People of the Philippines vs. Ronaldo Almaden

The trial court’s credibility findings are entitled to great respect, and an intact hymen does not negate rape because the slightest penetration consummates the crime; epilepsy per se is not an exempting circumstance.

The prosecution was for rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, arising from an incident in Barangay Cahindok, Palo, Leyte, involving Arlene Saldaña, then an 11-year-old girl, and Ronaldo Almaden, also known as “Dodong.” A complaint for “sexual assault” was initially filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Palo, Leyte, which conducted a preliminary investigation and recommended that Almaden be charged with attempted rape; the provincial prosecutor, after review, filed an information for rape.

Arlene Saldaña was an 11-year-old girl who, on December 27, 1990, at around 8:00 a.m., was gathering firewood upon her mother’s instructions in Barangay Cahindok, Palo, Leyte, together with her friend Edwin Sudario, also a minor. Ronaldo Almaden, also known as “Dodong,” chanced upon them while on his way to his farm. He approached the children and ordered them to undress. Arlene took off her shorts and underwear, while Edwin lowered his jogging pants to his knees. Almaden then ordered Arlene to lie on the ground and Edwin to place himself on top of her, and made them simulate the sexual act.

From that point, the prosecution and defense versions diverged. According to Almaden, he left Arlene and Edwin immediately after they commenced simulating the sexual act and continued on his way to his farm. The prosecution, through Arlene and Edwin, testified that Almaden did not leave; he positioned himself nearby and closely observed them with his weapon ready. At the time, Almaden was armed with a bolo, which he unsheathed to threaten the minors and compel them to undress and simulate the sexual act. After the simulation, Almaden ordered Edwin to get up. He then grabbed the supine Arlene by her arm and made her stand. With his bolo in one hand and Arlene’s arm in the other, he dragged her to a nearby bamboo grove. Edwin seized the opportunity to escape; he pulled up his jogging pants, ran home, and told his mother about the incident.

At the bamboo grove, Almaden again forced Arlene to lie on the ground. This time, he got on top of her. He loosened his shorts, unzipped his fly, and proceeded to insert his penis into Arlene’s vagina. Arlene had no lower clothing because her shorts and underwear were left at the place where she and Edwin had been made to lie down. Almaden succeeded in inserting a small portion of his penis. Arlene felt intense pain and cried out, “Agi!” Almaden next made Arlene sit up, knelt in front of her, and ordered her to suck his penis. After sucking for about three minutes, Arlene was made to swallow a warm substance ejaculated from Almaden’s penis inside her mouth.

