EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 132875-76. November 16, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs., ROMEO

G. JALOSJOS, accused-appellant.

DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This Court has declared that the state policy on the heinous offense of rape
is clear and unmistakable. Under certain circumstances, some of them present
in this case, the offender may be sentenced to a long period of confinement, or
he may suffer death. The crime is an assault on human dignity. No legal
system worthy of the name can afford to ignore the traumatic consequences for
the unfortunate victim and grievous injury to the peace and good order of the
community.[1]
Rape is particularly odious, one which figuratively scrapes the bottom of
the barrel of moral depravity, when committed against a minor.[2]
In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons
are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is always scrutinized
with extreme caution.[3]
In the present case, there are certain particulars which impelled the court
to devote an even more painstaking and meticulous examination of the facts on
record and a similarly conscientious evaluation of the arguments of the
parties. The victim of rape in this case is a minor below twelve (12) years of
age. As narrated by her, the details of the rape are mesmerically sordid and
repulsive. The victim was peddled for commercial sex by her own guardian
whom she treated as a foster father. Because the complainant was a willing
victim, the acts of rape were preceded by several acts of lasciviousness on
distinctly separate occasions. The accused is also a most unlikely rapist. He is
a member of Congress. Inspite of his having been charged and convicted by the
trial court for statutory rape, his constituents liked him so much that they
knowingly re-elected him to his congressional office, the duties of which he
could not perform.
Statutory rape committed by a distinguished Congressman on an eleven
(11) year old commercial sex worker is bound to attract widespread media and
public attention. In the words of accused-appellant, he has been demonized in
the press most unfairly, his image transmogrified into that of a dastardly, ogre,
out to get his slimy hands on innocent and nave girls to satiate his lustful
desires.[4] This Court, therefore, punctiliously considered accused-appellants
claim that he suffered invidiously discriminatory treatment. Regarding the
above allegation, the Court has ascertained that the extensive publicity
generated by the case did not result in a mistrial; the records show that the
accused had ample and free opportunity to adduce his defenses.
This is an appeal from the decision[5] of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Branch 62, in Criminal Case Nos. 96-1985 and 96-1986, convicting accused-
appellant Romeo Jalosjos of two (2) counts of statutory rape, and in Criminal
Case Nos. 96-1987, 96-1988, 96-1989, 96-1990, 96-1992, and 96-1993, for six
(6) counts of acts of lasciviousness defined and penalized under Article 336 of
the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610,
also known as the Child Abuse Law.
There were six (6) other cases, Criminal Case Nos. 96-1991, 96-1994, 96-
1995, 96-1996, 96-1997, and 96-1998, where the accused-appellant was
acquitted of the charges of acts of lasciviousness for failure of the prosecution
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On December 16, 1996, two (2) informations for the crime of statutory rape;
and twelve (12) for acts of lasciviousness defined and penalized under Article
336 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No.
7610, were filed against accused-appellant. The accusatory portion of said
informations for the crime of statutory rape state:

In Criminal Case No. 96-1985:

The undersigned, upon prior sworn complaint by the offended party,

eleven (11) year old minor ROSILYN DELANTAR, accuses ROMEO
JALOSJOS of the crime of RAPE defined and penalized under Art. 335
(3) of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

That on or about June 18, 1996 at Room No.1702, Ritz Towers,

Makati City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge with (sic) eleven year old minor
Rosilyn Delantar against her will, with damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]

In Criminal Case No. 96-1986:

The undersigned, upon prior sworn complaint by the offended party,

eleven (11) year old minor ROSILYN DELANTAR, accuses ROMEO
JALOSJOS of the crime of RAPE defined and penalized under Art. 335
(3) of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

That on or about June 20, 1996 at Room No. 1702, Ritz Towers,
Makati City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge with (sic) eleven year old minor
Rosilyn Delantar against her will, with damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]

For acts of lasciviousness, the informations[8] under which accused-

appellant was convicted were identical except for the different dates of
commission on June 14, 1996; June 15, 1996; June 16, 1996; June 20, 1996;
June 21, 1996; and June 22, 1996, to wit:

The undersigned, upon prior sworn complaint by the offended party,

eleven (11)-year old minor ROSILYN DELANTAR accuses ROMEO
JALOSJOS of the crime of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS in relation to
Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as
the Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act, committed as follows:

That in the evening of June 14, 1996, or thereabout, in Room No.

1702, Ritz Towers, Makati City, Metro-Manila and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
lewd design, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
kiss, caress and fondle said complainant's face, lips, neck, breasts,
whole body, and vagina, suck her nipples and insert his finger and
then his tongue into her vagina, place himself on top of her, then
insert his penis in between her thighs until ejaculation, and other
similar lascivious conduct against her will, to her damage and
prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

In Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1988; 96-1990; and 96-1993, there were added
averments that on the different dates, the accused gave the complainant
P10,000.00, P5,000.00 and P5,000.00 respectively.
Upon arraignment on January 29, 1997, accused-appellant refused to
enter a plea. Hence, the trial court entered a plea of not guilty for him. At the
trial, the prosecution presented eight (8) main witnesses and seven (7) rebuttal
witnesses as well as documentary evidences marked as Exhibits A to EEEE,
inclusive of submarkings. The defense, on the other hand presented twenty-six
(26) witnesses. Its documentary evidence consists of Exhibits 1 to 153,
inclusive of submarkings. The records of the case are extremely voluminous.
The Peoples version of the facts, culled mainly from the testimony of the
victim, are as follows:
Maria Rosilyn Delantar was a slim, eleven-year old lass with long, straight
black hair and almond-shaped black eyes. She grew up in a two-storey
apartment in Pasay City under the care of Simplicio Delantar, whom she
treated as her own father. Simplicio was a fifty-six year old homosexual whose
ostensible source of income was selling longganiza and tocino and accepting
boarders at his house. On the side, he was also engaged in the skin trade as a
pimp.
Rosilyn never got to see her mother, though she had known a younger
brother, Shandro, who was also under the care of Simplicio. At a very young
age of 5, fair and smooth-complexioned Rosilyn was exposed by Simplicio to his
illicit activities. She and her brother would tag along with Simplicio whenever
he delivered prostitutes to his clients. When she turned 9, Rosilyn was offered
by Simplicio as a prostitute to an Arabian national known as Mr.
Hammond. Thus begun her ordeal as one of the girls sold by Simplicio for
sexual favors.
Rosilyn first met accused-appellant, Romeo Jalosjos, sometime in February
1996 at his office located near Robinsons Galleria. Rosilyn and Simplicio were
brought there and introduced by a talent manager by the name of Eduardo
Suarez. Accused-appellant promised to help Rosilyn become an actress. When
he saw Rosilyn, accused-appellant asked how old she was. Simplicio answered,
10. She is going to be 11 on May 11. Accused-appellant inquired if Rosilyn
knows how to sing. Simplicio told Rosilyn to sing, so she sang the song, Tell Me
You Love Me. Accused-appellant then asked if Rosilyn has nice legs and then
raised her skirt up to the mid-thighs. He asked if she was already
menstruating, and Simplicio said yes. Accused-appellant further inquired if
Rosilyn already had breasts. When nobody answered, accused-appellant
cupped Rosilyns left breast. Thereafter, accused-appellant assured them that
he would help Rosilyn become an actress as he was one of the producers of the
TV programs, Valiente and Eat Bulaga.
Simplicio and Suarez then discussed the execution of a contract for
Rosilyns movie career. Accused-appellant, on the other hand, said that he
would adopt Rosilyn and that the latter would have to live with him in his
condominium at the Ritz Towers. Before Simplicio and Rosilyn went home,
accused-appellant gave Rosilyn P2,000.00.
The second time Rosilyn met accused-appellant was at his condominium
unit, located at Room 1702, Ritz Towers, Makati City. Accused-appellant and
Simplicio discussed the contract and his plan to finance Rosilyns
studies. Accused-appellant gave Simplicio P500.00, thereafter, Rosilyn,
Shandro and Simplicio left.
The third meeting between Rosilyn and accused-appellant was also at Ritz
Towers to discuss her acting career. Accused-appellant referred the preparation
of Rosilyns contract to his lawyer, who was also present. After the meeting,
Simplicio and Rosilyn left. As they were walking towards the elevator, accused-
appellant approached them and gave Rosilyn P3,000.00.
On June 14, 1996, at about 8:30 to 9:00 p.m., Simplicio and Rosilyn
returned to accused-appellants condominium unit at Ritz Towers. When
accused-appellant came out of his bedroom, Simplicio told Rosilyn to go inside
the bedroom, while he and accused-appellant stayed outside. After a while,
accused-appellant entered the bedroom and found Rosilyn watching
television. He walked towards Rosilyn and kissed her on the lips, then left the
room again. Simplicio came in and bid her goodbye. Rosilyn told Simplicio that
accused-appellant kissed her to which Simplicio replied, Halik lang naman.
Rosilyn was left alone in the bedroom watching television. After some time,
accused-appellant came in and entered the bathroom. He came out clad in a
long white T-shirt on which was printed the word, Dakak. In his hand was a
plain white T-shirt. Accused-appellant told Rosilyn that he wanted to change
her clothes. Rosilyn protested and told accused-appellant that she can do it
herself, but accused-appellant answered, Daddy mo naman ako. Accused-
appellant then took off Rosilyns blouse and skirt. When he was about to take
off her panties, Rosilyn said, Huwag po. Again, accused-appellant told her,
After all, I am your Daddy. Accused-appellant then removed her panties and
dressed her with the long white T-shirt.
The two of them watched television in bed. After sometime, accused-
appellant turned off the lamp and the television. He turned to Rosilyn and
kissed her lips. He then raised her shirt, touched her breasts and inserted his
finger into her vagina. Rosilyn felt pain and cried out, Tama na po.Accused-
appellant stopped. He continued to kiss her lips and fondle her breasts. Later,
accused-appellant told Rosilyn to sleep.
The following morning, Rosilyn was awakened by accused-appellant whom
she found bent over and kissing her. He told her to get up, took her hand and
led her to the bathroom. He removed Rosilyns shirt and gave her a bath. While
accused-appellant rubbed soap all over Rosilyns body, he caressed her breasts
and inserted his finger into her vagina. After that, he rinsed her body, dried her
with a towel and applied lotion on her arms and legs. Then, he dried her hair
and told her to dress up. Rosilyn put on her clothes and went out of the
bathroom, while accused-appellant took a shower.
Accused-appellant ate breakfast while Rosilyn stayed in the bedroom
watching television. When accused-appellant entered the room, he knelt in
front of her, removed her panties and placed her legs on his shoulders. Then,
he placed his tongue on her vagina. Thereafter, he gave Rosilyn P10,000.00
and told his housemaid to take her shopping at Shoemart. When she returned
to the Ritz Towers, Simplicio was waiting for her. The two of them went
home. Rosilyn narrated to Simplicio what accused-appellant did to her, and
pleaded for him not to bring her back to the Ritz Towers. Simplicio told her that
everything was alright as long as accused-appellant does not have sexual
intercourse with her.
That same evening, at around 9:00 to 9:30 in the evening, Simplicio again
brought Rosilyn to the Ritz Towers. After Simplicio left, accused-appellant
removed Rosilyns clothes and dressed her with the same long T-shirt. They
watched television for a while, then accused-appellant sat beside Rosilyn and
kissed her on the lips. He made Rosilyn lie down, lifted her shirt above her
breasts, and inserted his finger into her vagina. Then, accused-appellant
removed his own clothes, placed his penis between Rosilyns thighs and made
thrusting motions until he ejaculated on her thighs. Thereafter, accused-
appellant kissed her and told her to sleep.
The next day, June 16, 1996, accused-appellant roused her from sleep and
bathed her. Again, he rubbed soap all over her body, washed her hair, and
thereafter rinsed her body and dried her hair. While accused-appellant was
bathing Rosilyn, he asked her to fondle his penis while he caressed her breasts
and inserted his finger into her vagina. After their shower, accused-appellant
ate breakfast. He gave Rosilyn P5,000.00 and told her to just wait for Simplicio
in the condominium unit. On their way home, Simplicio told Rosilyn that if
accused-appellant tries to insert his penis into her vagina, she should refuse.
At around 8:00 p.m. of June 18, 1996, Simplicio brought Rosilyn to the Ritz
Towers. They found accused-appellant sitting on the bed in his
bedroom. Simplicio told Rosilyn to approach accused-appellant, then he
left. Accused-appellant took off Rosilyns clothes and dressed her with a long T-
shirt on which was printed a picture of accused-appellant and a woman, with
the caption, Cong. Jalosjos with his Toy. They watched television for a while,
then accused-appellant lay beside Rosilyn and kissed her on the lips. He raised
her shirt and parted her legs. He positioned himself between the spread legs of
Rosilyn, took off his own shirt, held his penis, and poked and pressed the same
against Rosilyns vagina. This caused Rosilyn pain inside her sex
organ. Thereafter, accused-appellant fondled her breasts and told her to sleep.
When Rosilyn woke up the following morning, June 19, 1996, accused-
appellant was no longer around but she found P5,000.00 on the table. Earlier
that morning, she had felt somebody touching her private parts but she was
still too sleepy to find out who it was. Rosilyn took a bath, then went off to
school with Simplicio, who arrived to fetch her.
The next encounter of Rosilyn with accused-appellant was on June 21,
1996, at about 9:00 oclock in the evening in his bedroom at the Ritz
Towers. Accused-appellant stripped her naked and again put on her the long
shirt he wanted her to wear. After watching television for a while, accused-
appellant knelt beside Rosilyn, raised her shirt, caressed her breasts and
inserted his finger into her vagina. Then, he clipped his penis between Rosilyns
thighs, and made thrusting motions until he ejaculated. Thereafter, Rosilyn
went to sleep.
The next day, June 22, 1996, Rosilyn was awakened by accused-appellant
who was kissing her and fondling her sex organ. She, however, ignored him
and went back to sleep. When she woke up, she found the P5,000.00 which
accused-appellant left and gave the same to Simplicio Delantar, when the latter
came to pick her up.
On June 29, 1996, Rosilyn again went to the Ritz Towers. During that visit,
accused-appellant took photographs of Rosilyn. He asked her to pose with her
T-shirt pulled down thereby exposing her breasts. He also took her
photographs with her T-shirt rolled up to the pelvis but without showing her
pubis, and finally, while straddled on a chair facing the backrest, showing her
legs.
Before Rosilyn went to sleep, accused-appellant kissed her lips, fondled her
breasts and inserted his finger into her vagina. The following morning, she
woke up and found the P5,000.00 left by accused-appellant on the table. She
recalled that earlier that morning, she felt somebody caressing her breasts and
sex organ.
On July 2, 1996 at 7:00 p.m., Rosilyn and Simplicio returned to the Ritz
Towers. Rosilyn had to wait for accused-appellant, who arrived between 12:00
to 1:00 a.m. He again dressed her with the long white shirt similar to what he
was wearing. While sitting on the bed, accused-appellant kissed her lips and
inserted his tongue into her mouth. He then fondled her breasts and inserted
his finger into her vagina, causing her to cry in pain. Accused-appellant
stopped and told her to sleep.
The next morning, accused-appellant bathed her again. While he soaped
her body, he fondled her breasts and inserted his finger in her vagina. Rosilyn
felt pain and shoved his hand away. After bathing her, accused-appellant had
breakfast. Before he left, he gave Rosilyn P5,000.00. As soon as Simplicio
arrived, Rosilyn gave her the money and then they left for school.
On July 20, 1996, Simplicio again brought Rosilyn to the Ritz
Towers. Accused-appellant was waiting in his bedroom. He took off Rosilyns
clothes, including her panties, and dressed her with a long T-shirt similar to
what he was wearing. After watching television, accused-appellant kissed
Rosilyn on the lips, inserted his tongue in her mouth and fondled her
breasts. Then, he made Rosilyn lie on the bed, spread her legs apart and placed
a pillow under her back. He inserted his finger in her vagina and mounted
himself between her legs with his hands rested on her sides.After that, he lifted
his shirt, then pointed and pressed his penis against her vagina. Accused-
appellant made thrusting motions, which caused Rosilyn pain. Thereafter,
accused-appellant told her to sleep.
In the early morning of July 21, 1996, Rosilyn felt somebody touching her
sex organ, but she did not wake up. When she woke up later, she found
P5,000.00 on the table, and she gave this to Simplicio when he came to fetch
her.
On August 15, 1996, Rosilyn and Simplicio went to the Ritz Towers at
around 7:00 p.m. Accused-appellant was about to leave, so he told them to
come back later that evening. The two did not return.
The following day, Rosilyn ran away from home with the help of Yamie
Estreta, one of their boarders. Yamie accompanied Rosilyn to the Pasay City
Police, where she executed a sworn statement against Simplicio
Delantar. Rosilyn was thereafter taken to the custody of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). The National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) conducted an investigation, which eventually led to the filing of criminal
charges against accused-appellant.
On August 23, 1996, Rosilyn was examined by Dr. Emmanuel L. Aranas at
Camp Crame. The examination yielded the following results:

EXTERNAL AND EXTRAGENITAL

Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female

subject. Breasts are conical with pinkish brown areola and nipples
from which no secretions could be pressed out. Abdomen is flat and
soft

GENITAL

There is moderate growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex
and coaptated with the pinkish brown labia minora presenting in
between. On separating the same disclosed an elastic, fleshy type
hymen, with shallow healed laceration at 3 o'clock position and deep
healed laceration at 8 o'clock position. External vaginal orifice offers
moderate resistance to the introduction of the examining index finger
and the virgin sized vaginal speculum. Vaginal canal is narrow with
prominent rugosities. Cervix is firm and closed.

