EN BANC

[G.R. No. 129112. July 23, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. JIMMY MIJANO y

TAMORA , accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

SYNOPSIS

An information was led against appellant for having carnal knowledge, by means of
force and intimidation, with one Hazel Ramirez, who is a child below seven years old,
against her will and consent. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and interposed the
defense of alibi. After trial, the trial court did not accord credence to the testimony of
appellant. It pointed out that appellant's defense that he was at home having a drinking
spree with alleged friends he could not identify, deserved no serious preoccupation of the
mind. Nor his claim that he was too drunk to know what transpired at the time when the
rape was committed be given weight to disprove the charge against him. The trial court,
therefore, convicted appellant of statutory rape and imposed the penalty of death and
ordered him to indemnify the victim. Hence, this appeal.
The appellant put in issue the credibility of the victim. Appellant further contended
that the death penalty law is violative of the equal protection clause because it punishes
only people like him, the poor, the uneducated, jobless and who lacks catechetical
instruction.
The Supreme Court found that the act complained of did occur. The victim's
testimony on the rape perpetrated against her was clear and could have only been narrated
by a victim subjected to that sexual assault. When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says
that she has been raped, she say in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was
committed. Moreover, appellant's alibi cannot be given more probative weight than the
clear and positive identification provided by no less than three credible eyewitnesses.
The death penalty law makes no distinction. It applies to all persons and to all
classes of persons. Compassion for the poor is an imperative of every humane society but
only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege. The evidence
pointing to appellant as the perpetrator of the crime was overwhelming. Thus, to absolve
him from the imposition of the death penalty by the fact that he is poor, uneducated,
jobless and lacks catechetical instruction will not eliminate but promote inequalities. The
Court, therefore, a rmed the decision of the trial court with modi cation as to the
indemnity.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY OF GUILT NOT

REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION. — Absolute certainty of guilt is not, however, demanded by
law for a conviction. It is su cient that moral certainty as to the presence of the elements
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 constituting the offense, as well as of the identity of the offender be established (People
vs. Casinillo, 213 SCRA 777 [1992]. HEcaIC

2. ID.; ID; RAPE CASES; GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE REVIEW THEREOF. —

Many times has this Court said that in reviewing rape cases, it will be guided by the settled
realities that an accusation for rape can be made with facility. While the commission of the
crime may not be easy to prove, it becomes even more di cult, however, for the person
accused, although innocent, to disprove that he did not commit the crime. In view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons normally are involved, the
testimony of the complainant must always be scrutinized with great caution, and the
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and should not be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense (People vs.
Gabris, 258 SCRA 663 [1996]; People vs. Casinillo, supra).
3. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; TRIAL COURTS EVALUATION OF
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE ACCORDED GREAT RESPECT; REASON. — In the instant appeal,
as invariably in almost all rape cases, the issue boils down to the credibility and story of
the victim. Just as often, the Court is now constrained to rely on the observations of the
trial court in the appreciation of testimony, said court being given the opportunity not
equally enjoined by the appellate courts. It has thus since become doctrinal that the
evaluation by the trial court of testimonial evidence is accorded great respect because it
has the direct chance to observe rst hand the demeanor of the witness on the stand
(People vs. De la Cruz, 754 SCRA 229 [1994] and, therefore, is in a better position to form
an accurate impression and conclusion (People vs. Castillo, 261 SCRA 493 [1996].
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN A WOMAN SAYS THAT SHE HAS BEEN RAPED, SHE SAYS
IN EFFECT ALL THAT IS NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT RAPE WAS COMMITTED. —
Accused-appellant attempts to discredit the victim's testimony by assailing her attitude
and behavior during cross-examination. However, it must be borne in mind that the victim
is an innocent, wholesome, and naive 5-year old girl that this Court, or anyone for that
matter, can not expect to articulate and verbalize answers to all the questions thrown at
her. Being a child and a victim of rape, her testimony should be expected to be
accompanied by emotional overtures. Verily, it is not right to judge the actions of a child
who has undergone a traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected under the
circumstances from normal and mature people (People vs. Tadulan , 271 SCRA 233
[1997]). In fact, when victim Hazel was asked to illustrate how accused-appellant inserted
his penis into her vagina, she could no longer give an answer and instead cried aloud. She
was then forthwith cross-examined by the defense, and Hazel was just too dazed and
shaken up, due probably to having to recall her traumatic experience, to answer the
questions. She just continued to cry. Such scenario evidently strengthens the claim of the
victim that she was sexually abused by accused-appellant, and not otherwise. Hazel cannot
be expected to remember every ugly detail of the appalling outrage, especially so since
she might in fact have been trying not to remember them and to erase them from her mind
(People vs. Butron, 272 SCRA 352 [1997]. She cannot be expected to mechanically keep
and narrate an accurate account of the horrifying experience she had undergone (People
vs. Rabosa, 273 SCRA 142, [1997]). When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that
she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was
committed (People vs. Cabayron, 278 SCRA 78 [1997]). Thus, Hazel's testimony is given
full weight and credit.
5. ID.; ID.; DEFENSE OF ALIBI; REJECTED WHEN IDENTITY OF ACCUSED HAS
BEEN POSITIVELY ESTABLISHED. — Moreover, no rule in criminal jurisprudence is more
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses and should be rejected when the
identity of the accused has been su ciently and positively established by eyewitnesses to
the crime (People vs. Sancholes, 271 SCRA 527 [1997]). In the case at bar, accused-
appellant's alibi that at the time Hazel was being raped he was at home getting drunk with
his friends, cannot possibly be given more probative weight than the clear and positive
identi cation provided by no less than three credible eyewitnesses in the persons of Hazel
Ramirez, her mother Dina Ramirez, and their neighbor Arnulfo Valiente. Accused-appellant's
alibi that he was drunk with his friends when the rape was committed, it is to be noted,
remained but a stark, unsupported averment, as verily, the defense neither identi ed nor
presented any of the alleged drinking partners of accused-appellant.
6. CRIMINAL LAW; PENALTY; REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659; DEATH PENALTY LAW;
NOT VIOLATIVE OF EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. — Accused-appellant in his reply brief
contends that the death penalty law is violative of the equal protection clause of the 1987
Constitution because it punishes only people like him, the poor, the uneducated, and the
jobless. The equality the Constitution guarantees is legal equality or, as it is usually put, the
equality of all persons before the law. Under this guarantee, each individual is dealt with as
an equal person in the law, which does not treat the person differently because of who he
is or what he is or what he possesses. (Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, A Commentary, 1987 ed., p. 6). Apparently, as it should be, the death penalty
law makes no distinction. It applies to all persons and to all classes of persons — rich or
poor, educated or uneducated, religious or non-religious. No particular person or classes
of persons are identi ed by the law against whom the death penalty shall be exclusively
imposed.
7. ID.; ID., ID.; ID.; CONSIDERED CONSTITUTIONAL. — Although four Justices of
the Court continue to maintain their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in
People vs. Echegaray (supra) that Republic Act No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it
prescribes the death penalty, they nonetheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the
law is Constitutional and that death penalty should herein accordingly be imposed.
8. ID.; RAPE; DEATH PENALTY UNDER R.A. NO. 7659; ACCUSED IS NOT
EXEMPTED FROM IMPOSITION THEREOF BY THE FACT THAT HE IS POOR, UNEDUCATED,
JOBLESS AND LACKS CATECHETICAL INSTRUCTION. — We have time and again
emphasized that our courts are not the fora for a protected debate on the morality or
propriety of the death penalty where the law itself provides such punishment for speci c
and well-de ned criminal acts ( People vs. Echegaray, 267 SCRA 682 [1997]). Further,
compassion for the poor is an imperative of every humane society but only when the
recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege (Cecilleville Realty and Service
Corporation vs. CA, 278 SCRA 819 [1997]). The evidence pointing to accused-appellant as
the perpetrator of the crime is overwhelming. The law punishes with death a person who
shall commit rape against a child below seven years of age. Thus, to answer the query, the
perpetration of rape against a 5-year old girl does not absolve or exempt accused-
appellant from the imposition of the death penalty by the fact that he is poor, uneducated,
jobless, and lacks cathechetical instruction. To hold otherwise will not eliminate but
promote inequalities.

9. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; CIVIL INDEMNITY; AWARDED TO OFFENDED PARTY

IN CASE AT BAR. — Applying the new policy laid down in the case of People vs. Prades
(G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998), the civil indemnity to be awarded to the offended party is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 and should be P75,000.00.
10. ID.; ID.; MORAL DAMAGES; AWARDED WITHOUT NEED FOR PROOF OF THE
BASIS THEREOF. — In addition, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are likewise
awarded without need for proof of the basis thereof.
11. ID.; ID.; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; AWARDED AS A NEGATIVE INCENTIVE TO
CURB SOCIALLY DELETERIOUS ACTIONS. — Lastly, accused-appellant is liable to pay the
victim the sum of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages as deterrent against or as a negative
incentive to curb socially deleterious actions (Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA
158 [1997]. SDTIHA

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

Because a man is poor, uneducated and jobless, and lacks catechetical instruction,
should he be exempted from the imposition of the death penalty after it is proved beyond
moral certainty that he indeed had sexually abused a five-year old girl? prcd

The Court is burdened, once again, with the heavy task of passing upon, by way of
automatic review, a judgment of conviction imposing the death penalty for statutory rape,
in this case, alleged to have been perpetrated by accused-appellant Jimmy T. Mijano.
Accused-appellant's conviction for said crime arose from an Information reading as
follows:
That on or about the 10th day of May, 1996, in the Municipality of Las
Piñas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did, then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one
HAZEL RAMIREZ Y ABING, who is a child below seven (7) years old, against her
will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
(p. 7, Rollo.)

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and stood trial, resulting in a
judgment of conviction, accordingly disposing:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered nding the accused, Jimmy Mijano y
Tamora GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of raping Hazel Ramirez y Abing, a
child below 7 years of age, which is punished under Art. 335 (No. 4) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, with death, and in view of Article 63 of the
same Code, accused Jimmy Mijano y Tamora is sentenced to die and such
accused be put to death by the method or means prescribed by law; to indemnify
the victim, Hazel Ramirez, the sum of P100,000.00, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.
(p. 65, Rollo.)

The prosecution's version of the events is based principally on the testimony of

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 victim Hazel Ramirez, her mother Dina Ramirez, and a neighbor by the name of Arnulfo
Valiente. The Office of the Solicitor General adopted the summarization by the trial court of
its findings, to wit:
Dina Ramirez is the mother of ve-year old Hazel Ramirez who was born
on 02 April 1991. In the morning of 10 May 1996, she washed clothes while one
of her neighbors, Jimmy Mijano, was having a drinking session with some
friends. Hazel was then playing together with other children. The children were
later brought by the accused to their house at Helen Catral Street. Dina later in the
afternoon became suspicious and started looking for Hazel and asked the
playmates of Hazel where she was. She was told that the accused was playing
with her. She went out to the street but was not able to nd her daughter. Instead,
she saw one Arnulfo Valiente who informed her that he saw Hazel together with
Jimmy at Helen Catral Street. Arnulfo Valiente and Dina proceeded to the said
place which was a grassy area beside a river and near Bacoor, Cavite. They
reached the said place at around 5 o'clock in the afternoon. It was Arnulfo who
rst saw Hazel already pale and her vagina was profusely bleeding. She was
wearing a dress but her panty and skirt were gone. Hazel also had an abrasion on
her right hip. Dina rst brought Hazel to the Las Piñas Police Station to report the
incident but the police suggested that Hazel be brought to the NBI. The Medico
Legal O cer advised them to bring Hazel to the PGH because they cannot
examine her vagina which was bleeding profusely. Accused has a reputation for
molesting women and even raping them whenever he is drunk. Dina identi ed the
accused in open court. (TSN, July 22, 1996, pp. 2-5). cdphil

Arnulfo Valiente corroborated the testimony of Dina Ramirez.

The third witness for the prosecution was the victim herself. Five-year old
Hazel Ramirez herself con rmed that the penis of Jimmy Mijano was inserted
into her vagina. Hazel identi ed the accused in open court. (TSN, July 29, 1996,
pp. 2-4).
(p. 64; pp. 79-81, Rollo.)

The defense is based on the testimony of its sole witness, accused-appellant. He

denied the charges and testi ed that on May 10, 1996 at around 2 o'clock in the afternoon,
he was at home quaffing alcoholic drinks with his friends. However, he could not recall how
many they were and neither could he give their names. According to him, while they were
having a drinking spree, he was suddenly arrested, for what reason he was not aware.
Likewise, he could not remember who arrested him and what time he was brought to jail
because he was too drunk, and he failed to inquire from the arresting o cer why he was
jailed (tsn, November 4, 1996, pp. 2-3).
The trial court did not accord credence to the testimony of accused-appellant,
pointing out in its decision that the defense of denial and accused-appellant's alibi that he
was at home having a drinking spree with alleged friends he could not identify, deserve no
serious preoccupation of the mind. Nor yet can his claim that he was too drunk to know
what transpired at the time when the rape was committed, be given weight to disprove the
charge against him.
Hence, the instant review and appeal, anchored on a single encompassing and
catch-all argument that the trial court erred in nding accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Absolute certainty of guilt is not, however, demanded by law for a conviction. It is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 su cient that moral certainty as to the presence of the elements constituting the offense,
as well as of the identity of the offender be established (People vs. Casinillo, 213 SCRA
777 [1992]).
In the instant case, it does appear that the main issue raised by accused-appellant is
the credibility of victim Hazel Ramirez. Accused-appellant claims that the child-witness
was too young to know the signi cance of an oath because she could not answer
questions. She should have known that she was supposed to answer all questions and not
only those to which answers had been rehearsed, hence, her entire testimony should be
stricken off the record for lack of proper answers during cross-examination.
We do not agree.
Many times has this Court said that in reviewing rape cases, it will be guided by the
settled realities that an accusation for rape can be made with facility. While the
commission of the crime may not be easy to prove, it becomes even more di cult,
however, for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove that he did not commit
the crime. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons
normally are involved, the testimony of the complainant must always be scrutinized with
great caution, and the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits
and should not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense (People vs. Gabris, 258 SCRA 663 [1996]; People vs. Casinillo, supra).
In the instant appeal, as invariably in almost all rape cases, the issue boils down to
the credibility and story of the victim. Just as often, the Court is now constrained to rely on
the observations of the trial court in the appreciation of testimony, said court being given
the opportunity not equally enjoyed by the appellate courts. It has thus since become
doctrinal that the evaluation by the trial court of testimonial evidence is accorded great
respect because it has the direct chance to observe rst hand the demeanor of the
witness on the stand (People vs. De la Cruz, 754 SCRA 229 [1994]) and, therefore, is in a
better position to form an accurate impression and conclusion (People vs. Castillo, 261
SCRA 493 [1996]).
The Court has meticulously gone over the testimony of the victim and ultimately
reaches the dispiriting conclusion that the act complained of did occur. Hazel's testimony
on the rape perpetrated against her is clear and could have only been narrated by a victim
subjected to that sexual assault. Thus: cdphil

Q: Do you know this person who is the accused in this case by the name of
Jimmy Mijano?
A: (Witness nodding her head.)
Q: What do you mean by nodding your head, Hazel?
A: No answer.
Q: Now, Hazel, if I say that you know Jimmy Mijano and he is inside the
courtroom, please stand up and point to him?
A: That person, sir. (Witness crying as she points to a person inside the
courtroom who, when asked by the interpreter, answered by the name of
Jimmy Mijano)
Q: Why are you crying? Are you angry to Jimmy Mijano?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 A: Yes, sir.

Q: You said you saw the titi of Kuya Jimmy Mijano, what did he do with his
titi to you?

A: Ipinasok niya sa pekpek ko.

Q: What happened to your pekpek when Kuya Jimmy Mijano inserted his
penis to your vagina?

A: It was bleeding.
Q: When Jimmy Mijano inserted his penis into your vagina, what did you feel?
A: I felt very painful, napakasakit po.
Q: Will you please elucidate before this Court, I withdraw. Will you please
illustrate how Jimmy Mijano inserted his penis into your vagina?
A: (No answer. Instead, witness cries aloud.)
(tsn, pp. 2-4, July 29, 1996)

Accused-appellant attempts to discredit the victim's testimony by assailing her

attitude and behavior during cross-examination. However, it must be borne in mind that the
victim is an innocent, wholesome, and naive 5-year old girl that this Court, or anyone for
that matter, can not expect to articulate and verbalize answers to all the questions thrown
at her. Being a child and a victim of rape, her testimony should be expected to be
accompanied by emotional overtures. Verily, it is not right to judge the actions of a child
who has undergone a traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected under the
circumstances from normal and mature people (People vs. Tadulan, 271 SCRA 233
[1997]). In fact, when victim Hazel was asked to illustrate how accused-appellant inserted
his penis into her vagina, she could no longer give an answer and instead cried aloud. She
was then forthwith cross-examined by the defense, and Hazel was just too dazed and
shaken up, due probably to having to recall her traumatic experience, to answer the
questions. She just continued to cry. Such scenario evidently strengthens the claim of the
victim that she was sexually abused by accused-appellant, and not otherwise. Hazel cannot
be expected to remember every ugly detail of the appalling outrage, especially so since
she might in fact have been trying not to remember them and to erase them from her mind
(People vs. Butron, 272 SCRA 352 [1997]). She cannot be expected to mechanically keep
and narrate an accurate account of the horrifying experience she had undergone (People
vs. Rabosa, 273 SCRA 142 [1997]). When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she
has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed
(People vs. Cabayron, 278 SCRA 78 [1997]). Thus, Hazel's testimony is given full weight
and credit. cda

Moreover, no rule in criminal jurisprudence is more settled than that alibi is the
weakest of all defenses and should be rejected when the identity of the accused has been
su ciently and positively established by eyewitnesses to the crime ( People vs. Sancholes,
271 SCRA 527 [1997]).
In the case at bar, accused-appellant's alibi that at the time Hazel was being raped
he was at home getting drunk with his friends, cannot possibly be given more probative
weight than the clear and positive identi cation provided by no less than three credible
eyewitnesses in the persons of Hazel Ramirez, her mother Dina Ramirez, and their neighbor
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Arnulfo Valiente.
The testimony of Valiente pointing to accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the
crime is clear and positive, thusly:
q And who was the companion if any of Hazel in that area?

a She was with other children and Jimmy Mijano.

q What else did you see?
a Hazel was embraced, sir.
q By whom?

a Jimmy, sir.
q Could you please stand up and demonstrate before this Honorable Court
how Jimmy Mijano embraced Hazel? May we ask the mother supposed
she is Hazel?
a Jimmy Mijano embraced the child while the child was facing her back
towards the accused and the hands of Jimmy Mijano was pressed at the
nipple of Hazel Ramirez.
xxx xxx xxx
q Where did you nd the second time Jimmy Mijano the accused in this
case?
a At the grassy area, sir.
q And tell this Honorable Court what was Jimmy doing in that grassy portion
of Helen Catral?
a He as on top of the child and has no pants.

q You are telling us that Jimmy Mijano was also naked?

a Yes, sir. LLjur

q And you saw him with your two eyes on top, with naked buttocks?
a Yes, sir.
q Did you see if the body of Jimmy Mijano was moving sidewards or up and
down?
a I did not notice I saw only he was on top of the child.

(tsn, pp. 10-11, July 22, 1996)

Valiente's account of the incident nds support in Dina Ramirez' story recounting her
daughter's horrifying experience —
q If this Jimmy Mijano y Tamora is inside the court room, please point at
him?
a There, sir. (Witness pointing to a person in yellow T-shirt who stood up and
answered to the name of Jimmy Mijano, the accused in this case).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 q You stated a while ago accused is your neighbor will you please tell us
what place are you a neighbor of Jimmy Mijano?
a Inside the Carnival Park — Looban we are neighbors, sir.
q Let me take you back on May 10, 1996, in the afternoon, Madam Witness?
a Yes, sir.

q In the afternoon, could you tell this Honorable Court what were you doing?
a In the morning of May 10, 1996 I was then washing clothes while accused
Jimmy Mijano together with this friends was having a drinking session
under our house. My child was then playing and then my child together
with her children was brought by Jimmy away from our house called the
Helen Castral St.
q Then what happened when you came to know your daughter Hazel was
with other children with the accused at Helen Catral?
a It was like this in the afternoon it was drizzling. I asked my child's
playmates the whereabout of Hazel who told me that Jimmy was playing
with them and then I became suspicious and started looking for my child. I
went out of the street but I was unable to see my child and saw one
Arnulfo Valiente standing on the street and asked him if he saw my child
and answered "Yes I saw her together with Jimmy at Helen Catral St."

q Did you go to the place where you described as Helen Catral?

a Yes, sir.
q Who was your companion in going to Helen Catral?
a Arnulfo Valiente, sir.
q When you reached Helen Catral what did you observe if any?

a The place is a grassy area and near Bacoor and there is a river.
q When you went to the said Helen Catral where you able to see your
daughter Hazel?
a I was not able to see her but it was Arnulfo Valiente who first saw her.
q And when was the time you saw your daughter?
a At around 5 o'clock in the afternoon. cdphil

q In what place did you see Hazel?

a At Helen Catral St., sir.

q Will you tell this Honorable Court. Let me clarify Madam witness when you
went there after a few minutes also in the place of Helen Catral?
a Yes, sir.
q Will you please tell this Honorable Court what was the condition of your
daughter when you saw her?
a When I saw my daughter she was pale and when Arnulfo Valiente lifted her
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 we saw her vagina was bleeding.
q What else did you see, if any?
a She was bleeding profusely and her vagina was injured.
q How about her clothing?

a We were not able to see her clothes except her blouse which she was
wearing and she has no panty and skirt.

q How about the other part of the body did you observe any injury or
contusion?
a She has abrasion on the right hip, sir.

q You stated a while you brought your daughter to the police station here
after you brought your daughter to this police station of Las Pinas, what
happened next?
a The police suggested that my daughter be brought to the hospital because
of the profuse bleeding and we went directly to the NBI.
q What happened at the NBI Madam Witness?

a We were advised to bring the child to the PGH. They cannot examine the
vagina because of the profuse bleeding.
(TSN, pp. 3-4, July 22, 1996)

Prosecution witness Dr. Stella Guerrero Manalo con rmed the claim of victim Hazel
Ramirez that she was raped, to wit:
Q On your own medical and professional opinion based on the physical
examination you conducted on the person of the victim, what would have
caused this laceration? Would it have been caused by a penis?
A It is highly probable with the history given. And on the basis of the history
that I gathered from the child, I would say that it was a case for rape.
cdphil

(TSN, p. 5, Sept. 2, 1996)

Furthermore, the examination of the victim's underwear gave positive result for
seminal stains.
Accused-appellant's alibi that he was drunk with this friends when the rape was
committed, it is to be noted, remained but a stark, unsupported averment, as verily, the
defense neither identi ed nor presented any of the alleged drinking partners of accused-
appellant.
In sum, the Court fails to nd any serious aw in the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses nor in the conclusions of the trial court which, to the contrary, appear to be
properly founded on the direct, positive, and categorical statements made by Hazel and
her witnesses in most material points.
Finally, accused-appellant in his reply brief contends that the death penalty law is
violative of the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution because it punishes only
people like him, the poor, the uneducated, and the jobless.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The equality the Constitution guarantees is legal equality or, as it is usually put, the
equality of all persons before the law. Under this guarantee, each individual is dealt with as
an equal person in the law, which does not treat the person differently because of who he
is or what he is or what he possesses (Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, A Commentary, 1987 ed., p. 6).
Republic Act No. 7659 specifically provides:
xxx xxx xxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
with any of the following attendant circumstances:
xxx xxx xxx
4. When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.

xxx xxx xxx

Apparently, as it should be, the death penalty law makes no distinction. It applies to
all persons and to all classes of persons — rich or poor, educated or uneducated, religious
or non-religious. No particular person or classes of persons are identi ed by the law
against whom the death penalty shall be exclusively imposed. prLL

We have time and again emphasized that our courts are not the fora for a protracted
debate on the morality or propriety of the death penalty where the law itself provides such
punishment for speci c and well-de ned criminal acts ( People vs. Echegaray, 267 SCRA
682 [1997]). Further, compassion for the poor is an imperative of every humane society
but only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege (Cecilleville
Realty and Service Corporation vs. CA, 278 SCRA 819 [1997]). The evidence pointing to
accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime is overwhelming. The law punishes with
death a person who shall commit rape against a child below seven years of age. Thus, to
answer the query, the perpetration of rape against a 5-year old girl does not absolve or
exempt accused-appellant from the imposition of death penalty by the fact that he is poor,
uneducated, jobless, and lacks catechetical instruction. To hold otherwise will not
eliminate but promote inequalities.
Although four Justices of the Court continue to maintain their adherence to the
separate opinions expressed in People vs. Echegaray (supra) that Republic Act No. 7659 is
unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, they nonetheless submit to the
ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that death penalty should herein
accordingly be imposed.
Applying the new policy laid down in the case of People vs. Prades (G.R. No.
127569, July 30, 1998), the civil indemnity to be awarded to the offended party is and
should be P75,000.00. In addition, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are
likewise awarded without need for proof of the basis thereof. Lastly, accused-appellant is
liable to pay the victim the sum of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages as a deterrent
against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions (Del Rosario vs.
Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 158 [1997]).
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court nding accused-appellant Jimmy T.
Mijano guilty of Statutory Rape and sentencing him to suffer the severest penalty of death
is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the modifications above-stated. dctai

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the
Revised Penal Code, upon the nality of this decision, let the records of this case be
forthwith forwarded to the O ce of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning
power. No special pronouncement is made as to costs. cdll

SO ORDERED.
Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., is on leave.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com