G.R. No. 146684 ; August 21, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ramil Sajolga y Omera, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case is an automatic appeal from the Regional Trial Court’s decision finding accused-appellant Ramil Sajolga guilty of rape and sentencing him to death. The information alleged that on October 17, 1998, in Maramag, Bukidnon, accused-appellant, prompted by lewd designs, used force and intimidation on Genlei Abejaron, a 15-year-old minor and his half-sister, by boxing her, causing her to become unconscious, and then having sexual intercourse with her against her will. During pre-trial, it was stipulated that Genlei was born on February 15, 1983, that she and the accused are siblings as children of Segundina Sajolga, and that she was living with her mother before and up to October 17, 1998. The prosecution presented Genlei and her teacher, Mrs. Erlinda Alceso. Genlei testified that on the afternoon of October 17, 1998, while alone at her mother’s house, accused-appellant, who was drunk, knocked, entered, boxed her in the abdomen, dragged her to a bedroom, undressed her, and kissed her before she lost consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, she found herself naked with a sore vagina and a sticky substance, and accused-appellant was naked beside her. He told her there was nothing she could do, referencing two prior molestations when she was eight. Genlei initially kept the incident secret but later confided in her teachers in January 1999 after showing signs of distress and possible pregnancy. A medical examination on February 10, 1999, revealed old healed lacerations on her cervix. The defense presented accused-appellant, his friend Aurelio Manuel, and his mother Segundina Recaros, interposing denial and alibi, claiming he was elsewhere cutting bamboo on October 17, 1998, and that Genlei seldom came home. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of qualified rape and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty of rape despite the alleged weakness of the prosecution evidence and reasonable doubt of its commission.
2. Assuming arguendo that the accused is guilty, whether he is only guilty of simple rape because he is not the full-blooded brother of the victim and the correct relationship was not stated in the information.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. The Court found Genlei’s testimony straightforward, candid, and credible, sufficient to prove rape. The conviction was sustained based on circumstantial evidence, as the circumstances formed an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that accused-appellant raped Genlei while she was unconscious. These circumstances included: accused-appellant boxing Genlei without provocation; dragging her to the bed and removing her clothes before she lost consciousness; her waking up naked with a sore vagina and accused-appellant naked beside her; his statement that she could do nothing; and the medical findings of old healed lacerations. The Court rejected the defense of alibi as weak and inherently doubtful. On the second issue, the Court held that the relationship of half-brother and half-sister qualifies as a special qualifying circumstance under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as the law uses the term “brother or sister” without distinction between full or half-blood. The information alleged they were half-siblings, which was sufficient. However, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua because the information did not allege the victim’s minority (15 years old) as a qualifying circumstance, and it was not proven that accused-appellant knew or had reason to know her age. The award of damages was modified to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.