CONCLUSION:

Subject is in non-virgin state physically.

There are no external signs of application of any form of violence.[9]

During the trial, accused-appellant raised the defense of denial and

alibi. He claimed that it was his brother, Dominador Jun Jalosjos, whom
Rosilyn had met, once at accused-appellants Dakak office and twice at the Ritz
Towers. Accused-appellant insisted that he was in the province on the dates
Rosilyn claimed to have been sexually abused. He attributed the filing of the
charges against him to a small group of blackmailers who wanted to extort
money from him, and to his political opponents, particularly Ex-Congressman
Artemio Adaza, who are allegedly determined to destroy his political career and
boost their personal agenda.
More specifically, accused-appellant claims that on June 16, 1996, he was
on the Philippine Airlines (PAL) 9:40 a.m. flight from Manila to Dipolog. He
stayed in Dipolog until June 18, 1996. He submitted in evidence airline ticket
no. 10792424,[10] showing that he was on board Flight PR 165; the said flights
passengers manifest,[11] where the name JALOSJOS/RM/MR appears; and
photographs showing accused-appellants constituents welcoming his arrival
and showing accused-appellant talking with former Mayor Hermanico Carreon
and Fiscal Empainado.
Accused-appellant further alleges that on June 28, 1996, he again took the
9:40 a.m. flight from Manila to Dipolog City. On the same flight, he met
Armando Nocom of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Upon arrival and after talking
to his representatives, he proceeded to his residence known as Barangay House
in Taguinon, Dapitan, near Dakak Beach resort, and spent the night there.
On June 29, 1996, accused-appellant attended the fiesta at Barangay San
Pedro. He stayed in the house of Barangay Captain Mila Yap until 5:30
p.m. Then, together with some friends, he visited the Rizal Shrine and the
Pirate Bar at Dakak Beach Resort. Thereafter, he retired in the Barangay
House in Taguilon.
On June 30, 1996, accused-appellant alleges that he attended a city-wide
consultation with his political leaders at the Blue Room of Dakak, which lasted
till the afternoon. In the evening, he went home and slept in the Barangay
House.
On July 1, 1996, he attended the whole day celebration of Dipolog Day. He
spent the night in the Barangay House.
On July 2, 1996, he attended the inauguration of the reception hall of
Dakak Beach Resort. The blessing ceremony was officiated by Assistant Parish
Priest Adelmo Laput.
On July 3, 1996, he was the guest in the inaguration of the 3rd Engineering
District of Dapitan City. After the mass, he visited the Jamboree site in
Barangay Taguilon, Dapitan City.
 He further contended that after his arrival in Dipolog on June 28, 1996,
there was never an instance when he went to Manila until July 9, 1996, when
he attended a conference called by the President of the Philippines.
Accused-appellant likewise alleged that on July 21, 1996, he took the 5:00
a.m. flight of PAL from Manila to Dumaguete City. From there, he was flown by
a private plane to Dipolog, where he stayed until the President of the
Philippines arrived.
To buttress the theory of the defense, Dominador Jun Jalosjos testified that
he was the one, and not accused-appellant, whom Rosilyn met on three
occasions. These occurred once during the first week of May 1996, at accused-
appellants Dakak office where Rosilyn and Simplicio Delantar were introduced
to him by Eduardo Suarez, and twice at the Ritz Towers when he interviewed
Rosilyn, and later when Rosilyn and Simplicio followed up the proposed entry
of Rosilyn into the show business.
Dominadors admission of his meetings with Rosilyn on three instances
were limited to interviewing her and assessing her singing and modeling
potentials. His testimony made no mention of any sexual encounter with
Rosilyn.
After trial, the court rendered the assailed decision, the dispositive portion
of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as

follows:

1. In Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1985 and 96-1986, the prosecution has

proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, ROMEO
JALOSJOS y GARCIA, as principal in the two (2) counts of statutory
rape defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code. He is hereby declared CONVICTED in each of these cases.

2. Accordingly, he is sentenced to:

2a. suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of these cases.

2b. indemnify the victim, MA. ROSILYN DELANTAR, in the amount of

FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral damages for each of
the cases.

3. In Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1987, 96-1988, 96-1989, 96-1990, 96-

1992 and 96-1993, the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of the accused, ROMEO JALOSJOS y GARCIA, as
principal in six (6) counts of acts of lasciviousness defined under
Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and penalized under Section 5
(b) of R.A. 7610 otherwise known as the Child Abuse Law. He is
hereby declared CONVICTED in each of these cases;

4. Accordingly he is sentenced to:

4.a. suffer in each of the cases an indeterminate prison term of from

eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor in its
medium period, as maximum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and
twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as
maximum;

4.b. indemnify the victim, MA ROSILYN DELANTAR, in the amount of

TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) as moral damages for each of the
cases;

5. In Criminal Case Nos. 96-1991, 96-1994, 96-1995, 96-1996, 96-

1997 and 96-1998, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, ROMEO JALOSJOS y
GARCIA, in six (6) counts of acts of lasciviousness. Therefore, on the
ground of reasonable doubt, the accused in these cases is hereby
ACQUITTED.

SO ORDERED.[12]

Hence, the instant appeal. Accused-appellant contends:

A.

THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT BASED ON TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT, CONSIDERING THE ATTENDANT INDICIA OF
INCONSISTENCIES AND UNTRUTHS.
B.

THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS GIVEN BY
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
C.
 THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS FAILURE TO
IDENTIFY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D.

THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE

PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WAS A MINOR LESS THAN TWELVE
YEARS OF AGE WHEN THE CLAIMED INCIDENTS ALLEGEDLY
TOOK PLACE.
E.

THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT RAPE

WAS COMMITTED AGAINST THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.[13]

In this jurisdiction, the testimony of the private complainant in rape cases

is scrutinized with utmost caution. The constitutional presumption of
innocence requires no less than moral certainty beyond any scintilla of
doubt. This applies with more vigor in rape cases where the evidence for the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and is not allowed to draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense. As an inevitable
consequence, it is the rape victim herself that is actually put on trial. The case
at bar is no exception. Bent on destroying the veracity of private complainants
testimony, the errors assigned by accused-appellant, particularly the first
three, are focused on the issue of credibility.
Accused-appellant makes much of his acquittal in Criminal Case Nos. 96-
1991, 96-1994, 96-1995, 96-1996, 96-1997, and 96-1998, for acts of
lasciviousness. According to him, the fact that the trial court sustained his
defense of alibi in the said cases only shows that Rosilyn concocted her stories
and the rest of her testimony ought not to be believed. Stated differently,
accused-appellant urges the application of the doctrine of "falsus in uno falsus
in omnibus (false in part, false in everything).[14]
The contention is without merit. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an
absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern
jurisprudence.[15] Thus, in People v. Yanson-Dumancas,[16] citing People v. Li Bun
Juan,[17] this Court held that:

... In this connection it must be borne in mind that the principle

falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute one, and that it is
perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect
to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts. In People vs.
Keller, 46 O.G. No. 7, pp. 3222-3223, the following was quoted with
approval by the Court of Appeals from 1 Moore on Facts, p. 23:

18. Testimony may be partly credited and partly rejected. --- Trier of
facts are not bound to believe all that any witness has said; they may
accept some portions of his testimony and reject other portions,
according to what seems to them, upon other facts and circumstances
to be the truth Even when witnesses are found to have deliberately
falsified in some material particulars, the jury are not required to
reject the whole of their uncorroborated testimony, but may credit
such portions as they deem worthy of belief. (p. 945)[18]

Being in the best position to discriminate between the truth and the
falsehood, the trial court's assignment of values and weight on the testimony of
Rosilyn should be given credence. Significantly, it should be borne in mind that
the issue at hand hinges on credibility, the assessment of which, as oft-
repeated, is best made by the trial court because of its untrammeled
opportunity to observe her demeanor on the witness stand.
On the demeanor and manner of testifying shown by the complainant, the
trial court stated:

Guided by the foregoing principles, this court found no reason why it

should not believe Rosilyn when she claimed she was
raped. Testimonies of rape victims especially those who are young and
immature deserve full credence (People v. Liquiran, 228 SCRA 62
(1993) considering that no woman would concoct a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter
allow herself to be perverted in a public trial if she was not motivated
solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and
punished. (People v. Buyok, 235 SCRA 622 [1996]).

