People v. Echegaray

9/18/21, 1:43 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 257
VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 561

People vs. Echegaray
*
G.R. No. 117472. June 25, 1996.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEO

ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.
Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Guiding principles in the evaluation of

evidence in rape cases.—Considering that a rape charge, in the light of the
reimposition of the death penalty, requires a thorough and judicious
examination of the circumstances relating thereto, this Court remains guided
by the following principles in evaluating evidence in cases of this nature: (a)
An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but
more difficult for the accused though innocent to disprove; (b) In view of
the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
caution; and (c) The evidence for the prosecution must stand and fall on its
own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of
the evidence for the defense.
Same; Same; Same; Motive; No grandmother would be so callous as to
instigate her 10-year old granddaughter to file a rape case against her own
father simply on account of her alleged interest over a disputed lot.—We
believe, as did the Solicitor-General, that no grandmother would be so
callous as to instigate her 10-year old granddaughter to file a rape case
against her own father simply on account of her alleged interest over the
disputed lot.
Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; 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.—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. The trial court not
surprisingly noted that Rodessa’s narration in detail of her father’s
monstrous acts had made her cry. Once again, we rule that: “x x x The
testimony of the victim who was only 12 years old at the time of the rape as
to the circumstances of the rape must be given weight, for testimony of
________________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bf771cbb6c7344785000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/16
* EN BANC.
562
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
young and immature rape victims are credible (People v. Guibao, 217 SCRA
64 [1993]). 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
(People v. Guibao, supra).”
Same; Same; Same; Same; 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.—These alleged discrepancies
merely pertain to minor details which in no way pose serious doubt as to the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Whether or not the accused was
naked when he dragged Rodessa inside the room where he sexually
assaulted her bears no significant effect on Rodessa’s testimony that she was
actually raped by the accused-appellant. Moreover, a conflicting account of
whatever words were uttered by the accused-appellant after he forcefully
inserted his penis into Rodessa’s private organ against her will cannot
impair the prosecution’s evidence as a whole. A determination of which
version earmarks the truth as to how the victim’s grandmother learned about
the rape is inconsequential to the judgment of conviction. As we have
pronounced in the case of People v. Jaymalin: “This Court has stated time
and again that 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. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the
witness is telling the truth and has not been rehearsed as it is not to be
expected that he will be able to remember every single detail of an incident
with perfect or total recall.”
Same; Same; 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.—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 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.
563
VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 563
Same; Same; Alibi; The defense of alibi, which is inherently weak,

becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused as
perpetrator of the crime by his victim.—Lastly, the third assigned error
deserves scant consideration. The accused-appellant erroneously argues that
the Contract of Services (Exhibit 4) offered as evidence in support of the
accused-appellant’s defense of alibi need not be corroborated because there
is no law expressly requiring so. In view of our finding that the prosecution
witnesses have no motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellant, the
defense of alibi, in this case, uncorroborated by other witnesses, should be
completely disregarded. More importantly, the defense of alibi which is
inherently weak becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification
of the accused-appellant as perpetrator of the crime of rape by his victim,
Rodessa.
Same; Same; Death Penalty Law (R.A. 7659); Where the accused is a
confirmed lover of the victim’s mother, he falls squarely within Section 11 of
R.A. 7659 under the term “common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim.”—Apparently, as a last glimpse of hope, the 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.—The fact that the ten-year old
Rodessa referred to the accused-appellant as
564
“Papa” is reason enough to conclude that accused-appellant is either the

father or stepfather of Rodessa. Thus, the act of sexual assault perpetrated
by the accused on his young victim has become all the more repulsive and
perverse. The victim’s tender age and the accused-appellant’s moral
ascendancy and influence over her are factors which forced Rodessa to
succumb to the accused’s selfish and bestial craving. The law has made it
inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the accused-appellant
face the supreme penalty of death.
AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Quezon City, Br. 104.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Julian R. Vitug for accused-appellant.
PER CURIAM:
Amidst the endless debates on whether or not the reimposition of the

death penalty is indeed a deterrent as far as the commission of
heinous crimes is concerned and while the attendant details
pertaining to the execution of a death sentence remain as yet another
burning issue, we are tasked with providing a clear-cut resolution of
whether or not the herein accused-appellant deserves to forfeit his
place in human society for the infliction of the primitive and bestial
act of incestuous lust on his own blood.
Before us for automatic review is the judgment of conviction,
dated September 7, 1994, for the crime of Rape, rendered after
marathon hearing by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 104, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused LEO

