4.

Rape

C. Hymenal Laceration

*People vs. Bangsoy, GR No. 204047, January 13, 2016

FACTS: This is case where an uncle raped his niece on two occasions in April 2004. The RTC
held the uncle guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of statutory rape. It gave credence
to the testimony of AAA that her uncle inserted his penis inside her vagina. The lower court
explained that AAA testified clearly despite her mental weakness and that she never wavered
during cross-examination. It further held that the uncle’s moral ascendancy over AAA, combined
with his use of a deadly weapon and threats of bodily harm, was more than enough to cow the
victim into submitting to his desires. In an appeal to the CA, the appellate court affirmed the
RCT’s ruling and substantiated that the absence of hymenal lacerations did not negate a finding
of rape. It added that rape is not always committed in seclusion since lust is no respecter of time
and place. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE(S) & RULING:

(1) Whether or not Bangsoy is liable of rape despite the mental state of the victim
YES. For a charge of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the
prosecution must prove that (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he
accomplished such act through force, threat or intimidation, when she was under 12 years of age
or was demented. Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under the
aforesaid provisions of law. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a mental retardate
is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. In this case, the prosecution successfully
established that AAA’s mental condition such that the psychologist testified that AAA was found
to be suffering from mild mental retardation with a corresponding mental age of 7 years and 1
month. Contrary to Bangsoy’s contention that he could not have raped AAA because he was in
Honeymoon Road and the place where the rape took place – Brookside – the Court held that both
places are located in Baguio and Bangsoy admitted that both places are as near as a 10 minute
walk therein. Under these circumstances, it was not physically impossible for Bangsoy to at the
locus criminis on the date of the first rape. The Court also held that the presence of the victim’s
father in the room does not negate the commission of the crime. Rape can be committed even in
places where people negate, in parks, along the roadside, within the school premises, inside a
house where there are other occupants and even in the room where there are other members of
the family are also sleeping. It is not impossible or incredible for the members of the victim’s
family to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexual assault is being committed.
While AAA also stated that the lights of the room had been turned off, it was not improbable for
her to see the face of the person who removed her panty and inserted his penis into her private
part more so since the room was illuminated by the lights coming from the nearby house. At the
distance that would allow the described insertion, the parties would be so near each other that
they could see and even smell one another. In addition, AAA categorically declared that she saw
Bangsoy’s face and was familiar with his voice. Whether AAA saw Bangsoy as her father’s
house before the rape is immaterial. The determining factor is that AAA positively identified him
as the person who covered her mouth with a piece of cloth; removed her panty’ inserted his penis
in her vagina; and threatened her bodily harm if she would reveal the rape to others. At any rate,
it is not proper to judge by adult norms of behaviour the actions of children who have undergone
traumatic experiences. Certainly, a child – more so in the case of AAA who is suffering from
mild retardation – cannot be expected to act like an adult or do what may be expected of mature
people under similar circumstances. However, the second rape cannot establish Bangsoy’s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. AAA’s testimony to the second rape was found to be overly
generalized; it lacks specific details on how the second rape was committed. Her bare statement
what the same thing happened as what had transpired during the first time is inadequate to
establish reasonable doubt that a succeeding rape took place. The testimony should have
mentioned that there was insertion of the penis, or at the very least a touching of the labia of the
pudendum. In a case decided by the Supreme Court, absolute guarantee of guilt is not demanded
by the law to convict a person of a criminal charge but there must at least be moral certainty in
each element essential to constitute the offense and in the responsibility of the offender. Such
certainty is absent in the generalized statement that the victim made.

(2) Whether or not Bangsoy is liable of rape despite the absence of hymenal lacerations
YES. The rupture of the hymen is not an essential and material fact in rape cases; it only further
confirms that the vagina has been penetrated and damaged in the process. Additionally, in the
present case, the genital examination on AAA was conducted on May 17, 2015, or more than one
year after the rape took place. At any rate, Dr. Marjorie Rebujio, medical officer III at the
Benguet General Hospital, clarified that the lack of hymenal injuries does not mean no sexual
abuse took place. Dr. Rebujio Further explained that the hymen heal fast and that it could go
back to its normal structure.

(3) Whether or not Bangsoy is liable of statutory rape

YES. Sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with a mental age of below 12
years old constitutes statutory rape. Notably, AAA was also below 12 years old at the time of the
incident as evidenced by the records showing that she was born on March 1, 1993. Under Article
266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the death penalty shall be imposed when the
victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of
the parent of the victim. In the present case, however, the relationship of Bangsoy to the victim
was not alleged. Nonetheless, the Information averred that AAA was a mental retardate and that
Bangsoy knew of this mental retardation. There circumstances raised the crime from statutory
rape to qualified rape or statutory rape in its qualified form under Article 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code. The CA is correct in affirming the penalty of Reclusion perpetua without the
eligibility of parole as imposed by the RTC.

*People vs. Lagbo, GR No. 207535, February 10, 2016

FACTS: The eldest of 6 children AAA was born on Feb. 17, 1988 and she was 12 years old
when her father first raped her. One afternoon in October 2000, AAA was washing dishes inside
their house. She was alone with her father, as her mother was at the marketplace selling
vegetables while her siblings were playing outside the house. All of a sudden, Lagbo grabbed her
and forcibly removed her short pants and her panty. After removing his short pants, Lagbo
pushed AAA and made her laid down on their “papag.” Thereafter, he boxed AAA’s face twice
and threatened to kill her mother and siblings. He then places himself on top AAA and made
pumping motions while covering her mouth and pulling her hair. AAA felt pain and cried as
Labo’s sex organ penetrated hers. After gratifying himself, Labo put on his clothes, sat beside
AAA and told her to stop crying. AAA did not relate this to her mother for fear that Labo would
make good his threat to harm her mother and siblings. This happened again in March 2001. This
time, however, AAA mustered the courage to relate this to her mother when the latter arrived. To
AAA’s disappointment, though, her mother refused to believe her. Labo committed again the
third rape on February 14, 2002. He and AAA were again left alone inside their house. She was
made to lie down on the kitchen floor where Labo succeeded in sexually defiling her. AAA was
finally able to report her rape to the police when her mother filed a complaint against Labo, on
April 3, 2003, for allegedly mauling her. The RTC found Labo guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of 3 counts of Qualified rape.

ISSUE & RULING:

(1) Whether or not Labo’s guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt
YES. The elements of qualified rape under Article 266-B of the RPC are the following: (a)
sexual congress; (c) with a woman; (3) done by force without consent; (4) the victim is under
eighteen years of age at the time of rape; (5) the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law
spouse of the parent of the victim. In this case, both the RTC and CA found that the prosecution
has been alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of qualified rape. The
Supreme Court agrees. As correctly held by the CA, AAA’s recollection of the heinous acts of
her father was vivid and straightforward. She was able to positively identify Labo as her sexual
assailant. While there are minor inconsistencies, her testimony was given in a categorical,
straightforward, spontaneous and candid manner. The rule is that the finding of the Trial Court,
its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight
thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not
conclusive effect. This is more true if the findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When
the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally
binding upon the Court. The Supreme Court did not agree with Labo that AAA’s consistent
testimony with respect to the places where she was raped in 2000 and 2002 bears heavily against
her credibility. With respect to the first rape, accused-appellant argues that AAA’s testimony that
the crime was committed in 2000 in their house in Bacog, Navotas could not be true because,
during that time, they were still residing somewhere in Kadiwa, Navotas, a place which is far
from Bacog. In a similar manner, accusedappellant contends that AAA’s claim that she was
raped on February 14, 2002 inside their house in Kadiwa, Navotas is not also true because at that
time, they were already residing in Bacog, Navotas. This Court has ruled that since human
memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has
never been used as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness. Second, Labo attributes ill
motive against AAA and claims that she may have concocted a story against him as she never
had a harmonious relationship with accused-appellant by reason of his constant mauling of her
mother and siblings. However, this Court has held that it takes much more for a young lass to
fabricate a story of rape, have her private parts examined, subject herself to the indignity of a
public trial and endure a lifetime of ridicule. Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a
certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman, like AAA, to concoct a story
which would put her own father for the most of his remaining life to jail and drag herself and the
rest of her family to a lifetime of shame.

(2) Whether or not the Supreme Court can give credence to the allegation of rape
considering that the examination showed that there was not laceration in the hymen
YES. Contrary to Labo’s assertion, there was no definitive statement in the medico-legal report
of Dr. Punongbayan, the physician who examined AAA, that the victim could not have been
subjected to sexual abuse. On the contrary, the said report stated that the “[g]enital findings do
not exclude sexual abuse and may still be compatible with the patient’s disclosure [of physical
and sexual abuse].” In her direct examination, Dr. Punongbayan explained that AAA’s hymen
was estrogenized, making it elastic, such that a fully erect male sex organ can penetrate AAA’s
vagina without causing hymenal injury. This Court, in a number of cases, has affirmed the
conviction of the accused for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim’s hymen, since
medical findings suggest that it is possible for the victim’s hymen to remain intact despite
repeated sexual intercourse. It has been elucidated that the strength and dilatability of the hymen
varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration
during intercourse. In any case, this Court has previously stated that a medical examination and a
medical certificate, albeit corroborative of the commission of rape, are not indispensable to a
successful prosecution for rape. Moreover, it is settled that the absence or physical injuries or
fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and although medical results may not indicate physical
abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be established since medical findings or proof of
injuries are not among the essential elements in the prosecution for rape. In the present case, the
credible disclosure of AAA that Labo raped her is the most important proof of the commission of
the crime. Indeed, the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction, if
the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable. If credible and convincing, that alone would be
sufficient to convict the accused. Moreover, testimonies or child victims are normally given full
weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has, in fact, been committed. When the
offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of
what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she
would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity. In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to
depart from the findings of both the RTC and the CA as to the credibility of the victim and her
testimony.