When asked to describe what had been done to her, Rosilyn was able
to narrate spontaneously in detail how she was sexually abused. Her
testimony in this regard was firm, candid, clear and straightforward,
and it remained to be so even during the intense and rigid cross-
examination made by the defense counsel.[19]

Accused-appellant next argues that Rosilyns direct and redirect testimonies

were rehearsed and lacking in candidness. He points to the supposed hesitant
and even idiotic answers of Rosilyn on cross and re-cross examinations. He
added that she was trained to give answers such as, Ano po?,Parang po, Medyo
po, and Sa tingin ko po.
 Accused-appellants arguments are far from persuasive. A reading of the
pertinent transcript of stenographic notes reveals that Rosilyn was in fact firm
and consistent on the fact of rape and lascivious conduct committed on her by
accused-appellant. She answered in clear, simple and natural words customary
of children of her age. The above phrases quoted by accused-appellant as
uttered by Rosilyn are, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, typical
answers of child witnesses like her.
At any rate, even assuming that Rosilyn, during her lengthy ordeals on the
witness stand, may have given some ambiguous answers, they refer merely to
minor and peripheral details which do not in any way detract from her firm and
straightforward declaration that she had been molested and subjected to
lascivious conduct by accused-appellant. Moreover, it should be borne in mind
that even the most candid witness oftentimes makes mistakes and confused
statements. At times, far from eroding the effectiveness of the evidence, such
lapses could, indeed, constitute signs of veracity.[20]
Then, too, accused-appellant capitalizes on the alleged absence of any
allegation of rape in the five (5) sworn statements executed by Rosilyn as well
as in the interviews and case study conducted by the representatives of the
DSWD. In particular, accused-appellant points to the following documents:
(1) Sworn statements dated August 22 and 26, 1996, executed before SPO5
Milagros A. Carrasco of the Pasay City Police;
(2) Sworn statements dated September 5, 11, and 19, 1996, executed before
NBI Agents Cynthia L. Mariano and Supervising NBI Agent Arlis E. Vela;
(3) The Initial Interview of Rosilyn by the DSWD dated August 30, 1996;
(4) DSWD Final Case Study Report dated January 10, 1997.
It must be stressed that rape is a technical term, the precise and accurate
definition of which could not have been understood by Rosilyn. Indeed, without
the assistance of a lawyer, who could explain to her the intricacies of rape, she
expectedly could not distinguish in her affidavits and consequently disclose
with proficient exactitude the act or acts of accused-appellant that under the
contemplation of law constitute the crime of rape. This is especially true in the
present case where there was no exhaustive and clear-cut evidence of full and
complete penetration of the victims vagina. It may well be that Rosilyn thought,
as any layman would probably do, that there must be the fullest penetration of
the victims vagina to qualify a sexual act to rape.
In People v. Campuhan,[21] we ruled that rape is consummated by the
slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the
pudendum by the penis. There need not be full and complete penetration of the
victims vagina for rape to be consummated. There being no showing that the
foregoing technicalities of rape was fully explained to Rosilyn on all those
occasions that she was interviewed by the police, the NBI agents and DSWD
social workers, she could not therefore be expected to intelligibly declare that
accused-appellants act of pressing his sex organ against her labia without full
entry of the vaginal canal amounted to rape.
In the decision of the trial court, the testimony on one of the rapes is cited
plus the courts mention of the jurisprudence on this issue, to wit:
Q: You said that when Congressman Jalosjos inserted his finger into your vagina,
your back was rested on a pillow and your legs were spread wide apart, what
else did he do?
A: He lifted his shirt, and held his penis; and again idinikit-dikit niya ang ari niya
sa ari ko. (underscoring supplied)
Q: And, after doing that: Idinikit-dikit niya yong ari niya sa ari ko; what else did he
do?
A: After that, Itinutok niya po yong ari niya at idiniin-diin niya ang ari niya sa ari
ko. (underscoring supplied)
(pp. 23, 25 to 30, TSN, 16 April 1997)

It is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that rape can be committed

even without full penetration of the male organ into the vagina of the
woman. It is enough that there be proof of the entrance of the male
organ within the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. (People
vs. Mangalino, 182 SCRA 329; People vs. Tismo, 204 SCRA 535;
People vs. Bacani, 181 SCRA 393). Penetration of the penis by entry
into the lips of the female organ suffices to warrant a
conviction. (People vs. Galimba, G.R. No. 111563-64, February 20,
1996 citing People vs. Abonada, 169 SCRA 530).Hence, with the
testimony of Rosilyn that the accused pressed against (idiniin) and
pointed to (itinutok) Rosilyns vagina his sexual organ on two (2)
occasions, two (2) acts of rape were consummated.[22]

Moreover, it must be borne in mind that Rosilyns purpose in executing the

affidavits on August 22 and 26, 1996 before the Pasay City Police was to charge
Simplicio Delantar, not accused-appellant. As aptly pointed out by the trial
court, it is preposterous to expect Rosilyn to make an exhaustive narration of
the sexual abuse of accused-appellant when he was not the object of the said
complaint.
Additionally, Rosilyns statements, given to the NBI on September 11 and
19, 1996, concerned mainly the identification of pictures. There was thus no
occasion for her to narrate the details of her sexual encounter with accused-
appellant.
As to the interviews and studies conducted by the DSWD, suffice it to state
that said meetings with Rosilyn were specially focused on the emotional and
psychological repercussions of the sexual abuse on Rosilyn, and had nothing to
do with the legal actions being prepared as a consequence thereof. Thus, the
documents pertaining to said interviews and studies cannot be relied upon to
reveal every minute aspect of the sexual molestations complained of.
At any rate, the inconsistencies between the affidavits and Rosilyns
testimony, if at all they existed, cannot diminish the probative value of Rosilyns
declarations on the witness stand. The consistent ruling of this Court is that, if
there is an inconsistency between the affidavit of a witness and her testimonies
given in open court, the latter commands greater weight than the former.[23]
In the third assigned error, accused-appellant attempts to impress upon
this Court that Rosilyn gave the name Congressman Romeo Jalosjos as her
abuser only because that was the name given to her by the person to whom
she was introduced. That same name, accused-appellant claims, was merely
picked up by Rosilyn from the name plate, plaque, and memo pad she saw on
accused-appellants office desk. Accused-appellant presented his brother,
Dominador Jun Jalosjos, in an attempt to cast doubt on his culpability. It was
Dominador Jun Jalosjos who allegedly met and interviewed Rosilyn at the
Dakak office. In advancement of this theory, accused-appellant cites the fact
that out of a total of 16 pictures presented to Rosilyn for identification, she
picked up only 4, which depict Dominador Jun Jalosjos. In the same vein,
accused-appellant claims that the resulting cartographic sketch from the facial
characteristics given by Rosilyn to the cartographer, resembles the facial
appearance of Dominador Jun Jalosjos. Accused-appellant also points out that
Rosilyn failed to give his correct age or state that he has a mole on his lower
right jaw.
Contrary to the contentions of accused-appellant, the records reveal that
Rosilyn positively and unhesitatingly identified accused-appellant at the
courtroom. Such identification during the trial cannot be diminished by the
fact that in her sworn statement, Rosilyn referred to accused-appellant as her
abuser based on the name she heard from the person to whom she was
introduced and on the name she saw and read in accused-appellants
office. Verily, a persons identity does not depend solely on his name, but also
on his physical features. Thus, a victim of a crime can still identify the culprit
even without knowing his name. Similarly, the Court, in People v.
Vasquez,[24] ruled that:

It matters little that the eyewitness initially recognized accused-

appellant only by face [the witness] acted like any ordinary person in
making inquiries to find out the name that matched [appellants]
face. Significantly, in open court, he unequivocally identified accused-
appellant as their assailant.