ECHEGARAY Y PILO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
RAPE as charged in the complaint, aggravated by the fact that the same was
committed by the accused who is the father/step-father of the complainant,
he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
565
VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 565

penalty of DEATH, as provided for under R.A. No. 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

1
case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.”
We note, however, that the charge had been formulated in this

manner:
“C O M P L A I N T
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.
2
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Upon being arraigned on August 1, 1994, the accused-appellant,

assisted by his counsel de oficio, entered the plea of “not guilty.”
These are the pertinent facts of the case as summarized by the
Solicitor-General in his brief:
“This is a case of rape by the father of his ten-year old daughter.

Complainant RODESSA ECHEGARAY is a ten-year old girl and a fifth-
grader, born on September 11, 1983. Rodessa is the eldest of five siblings.
She has three brothers aged 6, 5 and 2, respectively, and a 3-month old baby
sister. Her parents are Rosalie and Leo Echegaray, the latter being the
accused-appellant himself. The victim lives with her family in a small house
located at No. 199 Fernandez St., Barangay San Antonio, San Francisco Del
Monte, Quezon City (pp. 5-9, Aug. 9, 1994, TSN).
________________
1 Records, p. 53.
2 Records, p. 1.
566

Sometime in the afternoon of April 1994, while Rodessa was looking

after her three brothers in their house as her mother attended a gambling
session in another place, she heard her father, the accused-appellant in this
case, order her brothers to go out of the house (pp. 10-11, ibid.). As soon as
her brothers left, accused-appellant Leo Echegaray approached Rodessa and
suddenly dragged her inside the room (p. 12, ibid.). Before she could
question the appellant, the latter immediately removed her panty and made
her lie on the floor (p. 13, ibid.). Thereafter, appellant likewise removed his
underwear and immediately placed himself on top of Rodessa.
Subsequently, appellant forcefully inserted his penis into Rodessa’s organ

causing her to suffer intense pain (pp. 14-15, ibid.). While appellant was
pumping on her, he even uttered: ‘Masarap ba, masarap ba?’ and to which
Rodessa answered: ‘Tama na Papa, masakit’ (p. 16, ibid.). Rodessa’s plea
proved futile as appellant continued with his act. After satisfying his bestial
instinct, appellant threatened to kill her mother if she would divulge what
had happened. Scared that her mother would be killed by appellant, Rodessa
kept to herself the ordeal she suffered. She was very afraid of appellant
because the latter, most of the time, was high on drugs (pp. 17-18, ibid.).
The same sexual assault happened up to the fifth time and this usually took
place when her mother was out of the house (p. 19, ibid.). However, after
the fifth time, Rodessa decided to inform her grandmother, Asuncion
Rivera, who in turn told Rosalie, Rodessa’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 (p. 21, ibid.). From there, she was accompanied to
the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for medical examination
(p. 22, ibid.).
Rodessa testified that the said sexual assaults happened only during the
time when her mother was pregnant. Rodessa added that at first, her mother
was on her side. However, when appellant was detained, her mother kept on
telling her: ‘Kawawa naman ang Tatay mo, nakakulong’ (pp. 30-40, ibid.).
When Rodessa was examined by the medico-legal officer in the person
3
of Dra. Ma. Cristina B. Preyna, the complainant was described as
physically on a non-virgin state, as evidenced by the
________________
3 The name of the medico-legal officer as per Medico-Legal Report No. M-0980-94 (Exhibit
“6”) reads Ma. Cristina B. Freyra.
567
VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 567

