G.R. No. 190620 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HERMINIGILDO B. TABAYAN, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Court finds the wherein appellant] Herminigildo B. Tabayan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape , defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, [16] and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA . The [appellant is also ordered to pay the victim [AAA] the following: Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity; and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50.000.00) as moral damages. [17] (Emphasis supplied). The appellant appealed [18] the judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated 17 September 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the guilty verdict and the sentence imposed by the trial court. It, however, increased the award of moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 and, in addition, awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED . The Decision dated [25 January 2008] of the [RFC], Branch 53, Rosales, Pangasinan[,] finding [herein] appellant Herminigildo B. Tabayan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that in addition to the court a quo's award of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (P75,000.00) PESOS as civil indemnity ex-delicto . appellant is further ORDERED to pay private complainant the amount of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (P75.000.00) PESOS as moral damages [19] and TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND [(P25,000.00)] [PESOS] as exemplary damages. [20] Hence, the instant recourse. [21] In his brief, the appellant raises the lone assigned error that: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE [HEREIN APPELLANT] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE. [22] The appellant vehemently believes that the prosecution miserably failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as there was no physical evidence on record that will conclusively support AAA's testimony that she was raped by him or that there was sexual intercourse between them. Firstly , the result of AAA's medical examination disclosed that her hymen was intact or without any laceration, thus, negating the allegation that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. Secondly , neither the greenish vaginal discharge found at AAA's vaginal opening nor the reddening of her labia established sexual intercourse between her and the appellant. As testified to by Dr. Guiang herself, aside from gonorrhea , such greenish vaginal discharge may also be caused by pseudomonas infection, which can be acquired through droplet transmission. In the same way, the reddening of AAA's labia could have been caused either by the contact of the penis or by the discharge itself. The appellant maintains that he could only be held liable for acts of lasciviousness and not for rape because what has been clearly established is the fact that he merely touched AAA's vagin