Even in the case of People v. Timon,[25] relied upon by accused-appellant to

discredit his identification, this Court said that even assuming that the out-of-
court identification of accused-appellant was defective, their subsequent
identification in court cured any flaw that may have initially attended it.
In light of the foregoing, Rosilyns failure to identify accused-appellant out of
the 16 pictures shown to her does not foreclose the credibility of her
unqualified identification of accused-appellant in open court. The same holds
true with the subject cartographic sketch which, incidentally, resembles
accused-appellant. As noted by the trial court, accused-appellant and his
brother Dominador Jalosjos have a striking similarity in facial
features. Naturally, if the sketch looks like Dominador, it logically follows that
the same drawing would definitely look like accused-appellant.
Likewise, Rosilyns failure to correctly approximate the age of accused-
appellant and to state that he has a mole on the lower right jaw, cannot affect
the veracity of accused-appellants identification. At a young age, Rosilyn
cannot be expected to give the accurate age of a 56 year-old person.As to
accused-appellants mole, the Solicitor General is correct in contending that
said mole is not so distinctive as to capture Rosilyns attention and
memory. When she was asked to give additional information about accused-
appellant, Rosilyn described him as having a prominent belly. This, to our
mind, is indeed a more distinguishing feature that would naturally catch the
attention of an eleven year-old child like Rosilyn.
In his fifth assigned error, accused-appellant insists that the words idinikit,
itinutok, and idiniin-diin, which Rosilyn used to describe what accused-
appellant did to her vagina with his genitals, do not constitute consummated
rape. In addition, the defense argued that Rosilyn did not actually see accused-
appellants penis in the supposed sexual contact. In fact, they stressed that
Rosilyn declared that accused-appellants semen spilled in her thighs and not
in her sex organ.
Moreover, in his Reply Brief, accused-appellant, citing People v.
Campuhan, argued that, assuming that his penis touched or brushed Rosilyns
external genitals, the same is not enough to establish the crime of rape.
True, in People v. Campuhan,[26] we explained that the phrase, the mere
touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the
sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge, means that the act of
touching should be understood here as inherently part of the entry of the penis
into the labia of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons
pubis or the pudendum. We further elucidated that:

The pudendum or vulva is the collective term for the female genital
organs that are visible in the perineal area, e.g., mons pubis, labia
majora, labia minora, the hymen, the clitoris, the vaginal orifice,
etc. The mons pubis is the rounded eminence that becomes hairy after
puberty, and is instantly visible within the surface. The next layer is
the labia majora or the outer lips of the female organ composed of the
outer convex surface and the inner surface. The skin of the outer
convex surface is covered with hair follicles and is pigmented, while
the inner surface is a thin skin which does not have any hairs but has
many sebaceous glands. Directly beneath the labia majora is the labia
minora. Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered
for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke
the surface of the female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the
female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not
sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the
slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia
of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at
most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.[27]