presence of laceration of the hymen of said complainant (TSN, Aug. 22,

4
1995, pp. 8-9).”
On the other hand, the accused-appellant’s brief presents a different

story:
“x x x the defense presented its first witness, Rosalie Echegaray. She

asserted that the RAPE charge against the accused was only the figment of
her mother’s dirty mind. That her daughter’s complaint was forced upon her
by her grandma and the answers in the sworn statement of Rodessa were
coached. That the accusation of RAPE was motivated by Rodessa’s
grandmother’s greed over the lot situated at the Madrigal Estate-NHA
Project, Barangay San Antonio, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City,
which her grandmother’s paramour, Conrado Alfonso gave to the accused in

order to persuade the latter to admit that Rodessa executed an affidavit of
desistance after it turned out that her complaint of attempted homicide was
substituted with the crime of RAPE at the instance of her mother. That when
her mother came to know about the affidavit of desistance, she placed her
granddaughter under the custody of the Barangay Captain. That her mother
was never a real mother to her.
She stated that her complaint against accused was for attempted
homicide as her husband poured alcohol on her body and attempted to burn
her. She identified the certification issued by the NHA and Tag No. 87-0393
(Exh. 2). That the Certification based on the Masterlist (Exh. 3) indicates
that the property is co-owned by accused and Conrado Alfonso. That
Rodessa is her daughter sired by Conrado Alfonso, the latter being the
paramour of her mother. That Conrado Alfonso waived his right and
participation over the lot in favor of the accused in consideration of the
latter’s accepting the fact that he is the father of Rodessa to simulate the
love triangle and to conceal the nauseating sex orgies from Conrado
Alfonso’s real wife.
Accused testified in his behalf and stated that the grandmother of the
complainant has a very strong motive in implicating him to the crime of
RAPE since she was interested to become the sole owner of a property
awarded to her live-in partner by the Madrigal Estate-NHA Project. That he
could not have committed the imputed crime because he considers Rodessa
as his own daughter. That he is a painter-contractor and on the date of the
alleged
________________
4 Rollo, pp. 87-90.
568

commission of the crime, he was painting the house of one Divina Ang of
Barangay Vitalis, Parañaque, Metro Manila (Exh. 4). The travel time
between his work place to his residence is three (3) hours considering the
condition of traffic. That the painting contract is evidenced by a document
denominated ‘Contract of Services’ duly accomplished (see submarkings of
Exh. 4). He asserted that he has a big sexual organ which when used to a girl
11 years old like Rodessa, the said female organ will be ‘mawawarak.’ That
it is abnormal to report the imputed commission of the crime to the
grandmother of the victim.
Accused further stated that her (sic) mother-in-law trumped-up a charge
of drug pushing earlier and he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of using
drugs. The decretal portion of the judgment of conviction ordering the
accused to be confined at the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center irked the
grandmother of Rodessa because it was her wish that accused should be

meted the death penalty.
Accused remain steadfast in his testimony perorating the strong motive
of Rodessa’s grandmother in implicating him in this heinous crime because
of her greed to become the sole owner of that piece of property at the
National Housing Authority-Madrigal Project, situated at San Francisco del
Monte, Quezon City, notwithstanding rigid cross-examination. He asserted
that the imputed offense is far from his mind considering that he treated
Rodessa as his own daughter. He categorically testified that he was in his
painting job site on the date and time of the alleged commission of the
crime.
Mrs. Punzalan was presented as third defense witness. She said that she
is the laundry woman and part time baby sitter of the family of accused.
That at one time, she saw Rodessa reading sex books and the Bulgar
newspaper. That while hanging washed clothes on the vacant lot, she saw
Rodessa masturbating by tinkering her private parts. The masturbation took
sometime.
This sexual fling of Rodessa were corroborated by Silvestra Echegaray,
the fourth and last witness for the defense. She stated that she tried hard to
correct the flirting tendency of Rodessa and that she scolded her when she
saw Rodessa viewing an X-rated tape. Rodessa according to her was fond of
going with friends of ill-repute. That (sic) she corroborated the testimony of
Mrs. Punzalan by stating that she herself saw Rodessa masturbating inside
5
the room of her house.”
_______________
5 Rollo, pp. 45-48.
569
VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 569

In finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

the crime of rape, the lower court dismissed the defense of alibi and
lent credence to the straightforward testimony of the ten-year old
victim to whom no ill motive to testify falsely against accused-
appellant can be attributed. The lower court likewise regarded as
inconsequential the defense of the accused-appellant that the
extraordinary size of his penis could not have insinuated itself into
the victim’s vagina and that the accused is not the real father of the
said victim.
The accused-appellant now reiterates his position in his attempt
to seek a reversal of the lower court’s verdict through the following
assignment of errors:
“1. THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE

SINISTER MOTIVE OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S
GRANDMOTHER THAT PRECIPITATED THE FILING
OF THE CHARGE OF RAPE, HENCE IT ERRED IN
HOLDING ACCUSED GUILTY AS CHARGED.
2. THE COURT BELOW OVERLOOKED THE FACT
THAT THE HEALED LACERATIONS AT 3 AND 7
O’CLOCK COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE
PUMPING OF THE PENIS OF ACCUSED TO THE
VAGINA OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, HENCE IT
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED COMMITTED
THE CRIME CHARGED, NOTWITHSTANDING
VEHEMENT DENIAL.
3. THE COURT A QUO WHIMSICALLY IGNORED THE
DEFENSE OF ALIBI THAT ACCUSED WAS IN
PARAÑAQUE ON THE DATE AND TIME OF THE
IMPUTED CRIME HENCE, IT ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT ALIBI IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE CASE AT
6
BAR.”
Considering that a rape charge, in the light of the reimposition of the

death penalty, requires a thorough and judicious examination of the
circumstances relating thereto, this Court remains guided by the
following principles in evaluating evidence in cases of this nature:
(a) An accusation for
________________
6 Rollo, p. 49.
570

rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more

difficult for the accused though innocent to disprove; (b) In view of
the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution; and (c) The evidence for the prosecution must
stand and fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed 7to draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.”
Anent the first assigned error, no amount of persuasion can
convince this Court to tilt the scales of justice in favor of the
accused-appellant notwithstanding that he cries foul insisting that
the rape charge was merely concocted and strongly motivated by
greed over a certain lot situated at the NHA-Madrigal Estate
Housing Project, Barangay San Antonio, San Francisco del Monte,
Quezon City. The accused-appellant theorizes that prosecution

witness Asuncion Rivera, the maternal grandmother of the victim
Rodessa, concocted the charge of rape so that, in the event that the
accused-appellant shall be meted out a death sentence, title to the lot
will be consolidated in her favor. Indeed, the lot in question is co-
owned by the accused-appellant and Conrado Alfonso, the live-in
partner of Asuncion Rivera, according to the records of the National
Housing Authority (Exh. “3”). The accused-appellant would want us
to believe that the rape charge was fabricated by Asuncion Rivera in
order to eliminate the accused-appellant from being a co-owner. So,
8
the live-in partners would have the property for their own.
We believe, as did the Solicitor-General, that no grandmother
would be so callous as to instigate her 10-year old granddaughter to
file a rape case against her own father simply on account of her
alleged interest over the disputed
________________
7 People v. Apolonio Melivo y Valete, G.R. No. 113029, promulgated on Feb. 8,

1996, citing People v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613 [1992]; People v. Aldana, 175
SCRA 635 [1989]; People v. Capilitan, 182 SCRA 313 [1990].
8 TSN, August 30, 1994, p. 13.
571
VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 571

