People v Crisostomo; G.R. No. 196435; January 29, 2014; Del Castillo, J.

FACTS:

Accused Joel Crisostomo was charged of two counts of rape by sexual assault and one count of statutory rape under Art 266-A paragraph 1. The accused used a lighted cigarette to enter in AAA’S vagina, a six-year old. The second account was when the cigarette was entered to his anal orifice. These caused third degree burn on both the vagina and anal. The third account was when he raped the AAA and burned her buttocks using lighted cigarette. These burns were examined and affirmed by a medical expert. BBB, father of AAA, presented a birth certificate proving the age of minority of AAA. Aunt of AAA, CCC, testified that she accompanied the victim to be examined and was later found out that she was actually raped. The accused, in his defense, said that it is impossible for him to rape AAA because he was in his night shift work. RTC and CA found him guilty. Accused claimed that prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He furthered that AAA was unsure on her testimonies as to the cigarette stick used in burning her, that AAA was not in shock or any signs of trauma, and that CCC has no credence on credibility since she was not present when the incident happened.

ISSUE:

Whether or not accused is guilty of sexual assault and statutory rape under Art 266-A of RPC.

RULING:

Yes.

When the offended party is under 12 years of age, the crime committed is "termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape. What the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age. Thus, the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years." These were all proven by the prosecution as well as the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused.

AAA’s uncertainty of the cigarette stick did not lessen her credibility. Such "uncertainty" is so inconsequential and does not diminish the fact that an instrument or object was inserted into her private parts. This is the essence of rape by sexual assault. "

People v. Piosang that —

"[t]estimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Considering her tender age, AAA could not have invented a horrible story.”

On AAA’s lack of manifestation of anxiety, people react differently when confronted with a startling experience. There is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a traumatic experience. CCC’s efforts are norms of society to seek justice for her niece. Even if CCC’s testimony is disregarded, the conviction would still stand.

On the other hand, appellant's alibi and denial are weak defenses especially when weighed against "AAA's" positive identification of him as the malefactor. As appellant already admitted, his house is near the house of "AAA" hence there was no physical impossibility for him to be present at the crime scene. Also, the RTC observed that Oletin's testimony did not "prove beneficial to the defense. Suffice it to state that the private prosecutor correctly noted that the said witness was always smiling and laughing when answering questions propounded to him as if making a mockery of the proceedings which his own brother-in-law was facing."