In the present case, there is sufficient proof to establish that the acts of
accused-appellant went beyond strafing of the citadel of passion or shelling of
the castle of orgasmic potency, as depicted in the Campuhan case, and
progressed into bombardment of the drawbridge [which] is invasion
enough,[28] there being, in a manner of speaking, a conquest of the fortress of
ignition. When the accused-appellant brutely mounted between Rosilyns wide-
spread legs, unfetteredly touching, poking and pressing his penis against her
vagina, which in her position would then be naturally wide open and ready for
copulation, it would require no fertile imagination to belie the hypocrisy
claimed by accused-appellant that his penis or that of someone who looked like
him, would under the circumstances merely touch or brush the external
genital of Rosilyn. The inevitable contact between accused-appellants penis,
and at the very least, the labia of the pudendum of Rosilyn, was confirmed
when she felt pain inside her vagina when the idiniin part of accused appellants
sex ritual was performed.
The incident on June 18, 1996 was described by Rosilyn as follows:
PROS. ZUNO:
Q. And, after kissing your lips; after kissing you in your lips, what else did he do?
A. After that, he was lifting my shirt.
Q. Now, while he was lifting your shirt, what was your position; will you tell the
court?
A. I was lying, sir.
Q. Lying on what?
A. On the bed, sir.
Q. And, after lifting your shirt, what else did he do?
A. He spread my legs sir.
Q. And, after spreading your legs apart; what did he do?
A. After that, he lifted his shirt and held his penis.
Q. And while he was holding his penis; what did he do?
A. He pressed it in my vagina.
ATTY. FERNANDEZ:
May we request that the vernacular be used?
A. Tapos po, idinikit-dikit po niya yong ari niya sa ari ko.
PROS. ZUNO:
May I respectfully move that the word: idinikit-dikit niya ang ari niya sa ari ko, be
incorporated?
Q. And while he was doing that; according to you, idinikit-dikit niya ang ari niya sa
ari mo; what did you feel?
A. I was afraid and then, I cried.
Q. Will you tell the Court why you felt afraid and why you cried?
A. Because I was afraid he might insert his penis into my vagina.
Q. And, for how long did Congressman Jalosjos perform that act, which according
to you, idinikit-dikit niya yong ari niya sa ari ko?
COURT:
Place the Tagalog words, into the records.
A. Sandali lang po yon.
Q. What part of your vagina, or ari was being touched by the ari or penis?
xxxxxxxxx
Q. You said that you felt I withdraw that question. How did you know that
Congressman Jalosjos was doing, idinikit-dikit niya yung ari niya sa ari ko?
A. Because I could feel it, sir.
Q. Now, you said you could feel it. What part of the vagina in what part of your
vagina was Congressman Jalosjos, according to you, idinikit-dikit niya yong ari
niya sa ari mo?
A. In front of my vagina, sir.
Q. In front of your vagina? O.K.; will you tell the Court the position?
Will you describe the position of Congressman Jalosjos when he was doing
that. Idinikit-dikit niya sa ari ko?
A. Ide-demonstrate ko po ba?
FISCAL ZUNO:
Q. Can you demonstrate?
 xxxxxxxxx
A. He was holding me like this with his one hand; and was holding his penis while
his other hand, or his free hand was on the bed.
xxxxxxxxx
PROS. ZUNO:
Now, according to you, you dont know how to say it; or what was done to you. Now,
will you tell the Court how can you describe what was done to you?
A. After he dinikit-dikit niya yong ari niya sa ari ko; itinutok naman niya ito.
Q. O.K. you said itinutok niya ito; what else did he do?
PROS. ZUNO:
She is now trying to describe.
COURT:
Translate.
A. He seems to be parang idinidiin po niya.
Q. Now, what did you feel, when according to you; as I would quote: parang idinidiin
niya?
A. Masakit po.
Q. And, just to make it clear in Tagalog: Ano itong idinidiin niya?
COURT:
Q. Sabi mo itinutok. Nakita mo bang itinutok?
A. I saw him na nakaganuon po sa ano niya.
PROS. ZUNO:
Q. O.K., clarify. You said nakaganuon siya what do you mean by nakaganuon siya?
A. He was holding his penis, and then, that was the one which he itinutok sa ari ko.
PROS. ZUNO:
Q. And, when you said idinidiin po niya; to which you are referring? What is
this idinidiin niya?
A. Idinidiin niya ang ari niya sa ari ko.
Q. And what did you feel when you said: he was idinidiin niya ang ari niya sa ari
ko?
A. Masakit po.
COURT:
The answer is masakit po.
Proceed.
 PROS. ZUNO:
Q. Where did you feel the pain?
A. Inside my ari po. (Sa loob po ng ari ko.)
xxxxxxxxx
PROS. ZUNO:
Q. And then, after that, what else did he do
A. After that, he touched my breast, sir.
Q. And, after touching your breast, what did he do?
A. And after that I felt that he was (witness demonstrating to the court, with her
index finger, rubbing against her open left palm)
Q. And after doing that, what else did he do?
A. After that, he instructed me to go to sleep.
xxxxxxxxx
A. I put down my clothes and then, I cried myself to sleep, sir.
Q. Why did you cry? Will you tell the court, why did you cried after putting down
your clothes?
A. Because I felt pity for myself.
(Naaawa po ako sa sarili ko.)
x x x x x x x x x.
(Emphasis supplied.)[29]
Even the July 20, 1996 encounter between Rosilyn and accused-appellant
would not tax the sketchy visualization of the nave and uninitiated to conclude
that there was indeed penile invasion by accused-appellant of Rosilyns
labia. On that occasion, accused-appellant was similarly ensconced between
the parted legs of Rosilyn, except that, this time, Rosilyn was conveniently
rested on, and elevated with a pillow on her back while accused-appellant was
touching, poking and pressing his penis against her vagina. Topped with the
thrusting motions employed by accused-appellant, the resulting pain felt by
Rosilyn in her sex organ was no doubt a consequence of consummated rape.
The pertinent portions of Rosilyns account of the July 20, 1996 incident is
as follows:
PROS. ZUNO:
xxxxxxxxx
Q. The moment when Cong. Jalosjos inserted his finger into your vagina, what was
your position?
 INTERPRETER:
The witness is asking he (sic) she has to demonstrate?
FISCAL ZUNO:
Q. Ipaliwanag mo lang?
A. My back was rested on a pillow and my legs were spread apart.
Q. You said that when Congressman Jalosjos inserted his finger into your vagina,
your back was rested on a pillow and your legs were spread wide apart, what
else did he do?
A. He lifted his shirt, and held his penis; and again idinikit-dikit niya ang ari niya sa
ari ko.
Q. And what did you feel when he was doing that which according to you and I
would quote in Tagalog: idinikit-dikit niya yong ari niya sa ari ko?
A. I was afraid sir.
Q. And, after doing that: idinikit-dikit niya yong ari niya sa ari ko, what else did he
do?
A. After that, itinutok niya po yong ari niya at idiniin-diin niya ang ari niya sa ari ko.
Q. You said: Congressman Jalosjos itinutok niya yong ari niya sa ari ko; at idiniin-
diin niya yong ari niya sa ari ko; Now, while he was doing that act, what was the
position of Congressman Jalosjos?
A. His two (2) hands were on my side and since my legs were spread apart; he was
in-between them, and doing an upward and downward movement.
(Witness demonstrated a pushing, or pumping movement)
Q. For how long did Congressman Jalosjos perform that act, pushing or pumping
movement while his penis, or ang ari niya ay nakatutok at idinidiin-diin yong ari
niya sa ari mo?
A. I dont know.
Q. And what did you feel when Congressman Jalosjos was making that movement,
pushing, or pumping?
A. I felt pain and then I cried.
Q. Where did you feel the pain?
A. Inside my vagina, sir.
x x x x x x x x x.[30]
The childs narration of the rape sequence is revealing. The act of idinikit-
dikit niya was followed by itinutok niya xxx at idiniin-diin niya. The idiniin-diin
niya was succeeded by Masakit po. Pain inside her ari is indicative of
consummated penetration.
 The environmental circumstances displayed by the graphic narration of
what took place at the appellants room from June 14 to June 16 and June 21
to June 22, 1996 are consistent with the complainants testimony which shows
that rape was legally consummated.
In the case of People v. Campuhan, the victim put up a resistance --- by
putting her legs close together --- which, although futile, somehow made it
inconvenient, if not difficult, for the accused-appellant to attempt
penetration. On the other hand, the ease with which accused-appellant herein
perpetrated the sexual abuse, not to mention the absence of time constraint,
totally distinguishes the instant case from Campuhan. Here, the victim was
passive and even submissive to the lecherous acts of accused-appellant. Thus,
even assuming that his penis then was flaccid, his act of holding, guiding and
assisting his penis with his one hand, while touching, poking and pressing the
same against Rosilyn's vagina, would surely result in even the slightest contact
between the labia of the pudendum and accused-appellant's sex organ.
Considering that Rosilyn is a self-confessed sex worker, and the
circumstances of the alleged sexual assault at bar, the defense argued that it is
highly improbable and contrary to human experience that accused-appellant
exercised a Spartan-like discipline and restrained himself from fully
consummating the sexual act when there was in fact no reason for him not to
do so. In the same light, the defense likewise branded as unnatural the
testimony of Rosilyn that accused-appellant contented himself with rubbing his
penis clipped between her thighs until he reached orgasm and desisted from
fully penetrating her, when Rosilyn was then entirely at his disposal.
The defense seems to forget that there is no standard form of behavior
when it comes to gratifying ones basic sexual instinct. The human sexual
perversity is far too intricate for the defense to prescribe certain forms of
conduct. Even the word perverse is not entirely precise, as what may be
perverse to one may not be to another. Using a child of tender years who could
even pass as ones granddaughter, to unleash what others would call downright
bestial lust, may be utterly nauseating and repulsive to some, but may
peculiarly be a festive celebration of salacious fantasies to others.For all we
know, accused-appellant may have found a distinct and complete sexual
gratification in such kind of libidinous stunts and maneuvers.
Nevertheless, accused-appellant may not have fully and for a longer period
penetrated Rosilyn for fear of perpetrating his name through a child from the
womb of a minor; or because of his previous agreement with his suking
bugaw, Simplicio Delantar, that there would be no penetration, otherwise the
latter would demand a higher price. This may be the reason why Simplicio
Delantar gave his mocking fatherly advice to Rosilyn that it is bad if accused-
appellant inserts his penis into her sex organ, while at the same time ordering
her to call him if accused-appellant would penetrate her. Such instance of
penile invasion would prompt Simplicio to demand a higher price, which is,
after all, as the Solicitor General calls it, the peculiarity of prostitution.
The defense contends that the testimony of Rosilyn that accused-appellant
ejaculated on her thighs and not in her vagina, only proves that there was no
rape. It should be noted that this portion of Rosilyns testimony refers to the
June 15 and 21, 1996 charges of acts of lasciviousness, and not the rape
charges. In any event, granting that it occurred during the twin instances of
rape on June 18 and July 20, 1996, the ejaculation on the victims thighs
would not preclude the fact of rape.
There is no truth to the contention of the defense that Rosilyn did not see
the penis of accused-appellant. As can be gleaned from the above-quoted
portions of the transcripts, Rosilyn unequivocally testified that accused-
appellant held his penis then poked her vagina with it. And even if she did not
actually see accused-appellants penis go inside her, surely she could have felt
whether it was his penis or just his finger.
We now come to the issue of whether or not Rosilyn was below twelve (12)
years of age at the time the rape complained of occurred. To bolster the
declaration of Rosilyn that she was then eleven years old, the prosecution
presented the following documents:
(1) Rosilyns birth certificate showing her birthday as May 11, 1985;[31]
(2) Rosilyns baptismal certificate showing her birthday as May 11, 1985;[32]
(3) Master List of Live Births stating that Ma. Rosilyn Delantar was born on
May 11, 1985 to Librada Telen as the mother;[33]
(4) Marked pages of the Cord Dressing Room Book;[34]
(5) Summary of the Cord Dressing Book, showing her birthday as May 11,
1985 and her parents (Librada Telen and Simplicio Delantar) patient file
number (39-10-71);[35]
(6) Record of admission showing her parents patient number (39-10-71) and
confinement at the Jose Fabella Memorial Hospital from May 5-14, 1985.[36]
It is settled that in cases of statutory rape, the age of the victim may be
proved by the presentation of her birth certificate. In the case at bar, accused-
appellant contends that the birth certificate of Rosilyn should not have been
considered by the trial court because said birth certificate has already been
ordered cancelled and expunged from the records by the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 38, in Special Proceedings No. 97-81893, dated April 11,
1997.[37] However, it appears that the said decision has been annulled and set
aside by the Court of Appeals on June 10, 1999, in CA-G.R. SP No. 45289. The
decision of the Court of Appeals was appealed to this Court by petition for
review, docketed as G.R. No. 140305. Pending the final outcome of that case,
the decision of the Court of Appeals is presumed valid and can be invoked
as prima facie basis for holding that Rosilyn was indeed eleven years old at the
time she was abused by accused-appellant.
However, even assuming the absence of a valid birth certificate, there is
sufficient and ample proof of the complainants age in the records.
Rosilyns Baptismal Certificate can likewise serve as proof of her age. In
People v. Liban,[38] we ruled that the birth certificate, or in lieu thereof, any
other documentary evidence that can help establish the age of the victim, such
as the baptismal certificate, school records, and documents of similar nature,
can be presented.
And even assuming ex gratia argumenti that the birth and baptismal
certificates of Rosilyn are inadmissible to prove her age, the Master List of Live
Births and the Cord Dressing Book of Dr. Jose Fabella Memorial Hospital
where Rosilyn was born are sufficient evidence to prove that her date of birth
was May 11, 1985. These documents are considered entries in official records,
admissible as prima facie evidence of their contents and corroborative of
Rosilyns testimony as to her age.
Thus, Rule 130, Section 44, of the Rules of Court states:

