G.R. No. 177740 - People vs. Garcia y Maceda

People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, charged Romulo Garcia y Maceda, accused-appellant, with rape by Information filed March 27, 2000.
Appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment on April 13, 2000, assisted by counsel de oficio.
Pre-trial stipulation on June 20, 2000 that the victim, referred to as AAA, was born June 22, 1994, and thus a minor at the time of the alleged offense.

On the afternoon of January 6, 2000, five-year-old AAA was playing outside her house in Sto. Rosario Street, Mandaluyong City.
Appellant called AAA and brought her to his adjacent unoccupied house, led her to the second floor where his room was located, removed her dress, shorts and panty, and removed his own clothes.
Appellant told AAA to lie on the bed and inserted his penis into her vagina; AAA felt pain and was warned not to tell anyone.
After the act, appellant told AAA to dress and go home; AAA informed her grandmother that her “puke” (vagina) was painful and that it was “pierced by a stick.”
AAA later revealed to her aunt CCC that “Lolo Boyet” (appellant) abused her; BBB, AAA’s grandmother and guardian, reported the incident to the PNP Mandaluyong City Police Station.

The case was referred to PO1 Josefina L. Abenojar of the Women and Children’s Desk who prepared sworn statements of BBB and AAA.
SPO4 Julieta SI Espiritu corroborated PO1 Abenojar’s account and issued a referral letter to the City Prosecutor’s Office.
AAA was refused admission at St. Claire’s Hospital and was next examined at the National Bureau of Investigation by medico-legal officer Dr. Ida De Perio Daniel.
Dr. Daniel prepared Living Case No. MG-00-29 with findings: (a) no evident extragenital physical injury on AAA’s body; (b) hymen intact with orifice small (0.3 cm) “as to preclude complete penetration by an average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing genital injury”; and (c) testimony that a normal finding will not disprove sexual intercourse or abuse.

PO1 Abenojar and SPO4 Espiritu testified regarding AAA’s demeanor, hesitance, seriousness, and fear during recounting of events.
At trial, AAA gave categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, convincing, clear and candid testimony describing the acts and identifying appellant in court by name.
BBB testified concerning AAA’s physical signs (swollen, reddish vagina), AAA’s trembling and covering of her private parts, and AAA’s disclosure.

Defense advanced an alibi: appellant and witnesses testified he was installing and testing a water pump at the house of Marvin Tara in St. Ignacio Street, Mandaluyong City on January 6, 2000.
Appellant testified he worked from 8:00 a.m. until around 12:00 noon at Marvin Tara’s and from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. remained there with several persons.
DDD, appellant’s common-law wife, testified appellant was downstairs fixing the motor pump all day but admitted she did not actually see him all the time as he went outside intermittently; she acknowledged family discord with BBB and that AAA was her niece.

(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed the crime of rape as charged.

Whether the trial and appellate courts properly assessed the credibility of the victim’s testimony and other evidence.
Whether the medico-legal findings negated the occurrence of rape.
Whether qualifying circumstances supporting imposition of the death penalty were properly allege...(Subscriber-Only)