People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Mariño y Mina

An admission by the accused, standing alone, is insufficient to authorize a conviction for rape unless backed by other proof establishing penetration; where the evidence only proves the insertion of an object into the victim's private parts without establishing that the object was the accused's penis, the crime committed is acts of lasciviousness, which is necessarily included in the crime of rape.

The accused-appellant Ramon Mariño y Mina was charged with rape of his fourteen-year-old daughter Emily Mariño under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The information alleged that the accused had carnal knowledge of his daughter against her will on March 6, 1997, in Barangay Agtongo, Municipality of Romblon, Province of Romblon. The victim was the eldest of six children of the accused and Edita Mariño. The accused's wife was staying in the Municipality of Romblon during weekdays as a helper in the house of a certain Rene Fajilagutan, leaving the accused alone with the children at night.

Accused-appellant Ramon Mariño y Mina was charged with raping his fourteen-year-old daughter Emily Mariño on March 6, 1997, at around midnight in their house in Barangay Agtongo, Romblon. Emily was the eldest of six children and was a Grade V or Grade VI student at the time. At around 10:00 p.m. on the night of the incident, Emily was about to go to sleep beside her younger siblings when the accused approached her and asked if he could sleep beside her. She refused, and the accused, angered, kicked her on her right lower leg. The accused then returned to his bed while Emily went to sleep beside her siblings on the floor of their house. The accused's wife was not around because she was staying in the Municipality of Romblon during weekdays as a helper.

When Emily awoke at around 3:00 a.m., she was surprised to find herself no longer on the floor but lying on her parents' bed. She felt her whole body ache and her vagina was painful, wet, and sticky. She saw the accused wrapped in a blanket and lying on the floor. The accused told her: "Madasok lang da gapaindi pa" (It already entered but still you refused or It is just being inserted but still you refuse). Realizing she was violated during her sleep, Emily cried. She recalled that it was already the third time her father had raped her—once when she was in Grade III and again when she was in Grade V.

On their way to school the following morning, Emily's eleven-year-old brother Ramil told her what he witnessed the previous night. Ramil recounted that at around midnight, he woke up to urinate and, unable to sleep afterward, saw the accused lift Emily from the floor and lay her on the bed. The accused then opened Emily's skirt, took off her dress and panty, took off his brief, held his penis, and inserted it into Emily's vagina, making pumping motions. The accused then stood up and put back Emily's clothes as well as his own.

After lunch break, Emily skipped her afternoon classes to report the incident to her mother in the town of Romblon. Her mother got angry, commented that the accused was stupid and mindless, and instructed Emily to stay in Romblon while she proceeded to their house to confront the accused. The following day, Emily was brought by her mother to the police station where she filed a complaint for rape. They then proceeded to the hospital where Dr. Victorio Benedicto, the Rural Health Physician, examined her. Dr. Benedicto issued a medico-legal certificate noting that the victim's vagina easily admitted a thumb, that it had scars at 2, 5, and 7 o'clock positions, and that the victim suffered no external physical injuries. Dr. Benedicto opined that a hard object could have previously penetrated Emily's vagina and that she was no longer a virgin.

The defense presented a totally different account. The accused testified that on March 6, 1997, he went home from work and found his children at home except Emily, who had already gone out. Emily was used to going out to watch betamax movies or attend overnight dances and parties, sometimes sleeping in a friend's house. Knowing Emily would not come home that evening, the accused retired to bed at around 8:30 p.m. and woke up at 6:00 a.m. the following day. He was later informed by his neighbor Ben Mindoro that Emily returned to their house at around 8:00 a.m. that day and did not go to school.

To refute Ramil's testimony, the defense presented Raymundo Mariño (the accused's brother), Noemi Selosa (Raymundo's wife), and Valentina Mindoro (the accused's aunt). Noemi Selosa testified that on March 10, 1997, she accompanied Edita Mariño and Ramil Mariño to the police station. When Ramil finished giving his statement, the investigator noted that his story did not tally with Emily's account. Ramil told the police that he did not see his father rape Emily. Edita Mariño then instructed Ramil to tell the police that he saw the accused take off Emily's shorts and rape her, convincing him that "his father could be released from jail" if he did so, and warning him that if he did not follow her instructions, she would not let him eat. Raymundo Mariño and Valentina Mindoro both testified that Ramil arrived at their house crying on the afternoon of March 10, 1997, and admitted that he was coached by his mother to testify against his father.

