GR 127568; (January, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127568 . January 28, 2000.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO BACULE, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Rolando Bacule, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-lapu City of the rape of an eight-year-old girl, the daughter of his common-law spouse, and was sentenced to death. The prosecution evidence established that on the night of May 9, 1995, while the victim’s mother was away, the accused, armed with a knife, undressed the sleeping victim, kissed her, licked her vagina, and inserted his penis into her vagina and later towards her anus. The victim reported the incident to her aunt the following morning, leading to a medical examination and the accused’s arrest. The medical findings showed contusions on the hymenal wall but a negative sperm analysis. The defense consisted of a denial, with both the accused and the victim’s mother testifying that no unusual incident occurred that night.
ISSUE
The core issue for automatic review is whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused of rape and properly imposed the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the victim’s testimony, given in a straightforward and categorical manner, to be credible and sufficient to establish the crime of rape. The testimony of a child-victim of tender years is accorded full weight and credibility, especially when the details are beyond her capacity to fabricate. The medical findings, though showing no deep penetration or spermatozoa, were consistent with her account, as a contused hymen can result from friction and the hymen can remain intact even after penetration. The defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the victim.
However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The trial court erroneously appreciated the aggravating circumstances of ignominy and moral ascendancy. Ignominy was not proven with the required certainty, as the alleged act of sodomy was only incidentally mentioned during cross-examination and not pursued by the prosecution. Moral ascendancy is not a generic aggravating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code. With no aggravating circumstances proven, the proper penalty under the law at the time was reclusion perpetua. The Court also awarded civil indemnity and moral damages to the victim.