The trial court gave credence to the prosecution version and convicted Almaden. It found that Arlene did not waver during her testimony and narrated the events with straightforward confidence, clear, convincing, and precise in every detail. It rejected Almaden’s version that he was unarmed and very weak because he had just suffered an epileptic seizure, and dismissed his claim that he neither touched Arlene nor employed force or intimidation upon her. The Medico-Legal Report mentioned no injury on Arlene’s buttocks and legs; the examining physician explained that although she examined the victim from head to foot, her focus was on the internal examination of Arlene’s pelvis and hymen. Arlene’s hymen was intact. Almaden testified that he suffered an epileptic fit immediately prior to the incident, but the trial court found this highly improbable because Almaden himself said that he would weaken and sleep for several hours whenever he suffered an attack. Arlene promptly ran to her mother, reported the incident to the Barangay Chairman, and submitted to medical examination at the Leyte Provincial Hospital, all within one hour after the incident.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Accused-appellant Ronaldo Almaden assigned a single error: that the trial court convicted him on the basis of “incredible, improbable and inconsistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses.”
• Absence of Injuries from Dragging: He argued that Arlene’s claim that she was dragged to the bamboo grove was highly improbable because the Medico-Legal Report mentioned no injury on her buttocks and legs; had she been dragged, such injuries would have been discovered by the examining physician and placed in her report.
• Intact Hymen: He contended that Arlene’s claim that she was raped was equally improbable because her hymen was intact.
• Epilepsy and Weakness: His version was that he was unarmed and very weak because he had just suffered an epileptic seizure, and that he neither touched Arlene nor employed force or intimidation upon her. The decision notes that he did not categorically raise epilepsy as an exempting circumstance, although much defense testimony was devoted to his medical condition.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant based on allegedly incredible, improbable, and inconsistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
• Intact Hymen: Whether an intact hymen negates the commission or consummation of rape.
• Absence of External Injuries: Whether the absence of injuries on the victim’s buttocks and legs in the medico-legal report renders her claim of being dragged improbable and negates rape.
• Epilepsy: Whether appellant’s alleged epileptic fit prior to the incident exempts him from criminal liability or negates his capacity to commit the crime.
• Damages: Whether the victim is entitled to indemnity and moral damages, and in what amounts.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility is entitled to great respect; Arlene’s testimony was candid, straightforward, and positive, and no ill motive was shown.
• Intact Hymen: No. An intact hymen does not negate rape; rupture is not indispensable, and the slightest penetration consummates the crime.
• Absence of External Injuries: No. The physician focused on the internal examination of the pelvis and hymen, so the absence of noted external injuries did not render the dragging improbable.
• Epilepsy: No. Epilepsy per se is not an exempting circumstance, and no showing was made that appellant was under an epileptic fit before, during, and immediately after the aggression.
• Damages: Yes. The victim is entitled to both indemnity and moral damages, fixed at P50,000 each.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The trial court’s evaluation of a witness’s credibility is entitled to great respect because the trial court had the opportunity to observe firsthand the witness’s demeanor on the stand—the tone of voice, flushed face, pregnant pause, and fidgeting—marks of truth or falsity not captured on record. The trial court observed that Arlene did not waver and narrated the events with straightforward confidence, clear, convincing, and precise in every detail. The record supported that assessment: Arlene candidly described Almaden’s insertion of his penis, the pain she felt, and the oral sex; she positively identified Almaden; no ill motive was discovered for her to impute so grave a charge; and she promptly ran to her mother, reported the incident to the Barangay Chairman, and submitted to medical examination within one hour. Edwin’s testimony was likewise credited. The trial court thus did not err in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses.
• Intact Hymen: An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. Rupture of the hymen is not indispensable, and even full penetration by the penis is not necessary. The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge under the circumstances enumerated in the penal code; carnal knowledge is sexual intercourse, and with the slightest penetration, sexual intercourse is achieved and rape is consummated. The examining physician, testifying as an expert in obstetrics and gynecology, stated that an intact hymen does not eliminate the possibility that a hard object or a penis was inserted into the vagina, and that in some cases the hymen remains intact even after childbirth. Arlene testified that a small portion of Almaden’s penis entered her vagina and that she felt intense pain. The intact hymen therefore did not negate consummation.
• Absence of External Injuries: Arlene testified that she was injured when dragged to the bamboo grove, but the examining physician did not see those injuries. The physician explained that although she examined the victim from head to foot, her focus was on the internal examination of Arlene’s pelvis and hymen, which was understandable because Arlene was being examined on the basis of a claim of sexual assault. The absence of a recorded injury on the buttocks and legs therefore did not render the dragging improbable or undermine the rape charge.
• Epilepsy: Epilepsy per se is not an exempting circumstance. In People vs. Mancao and Aguilar, the Court dismissed the defense of epilepsy because it was not shown that the accused was under the influence of an epileptic fit before, during, and immediately after the aggression. Almaden testified that he suffered an epileptic fit immediately prior to the incident, but the trial court found this highly improbable because Almaden himself said that he would weaken and sleep for several hours whenever he suffered an attack. No exemption from criminal liability was established.
• Damages: Although Almaden did not assail the award, the Court modified it. The victim was entitled to both indemnity and moral damages. Indemnity may be automatically awarded upon proof of the commission of rape. Moral damages were supported by the records: Arlene testified that she felt extreme physical pain when ravished, and a prosecution witness testified that Arlene suffered the humiliation of tearfully relating her ordeal before a crowd. Under Articles 2217 and 2219 of the Civil Code, and consistent with current case law, P50,000 as indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages were appropriate.

