Case Summary (G.R. No. 146458)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner (Plaintiff-Appellee): People of the Philippines (prosecution). Respondent (Accused-Appellant): Capt. Marcial Llanto y Leuterio, who pleaded not guilty to the information charging rape.
Key Dates
Alleged last incident: November 12, 1999. Medico-legal examination: November 17, 1999. Trial testimony dates and proceedings occurred in 2000. Supreme Court decision under review was rendered January 20, 2003; therefore the 1987 Philippine Constitution governs applicable constitutional law considerations.
Applicable Law
Primary penal provision relied upon by the trial court was Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (former Article 335 as amended by R.A. No. 7659), which prescribes the death penalty as the special penalty when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or common-law spouse of the parent. Procedural law cited includes Sections 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective December 1, 2000), requiring that an information specify the designation of the offense and the particular qualifying and aggravating circumstances in clear terms. Relevant jurisprudential principles are drawn from numerous Supreme Court precedents cited in the decision (e.g., People v. Caballes; People v. Santos; People v. Aguinaldo; People v. Prades; People v. Agbayani), particularly on (a) sufficiency of penetration for rape convictions and (b) intimidation as substitute for physical resistance.
Summary of Facts Established at Trial
AAA lived with the accused and his wife from 1995 until 1999. The information charged that on or about November 12, 1999 at Villamor Air Base, Pasay City, the accused, driven by lust and by use of a knife and his moral ascendancy over the victim, forced AAA to submit to carnal knowledge. AAA testified that on the evening of November 12, 1999 the accused pulled her upstairs, undressed her, tied her hands, held a knife, digitally penetrated her, and then inserted his penis into her vagina; she cried and was unable to resist because of fear. She also testified to earlier repeated rapes while they lived in Cebu. The next day AAA reported the incidents to an aunt and to the NBI, executed a sworn statement, and underwent a medico-legal examination.
Prosecution Evidence
The prosecution’s principal evidence was the testimony of AAA and the medico-legal report of Dr. Annabelle Soliman. AAA described the events of November 12, 1999 in detail, including the accused’s use of a knife, tying of her hands, digital penetration, and penile insertion accompanied by threats. The NBI agent who took her sworn statement and arranged the examination corroborated procedural steps. The medico-legal examination by Dr. Soliman (November 17, 1999) disclosed that AAA’s hymen was tall, thick, intact, distensible and that a 2.5 cm tube could be inserted through the hymenal opening without injury; no extra-genital injuries were found. A civil registration certificate establishing AAA’s birthdate was also introduced.
Medical Evidence and Expert Opinion
Dr. Soliman opined that an elastic, thick hymen can remain intact despite penetration, depending on manner and degree of penetration, and that the hymenal state does not conclusively negate sexual intercourse or rape. The defense sought to present two expert witnesses (a surgeon-lawyer and a gynecologist) to opine that it was improbable for repeated rapes to leave an intact hymen; the trial court excluded those witnesses on the ground that their testimony was unnecessary (medical certificate not required) and because they had not examined the victim. The Supreme Court upheld that exclusion, relying on established jurisprudence that an intact hymen does not preclude finding of rape.
Defense Evidence and Alibi
The accused testified that he was at Calamba with his son Jessel on the night of November 12, 1999 and produced testimony from Jessel and Alma Saberola (Jessel’s landlady) to corroborate that he stayed overnight and left the following morning. The defense also emphasized alleged motive and fabrication: that AAA and her mother were instigated by a third party (Silverio Escobar) and sought to extort the accused’s retirement benefits (P500,000). Felicitas (the accused’s wife) and Dolores provided testimony concerning AAA’s reputation for stealing and their family arrangements; Felicitas also claimed that Escobar had demanded money and asserted he was an NBI agent.
Trial Court Ruling
The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and imposed the death penalty pursuant to Article 266-B (the court treated the special qualifying circumstance of relationship as proven). The trial court also awarded civil indemnity and moral damages to the victim.
