PEOPLEvs.ECHEGARAY, G.R. No. 117472 June 25, 1996

Facts:Complainant RODESSA ECHEGARAY is a ten-year old girl and a fifth-grader, born on September 11, 1983. Her parents are Rosalie and Leo Echegaray, the latter being the accused-appellant himself. The victim lives with her family in a small house located at No. 199 Fernandez St., Barangay San Antonio, San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City

Sometime in the afternoon of April 1994, while Rodessa was looking after her three brothers in their house as her mother attended a gambling session in another place, she heard her father order her brothers to go out of the house. As soon as her brothers left, her father approached her and suddenly dragged her inside the room. Appellant forcefully inserted his penis into her organ. Rodessa's plea proved futile as appellant continued with his act. After satisfying his bestial instinct, appellant threatened to kill her mother if she would divulge what had happened. Scared that her mother would be killed by appellant, Rodessa kept to herself the ordeal she suffered. The same sexual assault happened up to the fifth time and this usually took place when her mother was out of the house. However, after the fifth time, Rodessa decided to inform her grandmother, Asuncion Rivera, who in turn told Rosalie, Radessa's mother. Rodessa and her mother proceeded to the Barangay Captain where Rodessa confided the sexual assaults she suffered. Thereafter, Rodessa was brought to the precinct where she executed an affidavit. From there, she was accompanied to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for medical examination. When Rodessa was examined by the medico-legal officer in the person of Dra. Ma. Cristina B. Preyna, the complainant was described as physically on a non-virgin state, as evidenced by the presence of laceration of the hymen of said complainant.

On the other hand, the accused-appellant's brief presents a different story:

The defense presented its first witness, Rosalie Echegaray. She asserted that the RAPE charge against the accused was only the figment of her mother’s dirty mind. That her daughter's complaint was forced upon her by her grandma and the answers in the sworn statement of Rodessa

were coached.

Accused testified in his behalf and that he could not have committed the imputed crime because he considers Rodessa as his own daughter. That he is a painter-contractor and on the date of the alleged commission of the crime, he was painting the house of one Divina Ang of Barangay Vitalis, Parañaque, Metro Manila. The travel time between his work place to his residence is three (3) hours considering the condition of traffic. He asserted that he has a big sexual organ which when used to a girl 11 years old like Rodessa, the said female organ will be "mawawarak." That it is abnormal to report the imputed commission of the crime to the grandmother of the victim.

The lower court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH.

The accused-appellant now reiterates his position in his attempt to seek a reversal of the lower court's verdict.

Issue:whether or not Leo Echegaray deserves the penalty of death.

Ruling:

Yes.

It is a well-entrenched jurisprudential rule that the testimony of a rape victim is credible where she has no motive to testify against the accused.

The Court has stated time and again that minor inconsistencies in the narration of the witness do not detract from its essential credibility as long as it is on the whole coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witness is telling the truth and has not been rehearsed as it is not to be expected that he will be able to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall (People v. Jaymalin).

With respect of the accused-appellant's claim as to the size of his penis and that if that be the fact, it could not have merely caused shallow healed lacerations at 3:00 and 7:00 o'clock. The Court gives no probative value on the accused-appellant's self-serving statement in the light of People v. Melivo, supra, 17 that:

The vaginal wall and the hymenal membrane are elastic organs capable of varying degrees of distensibility. The degree of distensibility of the female reproductive organ is normally limited only by the character and size of the pelvic inlet, other factors being minor. The female reprodructive canal being capable of allowing passage of a regular fetus, there ought to be no difficulty allowing the entry of objects of much lesser size, including the male reproductive organ, which even in its largest dimensions, would still be considerably smaller than the full-term fetus.

In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element thereof. A mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape as full entry into the victim's vagina is not required to sustain a conviction. In the case, Dr. Freyra, the medico-legal examiner, categorically testified that the healed lacerations of Rodessa on her vagina were consistent with the date of the commission of the rape as narrated by the victim to have taken place in April, 1994.

In the third assigned error, the Contract of Services whereby the accused-appellant obligated himself to do some painting job at the house of one Divina Ang in Parañaque, Metro Manila, within 25 days from April 4, 1994, is not proof of the whereabouts of the accused-appellant at the time of the commission of the offense.

Apparently, as a last glimpse of hope, the accused-appellant questions the penalty imposed by the trial court by declaring that he is neither a father, stepfather or grandfather of Rodessa although he was a confirmed lover of Rodessa's mother. On direct examination, he admitted that before the charge of rape was riled against him, he had treated Rodessa as his real daughter and had provided for her food, clothing, shelter and education. The Court notes that Rodessa uses the surname of the accused-appellant,. Moreover, Rodessa's mother stated during the cross-examination that she, the accused-appellant, and her

five children, including Rodessa, had been residing in one house only. At any rate, even if he were not the father, stepfather or grandfather of Rodessa, this disclaimer cannot save him from the abyss where perpetrators of heinous crimes ought to be, as mandated by law. Considering that the accused-appellant is a confirmed lover of Rodessa's mother, he falls squarely within the aforequoted portion of the Death Penalty Law under the term "common-law spouse of the parent of the victim."

The fact that the ten-year old Rodessa referred to the accused-appellant as "Papa" is reason enough to conclude that accused-appellant is either the father or stepfather of Rodessa. Thus, the act of sexual assault perpetrated by the accused on his young victim has become all the more repulsive and perverse. The victim's tender age and the accused-appellant's moral ascendancy and influence over her are factors which forced Rodessa to succumb to the accused's selfish and bestial craving. The law has made it inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the accused-appellant face the supreme penalty of death.