• Credibility of Witnesses — The trial court’s evaluation of a witness’s credibility is entitled to great respect because it had the opportunity to observe the witness’s demeanor firsthand, including tone of voice, facial expression, pauses, and fidgeting, which are not captured on record. In this case, the trial court’s assessment of Arlene Saldaña and Edwin Sudario was upheld, as Arlene’s testimony was candid, straightforward, and precise, and no ill motive was shown.
• Intact Hymen Does Not Negate Rape — An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. Rupture of the hymen is not indispensable, and full penetration is not necessary; the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge, which is consummated by the slightest penetration. The Court applied this rule despite the medical finding that Arlene’s hymen was intact.
• Epilepsy Per Se Not Exempting — Epilepsy is not an exempting circumstance by itself. To be exempt, the accused must be shown to have been under an epileptic fit before, during, and immediately after the aggression. Almaden’s claim of an epileptic fit prior to the incident was rejected as improbable because he himself said attacks left him weak and sleeping for several hours.
• Prompt Report as Corroboration — A victim’s prompt report of the incident and immediate submission to medical examination are consistent with the natural conduct of a young person who has been sexually assaulted. The Court relied on Arlene’s prompt report to her mother, the Barangay Chairman, and the hospital within one hour, and on the principle that no woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration and submit to public trial unless motivated to have the culprit punished.
• Damages in Rape — Indemnity may be automatically awarded upon proof of the commission of rape, while moral damages require a factual basis such as physical pain and humiliation. The Court awarded P50,000 as indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.

• "As consistently held by the Court, the rule is that the trial court's evaluation of a witness's credibility is entitled to great respect." — States the standard of appellate review and the basis for upholding the trial court’s crediting of Arlene’s and Edwin’s testimonies.
• "As repeatedly enunciated by the Court, an intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped." — Canonical formulation rejecting the defense that the victim’s intact hymen made rape improbable.
• "The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge under the circumstances enumerated in the penal code." — Defines the essence of rape and supports the holding that the slightest penetration consummates the crime.
• "Epilepsy per se is not an exempting circumstance." — States the rule rejecting Almaden’s medical condition as a defense.

• People vs. Dones, 254 SCRA 696, 706 (1996) and 254 SCRA 699, 710 (1996) — Cited for the rule that the trial court’s evaluation of a witness’s credibility is entitled to great respect and, together with People vs. Bondoy, 222 SCRA 216 (1993), People vs. Joya, 227 SCRA 9 (1993), and People vs. Sabellina, 238 SCRA 492 (1994), for the amounts of indemnity and moral damages consistent with current case law.
• People vs. Gagto, 323 Phil. 539, 555-556 (1996) — Cited for the rule that an intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped.
• People vs. Mancao and Aguilar, 49 Phil. 887, 893 (1927) — Cited for the rule that epilepsy per se is not an exempting circumstance; the accused must be shown to have been under an epileptic fit before, during, and immediately after the aggression.
• People vs. Abordo, 258 SCRA 571, 581 (1996) — Cited for the principle that no woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration and submit to examination and public trial unless motivated to have the culprit apprehended and punished.
• People vs. Fuertes, G.R. No. 12685, September 29, 1998 — Cited for the rule that indemnity may be automatically awarded upon proof of the commission of rape.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code (as amended) — Defines and penalizes rape. The Court held that the gravamen of the crime is carnal knowledge under the circumstances enumerated in the penal code, and that the slightest penetration consummates the offense.
• Articles 2217 and 2219, Civil Code — Provide the basis for moral damages. The Court applied them to award moral damages for the physical pain and humiliation suffered by Arlene.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo and Pardo, JJ., concur.