9
lot.
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
10
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. The trial court not
surprisingly noted that Rodessa’s narration in detail of her father’s
11
monstrous acts had made her cry. Once again, we rule that:
“x x x The testimony of the victim who was only 12 years old at the time of
the rape as to the circumstances of the rape must be given weight, for
testimony of young and immature rape victims are credible (People v.
Guibao, 217 SCRA 64 [1993]). 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
12
apprehended and punished (People v. Guibao, supra).”
The accused-appellant points out certain inconsistencies in the

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in his attempt to bolster his
claim that the rape accusation against him is malicious and baseless.
Firstly, Rodessa’s testimony that the accused-appellant was already
naked when he dragged her inside the room is inconsistent with her
subsequent testimony that the said accused-appellant was still
wearing short pants when she was dragged inside the room.
Secondly, Rodessa’s sworn statement before the police investigator
which indicated that, while the accused was executing pumping acts,
he uttered the words “Masarap ba?,” differ from her testimony in
_________________
9 Rollo, p. 93.
10 People v. Matamorosa, 231 SCRA 509, 515 [1994], citing People v. Palicte, 229
SCRA 543 [1994]; and People v. Cabilao, 210 SCRA 326 [1992].
11 RTC Decision, p. 6; Records, p. 50.
12 People v. Espinoza, 247 SCRA 66, 72-73 [1995].
572

court wherein she related that, when the accused took out his penis
from her vagina, the accused said “Masarap, tapos na.” Thirdly, the
victim’s grandmother, Asuncion Rivera, recounted in her sworn
statement that it was the accused who went to see her to apprise her
of the rape committed on her granddaughter. However, in her
testimony in court, Asuncion Rivera claimed that she was the one
who invited the accused-appellant to see her in her house so as to
13
tell her a secret. These alleged discrepancies merely pertain to
minor details which in no way pose serious doubt as to the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Whether or not the accused
was naked when he dragged Rodessa inside the room where he
sexually assaulted her bears no significant effect on Rodessa’s
testimony that she was actually raped by the accused-appellant.
Moreover, a conflicting account of whatever words were uttered by
the accused-appellant after he forcefully inserted his penis into
Rodessa’s private organ against her will cannot impair the
prosecution’s evidence as a whole. A determination of which version
earmarks the truth as to how the victim’s grandmother learned about
the rape is inconsequential to the judgment of conviction.
14
As we have pronounced in the case of People v. Jaymalin:
“This Court has stated time and again that 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. Inaccuracies may in
fact suggest that the witness is telling the truth and has not been rehearsed as
it is not to be expected that he will be able to remember every single detail
of an incident with perfect or total recall.”
After due deliberation, this Court finds that the trial judge’s
assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses deserves
our utmost respect in the absence of arbitrariness.
_______________
13 Rollo, pp. 53-54.

14 214 SCRA 685, 690-691 [1992], citing People v. Ansing (196 SCRA 374
[1991]).
573
VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 573

With respect to the second assigned error, the records of the instant
case are bereft of clear and concrete proof of the accused-appellant’s
claim as to the size of his penis and that if that be the fact, it could
not have merely caused shallow healed lacerations at 3:00 and 7:00
15
o’clock. In his testimony, the accused-appellant stated that he could
not have raped Rodessa because of the size of his penis which could
16
have ruptured her vagina had he actually done so. This Court gives
no probative value on the accused-appellant’s self-serving statement
17
in the light of our ruling in the case of People v. Melivo, supra,
that:
“The vaginal wall and the hymenal membrane are elastic organs capable of
varying degrees of distensibility. The degree of distensibility of the female
reproductive organ is normally limited only by the character and size of the
pelvic inlet, other factors being minor. The female reproductive canal being
capable of allowing passage of a regular fetus, there ought to be no
difficulty allowing the entry of objects of much lesser size, including the
male reproductive organ, which even in its largest dimensions, would still
be considerably smaller than the full-term fetus.
x x x x x x x x x
In the case at bench, the presence of healed lacerations in various parts
of the vaginal wall, though not as extensive as appellant might have
expected them to be, indicate traumatic injury to the area within the period
when the incidents were supposed to have occurred.” (At pp. 13-14, Italics
supplied)
18
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 as full entry
19
19
into the victim’s vagina is not required to sustain a conviction. In
the case, Dr. Freyra, the medico-
________________
15 Rollo, p. 58.
16 TSN, August 30, 1994, p. 19.
17 See note No. 7.
18 People v. Salinas, 232 SCRA 274, 278-279 [1994]; People v. Madrilano, 227
SCRA 363 [1993].
19 People v. Abella, 228 SCRA 662, 666 [1993]; People v.
574

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
20
in April, 1994.
Lastly, the third assigned error deserves scant consideration. The
accused-appellant erroneously argues that the Contract of Services
(Exhibit 4) offered as evidence in support of the accused-appellant’s
defense of alibi need not21
be corroborated because there is no law
expressly requiring so. In view of our finding that the prosecution
witnesses have no motive to falsely testify against the accused-
appellant, the defense of alibi, in this case, uncorroborated
22
by other
witnesses, should be completely disregarded. More importantly, the
defense of alibi which is inherently weak becomes even weaker in
the face of positive identification of the accused-appellant
23
as
perpetrator of the crime of rape by his victim, Rodessa.
The Contract of Services whereby the accused-appellant
obligated himself to do some painting job at the house of one Divina
Ang in Parañaque, Metro Manila, within 25 days from April 4,
1994, is not proof of the whereabouts of the accused-appellant at the
time of the commission of the offense.
The accused-appellant in this case is charged with Statutory Rape
on the basis of the complaint, dated July 14, 1994. The gravamen of
the said offense, as stated in paragraph 3, Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years
24
old. Rodessa positively
_________________
Tesimo, 204 SCRA 535, 555-556 [1991]; People v. Castillo, 197 SCRA 657, 662
[1991].
20 TSN, August 22, 1994, pp. 8-9.
21 Rollo, p. 65.
22 People v. Gapasan, 243 SCRA 53, 62 [1995].
23 People v. Torres, 247 SCRA 212, 217 [1995]; People v. Tayco, 235 SCRA 610,
521 [1994]; People v. Molina, 213 SCRA 52, 65 [1992].
24 People v. Samillano, 207 SCRA 50, 53-54 [1992] citing People v. Alegado, 201
SCRA 37 [1991]; People v. Puedan, 196 SCRA 388 [1991]; People v. Mangalinao,
182 SCRA 329 [1990].
575
VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 575

identified his father accused-appellant, as the culprit of Statutory

Rape. Her account of how the accused-appellant succeeded in
consummating his grievous and odious sexual assault on her is free
from any substantial self-contradiction. It is highly inconceivable
that it is rehearsed and fabricated upon instructions from Rodessa’s
maternal grandmother Asuncion Rivera as asserted by the accused-
appellant. The words of Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando,
speaking for the Court, more than two decades ago, are relevant and
worth reiterating thus:
“x x x it is manifest in the decisions of this Court that where the offended

parties are young and immature girls like the victim in this case, (Cited
cases omitted) there is marked receptivity on its part to lend credence to
their version of what transpired. It is not to be wondered at. The state, as
parens patria, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those,
who, because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves
fully. Those of tender years deserve its utmost protection. Moreover, the
injury in cases of rape is not inflicted on the unfortunate victim alone. The
consternation it causes her family must also be taken into account. It may
reflect a failure to abide by the announced concern in the fundamental law
for such institution. There is all the more reason then for the rigorous
application of the penal law with its severe penalty for this offense,
whenever warranted. It has been aptly remarked that with the advance in
civilization, the disruption in public peace and order it represents defies
explanation, much more so in view of what currently appears to be a
tendency for sexual permissiveness. Where the prospects of relationship
based on consent are hardly minimal, self-restraint should even be more
25
marked.”
Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 often referred to as the

