Before us is an appeal from the decision dated September 25, 1991 rendered by Branch 148 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati in Criminal Case No. 2174 finding the accused guilty of statutory rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay the victim P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the cost of the suit.

On November 15, 1990 the alleged rape victim, assisted by her mother, filed a Complaint which states as follows: Jksm

COMPLAINT

The undersigned complainant accuses Juanito Quinagoran y Caluna of the crime of rape, committed as follows:

That on or about the 14th day of November 1990, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the offended party who is below 12 years of age.

Contrary to law.1 [OR, p. 1.]

The accused is a 33 year old bachelor who works as a security guard, formerly at the CK Bagoong Factory in Malabon.2 [Juanito Quinagoran, April 23, 1991, pp. 5-8.] The victim Sarah Jane Tan is a seven year old first grader who lives with her parents in a rented house within a residential compound with several leased rooms and houses. The unit leased by Sarah Jane’s parents does not have an indoor toilet.3 [Sarah Jane Tan, Tsn., December 20, 1990, p. 3, 8.] Chief

At about eight o’clock in the evening of November 14, 1990 Sarah Jane asked permission from her mother, Ketchy Tan, to go to the outhouse a few meters from their residential unit. It took a while for Sarah Jane to return so that her mother called her. At first she did not answer and the second time her mother called she answered and entered the house. As Sarah Jane stepped into the kitchen, coins fell from her shirt. Her mother asked her where those coins (about P1.80) came from but Sarah just glanced at her mother without giving a direct answer. Her mother asked her again and Sarah pointed to the house near the comfort room and stated that the man who was living near the comfort room gave her the coins. It was only when her mother repeatedly asked her what that man required of her in exchange for the coins that Sarah Jane narrated to her mother that in exchange for the coins the man kissed her cheeks, lips and breast, and then pulled down her panty, kissed her vagina; she was made to lie on the floor and the man pulled down his shorts and brief and then inserted his penis into her vagina and something sticky came out of his organ4 [Ketchy Tan, Tsn., December 17, 1990, pp. 4-7.] The owner of the house told Ketchy Tan that the man living near the comfort room was Titoy Quinagoran. Ketchy and Sarah Jane went to the barangay hall that same evening to lodge a complaint.5 [Ibid., pp. 8-9.] Invited for questioning at the barangay hall, the appellant confronted Ketchy Tan and denied the accusation. Appellant was arrested later that evening .6 [Juanito Quinagoran, Tsn., April 29, 1991, pp. 5-13.] Esm

On December 6, 1990 the accused was arraigned and pleaded "not guilty" to the accusation .7 [p. 8, OR.]

Living Case Report No. MG-90-882 dated November 15, 1990 was presented in evidence by the prosecution, it states:8 [Annex B, p. 6, OR.]

FINDINGS

GENITAL EXAMINATION:

Pubic hair, no growth. Labia majora, slightly gaping. Labia minora, coaptated. Fourchette, tense. Vestibule, congested. Hymen, cresentic, thin, short and intact. Hymenal orifice, admits of a tube 0.8 cm., in diameter. Vaginal walls and rugosities, cannot be reached by the examining finger. Esmsc

CONCLUSIONS:

Both the Senior Medico Legal Officer, Dr. Maximo L. Reyes, who supervised the examination and the medico-legal officer who actually examined Sarah Jane, Dr. Ronald R. Bandonil, testified in court.9 [Dr. Bandonil, Tsn., February 25, 1999, pp. 8-12.] Esmmis

Dr. Maximo L. Reyes, the Senior Medico Legal officer affirmed the findings of Dr. Bandonil that the only notable finding in Sarah Jane’s genitals is the severe inflammation of the vestibular mucosa or the area surrounding the vaginal opening. On cross-examination, Dr. Reyes discounted the possibility that such congestion was caused by a bump while the child was at play or during the child’s daily bath or by scratching and stated that under such circumstances the labia or the posterior area of the vagina should also show some sign of reddening which is not found in Sarah’s case; only the innermost part of her vagina near the hymenal opening is inflamed. Dr. Reyes stated that the reddening of Sarah’s vestibular mucosa may have been caused by an erect penis pounding against it.10 [Dr. Maximo L. Reyes, Tsn., January 29, 1991, pp. 6-13;19-25.] Msesm

The defense presented the appellant’s sister-in-law, Anita Quinagoran. She stated that her residential unit is near the comfort room which Sarah Jane uses daily. She likewise stated that the appellant seldom came to her house and that he usually stayed in his place of work in Navotas. She testified that on the night of the alleged incident, the appellant was watching TV with other neighbors and no untoward incident happened that night until barangay officials came to the house and invited the accused for questioning about the rape of Sarah Jane. The accused came back to the house from the barangay hall and later in the evening four policemen came to arrest him.11 [Anita Quinagoran, Tsn., April 22, 1990, pp. 5-35.]

The accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He testified that he never saw that child before the confrontation at the barangay hall.12 [Juanito Quinagoran, Tsn., April 29, 1991, pp. 4-13.] On cross-examination, the accused admitted that since October 7, 1990 he rented a room near the comfort room beside the unit occupied by his brother and sister-in-law, Anita Quinagoran.13 [Ibid., pp. 38-39.] Exsm

On September 25, 1991 the trial court rendered judgment as follows14 [RTC Decision, p. 38, Rollo.]:

"Wherefore, premises considered, and finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. As the accused is civilly liable, he is further ordered to pay the amount of P30,000.00 for and as indemnity; also the accused is hereby ordered to pay the sum of P25,000.00 for and as moral damages; and P10,000.00 for and as exemplary damages.

With costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED."

This appeal filed by the Public Attorney’s Office in behalf of the accused raises the following assignments of error: Kyle

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE HEARSAY TESTIMONY OF KETCHY TAN AND THE IMPROBABLE AND UNBELIEVABLE TESTIMONY OF SARAH JANE TAN

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING PROBATIVE VALUE TO THE MEDICAL FINDINGS OF THE GENITALIA OF SARAH JANE TAN CONSIDERING THAT:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Calrky

The main contention of the appellant is that Sarah Jane’s testimony is pure fabrication, laced with improbabilities and major inconsistencies, e. g., that at first Sarah Jane stated in court that she entered the house of the appellant and later in her testimony she stated that the accused pulled her into his house. The appellant argues that it is quite improbable for a child of tender years not to cry nor to try to free herself from an admittedly painful experience. Moreover, if indeed the appellant inserted his penis into Sarah Jane’s vagina the medico legal findings would have been different, and Sarah Jane’s hymen would not be intact. Finally, it is argued that the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimony of Sarah Jane’s mother that her daughter was raped by the appellant on the ground that it is hearsay evidence. In the same vein the testimony of Dr. Maximo Reyes, the Medico-Legal officer, who signed the report should be held inadmissible because he did not actually examine Sarah Jane. Dr. Bandonil who actually examined Sarah does not qualify as an expert witness. He himself admitted in court that he was still under training at the NBI Medico-Legal Department at the time of Sarah’s examination. On these premises, appellant claims, the medical findings, the victim’s testimony and the testimony of the victim’s mother are all infirm and cannot sustain the judgment of conviction. Slx

The Solicitor-General argued in the appellee’s brief that first, the trial court did not consider the testimony of the victim’s mother as evidence of the rape but only of the circumstances prior to and subsequent to the rape of her daughter. The trial court also allowed the said testimony only as part of the narration of what Sarah reported to her mother. Secondly, Sarah’s testimony is not at all improbable. She did not cry nor try to escape the painful experience because the accused threatened to cut her tongue or throw her into the river. Irresistible force is not required in rape much less, in this case where the victim is below 12 years old. And in the absence of any concrete showing to the contrary, the assessment of the trial court as to the credibility of the witnesses should be respected. The appellant’s objection to the admission in evidence of the testimonies of Drs. Reyes and Bandonil is not material as a medical certificate is not a pre-requisite to prove the commission of the crime of rape. Finally, the appellee states that the evidence show the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and aside from the amount of indemnity which should be increased to P50,000.00. Mesm

The appeal is without merit.

Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code states:15 [The crime subject of this case was committed in 1990 or prior to the effectivity of RA 7659 on December 31, 1993 and RA 8353 on October 22, 1997.]

Art. 335. When and how rape is committed-Penalties.-Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Scslx

The court is constrained to note that Sarah Jane’s birth certificate was not presented in evidence to show that she is below twelve years old. We note however, that after having been duly apprised of the import of an oath, Sarah testified on direct and on cross examination that she is seven years old and that she is in Grade 1.16 [Sarah Jane Tan, Tsn., December 18, 1990, p. 4; Tsn., December 20, 1990, p. 3; Tsn., January 22, 1991, p. 14.] The defense did not contest Sarah’s age before the trial court nor before this Court. The trial court which had first hand opportunity to see and observe Sarah in person allowed the trial to proceed without requiring further evidence of Sarah’s age, which must have been readily apparent to both parties and to the trial court. The case before us falls under par. 3 of the above quoted provision. Slxsc

The quoted provision is clear that mere sexual congress with a woman below twelve years of age consummates the crime of statutory rape regardless of her consent to the act or the lack of it. The law presumes that a woman of tender age does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.17 [People vs. Conchada, 88 SCRA 683; People vs. Henson, 270 SCRA 634;] Thus, it was held that carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old even if she is engaged in prostitution is still considered statutory rape.18 [Aquino, Revised Penal Code, vol. III, 1997 ed., pp. 412-414, citing People vs. Perez, CA, 37 O.G. 947; People vs. Parido, 44 O.G. 2964.] The application of force and intimidation or the deprivation of reason of the victim becomes irrelevant. The absence of struggle or outcry of the victim or even her passive submission to the sexual act will not mitigate nor absolve the accused from liability.19 [People vs. Garga, G.R. No. 109396-97, July 17, 1996.] Slxmis