Issues on Appeal and Standard of Review
On automatic review and appeal, principal issues included: (1) whether the trial court properly evaluated the credibility of the victim versus the accused and whether conviction could be based on the victim’s uncorroborated testimony; (2) whether the medical findings (intact hymen) undermine the rape allegations; (3) whether the trial court erred in excluding defense expert testimony; (4) whether intimidation and failure to physically resist were adequately shown; and (5) whether the information properly alleged the qualifying circumstance of relationship for imposition of the special penalty (death).
Court’s Analysis on Hymen, Medical Evidence, and Exclusion of Defense Experts
The Supreme Court applied existing jurisprudence holding that penetration, however slight, is sufficient for rape and that an intact hymen does not negate a rape charge because hymenal characteristics vary (thickness, elasticity, dilability) and penetration may occur without laceration. The Court relied on Dr. Soliman’s testimony that the victim’s hymen was thick and distensible and that a 2.5 cm diameter tube could be introduced without injury. Given binding precedents (People v. Caballes; People v. Santos; People v. Aguinaldo) and the fact that the defense experts had not examined the victim, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding their testimonies. The Court thereby affirmed that medical evidence of an intact hymen did not negate the victim’s account.
Court’s Analysis on Intimidation, Consent, and Credibility
The Court found AAA credible and reasonable in her account that she did not resist because the accused tied her hands and held a knife, producing fear and submission under intimidation. The Court reiterated settled law that physical resistance is not required where intimidation makes resistance futile and where the victim submits against her will. The Court also rejected the defense’s contention of fabrication and extortion, finding defense testimonies inconsistent and self-serving, and emphasizing that a sole eyewitness’s clear, straightforward, and credible testimony can sustain conviction. The Court observed that allegations about the victim’s bad character were immaterial to the determination of rape.
Error in the Imposition of the Death Penalty; Defect in the Information
Although the Court affirmed the conviction for rape, it found error in imposing the death penalty under Article 266-B because the information did not sufficiently allege the qualifying circumstance of relationship as required by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Secs. 8 and 9). The Court applied these procedural rules retroactively to benefit the accused. Jurisprudence requires that an information specifically allege that the offender is a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree w
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 146458)
Procedural Posture
- Information for rape was filed on February 29, 2000, charging Capt. Marcial Llanto with raping his twelve (12) year old minor niece AAA on or about November 12, 1999, in Pasay City, with qualifying circumstances alleged in the information.
- The accused pleaded not guilty; trial court convicted the accused of RAPE and sentenced him to death, and ordered civil indemnity and moral damages to the victim.
- The case came before the Supreme Court on automatic review.
- On appeal, the accused challenged factual findings, the legal application, and the trial court’s exclusion of defense medico-legal expert testimony.
- The Supreme Court affirmed conviction but modified the conviction to simple rape (due to defects in the information regarding qualifying circumstance) and imposed reclusion perpetua and damages; costs were charged against the accused-appellant.
Facts — Background and Family Circumstances
- AAA was born December 20, 1986 to Gertrudes (Tullawan/Balisi) and Raul Balisi; parents separated when she was six months old; maternal grandmother cared for her until age eight.
- In 1995 AAA was entrusted to the care of the accused and his wife, Felicitas Balisi Llanto (sister of AAA's father); the accused is a captain in the Philippine Air Force.
- The accused and his family lived at Clark Airbase, then Mactan Airbase in Cebu, and in 1999 transferred to a house in Villamor Airbase, Pasay City.
- On November 12, 1999, only AAA and the accused were at home; the accused’s wife was in Tuguegarao; their two sons were elsewhere (one in Laguna, one in Cebu).
Alleged Acts of Rape (Victim’s Account, AAA)
- On the evening of November 12, 1999, at about 9:00 p.m., while AAA was studying downstairs, the accused told her it was time for bed and pulled her to his room upstairs.