Death Penalty Law, Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code was
amended, to wit:
_______________
25 People v. Baylon, 57 SCRA 114, 120-121 [1974] see also People v. Cabadas,
208 SCRA 787, 794 [1992]; People v. Sulte, 232 SCRA 421, 425 [1994].
576

“The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender
is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim.
x x x x x x x x x
(Italics supplied)
Apparently, as a last glimpse of hope, the 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
26
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
27
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
28
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
29
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.”
The fact that the ten-year old Rodessa referred to the accused-
appellant as “Papa” is reason enough to conclude that accused-
appellant is either the father or stepfather of Ro-
________________
26 Rollo, p. 38.
27 TSN, August 30, 1994, pp. 13, 15-16.
28 TSN, August 29, 1994, pp. 28-29.
29 Rollo, p. 50.
577
VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 577

dessa. Thus, the act of sexual assault perpetrated by the accused on

his young victim has become all the more repulsive and perverse.
The victim’s tender age and the accused-appellant’s moral
ascendancy and influence over her are factors which forced Rodessa
to succumb to the accused’s selfish and bestial craving. The law has
made it inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the
accused-appellant face the supreme penalty of death.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 104.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J.), Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,

Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco,
Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes.—Complete or full penetration of the complainant’s

private part is not necessary, nor is the rupture of the hymen
essential, in the crime of rape. (People vs. Cura, 240 SCRA 234
[1995])
Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to
minor and insignificant details cannot destroy their credibility—such
minor inconsistencies even guarantee truthfulness and candor.
(People vs. Vallador, 257 SCRA 509 [1996])
——o0o——
578
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People v. Echegaray

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

People v. Echegaray

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

People v. Echegaray

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/18/21, 1:43 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 257

VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 561

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

Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Guiding principles in the evaluation of

562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Echegaray

VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 563

People vs. Echegaray

Same; Same; Alibi; The defense of alibi, which is inherently weak,

564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Echegaray

“Papa” is reason enough to conclude that accused-appellant is either the

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Amidst the endless debates on whether or not the reimposition of the

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused LEO

VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 565

the accessory penalties provided by law, without subsidiary imprisonment in

We note, however, that the charge had been formulated in this

The undersigned accuses LEO ECHEGARAY Y PILO of the crime of

Upon being arraigned on August 1, 1994, the accused-appellant,

“This is a case of rape by the father of his ten-year old daughter.

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sometime in the afternoon of April 1994, while Rodessa was looking

Subsequently, appellant forcefully inserted his penis into Rodessa’s organ

VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 567

presence of laceration of the hymen of said complainant (TSN, Aug. 22,

On the other hand, the accused-appellant’s brief presents a different

“x x x the defense presented its first witness, Rosalie Echegaray. She

which her grandmother’s paramour, Conrado Alfonso gave to the accused in

4 Rollo, pp. 87-90.

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

grandmother of Rodessa because it was her wish that accused should be

5 Rollo, pp. 45-48.

VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 569

In finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

“1. THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE

Considering that a rape charge, in the light of the reimposition of the

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more

Quezon City. The accused-appellant theorizes that prosecution

7 People v. Apolonio Melivo y Valete, G.R. No. 113029, promulgated on Feb. 8,

VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 571

The accused-appellant points out certain inconsistencies in the

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

13 Rollo, pp. 53-54.

VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 573

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

legal examiner, categorically testified that the healed lacerations of

VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 575

identified his father accused-appellant, as the culprit of Statutory

“x x x it is manifest in the decisions of this Court that where the offended

Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 often referred to as the

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Apparently, as a last glimpse of hope, the accused-appellant

VOL. 257, JUNE 25, 1996 577

dessa. Thus, the act of sexual assault perpetrated by the accused on

Narvasa (C.J.), Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,

Notes.—Complete or full penetration of the complainant’s