*People vs. Rodriguez, GR No. 208406, February 29, 2016

FACTS: Allan Rodriguez and AAA were neighbors. At around 3 o’clock in the afternoon of
December 18, 2004, AAA, who was then 27 years old but mentally retarded, was making rugs at
their house when Rodriguez called her to look after his one-year-old son as his wife was doing
laundry work at an employer’s house. AAA obliged and went to Rodriguez’s house. As soon as
she entered the house, appellant closed the door, kissed her, and removed her clothes and his
pants. He then inserted his penis into her vagina and it was painful. After satisfying his lust,
appellant wiped the “white thing” that came out of his penis. He then dressed AAA and warned
her not to tell anyone about the incident. Appellant just left and played cards with his friends
while AAA looked after his son until appellant’s wife came back. On December 25, 2004, AAA
told her mother, BBB, that Allan molested “ginalaw” her. BBB confronted Allan who just denied
the accusation. BBB brought AAA to the police station to file a complaint against Allan
Rodriguez. AAA was referred to the Regional Crim Laboratory of Laguna and was examined by
Dr. Roy Camarillo who issued a medical certificate which established that she has a deep
recently healed lacerations at 7 o’clock position which can be three weeks to two months old at
the time of physical examination on January 13, 2005. He testified that the multiple lacerations
were caused by the insertion of an erected penis or by a hard or blunt object. Upon receipt of the
letter referral from the RTC, Lorenda Gozar conducted a battery of psychological test on AAA
for two days and submitted her findings embodied in a Neuro-Psychiatric Examination and
Evaluation Report dated September 12, 2007. She diagnosed AAA to be suffering from severe
mental retardation with an IQ of 38 and a mental age consistent with a six years and two months
old child. She further testified that based on her examination and interview on AAA, the latter
can remember persons and incidents that happened in the past and she can testify in court
regarding the alleged rape even with her mental age of a six years old as a four (4)-year-old child
can do so. She also noted that AAA’s retardation was congenital because she started walking and
talking at the age of 3 years old when other can do the same at age one. The RTC found Allan
Rodriguez guilty of Rape. The CA affirmed the same. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE & RULING:
(1) Whether or not Allan Rodriguez is guilty of Rape
YES. The Revised Penal Code in Article 266-A thereof, he Supreme Court found that Allan
Rodriguez is guilty of Rape. Under the elements of the crime mentioned, the prosecution must
prove that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the 4 circumstances, to
wit: a) Through force, threat or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none
of the circumstances mentioned above be present. Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental
retardate is rape under the aforesaid provisions of law. Proof of force or intimidation is not
necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be
proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental
retardation of the latter. In this case, AAA’s mental condition was clearly shown by the
NeuroPsychiatric Examination and Evaluation Report submitted by psychologist Gozar which
indicated that AAA is suffering from severe mental retardation with an I.Q. of 38 and a mental
age equivalent to that of a six (6) year and two (2)-month-old child; and that AAA’s retardation
was congenital since the latter was able to walk and started talking at the age of three while
ordinarily a child should start walking and talking at the age of one. AAA positively identified
appellant as the person who raped her. She testified in a straightforward and clear manner that
appellant, whose house was just located at the back of their house, called her to babysit his one-
year-old son. When AAA entered appellant’s house, he closed the door, kissed her, removed her
clothing and then his own clothes and then inserted his penis into her vagina, and it was painful.
AAA’s claim of sexual intercourse was corroborated by the medical report of Dr. Camarillo
which showed the presence of a deep-healed laceration at 7 o’clock position which was assessed
to be three weeks to two months old which was caused by an insertion of an erected penis or a
hard or blunt object. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence
of forcible defloration. Rape can be established by the sole testimony of the victim that is
credible and untainted with serious uncertainty. With more reason is this true when the medical
findings supported the testimony of the victim, as in this case. When the victim’s testimony of
her violation is corroborated by the physical evidence of penetration, there is sufficient
foundation for concluding that there was carnal knowledge.

*People vs. Rebanuel, GR No. 208475, June 8, 2016

FACTS: The victim, AAA testified that on January 3, 2003 at around 7 o’clock in the evening,
she and her sister BBB went to the “Beta House” to watch a movie. The “Beta House” is located
at about 30-40 meters from the house where AAA and her family live. Along the way, AAA saw
neighbor, Rebanuel (appellant), following her and her sister. She easily recognized him because
of the illumination coming from the “Beta House.” When she entered, Rebanuel collected the
entrance fee from her. Afterwards, AAA went outside towards the back portion of the “Beta
House” to urinate. As she was pulling up her panties, she saw appellant approaching her, and she
was able to recognize him because of the light coming from the “Beta House.” Appellant then
pulled her to a hilly area about three meters away from the “Beta House” and told her not to
shout because her father might hear. AAA pleaded with appellant not to harm her for fear that
she will be scolded by her father. Despite this, appellant covered AAA’s mouth with his right
hand, removed her panties and his underwear, while standing behind her. Appellant, then in his
fifties, pushed his penis into AAA’s vagina. Due to the repeated pushing of appellant’s penis
against her vagina, AAA instantly felt pain. Appellant, however, failed to fully penetrate AAA.
Around the time for the generator to be turned off and for the children to leave the “Beta House,”
appellant went home, which was a few meters away. AAA cried after being left in that situation,
put on her panties, then immediately returned home. She did not reveal the incident to her father
as appellant told her that her father might kill appellant and she did not want that to happen.
During her testimony, AAA positively identified appellant as the man who raped her. CCC, the
mother of AAA, upon learning of the incident immediately consulted the officials of their
barangay, brought AAA to the DSWD and sought their help. She also reported it to the police.
Dr. Victor Nuico, the Municipal Health Officer of Negros Oriental, examined AAA on June 9,
2003 and wrote: Introitous admits 1 finger with difficulty. HYMEN – a suspect old-healed
laceration at 2 o’clock position. Dr. Nuico testified that the old laceration could have been
inflicted more than 2 weeks before the medical examination because of the absence of a
contusion. The RTC found Rebanuel to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the Crime of Rape
under Art. 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The CA affirmed. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE & RULING:

