PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS,
accused-appellant.
Facts:
The victim of rape in this case was a minor
below twelve (12) years of age, who herself narrated the shameful details of the
dastardly act against her virtue. The victim was peddled for commercial sex by her own guardian whom she
treated as a foster father. Because the complainantwas a willing victim, the
acts of rape were preceded by several acts of lasciviousness on distinctlyseparate
occasions..The accused was then CongressmanRomeo Jalosjoswho, inspite of his
having been charged and convicted by the trial court for statutory rape, was
stillre-elected to his congressional office. On December 16, 1996, two (2)
informations for the crime ofstatutory rape and twelve (12) for acts of
lasciviousness, were filed against accused-appellant
The victim,
Maria Rosilyn, grew up in a two-storey apartment in Pasay City under the care
of SimplicioDelantar, 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.He, however, was also engaged in
the skin trade as a pimp.
Rosilyn ran away from home with the help of
one of their boarders. They went tothe Pasay City Police where she executed a
sworn statement against SimplicioDelantar. Rosilynwas 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 thefiling of criminal charges against accused-appellant He was also
convicted on six (6) counts of acts of lasciviousness.
Issue/s
1.
WHETHER OR
NOT 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.
2.
WHETHER OR
NOT THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS GIVEN
BY THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
3.
WHETHER OR
NOT THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCEOF PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT'S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
4.
WHETHER OR
NOT THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PRIVATECOMPLAINANT WAS
A MINOR LESS THAN TWELVE YEARS OF AGE WHEN THECLAIMED INCIDENTS ALLEGEDLY TOOK
PLACE.
5.
WHETHER OR
NOT THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT RAPE WASCOMMITTED AGAINST
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
Ruling
The
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the RTC Makati with modification of
penalty.
1.
TESTIMONY OF
VICTIM; DOCTRINE OFFALSUS IN
UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS;
APPLICATION THEREOF NOT AN ABSOLUTERULE OF LAW; CASE AT BAR. The contention is
without merit. Falsus in
unofalsus inomnibus is not an
absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modernjurisprudence.Trier of facts are notbound 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 thetruth . . . 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
suchportions as they deem worthy of belief.
2.
CREDIBILITY
OF WITNESSES; NOT AFFECTED BY SOMEAMBIGUOUS ANSWERS ON WITNESS STAND, WHICH
REFERS TO MINOR ANDPERIPHERAL DETAILS; CASE AT BARA reading of the pertinent
transcript ofstenographic notes reveals that Rosilyn was in fact firm and
consistent on the fact of rape andlascivious conduct committed on her by
accused-appellant. She answered in clear, simple andnatural words customary of
children of her age.
3.
IDENTIFICATION
OF THE ACCUSED; DEFECT IN OUT-OF-COURT
IDENTIFICATION
OF THE ACCUSED CAN BE CURED BY AN IDENTIFICATIONSUBSEQUENTLY MADE IN COURT;
APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR.Contrary to thecontentions 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-appellant's office.
4.
AGE OF THE
VICTIM IN RAPE CASES MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY
DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE; PRESENT INCASE AT BAR. — It is
settled that in cases of statutory rape, the age of the victim may be provedby
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 birthcertificate has
already been ordered cancelled and expunged from the records by the Regional
TrialCourt of Manila, Branch 38, in Special Proceedings No. 97-81893, dated
April 11, 1997. Even assuming the absence of a valid birth certificate, there is
sufficient and ample proof of the complainant's age in the records. Rosilyn's
Baptismal Certificate can likewise serve as proofof her age. In People v.
Liban, we ruled that the birth certificate, or in lieu thereof.
5.
WHEN
CONSUMMATED; SUFFICIENTLYESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR. — True, in People v.
Campuhan, we explained that thephrase, "the mere touching of the external
genitalia by the penis capable of consummating thesexual act is sufficient to
constitute carnal knowledge.Theinevitable contact between accused-appellant's
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 ofaccused-appellant's sex ritual was performed.
6.
STATUTORY
RAPE; ELEMENTS; ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR. — At the time of commission of the
crimes complained of herein in 1996, statutory rape was penalizedunder 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 womanunder any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force
or intimidation; 2. When the woman isdeprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented
No comments:
Post a Comment