FIRST DIVISION

February 7, 2018

G.R. No. 218913

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
ROMULO BANDOQUILLO y OPALDA, Accused-Appellant

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Assailed in this appeal is the July 21, 2014 Decision  of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
1

G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05891 which affirmed with modification the August 31, 2012 Decision  of 2

the Regional Trial Corut (RTC), Branch 55, Irosin, Sorsogon, finding appellant Romulo
Bandoquillo y Opalda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

The Antecedent Facts

Appellant was charged for the crime of rape in an Information  dated March 10, 2004 which
3

reads:

That on or about early in the morning of December 27, 2003, x x x Province of Sorsogon,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
armed with a knife and by the u5e of force, threat and intimidation whilst inside their
residence, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have
carnal knowledge with his own daughter, "AAA,"  14 years of age, a minor below 18 years of
4

age and a child who cannot protect herself from abuse, against her will and consent, where
acts and deeds by the accused degrades, demeans and debases her dignity as a child and
as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.

The commission of the offense is further aggravated by the fact that the offender is her own
father and armed with a knife.

During his arraignment on July 7, 2004, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.  Trial
5

thereafter ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution's version of the incident as summarized by the Office of the Solicitor
General is as follows:

In the early morning of December 27, 2003, "AAA," then only 14 years of age, was sleeping
inside her room in their house when she was suddenly awakened by her father, herein
appellant, who forcibly undressed her, touched her breasts and kissed her neck. "AAA"
begged appellant not to continue with what he was doing, saying: "Papa, do not do this to
me, [take] pity [on] my siblings and my honor." Appella.rit, however, disregarded his
daughter's pleas and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of "AAA," against her will. 6

Immediately thereafter, "AAA" contacted her mother, "ZZZ," who was then residing in
Manila, and disclosed what had happened to her. "ZZZ" quickly travelled back to Sorsogon,
and on December 29, 2003, "AAA" and "ZZZ" reported the incident to the Department of
Social Welfare and Development and to the local authorities. 7
"AAA" was then physically examined by Dr. Runnel John L. Rebustillo at the Irosin District
Hospital.  Based on her Medical Certificate  dated February 16, 2004, "AAA" had healed
8 9

lacerations at 1, 3, 5 & 6 o'clock positions, as well as hematoma on the outer part of her
vaginal canal.

Version of the Defense

The defense presented appellant as its lone witness who testified that:

On December 26, 2003, appellant instructed "AAA," who was then at their house tending to
their store, that if he was not yet home by 8:30 p.m. that evening, she should close the store
with the lights turned on, close the gate and go to her aunt's house across the street. But
when he arrived home at 9:30 p.m., he noticed that the lights were turned off and the gate
was closed. As he opened the gate, a man ran out. He asked. '"AA-A-" who the man was
but the latter answered that he was just a friend. After asking for the man's identity for the
fourth time, he slapped her on the left cheek which made her cry. 10

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its Decision dated August 31, 2012, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. It held that:

A reading and a thorough review of the pertinent transcript of stenographic notes disclosed
that [AAA] was in fact firm and consistent on the fact of rape committed on her by her father
Romulo Bandoquillo, Her answers to the questions on direct examination, as well [as] on
the grueling cross· examination of [the] defense counsel was clear, simple and natural
words typical of children her age, that the accused performed on her sexual intercourse,
identifying him properly and positively as the perpetrator of the act complained of. 11

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
likewise ordered appellant to pay "AAA" ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱75,000.00 as
moral damages. 12

Appellant thereafter appealed the RTC Decision before the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision dated July 21, 2014, the CA affirmed the assailed RTC Decision with the
following modifications: a). it convicted appellant of the crime of qualified rape;  b) it
13

declared appellant ineligible for parole; c) it awarded ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages in

favor of "AAA;" and d) it imposed interest at six percent (6%) per annum on all awarded
damages, reckoned from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid. 14

The CA agreed with the RTC's findings that AAA had testified in a firm, consistent, credible
and believable manner in recounting how appellant had carnal knowledge of her in the early
morning of December 27, 2003.  It explained that:
15

Significantly, AAA never wavered in her direct testimonies on 07 December 2005 and 07

March 2007 that appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her on the date of the
incident. In her 07 December 2005 testimony, AAA confirmed the entry of appellant's penis
into 'the labia of [her sexual] organ ...' For rape to be consummated, full penetration is not
necessary, as proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the
female organ suffices to consummate the crime of rape. During her direct testimony on 07
March 2007, and her testimony on cross-examination on 13 June 2007, AAA also remained
consistent in her assertion that appellant 'inserted [his] penis into [her] vagina...' Contrary to
the assertion of appellant, AAA consistently declared that the rape perpetrated by appellant
in the early morning of 27 December [2003] was consummated. 16
On this point, the CA noted that appellant had failed to adduce evidence "to convincingly
show any dubious reason or ill-motive on the part of "AAA" to falsely accuse him of such
serious offense as rape."  It thus concluded that "[i]n the absence of ill motive on the part of
17

"AAA," appellai1t's denial cannot prevail over her categorical and positive testimony." 18

The CA also rejected appellant's claim that his alleged act of spanking "AAA" on the eve of
the rape incident had prompted her to make such false accusations. It ruled that "[m]ere
disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino family invent
a charge that would only bring shame and humiliation upon them ai1d their own family and
make them the object of gossip." 19

Finally, the CA held that the crime committed by appellant against "AAA" is qualified rape

under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, given that "AAA" is under 18 years of age
and the offender is a parent. 20

Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal.

The Issues

Appellant raises the following issues for the Court's resolution:

First, whether "AAA's" testimony is credible, given the inconsistency in her testimony as

regards the consummation of the crime; 21

Arid second whether "AAA's" failure to significantly resist appellant's sexual advances casts
doubt on the veracity of her assertions. 22

The Court's Ruling

It is settled that "when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their
respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect
and are often accorded finality"  unless it is shown that the lower court had overlooked,
23

misunderstood or misappreciated some fact or circumstance of weight which, if properly

considered, would have altered the result of the case.  "[This] rule finds an even more
24

stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals." 25

In this case, we find no compelling reason to overturn the factual findings of the trial court,
given that: a) it has not been shown that the RTC had overlooked, misunderstood or
misappreciated facts or circumstances which would have resulted in appellant's acquittal;
and b) said findings were upheld by the CA.

The records reveal that when "A.AA'' testified in court as regards her ordeal, she described
how she was sexually abused by appellant in her own room on that fateful day of December
27, 2003, viz.:

Direct Testimony on December 7, 2005

[PROS. TITO DIAZ:]

Q: Madam witness, if this is the penis of your father, (Prosecutor showing his finger), was
he able to enter the labia of your [sexual] organ?

A: Yes, sir. 26

Direct Testimony on March 7, 2007

[PROS. TITO DIAZ:]

Q: And what happened after your father removed his short and brief?

A: He inserted his penis into my vagina.

Q: Did you not resist your father[1s] advances when he already removed your panty and
inserted his private organ to your private organ?

A: I resisted and told him not to do that to me because I am his daughter. 27

The alleged inconsistency in "AAA's'' testimony, i.e., that "AAA" had earlier testified that
appellant's penis was only able to enter the labia of her sexual organ but later stated that
appellant was able to insert his penis into her vagina, is more apparent than real.

A thorough review of "AAA's" direct testimony as well as her cross-examination shows that
there is no real inconsistency in "AAA's" narration of the rape incident: first, appellants penis
touched the labia of "'AAA's" sexual organ;  second, appellant tried to push his penis into
28

"AAA's" sexual organ, and ''AAA" felt pain and tried to resist;  and third, appellant was not
29

able to fully penetrate ''AAA's" vagina because her little brother, who was sleeping outside
her room, woke up and called out to their father. 30

We thus agree with the CA's conclusion that ''AAA" never wavered in her direct testimonies
on December 7, 2005 and March 7, 2007 that appellant had indeed succeeded in having
carnal knowledge of her. As we held in People v. Ortoa,  full penetration is not necessary
31

for rape to be consummated, viz.:

x x x In any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary. Penile
invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia. It suffices that there is proof of the
entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the fem ale organ. Penetration
of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the
hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. 32

Note that "'[w]hen the offended party is a young and immature girl between the age of 12 to
16, as in this case, courts are inclined to give credence to her version of the incident,
considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which she
would be exposed by court trial if her accusation were untrue." 33

In the absence of any ill-motive on the part of "AAA" that would make her testify falsely
against appellant, her candid narration of the rape incident deserves full faith and
credence.  "For no woman in her right mind will admit to having been raped, allow an
34

examination of her most private parts and subject herself as well as her family to the
humiliation and shame concomitant with a rape prosecution, unless the charges are true." 35

We also find no merit in appellant's claim that his act of slapping "AAA" on her left cheek
had prompted her to make such a false accusation against him. It is quite unbelievable for a
14-year-old girl to publicly and falsely accuse her father of rape in retaliation for such a
minor disciplinary measure. After all, "[t]he burden of going through a rape prosecution is
grossly out of proportion to whatever revenge the young girl would be able to exact." 36

Finally, we reject appellant's defense that "AAA's" "failure to significantly resist the alleged
attack, viewed together with her conduct thereafter, indubitably casts doubt on her credibility
and the veracity of her assertions."  Resistance is not an element of rape, and the absence
37

thereof will never be tantamount to consent on the part of the victim.  Besides, in rape
38

committed by a relative, such as a father, as in this case, moral influence or ascendancy

takes the place of violence.39

Given these circumstances, we uphold the CA's ruling convicting appellant of the crime of
qualified rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, where the rape victim is
under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent. 40
However, there is a need to modify the damages awarded to conform to prevailing
jurisprudence.  Thus, pursuant to People v. Jugueta,  appellant must pay "AAA" civil
1âшphi1
41

indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages at ₱100,000.00 each.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED, The assailed Decision dated July 21, 2014 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05891 convicting Romulo Bandoquillo y Opalda
for the crime of qualified rape is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellant is
ordered to pay the victim civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages at
₱l00,000.00 each.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO *

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

 Designated as additional member per October 18, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who
*

recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.