(1) Whether or not Rebanuel is guilty of rape
YES. The Suprem Court affirmed the decision of the CA and the RTC. The elements of statutory
rape are found in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code which is committed: (1) by a man
who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: xxx (d)
when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present. When the offended party is under 12 years of age,
the crime committed is “termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing
rape. What the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age. Thus, the
only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The
law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender
years. In this case, the elements of Statutory Rape are present in this case, in that: the prosecution
established the victim’s age by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., a certified true copy of her
birth certificate and the testimony of an employee of the Local Civil Registrar’s Office, who
confirmed that based on official records, AAA was born on October 16, 1993, and thus was only
nine years old at the time the incident happened on January 3, 2003. The Court of Appeals also
noted that appellant did not controvert AAA’s age, which made the matter an undisputed fact.
The healed laceration on the victim’s hymen does not serve to acquit appellant either. Hymenal
laceration is not an element of statutory rape, as long as there is enough proof of entry of the
male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ of the offended party who is
below 12 years of age. As held by the Court in People vs. Escoton: “The testimony of rape
victims are given full weight and credence, considering that no young woman, especially of
tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and
thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by
the desire to seek justice for the wrong done to her. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender
years who is not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so
serious as rape if what she claims is false. Considering that the victim in this case underwent a
harrowing experience and exposed herself to the rigors of public trial, it is unlikely that she
would concoct false accusations against the appellant, who is her uncle.”

*People vs. Suedad, GR No. 211026, June 8, 2016

FACT: AAA’s ordeal began when she was 11 years old, on October 20, 2008, when her father’s
initial gestures of affection led to a sexual intimacy AAA had known to only belong to a husband
and wife. AAA narrated in detail how she was helplessly and hopelessly ravaged by her own
father in their home. AAA alleged that Suedad repeated the unspeakable acts on the last week of
October 2008. Then again on 26 November 2008, AAA recounted that during her paternal
grandmother’s wake held at the house of the deceased, while sleeping in one of the rooms,
appellant woke her, choked her and succeeded in having sexual congress with her. On 13 March
2009, within the confines of their house, appellant once more had carnal knowledge of AAA.
Emboldened by the knowledge that her mother BBB would be home soon, AAA disclosed her
sufferings to her grandmother CCC on 15 April 2009 despite the threats to her life. The next day,
AAA, accompanied by her aunt, was subjected to a physical examination by Dr. Manansala. His
findings were contained in a medico-legal report which states:
PARTIAL HEALED LACERATION at 9 o’clock, 3 o’clock, HYMEN ADMIT FINGER WITH
EASE. During the direct examination, Dr. Manansala explained that an eleven (11)-year-old girl
who has had frequent sexual contact may suffer full or partial lacerations depending on the
thickness of the hymen. A thick and elastic hymen may accommodate the male anatomy without
lacerations. AAA was found to have a thick hymen. The appellant was found by the RTC as
guilty beyond reasonable double of three counts of qualified rape. The CA affirmed.

ISSUE & RULING:

(1) Whether or not Suedad is guilty of three counts of rape
YES. Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code rape is committed as follows: 1. By a man
who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a.
Through force, threat or intimidation; b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d. When the woman is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present. Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is
always rape. In this type of rape, force and intimidation are immaterial; the only subject of
inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes
that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the
child’s consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern evil from good. In
rape cases, primordial is the credibility of the victim’s testimony because the accused may be
convicted solely on said testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent
with human nature and the normal course of things. AAA clearly, spontaneously and
categorically testified that her father sexually abused her first at their house on 20 October 2008,
then at her deceased paternal grandmother’s house on 26 November 2008 and again at their
house on 20 March 2009. In fact, these instances may only be a fraction of the several times
appellant has had sexual congress with AAA leading her to sadly report that appellant treated her
as his wife. AAA’s testimony was corroborated by the findings of Dr. Manansala showing that
AAA had lacerations on her female anatomy. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are
the best evidence of forcible defloration. When the consistent and straightforward testimony of a
rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion
that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.

*People vs. Sonido, GR No. 208646, June 16, 2016

FACTS: On 29 December 2004, eight (8)-year-old AAA was sleeping in the sala of appellant’s
house and she awoke to find herself undressed with appellant, whom she calls Tatay Loreto (the
husband of her mother’s sister), on top of her. Appellant removed her underpants and inserted his
penis into her vagina. AAA complained of pain to no avail. The incident was repeated shortly
thereafter. Appellant then shouted threats against her and her family’s life. AAA subsequently
reported the incident to appellant’s neighbor, Amas, who then brought her to the Barangay
Captain. AAA was subjected to a physical examination by Dr. Banglot of the Davao Medical
Center, Women and Children Protection Unit. Dr. Banglot’s Medical Certificate states as
follows:
ANOGENITAL EXAM
Genetalia Annular Hymen. Non-
Estrogenized
No hymena laceration noted.
Anus Good sphincteric tone.

IMPRESSION
1. Disclosure of Sexual abuse
2. Medical Evaluation revealed: normal genital findings
Note: Normal genital finding do not exclude sexual abuse

During direct examination, Dr. Banglot explained that sexual abuse may have happened but did
not leave any mark on AAA’s body. She further stated that considering the lapse of time (about
twelve hours) between the incident and the examination, any abrasion would no longer be seen
and will have healed because female genitalia are very vascular and have ample blood supply.
The RTC found Sonido to be guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt defined and penalized
under Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The CA affirmed. Hence,
this petition.

