & .
JEmphasis supplied.K
.n Deople %. Aptana,
'99)
the Cou!t, citing the case
of Deople %. Ga!in,
'9<)
e&plained the elements of the o+ense
of %iolation of 5ection < JK of R.A. ?>(N, o! the Child Ause
Ga", as follo"sH
(. The accused commits the act of se&ual inte!cou!se o!
lasci%ious conduct.
6. The said act is pe!fo!med "ith a child e&ploited in
p!ostitution o! sujected othe! se&ual ause.
7. The child, "hethe! male o! female, is elo" (@ $ea!s of
age.
A child is deemed e&ploited in p!ostitution o! sujected to
othe! se&ual ause, "hen the child indulges in se&ual
inte!cou!se o! lasci%ious conduct JaK fo! mone$, p!o#t, o!
an$ othe! conside!ationI o! JK unde! the coe!cion o!
infuence of an$ adult, s$ndicate o! g!oup. =nde! RA ?>(N,
child!en a!e Ppe!sons elo" eighteen $ea!s of age o! those
unale to full$ ta*e ca!e of themsel%es o! p!otect
themsel%es f!om ause, neglect, c!uelt$, e&ploitation o!
disc!imination ecause of thei! age o! mental disailit$ o!
condition.R
PGasci%ious conductR is de#ned unde! A!ticle U...,
5ection 76 of the .mplementing Rules and Regulation of R.A.
?>(N, as follo"sH
'T)he intentional touching, eithe! di!ectl$ o! th!ough
clothing, of the genitalia, anus, g!oin, !east, inne! thigh, o!
uttoc*s, o! the int!oduction of an$ oject into the genitalia,
anus o! mouth, of an$ pe!son, "hethe! of the same o!
opposite se&, "ith an intent to ause, humiliate, ha!ass,
deg!ade, o! a!ouse o! g!atif$ the se&ual desi!e of an$
pe!son, estialit$, mastu!ation, lasci%ious e&hiition of the
genitals o! puic a!ea of a pe!son.
.n the case at a!, accused-appellant0s acts of *issing
Rosil$n on the lips, fondling he! !east, inse!ting his #nge!
into he! %agina and placing his penis et"een he! thighs, all
constitute lasci%ious conduct intended to a!ouse o! g!atif$
his se&ual desi!e. 3ence, the t!ial cou!t co!!ectl$ con%icted
accused-appellant of %iolation of 5ection < JK of R.A. ?>(N,
o! the Child Ause Ga", in C!iminal Cases Nos. E>-(E@?, E>-
(E@@, E>-(E@E, E>-(EEN, E>-(EE6, and E>-(EE7, cha!ging
him "ith the ao%e-desc!ied lasci%ious acts.
The penalt$ fo! %iolation of 5ection < JK of R.A. ?>(N, o!
the Child Ause Ga", "he!e the %ictim is elo" (6 $ea!s of
age, is reclusion teporal in its medium pe!iod.
The !eco!ds sho" that on at least nine JEK sepa!ate
occasions, the accused-appellant inse!ted his #nge! into the
complainant0s %agina. These inse!tions too* place in
(EE>. A $ea! late!, Cong!ess enacted Repulic Act No.
@7<7, the Anti-Rape la" of (EE?. .t does not appl$ to this
case ut it indicates state polic$ on !ape. The Re%ised Denal
Code is no" amended to !ead as follo"sH
A!ticle 6>>-A. -apeB Chen and :ow $oitted. 4 Rape is
committed 4
(. B$ a man "ho ha%e ca!nal *no"ledge of a "oman unde!
an$ of the follo"ing ci!cumstancesH
aK Th!ough fo!ce, th!eat o! intimidationI
K Bhen the o+ended pa!t$ is dep!i%ed of !eason o!
othe!"ise unconsciousI
cK B$ means of f!audulent machination o! g!a%e ause of
autho!it$I and
6?
dK Bhen the o+ended pa!t$ is unde! t"el%e J(6K $ea!s of
age o! is demented, e%en though none of the ci!cumstances
mentioned ao%e e p!esent.
6. B$ an$ pe!son "ho, unde! an$ of the ci!cumstances
mentioned in pa!ag!aph ( he!eof, shall commit an act of
se&ual assault $ inse!ting his penis into anothe! pe!son0s
mouth o! anal o!i#ce o! an$ inst!ument o! oject, into the
genital o! anal o!i#ce of anothe! pe!son. JEmphasis
supplied.K
.ndicati%e of the continuing state polic$ to"a!ds !ape,
the Anti-Rape Ga" of (EE? no" classi#es the c!ime as an
o+ense against pe!sons. An$ pulic p!osecuto!, not
necessa!il$ the %ictim o! he! pa!ents, can p!osecute the
case.