Entries in official records. --- Entries in official records made in the

performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a
person in the performance of a duty especially enjoined by law,
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

In Africa v. Caltex, et al., (Phil), Inc., et al.,[39] the Court laid down the
requisites for the application of the foregoing rule, thus:
(a) That the entry was made by a public officer, or by another person specially
enjoined by law to do so;
(b) That it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties or
by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by
law; and
(c) That the public office or the other person had sufficient knowledge of the
facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or
through official information.
In order for a book to classify as an official register and admissible in
evidence, it is not necessary that it be required by an express statute to be
kept, nor that the nature of the office should render the book indispensable; it
is sufficient that it be directed by the proper authority to be kept.Thus, official
registers, though not required by law, kept as convenient and appropriate
modes of discharging official duties, are admissible.[40]
Entries in public or official books or records may be proved by the
production of the books or records themselves or by a copy certified by the
legal keeper thereof.[41] It is not necessary to show that the person making the
entry is unavailable by reason of death, absence, etc., in order that the entry
may be admissible in evidence, for his being excused from appearing in court
in order that public business be not deranged, is one of the reasons for this
exception to the hearsay rule.[42]
Corollary thereto, Presidential Decree No. 651, as amended by P.D. No.
766,[43] mandates hospitals to report and register with the local civil registrar
the fact of birth, among others, of babies born under their care. Said Decree
imposes a penalty of a fine of not less that P500.00 nor more than P1,000.00 or
imprisonment of not less than three (3) months nor more than six (6) months,
or both, in the discretion of the court, in case of failure to make the necessary
report to the local civil registrar.
Hence, under the above-cited P.D. 651, as amended, in connection with
Rule 30, Section 44, of the Rules of Court, it is clear that the Cord Dressing
Room Book where the fact of birth, name of the mother and other related
entries are initially recorded, as well as the Master List of Live Births of the
hospital, are considered entries in official record, being indispensable to and
appropriate modes of recording the births of children preparatory to
registration of said entries with the local civil registrar, in compliance with a
duty specifically mandated by law.
It matters not that the person presented to testify on these hospital records
was not the person who actually made those entries way back in 1985, but
Amelita Avenante, the records custodian of the hospital in 1995. To reiterate,
these records may be proved by the presentation of the record itself or by a
certified copy or the legal keeper thereof. Proof of the unavailability of the
person who made those entries is not a requisite for their admissibility. What is
important is that the entries testified to by Avenante were gathered from the
records of the hospital which were accomplished in compliance with a duty
specifically mandated by law.
Therefore, the Cord Dressing Room Book and the Master List of Live Births
of the hospital are admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein.
The preparation of these hospital documents preceded that of the birth and
baptismal certificates of Rosilyn. They establish independent and material facts
prepared by unbiased and disinterested persons under environmental
circumstances apart from those that may have attended the preparation of the
birth and baptismal certificates. Hence, these hospital records, to reiterate, are
sufficient to support the testimony of Rosilyn as to her age.
Consequently, the testimony of Simplicio Delantar that the entries in the
birth certificate of Rosilyn are false and that he merely made them up,
particularly her date of birth, was correctly disregarded by the trial court. It
should be noted that the criminal charges for child abuse filed by Rosilyn
against him was the direct cause of his incarceration. This raises a possibility
that Simplicio falsely testified in the present case, to get even with Rosilyn.
Likewise, the trial court correctly disregarded the testimonies of Gloria
Binay and Angelito Intruzo because the defense failed to prove that they were
knowledgeable as to the circumstances of Rosilyns birth. Their testimonies
consist mainly of observations tending to show that Rosilyns appearance belie
her claim that she was born on May 11, 1985.
In the four instances of acts of lasciviousness allegedly committed on June
29, June 30, July 2, and July 3, 1996 (Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1994, 96-1995,
96-1996, and 96-1997, respectively), the trial court acquitted accused-
appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt as the defense was able to prove
that accused-appellant was not in Manila but either in Dipolog or Dapitan City
at the time the lascivious acts were supposedly committed. The evidence of the
defense established that accused-appellant flew to Dipolog on June 28, 1996,
and stayed there until July 9, 1996.
In Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1991 and 96-1998, for two counts of acts of
lasciviousness allegedly committed both in the early mornings of June 19 and
July 21, 1996, Rosilyn merely testified that she felt somebody touching her
private part but failed to identify the person who was performing those
lecherous acts as she was too sleepy to wake up. Hence, accused-appellant was
likewise acquitted in these cases on the ground of reasonable doubt.
With respect, however, to the acts of lasciviousness committed in the
morning of June 15 and 22, 1996, and in the evening of June 14, 15, 18, and
21, 1996, as well as the rape perpetrated on June 18, 1996 and July 20, 1996,
accused-appellant failed to account for his whereabouts. A careful review of the
pertinent transcript of stenographic notes reveals that accused-appellant did
not give any testimony as to where he was at the time these crimes were
committed. Clearly, therefore, the trial court correctly disregarded his
unsubstantiated defense of denial, which cannot prevail over his positive
identification by Rosilyn as the culprit.
As regards the charge of acts of lasciviousness committed in the morning of
June 16, 1996, accused-appellant claimed that it was impossible for him to
have committed the same because he flew to Dipolog on that day. The records
disclose, however, that accused-appellants flight was at 9:40 a.m. The
possibility, therefore, of accused-appellants having performed the lascivious
acts on the victim before he went off to the airport is not at all precluded. For
his failure to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the Ritz Towers
in the morning of June 16, 1996, when the sexual abuse of Rosilyn was
committed, his defense of alibi must fail.
Article III, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610, states:
Child Prostitution and other Sexual Abuse. --- Children, whether male
or female, who for money or profit, or any other consideration or due
to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge
in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct are deemed to be children
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion

perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious

conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,
paragraphs 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended,
the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case
may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the
victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in
its medium period; x x x . (Emphasis supplied.)

In People v. Optana,[44] the Court, citing the case of People v.

Larin,[45] explained the elements of the offense of violation of Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610, or the
Child Abuse Law, as follows:

1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious

conduct.

2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or

subjected other sexual abuse.

3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual

abuse, when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under
the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group. Under RA
7610, children are persons below eighteen years of age or those
unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of their
age or mental disability or condition.
 Lascivious conduct is defined under Article XIII, Section 32 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulation of R.A. 7610, as follows:

[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the

genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the
introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any
person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse,
humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of
any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the
genitals or pubic area of a person.

In the case at bar, accused-appellants acts of kissing Rosilyn on the lips,

fondling her breast, inserting his finger into her vagina and placing his penis
between her thighs, all constitute lascivious conduct intended to arouse or
gratify his sexual desire. Hence, the trial court correctly convicted accused-
appellant of violation of Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610, or the Child Abuse Law, in
Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1987, 96-1988, 96-1989, 96-1990, 96-1992, and 96-
1993, charging him with the above-described lascivious acts.
The penalty for violation of Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610, or the Child Abuse
Law, where the victim is below 12 years of age, is reclusion temporal in its
medium period.
The records show that on at least nine (9) separate occasions, the accused-
appellant inserted his finger into the complainants vagina. These insertions
took place in 1996. A year later, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8353, the
Anti-Rape law of 1997. It does not apply to this case but it indicates state
policy on rape. The Revised Penal Code is now amended to read as follows:

Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. Rape is committed

1. By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the

following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise

unconscious;

c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above
be present.

2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in

paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting
his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another
person. (Emphasis supplied.)