ISSUE & RULING:

(1) Whether or not Sonido is guilty of rape
YES. The crime charged was rape under paragraph 1(d) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353. Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a
woman below twelve (12) years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it to the sexual
act. Proof of force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary. These are not elements of statutory
rape as the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of
twelve. At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is
incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. To convict an accused of the crime of
statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (1) the age of the complainant; (2)
the identity of the accused; and (3) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the
complainant. Full penile penetration of the female genitalia is likewise not required because
carnal knowledge is simply the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman. In
rape cases, primordial is the credibility of the victim’s testimony because the accused may be
convicted solely on said testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent
with human nature and the normal course of things. AAA vividly described the rape committed
against her as an eight-year-old on 29 December 2004. Her recollections during trial revealed a
credible and consistent narration of her ordeal with appellant’s hands. AAA disclosed details that
no child of her young age could have invented or concocted; she never wavered in her
allegations of rape against appellant that the Court is convinced that the RTC and the Court of
Appeals were correct in according full credence to her. Testimonies of child victims are given
full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and maturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity. Appellant’s argument that AAA’s testimony is rife with
inconsistencies, reason to acquit him of the crime charged, fails to convince the Court. While
indeed AAA’s medical examination did not show traces of injuries or lacerations, the rule is
settled that hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape. In fact, it has also been ruled that a
medical examination is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for
conviction in rape. Of primary importance is the clear, unequivocal and credible testimony of
private complainant which we so find in the instant case. The Court also has said often enough
that in concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not
an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the
external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute
carnal knowledge. To be precise, the touching of the labia majora or the labia minora of the
pudendum by the penis constitutes consummated rape. Herein, AAA unflinchingly testified that
appellant “inserted his penis but it was not fully inserted though it was pressed very hard” and
that she did feel appellant’s male anatomy inside her female anatomy but the latter pulled it out
“hurriedly.” The examining physician confirmed that any abrasion caused by the incident could
have healed in the intervening period as female genitalia are very vascular.

*People vs. Pusing, GR No. 208009, July 11, 2016

FACTS: AAA, a minor, is accused-appellant Edilberto Tamor Pusing’s (Pusing) foster daughter.
She, her mother (Pusing’s former live-in partner), and Pusing resided in his house. After AAA’s
mother’s death, Pusing took AAA in his custody. Soon, Pusing had AAA’s aunt, CCC, as his
common-law spouse. CCC is the sister of AAA’s mother. They all lived together. On or about
April 5, 2004, while they were at home, Pusing allegedly went on top of AAA, put his penis in
her mouth, mashed her breasts, kissed her on the lips, licked her vagina, and inserted his penis
into her genital. The next day, AAA’s cousin, BBB (CCC’s son from a previous marriage), came
to attend the wake of his brother (CCC’s other son). There, BBB was prodded by Pusing’s
neighbor to take AAA in his custody because Pusing allegedly did something to her. Alarmed,
BBB took AAA to his house in Manila, where she revealed the rape to BBB and his wife. BBB
assisted AAA in filing a complaint before the police. He was referred to the Philippine National
Police Crime Laboratory for AAA’s medical examination. AAA was examined on April 7, 2004.
In four (4) separate Informations, Pusing was charged with the rape and abuse of AAA, a 12-
year-old minor with the cognitive ability of a nine-year-old specifically on the following
incidents, to wit:
(a) through carnal knowledge of an offended party under 12 years of age or is demented,
under Article 266-A(1)(d), in relation to the special qualifying circumstance that the offender
knew of the offended party’s intellectual disability at the time of the commission of the crime;
(b) through sexual assault by inserting the offender’s penis into the offended party’s
mouth, under Article 266-A(2);
(c) Committing lascivious conduct on a victim under 12 years old, pursuant to Section
5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 – by causing AAA to masturbate the penis of the accused
(d) Committing lascivious conduct on a victim under 12 years old, pursuant to Section
5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 – by mashing the breast and licking the vagina of AAA

On April 16, 2004, Dr. Joseph Palermo issued a MedicoLegal Report finding that AAA had a
deep-healed laceration, with “clear evidence of blunt force trauma or penetrating trauma.” The
Sexual Crime Protocol also concluded that AAA, being 12 years old but still in Grade 2, is
mentally deficient. The RTC found Pusing guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 2 counts of rape
and 1 count of child abuse. The RTC and CA dismissed the allegation of sexual violence by the
causing the child to masturbate Pusing’s penis, as this was never proven in trial. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE & RULING:

(1) Whether or not Pusing is guilty of two counts of rape and 1 count of child abuse
YES. A careful examination of the records shows that there is nothing that would warrant a
reversal of the Decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. When a woman,
especially a minor, alleges rape, “she says in effect all that is necessary to mean that she has been
raped.” The prosecution satisfactorily established the elements to prove that accused appellant
raped and sexually abused AAA, a 12-year-old minor with the cognitive ability of a nine-year-
old. The lacerations sustained by AAA in her vagina, which, as Dr. Joseph Palermo testified,
could have been caused by a penetration, show that carnal knowledge happened. Lacerations,
whether fresh or healed, are the best physical evidence of rape. Article 266-B(10) of the Revised
Penal Code states that the penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape through
sexual assault is committed with any of the ten (10) aggravating/qualifying circumstances listed
in paragraph 6. In this case, the aggravating/qualifying circumstances of relationship and
minority (Article 266-B[6][1]) and the offender’s knowledge of the victim’s intellectual
disability (Article 266-B[6] [10]) are present. The rape was committed by a guardian or the
common-law spouse of AAA’s mother against the offended party’s foster child, whom he knew
had the cognitive ability of a nineyear-old. In view of the aggravating circumstances present, the
penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code (i.e., reclusion temporal) under Article 266-B(10)
shall be in its maximum period. Therefore, we impose the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12)
years of prisión mayor as minimum and 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

*People vs. Ausa, GR No. 209032, August 3, 2016

FACTS: in the afternoon of 22 June 2001, AAA was in the town plaza watching a contest when
a neighbor, appellant, dragged her to the back of a nearby school building. AAA screams and
pleas for help were futile, drowned out by the program’s loud music. Appellant removed AAA’s
underwear. AAA struggled to free herself but appellant overpowered her and forcibly inserted
his male organ into AAA’s. AAA cried and felt pain and discovered her female organ bleeding.
After appellant freed her, AAA went home with her female genitalia still bleeding. She then
related her ordeal to her mother who wasted no time in going to AAA’s grandmother to ask for
mutya ng tubig (healing water) for AAA to drink. The following day, BBB brought AAA to the
police authorities to report the incident and to a doctor for physical examination. Municipal
Health Officer Dr. Mario D. Baconawa (Dr. Baconawa) examined AAA on 23 June 2001 and he
issued a Medical Certificate which states as follows:
– Fresh lacerations of the hymen at 12:00 o’clock, 3:00 o’clock, 6:00 o’clock, 7:00 o’clock &
9:00 o’clock position
– Abrasion about .5 - 1 cm. in diameter at the posterior commissure
– Circular abrasions around the labia minora
– Vaginal canal admits one finger without resistance and with blood oozing from the vaginal
canal
– Vaginal smear for the presence of spermatozoa (no result available)
– No other pertinent physical examination finding
Dr. Baconawa explained during trial that AAA’s lacerations could have been caused by the
insertion of a male organ and that such number of lacerations are attributable to the weakness of
the hymen. Ausa denies and interposes alibi. The RTC found Ausa guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of rape. The CA affirmed. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE & RULING:

(1) Whether or not Ausa is guilty of Statutory Rape
NO. Statutory rape under paragraph 1(d) of Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No.
8353, is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve (12) years of age
regardless of her consent, or the lack of it to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation, or
consent is unnecessary as the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim
is below the age of twelve (12). However, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (1) the
age of the complainant; (2) the identity of the accused; and (3) the sexual intercourse between the
accused and the complainant. The age of the victim is an essential element of statutory rape;
thus, it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. In People v. Pruna, the Court laid
down the guidelines in determining the age of the victim: 1. The best evidence to prove the age
of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such
party.
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove
age.
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or a member of
the family either by  affinity  or consanguinity  who is qualified to testify  on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule
130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is
less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is
less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she
is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the
victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victim’s age, the complainant’s testimony will
suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of
the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.
6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.

Herein, the age of AAA at the time of the commission of the crime was not sufficiently
established. Other than bare testimonial evidence insufficient to meet the legal requirement, no
other evidence was presented to prove AAA’s age. Thus, appellant cannot be convicted of
statutory rape but of simple rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the RPC, as amended by
R.A. No. 8353, the gravamen of which is carnal knowledge of a woman using force, violence,
intimidation or threat alleged in the information. AAA vividly described the rape committed
against her on 22 June 2001. Her eloquent recollections during trial revealed a credible, candid,
unequivocal and consistent narration of her ordeal, positively identifying it was suffered at
appellant’s hands. The medical report and the testimony of the examining physician, Dr.
Baconawa, confirm the truthfulness of the charge. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh,
are the best evidence of forcible defloration. When the consistent and straightforward testimony
of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a
conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.

*People vs. Tuboro, GR No. 220023, August 8, 2016

FACTS: AAA testified that Dario Tuboro is the brother-in-law of her father, Ireneo T. Melgar.
She could not recall the specific date when she was raped, but it occurred when Susan Tuboro,
Dario’s wife, invited her over their house in Sitio Bulao, Cainta, Rizal. With the permission of
Ireneo, she agreed to come as she was told by her aunt that her uncle was not there. The
following day, however, Dario arrived while Susan left early for work. AAA was sleeping alone
when at dawn she was awakened and was surprised to see him lying beside her. He placed
himself on top of her and removed her panty. She punched him, but he still succeeded in using
her. He held her two hands and boxed her in the chest. After the detestable act was done, AAA
could do nothing but cry. She was only fourteen (14) years old at the time, having been born on
February 27, 1982. Previously, in April and October 1996, Dario also sexually abused AAA
several times in her father’s house in Payatas, Quezon City. At the time, he and Susan, together
with their three children, were living in the house of Ireneo, who was residing in Antipolo City
together with his new wife. AAA’s paternal grandmother, Crisanta Melgar, also used to stay in
Payatas, but she was in Bicol from April to October 1996. AAA’s mother was staying in Las
Piñas with AAA’s sister. AAA stated that she was raped three times in Payatas in April 1995, but
she could not recall the exact dates. What she could only remember was that the first one took
place while she was alone with Dario while Susan was at work and her cousins went to Bicol due
to the death of Ireneo’s sibling; a week after, she was raped again in the evening while Susan
was in Bicol; and that the third incident, before she graduated from elementary, occurred in the
early morning while Susan was at work and her cousins left for Bicol. As to the alleged rape
incidents in Payatas, AAA admitted that she did not tell anybody what happened because Dario
threatened to kill her. He actually threatened her before she was raped for the first time by
pointing a knife at her. She did not leave the house in Payatas because she had nobody to turn to.
Her grandmother was in Bicol and she did not know where her father was living in Antipolo or
where her mother was staying with her own family. She did not take steps to write them as she
was confused. Even if she had seen her father between April and October 1996, as the latter had
visited Payatas to give her educational support, they did not talk to each other because, aside
from Dario’s threat, they were not close to each other since she turned 11 years old. Although
she was free to go where she wanted to, she also did not know where the barangay hall was. The
RTC found Dario guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape. The CA affirmed.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE & RULING:

(1) Whether or not Dario is guilty of rape despite the discrepancies in the dates of the
commission of the crime
While AAA admitted that she could not remember the exact month when she was raped by
Dario, We agree that she could exactly remember what he had done to her. In fact, even Dario
admitted in his Brief that AAA relayed the details of the alleged molestation in Sitio Bulao
although she could not remember when it happened. AAA conceded that she was not in her
proper senses when she gave the statement to the Antipolo Police Station on December 27, 1996;
that she was confused at the time; and that she was already worried because of the trouble she
was causing her family. These are but understandable natural reactions coming from a minor
victim who sadly experienced repeated sexual abuse from a relative. Nonetheless, the
discrepancies in AAA’s testimony regarding the exact date of the alleged rape subject of this
case are inconsequential, immaterial, and cannot discredit her credibility as a witness. The
Supreme Court held that the date of the rape need not be precisely proved, considering that it is
not a material element of the offense. It is sufficient that the Information alleges that the crime
was committed on or about a specific date. What is decisive in a rape charge is that the
commission thereof by the accused-appellant has been sufficiently proven. Alleged motives of
family feuds, resentment, or revenge are not uncommon defenses in rape cases, and have never
swayed the Court from lending full credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained
steadfast throughout her testimony.

It has been invariably held that an intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was
raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even the briefest of contacts
and without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. The
trial court in this case considered the finding of the medico-legal officer that even if the hymen
of AAA is intact it is distensible such that a calibrated test tube was able to pass through the
hymenal canal without producing any injury. In any case, it was stressed that medical findings of
injuries or hymenal lacerations in the victim’s genitalia are not essential elements of rape.

*People vs. Cruz, GR No. 205200, September 21, 2016

FACTS: On 2 January 2006, AAA (13 years old) was at her school for a dance practice. At
around 1:00 in the afternoon, she received a text message from the appellant inviting her to come
with him to a pictorial. AAA, who had known the appellant for more than two (2) years then as
her godfather and piano tutor, accepted the invitation. Shortly thereafter, the appellant arrived in
his motorcycle at the XYZ school to fetch AAA. AAA boarded the motorcycle and the appellant
drove off. The appellant drove the motorcycle all the way to Pasig City and proceeded to the area
of the city where motels were prevalent. The appellant stopped at one of the motels, later
identified to be the Queen’s Court motel in Pasig, and parked his motorcycle. After parking, the
appellant alighted from his motorcycle, held both hands of AAA and told the latter: “Huwag ka
nang magulo at huwag kang sisigaw at hindi ka na makakauwi.” The appellant then dragged
AAA, who was then still wearing a helmet, to one of the rooms of the Queen’s Court. Once
inside the room, the appellant removed AAA’s blouse and brassiere as well as the helmet worn
by the latter. AAA tried to resist by pushing the appellant away from her, but the appellant only
pushed her back towards the bed. On the bed, AAA threw kicks at the appellant, but the latter
stood firm and was able to remove the remaining articles of AAA’s clothing. The appellant then
held both hands of AAA and started to remove his own clothes. After undressing, the appellant
laid on top of AAA where the former had his “organ” directly pointed at the latter’s. At that
position, AAA felt something penetrate her “organ.” The appellant then threatened AAA not to
shout or else he was going to kill her. AAA could no longer recall how many times her “organ”
was penetrated at that moment, but she knew that the entire incident lasted for about fifteen (15)
to twenty (20) minutes. After the appellant had finished, AAA was left crying at the edge of the
bed. AAA was then told by the appellant to put her clothes back on. Once AAA was dressed, the
appellant dragged her towards his parked motorcycle and made her board the same. The
appellant then drove back to XYZ school. The appellant dropped AAA off at the XYZ school at
around 4:00 in the afternoon. Before leaving, the appellant told AAA not to report to anyone
what happened between them. AAA then went home. According to AAA, she was only able to
confide to her parents what she had gone through on 4 January 2006 or two (2) days after the
incident. In addition to AAA, the prosecution also presented a medico-legal, Dr. Joseph Palmero
to testify the details of the result of examination on AAA. It was found that AAA’s hymen had
“a deep healed laceration at 3 o’clock position and a shallow healed laceration at 9 o’clock
position” that are consistent with “blunt force or penetrating trauma.” He, however,
acknowledged the possibilities that said lacerations could have been more than two (2) days old
at the time of AAA’s examination and that they could have been produced by causes other than
sexual intercourse. Dr. Palmero also stated in his findings that AAA’s vagina had no traces of
sperm in it at the time it was examined. Cruz countered that they had been lovers since
December 2005. The RTC found Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article A(1)
(a) of the RPC. This was sustained by the CA. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE & RULING:
(1) Whether or not Cruz is guilty of rape
YES. Although AAA, in her testimony, was not able to explicitly state that it was the penis of
the appellant that penetrated her vagina, she was able to provide ample details from which the
conclusion of consummated sexual intercourse can be had. AAA’s detailed narration reveals the
different circumstances that make up the factual context of that critical moment when she felt
something penetrate her vagina (“Naramdaman ko po na may pumasok po sa organ ko”). Such
circumstances are:
1. That, at the time AAA felt something penetrate her organ, the appellant was positioned on top
of AAA;
2. That, at the same time, both the appellant and AAA were naked.
3. That, at such position in the state of nakedness, the appellant’s “organ” was directly in front
AAA’s “organ.”
With the foregoing circumstances serving as context of AAA’s penetration, it becomes
abundantly clear that the some thing or the “meron” that AAA felt penetrating her “organ” is
actually and can only be the penis of the appellant. AAA’s claim of rape is not discounted by the
mere fact that the results of her medico-legal examination revealed no fresh lacerations in her
hymen. As elucidated by Dr. Palmero, the absence of fresh lacerations was only an indication
that, prior to 2 January 2006, AAA’s hymen may have already been torn via penetration from a
blunt object or even an accident. Such finding, however, does not preclude the possibility of
AAA having been raped on 2 January 2006 since a newly ruptured hymen on the part of the
victim is not, and has never been, an element of rape.
Cruz failed to present strong evidence to support his claim that he and AAA were in a relationship. First,
he failed to present the photograph of them together. We cannot even assume its existence because
while the [appellant] claims that, in the photograph, AAA was sitting on his lap, the other
witness, [Tristan], testified that the accused and AAA were seated side by side. Furthermore,
appellant claims that only AAA was covered with blanket which is contrary to [Tristan’s]
statement that both appellant and AAA were covered. Clearly, such conflicting statements cannot
deserve any credence.