The arguments advanced by the appellant to assail the evidence for the prosecution are puerile. The cited inconsistencies and improbabilities in Sarah Jane’s testimony have no material relevance to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Appellant’s contentions in essence suggest Sarah Jane’s apparent consent to the sexual act or the improbability of the commission of the crime, had she resisted. The common reaction of women of age when exposed to a traumatic experience such as rape cannot be expected of women below 12 years old.20 [People vs. Tadulan, 272 SCRA 233.] Sarah Jane’s own admission that the appellant did not restrain her during the sexual act and that she did not make an outcry21 [Sarah Jane Tan, Tsn., January 22, 1991, pp. 9-10.] does not negate the commission thereof. Whether she entered the appellant’s house out of curiosity or that the appellant pulled her into the house is immaterial in statutory rape. The same holds true about her failure to resist the appellant or to create an outburst for help. The rupture of the hymen is also not necessary for rape to be consummated. In most cases of statutory rape where total penetration of the victim’s organ is improbable due to the smallness of the vaginal opening, it has been held that actual penetration of the victim’s organ nor the rupture of the hymen is not required;22 [People vs. Gabayron, 278 SCRA 78; People vs. Escober 282 SCRA 500.] the mere entrance of the male organ into the lips of the female organ or labia of the pudendum consummates the crime of rape.23 [People vs. Conchada, supra.,; People vs. Dela Peña, 276 SCRA 558.]

Sarah Jane’s testimony was properly given full weight and credence by the trial court. She narrated in court what the accused-appellant, whom she identified in court, required of her in exchange for the coins: Missdaa

On cross-examination, Sarah Jane stressed that she testified of her own knowledge and was not coached by anyone, as suggested by the defense counsel during her direct examination. She further testified as follows:

A reading of the transcript of stenographic notes shows that Sarah Jane candidly testified of her own knowledge and her responses exhibited no sign of inhibition, nor of prior coaching or rehearsal. While she was able to identify the appellant in court as the man who threatened and abused her and subsequently gave her money (coins) she admitted that she does not know his name and that she heard his name only from the police.26 [Ibid., p.8.] She also admitted in court that she came back to the appellant’s house four times and four times he performed the same sexual acts on her.27 [Ibid., pp.16-20.] When Dr. Maximo Reyes, the Medico-Legal officer who signed the NBI Report testified for the prosecution and was asked to identify the child he examined, Sarah Jane guilelessly uttered loud enough for the court to hear that the man on the witness stand is not the one who examined her.28 [Ibid., January 29, 1991, p. 9.] Such utterance gave the court the impression that Dr. Reyes is not qualified to affirm the contents of the medico-legal report so that the prosecution had to call to the witness stand Dr. Bandonil, the medico-legal officer who actually examined Sarah Jane. And most revealing of Sarah’s childhood innocence is that when she was asked if she could read, she answered, "I only know how to write."29 [Ibid., December 20, 1990, p. 4.] Sarah’s behavior in court which under ordinary circumstances may have unduly weakened the evidence for the prosecution, only mirrored her honesty and spontaneity in this case. We reiterate the long-settled rule that when a child-victim claims that she has been raped , she says all that is necessary to show that the offense has been committed as long as her testimony passes the test of credibility, and such testimony is given full weight and credence and may be the sole basis of conviction of the accused.30 [People vs. Gabayron, 278 SCRA 78; People vs. Ayo, G.R. no. 123540, March 30, 1999.] Nexold

The other objections raised by the appellants are equally inconsequential. The testimony of Ketchy Tan was not considered by the trial court as evidence of the rape of her daughter but only as part of her narration that Sarah Jane confided to her what the appellant did to her. The admission made by Dr. Reyes that he was not the one who actually examined Sarah does not invalidate the Living Case Report presented in evidence by the prosecution. Dr. Reyes testified that he is the senior and supervising Medico-legal officer of the team who examined Sarah and that Dr. Bandonil examined Sarah in his presence and under his supervision. It was explained by Dr. Reyes that Dr. Bandonil’s signature does not appear on the report because as a matter of office procedure only the senior or supervising medico-legal officer signs it.31 [Reyes, Tsn., January 29, 1991, pp. 6-7,18.] Nevertheless, as correctly contended by the appellee, a medical certificate is not indispensable to prove the commission of rape,32 [People vs. Julian, 270 SCRA 733.] and whether or not the testimonies of Drs. Reyes and Bandonil or the Living Case Report presented by the prosecution will not be given weight and credence does not derogate from the finding of this Court, after a studied examination of the evidence on record, that the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Ncm

The decision appealed from is affirmed including the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code except insofar as the pecuniary liabilities of the appellant awarded by the trial court to the victim. The awards for civil indemnity and the moral damages are hereby increased to P50,000.00 for each award or a total of P100,000.00.33 [People vs. Bolatete, G.R. No. 127570, prom. February 25, 1999.] The award for exemplary damages is deleted as no aggravating circumstance was pleaded nor proved to have attended the commission of the crime.34 [Art. 2230. Civil Code; People vs. Mengote G. R. No. 130491, March 25, 1999.] Oldmiso

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape and the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua is affirmed with the modifications that the awards for civil indemnity and moral damages are increased to P50,000.00 per award and the award for exemplary damages is deleted.

Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur.