Acquired From GR 117472

[Acquired from GR 117472, 25 June 1996; People vs.
Echegaray (En Banc, Per curiam: 15 concur]
Facts:
Rodessa is a 10-year old girl, a fifth-grader, and the daughter of Rosalie and Leo Echegaray. Sometime in
the afternoon of April 1994, while Rodessa was looking after her three brothers (aged 6, 5 and 2) in their
house as her mother attended a gambling session in another place, she heard her father order her
brothers to go out of the house. As soon as her brothers left, Leo Echegaray approached Rodessa and
suddenly dragged her inside the room. Before she could question Leo, the latter immediately, removed
her panty and made her lie on the floor. Thereafter, Leo likewise removed his underwear and
immediately placed himself on top of Rodessa. Subsequently, Leo forcefully inserted his penis into
Rodessa's organ causing her to suffer intense pain. After satisfying his bestial instinct, Leo threatened to
kill her mother if she would divulge what had happened. Scared that her mother would be killed by Leo,
Rodessa kept to herself the ordeal she suffered. She was very afraid of Leo because the latter, most of
the time, was high on drugs. The same sexual assault happened 5 times and this usually took place when
her mother was out of the house (her mother was pregnant during those times). However, after the fifth
time, Rodessa decided to inform her grandmother, Asuncion Rivera, who in turn told Rosalie, Radessa's
mother. Rodessa and her mother proceeded to the Barangay Captain where Rodessa confided the
sexual assaults she suffered. Thereafter, Rodessa was brought to the precinct where she executed an
affidavit. From there, she was accompanied to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for
medical examination. At first, her mother was on her side. However, when Leo was detained, her
mother kept on telling her. "Kawawa naman ang Tatay mo, nakakulong." Lo Echegaray was charged
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, in a complained formulated as "The undersigned accuses
LEO ECHEGARAY Y PILO of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows: 'That on or about the month of
April 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned
complainant, his daughter, a minor, 10 years of age, all against her will and without her consent, to her
damage and prejudice.' Contrary to law." Upon being arraigned on 1 August 1994, Leo, assisted by his
counsel de oficio, entered the plea of "not guilty." On 7 September 1994, tge RTC, Branch 104, found
Leo guilty of the crime of rape, aggravated by the fact that the same was commited by the accused who
is the father/stepfather of the complainant, and thus sentenced him to suffer the penalty of DEATH, as
provided for under RA 7659, to pay the complainant Rodessa Echegaray the sum of P50,000.00 as
damages, plus all the accessory penalties provided by law, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 104 when the case was raised to the Supreme Court in automatic review.
ISSUE:
RULING:
It is a well-entrenched jurisprudential rule that the testimony of a rape victim is credible

where she has no motive to testify against the accused
We find no flaws material enough to discredit the testimony of the ten-year old Rodessa
which the trial court found convincing enough and unrebutted by the defense.
No woman especially one of tender age, practically only a girl, would concoct a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter expose herself to a
public trial, if she were not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended
and punished
Minor inconsistencies in the narration of a witness do not detract from its essential
credibility as long as it is on the whole coherent and intrinsically believable.
In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element thereof—a mere

knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused’s penis suffices to
constitute the crime of rape. accused-appellant questions the penalty imposed by the trial
court by declaring that he is neither a father, stepfather or grandfather of Rodessa although
he was a confirmed lover of Rodessa’s mother. On direct examination, he admitted that
before the charge of rape was filed against him, he had treated Rodessa as his real
daughter and had provided for her food, clothing, shelter and education. The Court notes
that Rodessa uses the surname of the accused-appellant, not Rivera (her mother’s maiden
name) nor Alfonso (her grandmother’s live-in partner). Moreover, Rodessa’s mother stated
during the cross-examination that she, the accused-appellant, and her five children,
including Rodessa, had been residing in one house only. At any rate, even if he were not the
father, stepfather or grandfather of Rodessa, this disclaimer cannot save him from the
abyss where perpetrators of heinous crimes ought to be, as mandated by law. Considering
that the accused-appellant is a confirmed lover of Rodessa’s mother, he falls squarely
within the aforequoted portion of the Death Penalty Law under the term “common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim.”
Same; Same; Same; The fact that the ten-year old victim referred to the accused as
“Papa” is reason enough to conclude that the accused is either the father or stepfather of the
victim.
A mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused’s penis suffices to
constitute the crime of rape as full entry into the victim’s vagina is not required to sustain a
conviction. In the case, Dr. Freyra, the medico-legal examiner, categorically testified that
the healed lacerations of Rodessa on her vagina were consistent with the date of the
commission of the rape as narrated by the victim to have taken place in April, 1994.

Acquired From GR 117472

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acquired From GR 117472

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acquired From GR 117472

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Acquired from GR 117472, 25 June 1996; People vs.

Echegaray (En Banc, Per curiam: 15 concur]

It is a well-entrenched jurisprudential rule that the testimony of a rape victim is credible

In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element thereof—a mere

You might also like