People of the Philippines vs. Elmedio Cajara

Qualified rape cannot be sustained where the qualifying circumstance is not alleged in the Information or is not established by the evidence; the accused may be convicted only of simple rape. The penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua, a single indivisible penalty that is applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Elmedio Cajara alias Elming was the common-law husband of Merly Tagana alias Meling, who was a sister or half-sister of the complainant Marita Cajote. Marita, a 16-year-old resident of Manila, was staying with the couple in Basey, Samar. The charge was brought under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, which imposes the death penalty for rape attended by specified circumstances, including relationship by affinity within the third civil degree and commission in full view of certain relatives; the Constitution also guarantees the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

On 18 May 1994, 16-year-old Marita Cajote, a resident of Manila, arrived in Basey, Samar, and stayed with her sister Marie. The following day, she was fetched by another sister, Merly Tagana also known as Meling, and by Merly’s husband, accused Elmedio Cajara also known as Elming. Upon being told by Meling that they would be going to Sulod to get copra, Marita went with Meling and Elming to the couple’s house in Sitio Catuhaan in Barangay Serum. From then until 30 May 1994, Marita stayed with Meling and Elming and their two small children in a house consisting of only one room without any partition.

On the evening of 30 May 1994, Marita slept at one end of the room with the two children, while Meling and Elming slept at the other end. At about two o’clock the following morning, Marita was awakened by the weight of the accused, who was already on top of her. Holding a bolo, he told her to keep quiet or he would kill her. He placed the bolo aside and held Marita’s hands with his right hand; with his left hand he lowered her pants and panty to her knees. Marita shouted for help, but Meling wrapped her head with their mosquito net and pretended to be asleep. Marita struggled, but the accused was stronger and she grew weak. He first inserted his fingers into her private part and later succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. Meling then pulled Elming away and hit him in the eye. Elming boxed Meling on the mouth and kicked her when she fell. He returned to Marita and continued; by then she was too weak to resist. He inserted his fingers first and then his penis into her private organ. The older of the two children cried, and Meling, holding her youngest child, helplessly watched the accused rape her younger sister.

After satisfying his lust, the accused asked Marita to go away with him. Marita cried and dressed herself. When the accused went to the door, she jumped out of the window and ran away, but the accused chased her, overtook her, and threatened to kill her if she returned to their house. Marita pretended to submit to his wishes and then hid from him. She dashed to the house of her sister Marie and then to another sister, Lilia, and revealed to both what the accused had done. Her sisters advised her not to file a criminal case against their brother-in-law for fear that he might kill all of them. Marita nevertheless went to the chief of the barangay tanod, whom she called Mano Henry, who accompanied her to the barangay captain. Barangay Captain Rolando Jaingue also advised against filing a criminal charge because the accused might attack and kill them; the accused was known in the community to have killed six people. Finally, Barangay Captain Jaingue issued an indorsement of the case to the Philippine National Police stationed in Basey, Samar. When physically examined by Dr. Danilo Fami, Municipal Health Officer of Basey, Samar, Marita was found to have a healed laceration of her hymen at the 4 o’clock position.

In his defense, Elmedio Cajara denied the charge. He alleged that Marita was the maternal half-sister of Meling, his common-law wife; that at around 6 o’clock in the evening of 30 May 1994 he was in his house with Meling and their two children when Marita arrived and invited them for a drink; that because he was busy gathering tuba, he joined them only at around 8 o’clock until 11 o’clock that evening, after which he went to sleep; that at around 2 o’clock in the morning he was awakened by a quarrel between his wife and Marita; that when his wife asked Marita why the latter had placed her leg over him, Marita answered that she did not know; and that Meling ordered her to get out of their house, but before she left Marita said she would file a case against him who was on parole. Merly Tagana corroborated his testimony. When asked on direct examination why her sister Marita would file a rape charge against her husband, Meling denied that her husband raped Marita, saying that “it was not the mistake of (her) husband because he is a man and that she is a girl.” The trial court found evident discrepancies in Merly Tagana’s testimony, noting that she contradicted the testimony of the accused and herself twice when she stated that Marita slept in the house with her and the accused on 29 May 1994, the night before the rape. The trial court also found Marita’s positive identification of the accused categorical, straightforward, and spontaneous, and thus worthy of faith and belief.

• Credibility of the Complainant: Accused-appellant Elmedio Cajara faulted the trial court for giving credence to Marita Cajote’s testimony despite its failure to meet the test of moral certainty.
• Weight of the Defense Witness: He argued that the testimony of Merly Tagana, his common-law wife, that there was no rape should have been given more weight than Marita’s testimony because Meling, being a half-sister of Marita, would have sympathized with her if the rape incident were true.
• Virginity and Medical Evidence: He maintained that Marita’s claim that she was a virgin before she was raped was belied by the medico-legal officer’s testimony that the laceration could have healed even before the rape incident.

