G.R. No. 144179; July 19, 2001
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMSHAND THAMSEY Y CARIÑOSA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case was certified to the Supreme Court for review. The information alleged that sometime in the third week of November 1994, in Bauan, Batangas, accused-appellant, by means of force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of Giselle Maris Bacalla, a five-year-old minor, against her will. The prosecution presented witnesses Guadalupe Bacalla (mother), Giselle Maris Bacalla (victim), and Mateo Bacalla (father). Their testimonies established that on November 24, 1994, Guadalupe saw her young son mimicking a sexual act with Giselle. When questioned, Giselle cried and said he was imitating “Kuya Ramshand” (accused-appellant). Guadalupe examined Giselle and found her vagina bleeding and reddish. Giselle then narrated that accused-appellant had pulled her into a room, locked the door, laid her on a mat, and inserted his penis into her private part. Giselle had exhibited fever and pain days prior. A medical examination on November 26, 1994, by Dr. Violeta Ilagan revealed an erythematous (red) vulva with gaping labia minora, an erythematous urethra, and a healed superficial hymenal laceration at 5 o’clock, injuries consistent with a smooth object being forcibly inserted about 3-4 days prior. Giselle identified accused-appellant as her assailant. The defense presented accused-appellant and his sister, Delilah. Accused-appellant claimed he was training as a janitor at Bauan Medicare Hospital from November 22-26, 1994, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and could not have committed the crime. He alleged the complaint stemmed from ill motive, as the Bacallas suspected his sister of instigating their maid to leave. On rebuttal, Guadalupe testified she saw accused-appellant around their house during the period in question, and Mateo testified the hospital was only about 200 meters from their house. The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant of Attempted Rape. The Court of Appeals modified the decision, finding him guilty of Rape and sentencing him to death, prompting the automatic review by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding accused-appellant guilty of rape. The Court held that the testimony of the child-victim, Giselle, was credible, straightforward, and consistent. Her account was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Ilagan, which confirmed recent sexual abuse. The defense of alibi was rejected as it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime, given the proximity of the hospital to the victim’s house. The Court found no ill motive for the Bacallas to falsely accuse him, especially considering the tender age of the victim and the natural reaction of her parents. The crime was qualified as statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, as the victim was under twelve years of age. The penalty of death was imposed. The Court also awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim.