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 accusedappellant 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 mothers 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,
Paraaque, 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 accusedappellant'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 Paraaque, 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 crossexamination 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 accusedappellant 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.