The penalties fo! the c!ime of !ape in the light of %a!ious
ci!cumstances, "hich a!e no" set fo!th and contained in
A!ticle 6>>-B of the Re%ised Denal Code, ha%e also een
inc!eased.
Conside!ing that the!e a!e neithe! mitigating no!
agg!a%ating ci!cumstance, the t!ial cou!t co!!ectl$ imposed
on accused-appellant the ma&imum penalt$ of #fteen J(<K
$ea!s, si& J>K months and t"ent$ J6NK da$s of reclusion
teporal, "hich is "ithin the medium pe!iod of reclusion
teporal medium, pu!suant to ou! !uling in)ulla v. $ourt of
Appeals.
'9>)
Not"ithstanding that R.A. ?>(N is a special la",
accused-appellant ma$ enjo$ a minimum te!m of the
indete!minate sentence to e ta*en "ithin the !ange of the
penalt$ ne&t lo"e! to that p!esc!ied $ the Code.
'9?)
3o"e%e!, the t!ial cou!t e!!oneousl$ #&ed the minimum
te!m of the indete!minate sentence at eight J@K $ea!s, eight
J@K months and one J(K da$ of prision a%or in its medium
pe!iod. .n the afo!esaid case of )ulla,
'9@)
"e held that the
penalt$ ne&t lo"e! in deg!ee to reclusion teporal medium
is reclusion teporal minimum, the !ange of "hich is f!om
t"el%e J(6K $ea!s and one J(K da$ to fou!teen J(9K $ea!s and
eight J@K months. 3ence, fo! %iolation of A!ticle ..., 5ection <
JK of R.A. ?>(N, accused-appellant shall su+e! the
indete!minate sentence of t"el%e $ea!s J(6K and one J(K da$
of reclusion teporal, as minimum, to #fteen J(<K $ea!s, si&
J>K months and t"ent$ J6NK da$s of reclusion teporal as
ma&imum.
At the time of commission of the c!imes complained of
he!ein in (EE>, statuto!$ !ape "as penaliLed unde! 5ection
(( of R.A. ?><E, "hich amended A!ticle 77< of the Re%ised
Denal Code, to "itH
Chen and how rape is coitted. --- Rape is committed $
ha%ing ca!nal *no"ledge of a "oman unde! an$ of the
follo"ing ci!cumstancesH
(. B$ using fo!ce o! intimidationI
6. Bhen the "oman is dep!i%ed of !eason o! othe!"ise
unconsciousI and
7. Bhen the "oman is unde! t"el%e $ea!s of age o! is
demented.
The c!ime of !ape shall e punished $ reclusion
perpetua. &&&.
.n statuto!$ !ape, me!e se&ual cong!ess "ith a "oman
elo" t"el%e $ea!s of age consummates the c!ime of
statuto!$ !ape !ega!dless of he! consent to the act o! lac* of
it. The la" p!esumes that a "oman of tende! age does not
possess disce!nment and is incapale of gi%ing intelligent
consent to the se&ual act. Thus, it "as held that ca!nal
*no"ledge of a child elo" t"el%e $ea!s old e%en if she is
engaged in p!ostitution is still conside!ed statuto!$
!ape. The application of fo!ce and intimidation o! the
dep!i%ation of !eason of the %ictim ecomes i!!ele%ant. The
asence of st!uggle o! outc!$ of the %ictim o! e%en he!
passi%e sumission to the se&ual act "ill not mitigate no!
asol%e the accused f!om liailit$.
'9E)
6@
.n the case at a!, the p!osecution estalished e$ond
!easonale dout that accused-appellant had ca!nal
*no"ledge of Rosil$n. 2o!eo%e!, the p!osecution
successfull$ p!o%ed that Rosil$n "as onl$ ele%en $ea!s of
age at the time she "as se&uall$ aused. As such, the
asence of p!oof of an$ st!uggle, o! fo! that matte! of
consent o! passi%e sumission to the se&ual ad%ances of
accused-appellant, "as of no moment. The fact that
accused-appellant had se&ual cong!ess "ith ele%en $ea!-old
Rosil$n is suCcient to hold him liale fo! statuto!$ !ape, and
sentenced to su+e! the penalt$ of reclusion perpetua.
