People v.

Calma
G.R. No. 127126 - September 17, 1998
Ponente: Per Curiam

Topic: Rights of the Accused – Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty

Petitioner: People of the Philippines

Respondent: Rodrigo Calma y Sacdulan

Facts:

● Between May 1995 and March 8, 1996, Calma forced himself upon his two daughters Annalyn
and Roselyn, born on July 11, 1981 and December 28, 1985, respectively. During the same
period, accused-appellant inserted his finger into the sex organ of his youngest daughter, Irene,
born on June 29, 1991.
● Calma was charged with two (2) counts of Rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Sec. 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, and one (1) count of Acts of Lasciviousness under
Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Sec. 5(b) of Art. III of Republic Act No. 7610,
before the Regional Trial Court, 3rd Judicial Region, Malolos Bulacan, Branch 14 in the three (3)
separate Informations filed by his three daughters.
● Annalyn testified that her father had arrived home drunk in mid-May 1995 and forced her to
undress while holding an ice pick, then kissed her on different parts of her body including breasts
and vagina, threatening to kill their mother if she dared to disobey him. After several more
incidents, no longer satisfied he raped her inside the bedroom.
● Under threat of her mother and siblings being killed, Annalyn endured her father’s sexual abuse
until the last incident on March 3, 1996.
● Roselyn similarly testified that she was only 8 years old when her father starting molesting her on
occasions that no one else was in their house (the first incident in their living room), using the ice
pick to force her into obedience. He also threatened to kill their mother if she refused to let him
have his way. She recalled that she was last molested by Calma on March 8, 1996 as it was a day
before Calma’s birthday. On that date, Roselyn stated that a different ice pick was used to
threaten her as she had hidden the ice pick previously used by Calma.
● Irene, the youngest, testified to not loving her father anymore as he stuck his fingers in her
‘penching’ (vagina). She did not tell anyone about the incident, including their mother, as the
latter was away at their grandmother’s place. At the request of the prosecution, she positively
identified Calma as the man who molested her.
● Calma denied his daughters’ accusations and charged that his common-law wife, Myrna
Ignacio, had taught them to lie as revenge for his having hurt her seriously (twice via
electrocution) on suspicions of infidelity.
● In Calma’s defense, Catalina Calma, his neighbor, Gloria Ceraus, his mothers laundrywoman,
Eugenia Lontoc, his sister-in-law, Lolita Calma, family friend, Rosalie Ofrecio, and a confidante
of Annalyn, Larry Laurora, attested to the close family ties of the Calmas. They testified that
accused-appellants daughters, especially Annalyn, showed much affection towards their father.
 Catalina Calma, Lolita Calma and Larry Laurora even insinuated that Annalyn was in love with
her father and was seducing him.
● The medical examiner found healed laceration on the three girls’ hymens and stated they were in
‘non-virgin’ state due to their father’s continued sexual abuse.
● RTC convicted Calma on all three charges.

Issue + Held:

W/N the accused was deprived of his right to be presumed as innocent? NO.

The accused is presumed innocent unless the prosecution is able to establish evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt. In this case, the defendant contended that the lack of internal ejaculation and absence of
injury, as well as the continued affection shown to him by his daughters, indicates reasonable doubt
warranting his acquittal.

The SC defined reasonable doubt as “not such a doubt as any man may start by questioning for the sake of
a doubt; nor a doubt suggested or surmised without foundation in facts or testimony, for it is possible
always to question any conclusion derived from testimony, but such questioning is not what is reasonable
doubt. Rather, it is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the
evidence leaves the mind of the judge in that condition that he cannot say that he feels an abiding
conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge”.

The indications of reasonable doubt were debunked as follows:

1. Lack of internal ejaculation - Given the period of time between the last incidents of sexual abuse
and medical examination performed on May 3, 1996 (approximately 2 months), the sperm would
already have been washed off. Even then, emission of sperm is not sine qua non for establishment
of a rape case; it merely warrants penetration of the pudenda.
2. Daughters’ continued affection - The testimony came from Calma’s mother, however Annalyn
herself admitted that she was cutting classes at the time and was found crying in the library by her
classmates while Roselyn stated she was very bothered by the incidents.
3. Lack of injuries - the SC found it in poor taste that Calma would contend the penetration of an
adult penis in a minor’s vagina warranted hospitalization and medical attention. Once again the
Court emphasized the argument of the Solicitor-General that penetration (even if not complete)
was sufficient to warrant a conviction of rape.

Despite Calma’s arguments, the defense was unable to materially negate the testimonies of Calma’s
daughters on the sexual abuse they suffered at his hands. Thus, the findings of the medical examiner and
the three girls’ straightforward, unflinching testimonies have established his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
Ruling:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is HEREBY DENIED, and the judgment of conviction rendered by the
Regional Trial Court, 3rd Judicial Region, Malolos Bulacan, Branch 14, finding Rodrigo Calma y
Sacdalan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two (2) counts of Rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Sec. 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, and one (1) count of Acts of Lasciviousness
under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Sec. 5(B) of Art. III of Republic Act No. 7610, is
AFFIRMED with the slight modification that the civil indemnity in each of the three offenses is increased
to P75,000.00 in accordance with the latest jurisprudence on the matter. Accused-appellant RODRIGO
CALMA Y SACDALAN is hereby sentenced:

In Criminal Case No. 752-M-96

To the penalty of death to be carried out in accordance with law; and to indemnify Annalyn Calma in the
amount of P75,000.00, and to pay her the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages;

In Criminal Case No. 753-M-96

To the penalty of death to be carried out in accordance with law; and to indemnify Roselyn Calma in the
amount of P75,000.00, and to pay her the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and

In Criminal Case No. 754-M-96

To the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period; and to indemnify Irene Calma in the amount of
P50,000.00, and to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Four (4) Members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed
in People v. Echegaray[40] that R.A. No. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the penalty of DEATH is
unconstitutional, nevertheless, submit to the ruling of the Court, by a majority vote, that the law is
constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.

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

SO ORDERED.