 Rollo, pp. 2-14; penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and

1

concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Leoncia R. Dimagiba.

2
 CA rollo, pp. 49-55; penned by Judge Fred G. Jimena.

3
 Id. at 10-11.

 "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise
4

her identity, as well a those of her immediate family or household members, shall be
withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger
Deterrence And Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And
Discrimination, And for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 926:2, An Act Defining
Violence Against Women And Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures For
Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, And for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of
AM. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and Their
Children, effective November 15, 2004." People v. Dumadag, G.R. No.176740, June
22, 2011, 652 SCRA 535, 538-539.

 Records, pp. 19-20.

5

 CA rollo, p. 75.
6

 Id. at 75-76.
7

 Id. at 76.
8

 Id., between pages 14 and 15.

9

10
 Id. at 39,

11
 Id.at53.

12
 Id. at 55.

13
 Rollo,pp.12-13.

14
 Id. at 14.

15
 Id. at 8.

16
 Id. at 10.

17
 Id. at l0-11.

18
 Id. at 11.

19
 Id.

20
 Id. at 12-13.

21
 CA rollo, p. 45.

22
 Id. at 45-46.

23
 People v. Espino, Jr., 577 Phil. 546, 562 (2008). Emphasis in the original.

24
 Id.

25
 Id. at 563.

26
 TSN, December 7, 2005, p. 8.

27
 TSN, March 7, 2 7, 3.

28
 TSN, December 7, 2005, p. 8.

29
 TSN, March 7, 2007, pp. 3-4.

30
 TSN, June 13, 2007, p. 6.
31
 599 Phil. 232 (2009).

32
 Id. at 247. Emphasis supplied.

33
 People v. Pacheco, 468 Phil. 289, 300 (2004).

34
 People v. Espino, Jr., supra note 23 at 563-564.

35
 Id. at 563.

36
 People v. Pacheco, 632 Phil. 624, 634 (2010).

37
 CA rollo, p. 46.

38
 People v. Pepito, 459 Phil. 1023, 1035 (2003).

39
 People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 778 (2014).

 "AAA's" minority and the father-daughter relationship of appellant and "AAA" were
40

both admitted during the Pre-Trial. See CA rollo, p. 49.

41
 G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 382-383.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, -versus- ROMULO BANDOQUILLO y OPALDA,
accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 218913, FIRST DVISION, February 7, 2018, DEL CASTILLO, J
As held in People v. Ortoa full penetration is not necessary for rape to be consummated:
x x x In any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary. Penile invasion
necessarily entails contact with the labia. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male
organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the
lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for
rape.
Note that when the offended party is a young and immature girl between the age of 12 to 16, as in this
case, courts are inclined to give credence to her version of the incident, considering not only her
relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which she would be exposed by court trial if
her accusation were untrue.
FACTS:
"AAA," then only 14 years of age, was sleeping inside her room in their house when she was
suddenly awakened by her father, herein appellant, who forcibly undressed her, touched her
breasts and kissed her neck. "AAA" begged appellant not to continue with what he was doing.
Appellant, however, disregarded his daughter's pleas and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of
"AAA.” Immediately thereafter, "AAA" contacted her mother, "ZZZ," who was then residing in
Manila, and disclosed what had happened to her. "ZZZ" quickly travelled back to Sorsogon.
Thereafter, "AAA" and "ZZZ" reported the incident to DSWD and the local authorities. "AAA" was
then physically examined. Based on her Medical Certificate "AAA" had healed lacerations as well as
hematoma on the outer part of her vaginal canal.
RTC found appellant guilty of the crime rape under Article 266-A. CA affirmed the assailed the
decision of the RTC with the following modification: a.) it convicted appellant of qualified rape.
ISSUE:
Whether “AAA’s” testimony is credible, given the inconsistency in her testimony as regards the
consummation of the crime. (YES) DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FCL
96
RULING:
The alleged inconsistency in "AAA's" testimony, i.e., that "AAA" had earlier testified that appellant's
penis was only able to enter the labia of her sexual organ but later stated that appellant was able to
insert his penis into her vagina, is more apparent than real.
There is no real inconsistency in "AAA's" narration of the rape incident: first, appellant's penis
touched the labia of "AAA's" sexual organ; second, appellant tried to push his penis into "AAA's"
sexual organ, and "AAA" felt pain and tried to resist; and third, appellant was not able to fully
penetrate "AAA's" vagina because her little brother, who was sleeping outside her room, woke up
and called out to their father.
As held in People v. Ortoa full penetration is not necessary for rape to be consummated:
x x x In any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary. Penile invasion
necessarily entails contact with the labia. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male
organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the
lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction
for rape.
Note that when the offended party is a young and immature girl between the age of 12 to 16, as in
this case, courts are inclined to give credence to her version of the incident, considering not only
her relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which she would be exposed by court
trial if her accusation were untrue.
Given these circumstances, appellant is guilty of the crime qualified rape under Article 266-B of the
Revised Penal Code, where the rape victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent.