PEOPLE vs.
ECHEGARAY ISSUE: WON the RTC QC:
Per Curiam | June 25, 1996
FACTS
 In April 1994, Rodessa was at home taking care of her brothers.
o Her mother was gambling somewhere else.
o Her father ordered her brothers to get out of the house.
 Her father dragged her inside a room.
o Removed her panty and laid her on the floor
o Removed his underwear and placed himself on top of her
o Forcefully inserted his penis which caused her severe pain
o He asked: ‘Masarap ba, masarap ba?’
o She answered: ‘Tama na Papa, masakit’
 Rodessa’s plea proved futile.
o After raping her, he threatened to kill her mother if she talks.
o Rodessa was frightened of him because he was always on drugs.
 The same happened up to 5 times.
o After the 5th time, Rodessa decided to inform her grandmother.
o Her grandmother told her mother.
o Rodessa and her mother went to the Barangay Captain.
 At first, her mother was on her side.
o When her father was detained, her mother switched side.
 The medico-legal officer found lacerations on her hymen.
Leo Echegaray’s Defense
 Rodessa’s mother said the rape was only imagined by her grandmother.
 Leo presented several defenses on his behalf:
o That Rodessa’s grandmother has an adverse claim in a property.
o That he was painting a house in Parañaque at the time of the crime.
o That he has a big organ which would rupture Rodessa’s organ.
o That Rodessa’s grandmother was irked that he was sent to
rehabilitation instead of death penalty for drug pushing.
 Mrs. Punzalan, part time baby sitter of Rodessa, testified that she saw
Rodessa reading sex books.
o She also saw Rodessa masturbate while she was hanging clothes.
 Silvestre Echegaray corroborated Mrs. Punzalan’s assertions.
o She saw Rodessa go out with friends of ill-repute
o She saw Rodessa viewing an X-rated tape and masturbating
RTC QC’s Ruling: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape
Sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH
(a) Failed to appreciate the sinister motive of Rodessa’s
grandmother, hence it erred in convicting Leo Echegaray – NO
(b) Overlooked the fact that the healed lacerations could not have
been due to the pumping of a penis, hence it erred in
convicting him despite vehement denial – NO
(c) Whimsically ignored the defense of alibi, hence it erred in
holding that alibi is not sustainable in this case – NO
(d) Erred in considering this a case of statutory rape - NO
RATIO
 The SC adheres to the following principles in light of the re-imposition of the
death penalty:
(a) An accusation of rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to
prove but even more difficult to disprove
(b) Since only 2 people are involved, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution
(c) The evidence for the prosecution must stand on its own merits
and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense
 The SC believes, as the Sol-Gen did, that no grandmother would be so
callous as to instigate her 10 year old granddaughter to file a rape case
against her own father simply on account of her alleged interest over the lot.
 It is a jurisprudential rule that the testimony of a rape victim is credible when
she has no motive to testify against the accused
o The minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses can be reconciled.
(a) Leo being naked vs. still wearing shorts when he dragged her
(b) Leo uttering ‘Masarap ba?’ vs. ‘Masarap, tapos na’
(c) Rodessa going to her grandmother vs. otherwise
 The records are bereft of clear proof of Leo’s claim as to the size of his penis
and that if true, it could not have merely caused shallow healed lacerations
but would rupture Rodessa’s vagina.
o The SC gives no probative value on this self-serving statement.
 In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element.
o A mere contact of the pudenda suffices, full entry is not required
o The healed lacerations were consistent with the date of rape
 Echegaray erroneously argued that the Contract of Services in support of his
alibi need not be corroborated because there is no law requiring so.
o Since Rodessa has no motive to falsely testify against him, his
defense of alibi, without corroboration, should be disregarded.
o More so, alibi becomes weaker when he was positively identified.
o The Contract of Services is not proof of his whereabouts at the time
of the commission of the rape.
  Even if Leo was not the father, stepfather, or grandfather, this disclaimed
cannot save him
o Considering that he is a confirmed lover of Rodessa’s mother, he
falls within the Death Penalty Law under the term “common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim.”

 The fact that the 10 year old Rodessa referred to Leo as “Papa” is enough to
conclude that he is either the father or stepfather.
o Hence, the rape has become all the more repulsive and perverse.
o Rodessa’s tender age and Leo’s moral ascendancy over her are
factors which forced her to succumb to his desires.
o Under these circumstances, it is inevitable for him to face death.

RULING

AFFIRM decision of RTC QC