• Affirmance of Conviction and Death Penalty: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the accused failed to show any compelling or justifiable reason to set aside his conviction for rape and his penalty of death.
• Applicable Provision: It cited Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, particularly the provision imposing the death penalty when rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children, or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to Marita Cajote’s testimony and in convicting the accused of rape despite his denial and the testimony of Merly Tagana.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Relationship by Affinity: Whether the accused may be convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to death on the basis of relationship by affinity within the third civil degree.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Full View of Relatives: Whether the rape may be qualified by its commission in full view of the victim’s relatives within the third degree of consanguinity when that circumstance was not alleged in the Information.
• Virginity and Prior Sexual Intercourse: Whether the victim’s alleged lack of virginity before the rape exculpates the accused.
• Reiteracion and Penalty: Whether the aggravating circumstance of reiteracion affects the penalty where the crime is simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.
• Civil Liability: Whether the victim is entitled to civil indemnity and moral damages despite the trial court’s failure to award them.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The conviction for rape was affirmed; the victim’s categorical testimony, immediate report, and medical examination established the crime beyond reasonable doubt, while the accused’s bare denial and Merly Tagana’s testimony were not credible.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Relationship by Affinity: No. The accused and Merly Tagana were mere common-law husband and wife, not legally married, so no relationship by affinity within the third civil degree existed at the time of the rape.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Full View of Relatives: No. This qualifying circumstance was not pleaded in the Information or Complaint, and every element of the offense must be alleged to satisfy the accused’s right to be informed.
• Virginity and Prior Sexual Intercourse: No. Virginity is not an element of rape, and the records showed that Marita was sexually abused twice, so she could have lost her virginity during the first rape.
• Reiteracion and Penalty: No. Simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua, a single indivisible penalty, which is applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
• Civil Liability: Yes. Civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 were awarded without need of further proof.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great respect because the trial judge heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor. Marita’s positive identification was categorical, straightforward, and spontaneous. Denial, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving and deserves no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness on affirmative matters. No woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts, and subject herself to a public trial unless motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished. Marita’s immediate report to her sisters and barangay officials and her submission to medical examination strengthened her credibility. Merly Tagana’s relationship to the accused, taken with the want of logic in her declarations and the trial court’s finding that she contradicted the accused and herself twice regarding the night before the rape, rendered her testimony not credible. Her complaint on the witness stand that it was not the accused’s mistake because he was a man and Marita was a girl further undermined the denial. The failure of witnesses to come to the victim’s rescue was not unnatural given fear for their lives; self-preservation is a fundamental human instinct.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Relationship by Affinity: Although the Information alleged relationship by affinity within the third civil degree, the prosecution evidence showed that the accused and Merly Tagana, the victim’s sister, were mere common-law husband and wife and were not legally married at the time of the rape. The accused and the victim therefore could not be considered related by affinity within the third civil degree at the time of the crime. The death penalty could not be imposed on that basis.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Full View of Relatives: The circumstance that the rape was committed in full view of the victim’s relatives within the third degree of consanguinity was not pleaded in the Information or Complaint. The Constitution guarantees the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information to enable the accused to prepare his defense. People vs. Morena explained that convicting an accused of an offense other than that charged denies the right to be informed and due process. Since the accused was charged with rape qualified by minority and relationship under the first attendant circumstance, he could not be convicted of rape qualified by the third attendant circumstance of commission in full view of the victim’s relatives.
• Virginity and Prior Sexual Intercourse: The records showed that Marita was sexually abused twice: after inserting his fingers, the accused inserted his organ into her private part, and after a while he repeated the sexual abuse. When Marita was raped the second time, she was no longer a virgin; she could have lost her virginity during the first rape. Prior sexual intercourse that could have resulted in hymenal laceration is not necessary in rape cases because virginity is not an element of rape. Moreover, because the Information charged only one offense, conviction for one rape was proper even if the evidence showed a second act of forcible intercourse.
• Reiteracion and Penalty: The records showed that the crime was aggravated by reiteracion under Art. 14, par. 10, of the Revised Penal Code, the accused having been convicted of frustrated murder in 1975 and of homicide, frustrated homicide, trespass to dwelling, illegal possession of firearms, and murder sometime in 1989, with sentences later commuted to imprisonment for 23 years and a fine of P200,000.00, and having been granted conditional pardon on 8 November 1991. Reiteracion is present when the accused has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that attached to the second offense, or for two or more offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty. However, the accused could be convicted only of simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. Where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it is applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
• Civil Liability: The trial court did not award civil indemnity. Pursuant to current jurisprudence and without need of further proof, the victim was awarded an indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00. In People vs. Prades, moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in the criminal proceeding in such amount as the Court may deem just without need for pleading or proof of the basis therefor.

• Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation — The Constitution guarantees every accused the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information, and conviction of an offense other than that charged denies due process. Applied: the full-view qualifying circumstance was not pleaded, so it could not qualify the rape.
• Qualifying circumstances in rape — For rape to be qualified and for the death penalty to be imposed, the attendant circumstances must be both alleged in the Information and established by evidence. Applied: relationship by affinity was not established because the accused and Merly were common-law spouses, not legally married; full view was not alleged.
• Credibility of the rape victim and bare denial — A categorical, straightforward, and spontaneous testimony of a rape victim may be given credence over an unsubstantiated denial, which is negative and self-serving. Immediate reporting and submission to medical examination strengthen credibility. Applied: Marita’s testimony was believed; accused’s denial and Meling’s testimony were rejected.
• Virginity is not an element of rape — Prior sexual intercourse or hymenal laceration is not necessary for rape; the essence is carnal knowledge by force or intimidation. Applied: alleged lack of virginity did not exculpate accused; two abuses explained possible loss of virginity.
• Single indivisible penalty — Where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it is applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Applied: simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua; reiteracion did not alter penalty.
• Reiteracion or habituality — Under Art. 14, par. 10, Revised Penal Code, reiteracion is present when the accused has been previously punished for an offense with an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more offenses with a lighter penalty. Applied: present but no effect due single indivisible penalty.
• Civil indemnity and moral damages in rape — Civil indemnity and moral damages may be awarded to the rape victim; moral damages may be awarded without pleading or proof of basis. Applied: P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages awarded.

• “Contrary to the ruling of the trial court and the stand of the Solicitor General, the accused can only be convicted of simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua. It was error for the trial court to impose the penalty of death.” — States the ratio for reducing the conviction from qualified rape to simple rape and the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.
• “Although the circumstance of relationship by affinity within the third civil degree was alleged in the Information, evidence for the prosecution clearly showed the lack or absence of such circumstance to qualify the rape because the accused and Merly Tagana, sister of the victim Marita Cajote, were mere common-law husband and wife and were not legally married at the time of the rape.” — Explains why the relationship-by-affinity qualifying circumstance could not support qualified rape.
• “Neither can the accused be convicted of qualified rape on the basis of the circumstance that the rape was committed in full view of the relatives of the victim within the third degree of consanguinity because this qualifying circumstance was not pleaded in the Information or in the Complaint against the accused.” — Applies the constitutional right to be informed and the rule that every element of the offense must be alleged.
• “Further, well-settled is the rule that prior sexual intercourse which could have resulted in hymenal laceration is not necessary in rape cases for virginity is not an element of rape.” — Defines the rule that virginity is not an element of rape and rejects the accused’s medical defense.

• People vs. Lustre, G.R. No. 134562, 6 April 2000 — Cited for the rule that unsubstantiated denial is negative and self-serving and deserves no greater evidentiary value than credible affirmative testimony.
• People vs. Taneo, G.R. No. 112683, 16 January 1998, 284 SCRA 251 — Cited for the principle that no woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration and subject herself to public trial unless motivated to have the culprit punished.
• People vs. Bergante, G.R. Nos. 120369-70, 27 February 1998, 286 SCRA 629 — Cited for the observation that not every witness to a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to the expectation of mankind.
• People vs. Polangco, G.R. No. 108175, 26 December 1995, 251 SCRA 503 — Cited for the principle that self-preservation is recognized as the most fundamental human instinct, explaining why witnesses may fail to rescue a victim.
• People vs. Decena, G.R. No. 107874, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA 67 — Cited for the rule that relationship between the accused and a witness is not necessarily detrimental, but taken with want of logic in the witness’s declarations, may render the testimony not credible.
• People vs. Alhambra, G.R. No. 103272, 4 July 1994, 233 SCRA 604 — Cited for the rule that prior sexual intercourse resulting in hymenal laceration is not necessary in rape cases because virginity is not an element.
• People vs. Cabiles, G.R. No. 112035, 16 January 1998, 284 SCRA 199 — Cited in connection with the rule that virginity is not an element of rape and that prior sexual intercourse is not necessary.
• People vs. Venerable, G.R. No. 110110, 13 May 1998, 290 SCRA 15 — Cited for the rule that where the Information charges only one offense, conviction for one rape is proper even if the evidence shows a second act of forcible intercourse.
• People vs. Perez, G.R. No. 122764, 24 September 1998, 296 SCRA 17 — Cited for the requirement that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information to enable the accused to prepare his defense.
• People vs. Morena, G.R. No. 126921, 28 August 1998, 294 SCRA 728 — Cited for the rule that convicting an accused of an offense other than that charged denies the right to be informed and due process; when the Information alleges rape by force and intimidation under par. 1, Art. 335, the accused cannot be convicted under pars. 2 or 3.
• People vs. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, 30 July 1998, 293 SCRA 411 — Cited for the rule that moral damages may be awarded to the victim in the criminal proceeding without need for pleading or proof of the basis therefor.

• Art. 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 11, RA 7659 — Defines rape and provides that it is punishable by reclusion perpetua; imposes the death penalty when rape is committed with attendant circumstances, including when the victim is under eighteen and the offender is a relative by affinity within the third civil degree or common-law spouse of the parent, and when rape is committed in full view of certain relatives. Applied: accused convicted only of simple rape because the qualifying circumstances were not established or not alleged; penalty reclusion perpetua.
• Art. 14, par. 10, Revised Penal Code — Defines reiteracion or habituality. Applied: present due prior convictions, but did not affect the penalty because simple rape carries a single indivisible penalty.
• Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation — Guarantees that every element of the offense be alleged in the complaint or information. Applied: full-view qualifying circumstance not pleaded, so it could not be used to qualify the rape.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.