Indicative of the continuing state policy towards rape, the Anti-Rape Law of
1997 now classifies the crime as an offense against persons. Any public
prosecutor, not necessarily the victim or her parents, can prosecute the case.
The penalties for the crime of rape in the light of various circumstances,
which are now set forth and contained in Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code, have also been increased.
Considering that there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance,
the trial court correctly imposed on accused-appellant the maximum penalty of
fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion
temporal, which is within the medium period of reclusion temporalmedium,
pursuant to our ruling in Dulla v. Court of Appeals.[46] Notwithstanding that R.A.
7610 is a special law, accused-appellant may enjoy a minimum term of the
indeterminate sentence to be taken within the range of the penalty next lower
to that prescribed by the Code.[47] However, the trial court erroneously fixed the
minimum term of the indeterminate sentence at eight (8) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period. In the aforesaid
case of Dulla,[48] we held that the penalty next lower in degree to reclusion temporal medium
is reclusion temporal minimum, the range of which is from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months. Hence, for violation of Article III, Section 5 (b) of R.A.
7610, accused-appellant shall suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve years (12) and one
(1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20)
days of reclusion temporal as maximum.

At the time of commission of the crimes complained of herein in 1996,

statutory rape was penalized under Section 11 of R.A. 7659, which amended
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

When and how rape is committed. --- Rape is committed by having

carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:

1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
and

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. xxx.

In statutory rape, mere sexual congress with a woman below twelve years of
age consummates the crime of statutory rape regardless of her consent to the
act or lack of it. The law presumes that a woman of tender age does not
possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual
act. Thus, it was held that carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old
even if she is engaged in prostitution is still considered statutory rape. The
application of force and intimidation or the deprivation of reason of the victim
becomes irrelevant. The absence of struggle or outcry of the victim or even her
passive submission to the sexual act will not mitigate nor absolve the accused
from liability.[49]
In the case at bar, the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt
that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of Rosilyn. Moreover, the
prosecution successfully proved that Rosilyn was only eleven years of age at
the time she was sexually abused. As such, the absence of proof of any
struggle, or for that matter of consent or passive submission to the sexual
advances of accused-appellant, was of no moment. The fact that accused-
appellant had sexual congress with eleven year-old Rosilyn is sufficient to hold
him liable for statutory rape, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
As to accused-appellant's civil liability, the amount of moral damages
awarded by the trial court for each count of acts of lasciviousness under
Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610 should be increased from P20,000.00 to
P50,000.00.[50] On the other hand, the award of the amount of P50,000.00 as
moral damages for each count of statutory rape was correct.
In People v. Lor,[51] citing the cases of People v. Victor,[52] and People v.
Gementiza,[53] we held that the indemnity authorized by our criminal law as civil
indemnity ex delicto for the offended party, in the amount authorized by the
prevailing judicial policy and aside from other proven actual damages, is itself
equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. Said civil indemnity
is mandatory upon finding of the fact of rape; it is distinct from and should not
be denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural
foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound judicial
discretion.[54] Hence, accused-appellant should be ordered to pay the offended
party another P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of rape and acts of
lasciviousness.
 WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch
62, in Criminal Case Nos. 96-1985 and 96-1986 finding accused-appellant
Romeo Jalosjos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of statutory rape,
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count,
is AFFIRMED. Likewise, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati, Branch 62 in Criminal Case Nos. 96-1987, 96-1988, 96-1989, 96-
1990, 96-1992, and 96-1993, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in six counts, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS. As modified, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer, for
each count of acts of lasciviousness, the indeterminate penalty of twelve years
(12) and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six
(6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal as maximum. Further,
accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim, Ma. Rosilyn Delantar, the
additional amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of statutory
rape and acts of lasciviousness. Finally, the award of moral damages for each
count of acts of lasciviousness is increased to P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., CJ., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-
Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.

[1] People v. Nazareno, 80 SCRA 484, 491 [1977].

[2] People v. Sangil 276 SCRA 532 [1997].
[3] People v. Herrick, 187 SCRA 364 [1990].
[4] Rollo, p. 325
[5] Penned by Judge Roberto C. Diokno
[6] Rollo, p. 25.
[7] Rollo, p. 27.
Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1987; 96-1988; 96-1989; 96-1990; 96-1992; and 96-1993. Rollo, pp.
[8]

29-52.
[9] Annex G, Records, p. 1854.
[10] Exhibit "145".
[11] Exhibit "145" and "145-C".
[12] Rollo, pp. 195-197.
[13] Rollo, pp. 327-328.
[14] People v. Garcia, 271 SCRA 621, 629 [1997].
[15] People v. Paredes, 264 SCRA 578, 583 [1996]
[16] 320 SCRA 584, [1999]
[17] 17 SCRA 934 [1966].
[18] Id., p. 607.
[19] Decision, p.35; Rollo p. 3, 315.
[20] People v. Bernal, 254 SCRA 659, 669 [1997].
[21] 329 SCRA 270, 282 [2000].
[22] Decision p. 39; Rollo, p. 3,319.
[23] People v. Salimbago, 314 SCRA 282, 291-292 [1999].
[24] 281 SCRA 123, 129 [1997].
[25] 281 SCRA 577, 592 [1997].
[26] 329 SCRA 270, 279-280 [2000].
[27] Id., 281-282.
[28] People v. Salinas, 232 SCRA 274, 279 [1994].
[29] TSN, April 16, 1997, pp. 24-41.
[30] TSN, April 17, 1997, pp. 27-30.
[31] Exhibit A.
[32] Exhibit F.
[33] Exhibit E.
[34] Exhibit C.
[35] Exhibit B.
[36] Exhibit D.
[37] Exhibit B-6, Records, pp. 1841-1844.
[38] G.R. No. 136247 and 138330, November 22, 2000.
[39] 16 SCRA 448, 452 [1996]; citing 3 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, p. 398 [1957].
[40]VII Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Part I, pp. 618-619 [1997];
citing Kyburg v. Perkins, 6 Cal. 674. and Bell v. Kendrick, 25 Fla. 778.
[41] Id., pp. 620-621, citing 4 Jones on Evidence, 2d ed., 1704
[42] Id., p. 620, citing 3 Wigmore on Evidence, 1621.
SECTION 1. Registration of births. -All babies born in hospitals, maternity clinics,
[43]

private home, or elsewhere within the period staring from January 1, 1974 up to the date when
this decree becomes effective, irrespective of the nationality, race, culture, religion or belief of
the parents, whether the mother is a permanent resident or transient in the Philippines, and
whose births have not yet been registered must be reported for registration in the office of the
local civil registrar of the place of birth by the physician, nurse, midwife, hilot, or hospital or
clinic administrator who attended the birth or in default thereof, by either parent or a
responsible member of the family or a relative, or any person who has knowledge of the birth of
the individual child.
The report referred to above shall be accompanied with an affidavit describing the
circumstances surrounding the delayed registration.
SEC. 2. Period of registration of births. - The registration of the birth of babies referred to in the
preceding section must be done within sixty (60) days from the date of effectivity of this decree
without fine or fee of any kind. Babies born after the effectivity of this decree must be
registered in the office of the local civil registrar of the place of birth within thirty (30) days after
birth, by the attending physician, nurse, midwife, hilot or hospital or clinic administrator or, in
default of the same, by either parent or a responsible member of the family or any person who
has knowledge of the birth.
The parents or the responsible member of the family and the attendant at birth or the hospital
or clinic administrator referred to above shall be jointly liable in case they fail to register the
new born child.
xxxxxxxxx
SEC. 9. Penalty. Any person required under this decree to report for registration any fact
concerning the civil status of persons and who fails to do so, or who deliberately makes false
statements in the birth or death form and presents the same for registration, or who violates
any rule or regulation which may be issued pursuant to this decree, and any local public
health officer who fails to perform his duties as provided for in this decree, shall upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than P500.00 nor more than P1,000.00 or
imprisonment of not less than three (3) months nor more than six (6) months, or both, in the
discretion of the court.
[44] G.R. No. 133922, February 12, 2001.
[45] 297 SCRA 309 [1998].
[46] 326 SCRA 32, 48 [2000]; see also Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code.
[47] People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 [1994].
[48] Supra.
[49] People v. Quinagoran 315 SCRA 508, 516-517 [1999].
[50] People v. Optana, supra.
[51] G.R. No. 133190, July 19, 2001.
[52] 292 SCRA 186, 200 [1998].
[53] 285 SCRA 478, 492 [1998].
People v. De los Santos, 295 SCRA 583, 605 [1998]; citing People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411,
[54]

430 [1998].