The trial court found the accused guilty of rape, considering his statement "Madasok lang da gapaindi ka pa" as an admission that he raped his daughter. The trial court also noted that Ramil's testimony was "no longer needed" because the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Accused-appellant argued that the lower court erred in convicting him of the crime charged in the information despite insufficiency of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Sufficiency of the Victim's Testimony: The prosecution, through the Solicitor General, argued that the victim's testimony, together with the accused's admission, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape.
• Carnal Knowledge During Sleep: The Solicitor General cited People vs. Corcina to support the claim that carnal knowledge is possible with a woman without her knowledge due to deep slumber.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: Whether the prosecution proved the accused's guilt for rape beyond reasonable doubt where the victim was asleep during the alleged incident and the accused's admission was the primary basis for conviction.
• Lesser Included Offense: Whether the accused may be convicted of acts of lasciviousness as a lesser included offense of rape.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: No. The prosecution failed to establish penetration beyond reasonable doubt. The accused's admission, standing alone, was insufficient to authorize a conviction, and the victim's testimony did not establish that the object inserted into her vagina was the accused's penis.
• Lesser Included Offense: Yes. The crime of acts of lasciviousness is necessarily included in the crime of rape, and the accused may be convicted of the former where the evidence proves only the insertion of an object other than the penis into the victim's private parts.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: The Court held that while the accused's statement "Madasok lang da gapaindi ka pa" (It already entered but still you refused) constitutes an admission under Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, an admission, being merely an inference, is insufficient to authorize a conviction unless backed by other proof showing the culpability of the accused. The statement made no mention that what was inserted was the accused's sex organ, nor was there an indication that the insertion was made into her sex organ. The victim admittedly did not awake during the entire episode—when she was being undressed, when her panty was removed, when her legs were spread, when his body was pressed against hers, when his penis entered her private parts, and when the accused was making pumping motions. Her conclusion that she was raped was only deduced from the accused's statement. The Court found that the facts more persuasively supported the theory that the offense committed was acts of lasciviousness. Foremost was that Emily was not awakened by the molestation. Unlike in rape where the perpetrator would normally place his weight atop his victim, penetrate his organ into her vagina, and make thrusting motions which would readily awaken a sleeping victim, the insertion of only a finger or some other object is less obtrusive and presents the possibility of the victim not awaking throughout the act. The Court distinguished People vs. Corcina, where the victim was a married woman accustomed to sexual intercourse who awoke in the middle of the rape upon feeling the weight of a man on top of her. The Court also noted that the testimony of Ramil Mariño, the prosecution's sole eyewitness, was doubted by the trial court due to his inability to comprehend simple questions, including not knowing what the word "year" means, not knowing that his birthday or Christmas comes once a year, and being unable to name the months of the year in proper order. The trial court correctly entertained the thought that Ramil might not have witnessed the alleged rape but was only coaxed by his mother into testifying against his father. Furthermore, the medico-legal findings showed no fresh lacerations on the victim's vagina but only old scars at 2, 5, and 7 o'clock positions, rendering doubtful the prosecution's assertion that Emily was raped on March 6, 1997. The absence of fresh lacerations, the victim's total unawareness of the alleged rape, and the ambiguity of the accused's admission all pointed to the conclusion that what was inserted into her vagina could have been the accused's finger or another object, not necessarily his penis.

• Lesser Included Offense: The Court held that under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, an accused may be convicted of a lesser crime than that with which he is charged if such lesser offense is necessarily included in the one charged. Considering that the crime of acts of lasciviousness or abusos dishonestos is necessarily included in rape, the accused charged with rape may be convicted of the former. The alternative circumstance of relationship under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code was appreciated against the accused, as in crimes of chastity such as rape and acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating. It was expressly alleged in the information and duly proven during trial that the offended party is the daughter of the accused. The felony of acts of lasciviousness is punishable by prision correccional. There being one aggravating circumstance (relationship), the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period was imposed. Under Section 1 of Act No. 4103 (the Indeterminate Sentence Law), the Court sentenced the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the minimum of which was within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense (arresto mayor), and the maximum term of which was prision correccional in its maximum period.

• Admissions under Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court — An admission applies to statements made by an accused which directly or impliedly point towards an acknowledgement of guilt for the crime charged. For an admission to be appreciated against the accused, the statement must be clear and unequivocal such that a reasonable construction of the same would lead to an acknowledgement of the fact sought to be proven. Being merely an inference, an admission, standing alone, is insufficient to authorize a conviction unless backed up by some other proof which would show the culpability of the accused. In this case, the accused's statement "Madasok lang da gapaindi ka pa" was held to be an admission, but it was insufficient to establish rape because it did not mention that what was inserted was the accused's sex organ or that the insertion was made into the victim's sex organ.

• Lesser Included Offense Doctrine — Under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, an offense charged necessarily includes that which is proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. An offense is necessarily included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter. The crime of acts of lasciviousness is necessarily included in rape, and an accused charged with rape may be convicted of acts of lasciviousness where the evidence proves only the latter.