As to accused-appellantTs ci%il liailit$, the amount of
mo!al damages a"a!ded $ the t!ial cou!t fo! each count of
acts of lasci%iousness unde! 5ection < JK of R.A. ?>(N
should e inc!eased f!om D6N,NNN.NN to D<N,NNN.NN.
'<N)
An
the othe! hand, the a"a!d of the amount of D<N,NNN.NN as
mo!al damages fo! each count of statuto!$ !ape "as co!!ect.
.n Deople %. Go!,
'<()
citing the cases of Deople %. Ficto!,
'<6)
and Deople %. GementiLa,
'<7)
"e held that the indemnit$
autho!iLed $ ou! c!iminal la" as ci%il indemnit$ e&
delicto fo! the o+ended pa!t$, in the amount autho!iLed $
the p!e%ailing judicial polic$ and aside f!om othe! p!o%en
actual damages, is itself e/ui%alent to actual o!
compensato!$ damages in ci%il la". 5aid ci%il indemnit$ is
mandato!$ upon #nding of the fact of !apeI it is distinct f!om
and should not e denominated as mo!al damages "hich
a!e ased on di+e!ent ju!al foundations and assessed $ the
cou!t in the e&e!cise of sound judicial disc!etion.
'<9)
3ence,
accused-appellant should e o!de!ed to pa$ the o+ended
pa!t$ anothe! D<N,NNN.NN as ci%il indemnit$ fo! each count
of !ape and acts of lasci%iousness.
)EREFORE, the ,ecision of the Regional T!ial Cou!t
of 2a*ati, B!anch >6, in C!iminal Case Nos. E>-(E@< and E>-
(E@> #nding accused-appellant Romeo Jalosjos guilt$
e$ond !easonale dout of t"o counts of statuto!$ !ape,
and sentencing him to su+e! the penalt$ of reclusion
perpetua fo! each count, is A::.R2E,. Gi*e"ise, the
appealed ,ecision of the Regional T!ial Cou!t of 2a*ati,
B!anch >6 in C!iminal Case Nos. E>-(E@?, E>-(E@@, E>-(E@E,
E>-(EEN, E>-(EE6, and E>-(EE7, #nding accused-appellant
guilt$ e$ond !easonale dout of acts of lasci%iousness in
si& counts, is A::.R2E, "ith 2A,.:.CAT.AN5. As modi#ed,
accused-appellant is sentenced to su+e!, fo! each count of
acts of lasci%iousness, the indete!minate penalt$ of t"el%e
$ea!s J(6K and one J(K da$ ofreclusion teporal, as
minimum, to #fteen J(<K $ea!s, si& J>K months and t"ent$
J6NK da$s of reclusion teporal as ma&imum. :u!the!,
accused-appellant is o!de!ed to pa$ the %ictim, 2a. Rosil$n
,elanta!, the additional amount of D<N,NNN.NN as ci%il
indemnit$ fo! each count of statuto!$ !ape and acts of
lasci%iousness. :inall$, the a"a!d of mo!al damages fo! each
count of acts of lasci%iousness is inc!eased to D<N,NNN.NN.
"O OR*ERE*.
)avide, +r., $+., !ellosillo, Melo, #uno, .itug, 'apunan,
Mendoza, #anganiban, (uisubing, #ardo, !uena, )e *eon,
+r., Sandoval,Gutierrez, and$arpio, ++., concu!.
6E
Attendance of Session
People v. Jalosjos
324 SCRA 689
FACTS: While his appeal from a conviction of rape is
pending, the accused, a Congressman was confined at the
national penitentiary. Since he was reelected to his position,
he argued that he should be allowed to attend the legislative
sessions and committee hearings, because his confinement
was depriving his constituents of their voice in Congress.
HELD: Election to high government office does free accused
from the common restraints of general law. Under Section II,
Article I of the Constitution, a member of the !ouse of "ep is
privileged from arrest only if offense is punishable by not more
than # years imprisonment. Confinement of a congressman
charged with a crime punishable by more than # years has
constitutional foundations. If allowed to attend the
congressional sessions, the accused would be virtually made
a free man. When he was elected into office, the voters were
aware of his limitations on his freedom of action. Congress can
continue to function even without all its members being
present. Election to the position of Congressman is not a
reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement.
7N