DOCTRINE : IN BOLD

FACTS
- On Nov 30,2005 accused appellant was charged with statutory rape, unlawfully having
carnal knowledge with (AAA) who is under 12 yrs old.
- During the trial, the prosecution presented AAA who was then 10 yrs old. She testified that
on her way home for lunch, she was brought by Rodrigo (accused) to his room and
proceeded raising her skirt, removing her panties and having carnal knowledge with her,
after which she was given 5 pesos
- When she got back to school at 2:10pm, her adviser Agustina asked why she was tardy,
AAA answered she came from “uncle rod” to ask for money. Agustina then brought her to
Rona another teacher and later to the principal
- When AAA was inspected by her teachers, they were able to confirm that AAA was
touched since the latter’s private parts were swelling and her parties were wet. AAA was
then brought to the hospital
- The prosecution also presented Dr. Asunción Orgues as an expert witness, he testified
that there was indeed trauma that could have been caused by sexual abuse and
hematomas based from medical certificates
- In his defense, Rodrigo denied that AAA went to his house at 12nn as he was at work at
1:30. And admitted that he knew AAA and a similar case was filed before but was settled
in the Barangay. Rodrigo was also brought to the hospital wherein he was identified as
the rapist by AAA
- RTC convicted Rodrigo, to which the latter appealed arguing that AAA testimony did not
meet the quantum of proof needed. As AAA did not cry for help despite her house was
just nearby.
- CA affirmed the RTC decision

ISSUE WON the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused was guilty
RULING
- YES, AAA was able to narrate in a clear and categorical manner the ordeal that was done
to her. As a child-victim who has taken signifcant risks in coming to court, her testimony
deserves full weight and credence.
People v. Veloso stated that
…...testimonies of child- victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence.
Reason and experience dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely understands
sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if
what she claims is not true. Her candid narration of how she was raped bears the
earmarks of credibility, especially if no ill will — as in this case — motivates her to
testify falsely against the accused. It is well-settled that when a woman, more so
when she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is required
to prove the ravishment. The accused may thus be convicted solely on her testimony
— provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and
the normal course of things

- AAA’s testimony was further supported by the testimonies of her teachers that led to the
discovery of the crime and the Medical certificates by the examining physicians
- As to Rodrigo’s argument the court said, “whether she cried for help is immaterial in a
charge of statutory rape since "[t]he law presumes that such a victim, on account of her
tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her own”