• Alternative Circumstance of Relationship — Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, relationship is an alternative circumstance that must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its commission. In crimes of chastity such as rape and acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating. Where the offended party is the daughter of the accused, as expressly alleged in the information and duly proven during trial, relationship aggravates the offense.

• "It is clear from her testimony that she was not aware of what happened between the time she fell asleep until she woke up in the bed of her parents. Her conclusion that she was raped by accused-appellant was only deduced from the latter's statement 'Madasok lang da gapaindi ka pa.'" — This passage establishes the central weakness in the prosecution's case: the victim's lack of personal knowledge of the alleged rape, which the Court found insufficient to prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt.

• "Whether victim's body ached, it cannot be reasonably ascertained if she was telling the truth or simply exaggerating. The facts at hand would more persuasively support the theory that the offense committed by accused-appellant was acts of lasciviousness." — This passage articulates the Court's conclusion that the evidence supported a conviction for the lesser offense rather than rape.

• "What was inserted into her vagina could be accused-appellant's finger or another object not necessarily his penis; hence, what was committed was the crime of acts of lasciviousness." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for modifying the conviction from rape to acts of lasciviousness.

• "The absence of fresh lacerations renders doubtful the prosecution's assertion that Emily was raped on March 6, 1997. The medico-legal findings indicating old scars in her vagina tend to buttress the claim of Emily that she was raped by her father when she was 8 years old. Unfortunately, this incident is not included in the information." — This passage explains why the medico-legal findings undermined the prosecution's case for the specific incident charged.

• People vs. Corcina, 53 Phil 234 (1929) — Distinguished. The Court held that this case, cited by the Solicitor General to support the claim that carnal knowledge is possible with a woman without her knowledge due to deep slumber, was not on all fours with the factual circumstances of the present case. In Corcina, the victim was a married woman who already had a daughter and was accustomed to sexual intercourse, and she awoke in the middle of the rape since she felt the weight of a man on top of her. In the present case, Emily was totally unaware of her being raped.

• People vs. Balmoria, 287 SCRA 687 (1998) — Cited for the principle that when a woman, especially one who is the daughter of the accused, cries rape, she has, in effect, said all that is necessary to establish that rape was committed against her. The Court noted this principle but held that it does not hold true when the victim cannot recall how the alleged rape was committed as she was asleep and never woke up throughout the incident.

• People vs. Maqueda, 242 SCRA 565 (1995) — Cited for the rule that an admission, standing alone, is insufficient to authorize a conviction unless backed up by some other proof which would show the culpability of the accused.

• People vs. Lorenzo, 240 SCRA 624 (1995) — Cited for the same rule regarding the insufficiency of an admission standing alone to authorize a conviction.

• CMS Logging, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 374 (1992) — Cited for the requirement that for an admission to be appreciated against the accused, the statement must be clear and unequivocal such that a reasonable construction of the same would lead to an acknowledgement of the fact sought to be proven.

• Dulla vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123164, February 18, 2000 — Cited for the rule that the crime of acts of lasciviousness is necessarily included in rape, and an accused charged with rape may be convicted of the former.

• People vs. Mariano, 50 Phil 587 (1927) — Cited for the same rule that acts of lasciviousness is necessarily included in rape.

• People vs. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613 (1992) — Cited for the rule that in crimes of chastity such as rape and acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 7659) — Defines when and how rape is committed, including carnal knowledge of a woman by using force or intimidation, when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, and when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The Court applied this provision in determining whether the elements of rape were proven, particularly whether carnal knowledge was established.

• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Defines acts of lasciviousness as any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, punishable by prision correccional. The Court applied this provision in convicting the accused of acts of lasciviousness.

• Section 26, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Provides that the act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. The Court applied this provision in considering the accused's statement as an admission, but held that the admission was insufficient to establish rape.

• Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120, Rules of Court — Provide for judgments in case of variance between allegation and proof, and when an offense includes or is included in another. The Court applied these provisions in convicting the accused of acts of lasciviousness as a lesser included offense of rape.

• Article 15, Revised Penal Code — Defines alternative circumstances, including relationship, intoxication, and the degree of instruction and education of the offender. The Court applied this provision in appreciating the alternative circumstance of relationship as aggravating against the accused.

• Article 64, Revised Penal Code — Provides rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. The Court applied this provision in imposing the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period due to the presence of one aggravating circumstance.

• Section 1, Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) — Requires the Court to sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense. The Court applied this provision in imposing the indeterminate sentence of 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 6 years of prision correccional as maximum.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concurred.