*People vs. Bensurto, Jr., GR No. 216061, December 7, 2016

FACTS: The victim, AAA, was born on July 10, 1991, and sometime in February 1999, when
she was only 9 years old, she was left alone by her adoptive mother, BBB, in their house,
together with appellant Bensurto Jr., her father (as indicated in the birth certificate presented
before the court). While she was sleeping in her room, appellant entered thereat with a rope in
his hand. AAA was awakened by the presence of her father who proceeded to tie her feet.
Appellant then pulled AAA’s underwear to her feet and immediately laid on top of her.
Thereafter, appellant undressed himself and then forced his penis into AAA’s vagina. After
appellant satisfied his carnal desires, he threatened AAA not to tell anyone about the incident or
else he would kill her and her mother. Fearing for her life, as well as her mother, AAA never told
anyone about the incident. The said incident, however, was repeated sometime in June 2000.
After appellant ordered their house helper to go home, he instructed AAA to sleep in his room.
Left alone with only her father as companion, she was forced to accede to her father’s demand.
While in the appellant’s room, the latter pulled down AAA’s underwear and again sexually
abused her despite her pleas not to. Appellant again told her not to tell anyone under the threat of
death upon her and her mother. AAA was only able to relate the incident to her mother in
November 2000. Subsequently, AAA and her mother went to Edna Romano, the Rural Health
Midwife of Cabitan, Mandaon, Masbate to seek assistance. Romano, thereafter, accompanied
BBB and AAA to the Mandaon Medicare Community Hospital where AAA was examined by
Dr. Napoleon Villasis. Based on the examination, AAA was found to have hymenal tears at 10
o’clock position. Hence, two (2) Informations were filed against appellant. After more than 7
years since AAA testified in court, the latter retracted her previous testimony that she was raped
by appellant. Testifying for the defense, AAA narrated that she was not raped by her father and
was merely being dictated by her mother to fabricate the rape charges against appellant so as to
allow her mother to live freely together with her paramour. The RTC found Bensurto guilty of 2
counts of rape. The CA affirmed. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE & RULING:

(1) Whether or not Bensurto Jr is guilty of rape
YES. Under paragraph 1(a) of Article 266-A of the RPC, the elements of rape are: (1) that the
offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through
force, threat, or intimidation. However, when the offender is the victim’s father, as in this case,
there need not be actual force, threat or intimidation because when a father commits the odious
crime of rape against his own daughter who was also a minor at the time of the commission of
the offenses, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and
intimidation. All the elements, therefore, are present. The clear and straightforward testimony of
AAA, as corroborated by the medical findings show beyond reasonable doubt that AAA was
already in a nonvirginal state after she was raped. When the victim’s testimony is corroborated
by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of
the essential requisite of carnal knowledge. The appellant claims that the medical evidence, with
respect to the lacerations on the hymen of AAA, failed to convincingly corroborate the crime of
rape as the cause of the same was not determined with possibility. This is a flawed argument.
The medical report revealed that AAA suffered hymenal lacerations at 10 o’clock position and it
must be emphasized that the said examination was made in November 2000, or months after the
incidents of rape occurred in February of 1999 and June of 2000. Thus, the CA was correct when
it ruled that the presence of such healed lacerations is consistent with and corroborative of
AAA’s testimony that she had indeed been raped by appellant months before the date of the
medical examination. The healed lacerations on the victim’s hymen do not disprove that
accused-appellant raped the victim and cannot serve to acquit him. Proof of hymenal laceration
is not even an element of rape, so long as there is enough proof of entry of the male organ into
the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. As to the retraction of AAA, this Court has ruled
that when a rape victim’s testimony is straightforward and marked with consistency despite
gruelling examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded. If such
testimony is clear, consistent and credible to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt, a
conviction may be based on it, notwithstanding its subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a
prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate her original testimony.