- The accused removed her shirt, bra, and panty; AAA cried; he tied her hands and held a knife; he mashed her breasts, kissed her genitalia, inserted two fingers into her vagina causing pain, and inserted his penis into her vagina.
- AAA stated she could not fight because her hands were tied and because the accused held a knife; after the act the accused threatened her not to tell, then untied her hands.
- AAA testified that this was not the first time: while they resided in Cebu the accused allegedly violated her about three times a week when only the two of them were left in the house.
- AAA reported the incident to her aunt Dolores Balisi the next day (November 13, 1999) and was brought to the NBI where she executed a sworn statement and complaint sheet; she underwent medico-legal examination.
Medical Examination and Findings (Dr. Annabelle Soliman)
- Dr. Annabelle Soliman, medico-legal officer of the NBI, examined AAA on November 17, 1999; AAA was twelve years old at examination.
- Findings: the victim’s hymen was described as tall, thick, intact, and distensible/elastic; there was no sign of extra-genital injury.
- During examination, a tube 2.5 centimeters in diameter was inserted into the hymenal opening without any injury.
- Dr. Soliman testified that the hymenal opening was wide at 2.5 centimeters—sufficient to allow complete penetration by an average-sized adult Filipino male organ (about 2.5 centimeters) without causing genital/hymenal injury.
- Dr. Soliman opined that a hymen may remain intact despite penetration depending on the manner of insertion, degree of force, the elasticity of the hymen, and circumstances such as the victim’s struggle or lack thereof.
Prosecution Evidence and Corroboration
- NBI agent Rosalina Chiong corroborated AAA’s completion of the complaint sheet, preparation of the request for medico-legal examination, taking of the sworn statement, and possession of the examination results.
- A photocopy of a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar was introduced showing AAA’s birth to Gertrudes Tullawan and Raul Balisi (December 20, 1986).
- The trial court relied on AAA’s testimony and the medico-legal report in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
Defense Case — Alibi, Denials, and Allegations of Extortion
- The accused testified that on November 12, 1999 he was in Calamba, Laguna with his elder son Jessel; he left Villamor Air Base at 2:00 p.m., arrived in Calamba about 5:00 p.m., spent the night at Jessel’s rented place because the car headlights were broken, and left the following morning at 7:00 a.m.
- The accused admitted that AAA began living with his family in 1994 and that they treated her as a daughter, providing sustenance and schooling.
- He testified of repeated thefts by AAA from him and his wife, culminating in November 1999 when he confronted her about missing P1,000 and decided to stop financing her schooling and to return her to her parents; AAA allegedly ran away thereafter.
- The accused contended the rape charge was instigated by AAA’s mother, Gertrudes Tullawan, and a certain Silverio Escobar, purportedly to extort P500,000.00 from him (Escobar allegedly represented himself as an NBI agent and demanded money).
- The accused asserted he received a subpoena the day after and learned AAA, accompanied by her mother, had filed the complaint.
Defense Witnesses Supporting Alibi and Other Contentions
- Jessel Llanto (son) corroborated his father’s account that the accused visited him in Calamba on the evening of November 12, 1999, that Jessel borrowed the car and took a joy ride, after which the car headlights were damaged, and that the accused spent the night at Jessel’s place.
- Alma Saberola (Jessel’s landlady) corroborated that the accused arrived about 5:30 p.m. on November 12, 1999, that Jessel drove the car and later returned with non-functioning headlights, and that the accused spent the night there, leaving about 7:00 a.m. the next day.
- Felicitas Balisi (accused’s wife) testified that AAA had been living with them since 1993, was habitually stealing money, and that a Silverio Escobar claimed to be an NBI agent and demanded money from the accused and from Felicitas—she admitted paying Escobar amounts (P5,000.00 in October 1999 and an additional P1,000.00 later) after Escobar threatened her.
- Dolores Balisi (aunt of AAA) testified that she did not receive a report from AAA of rape immediately