G.R. No. 192239 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RICARDO PAMINTUAN Y SAHAGUN, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in the light of the foregoing premises, this Court finds that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in committing the crime of Rape under Article [266-A], par. 1 [of] the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act 8353, and hereby sentences Ricardo Pamintuan Y Sahagun to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; further, to indemnify [AAA], the amount of Fifty Thousand (Php50,000.00) Pesos, as civil indemnity; the amount of Fifty Thousand (Php50,000.00) as moral damages, and to pay the costs. [20] The RTC found that AAA was only about 11 years old when she was raped by accused-appellant. The trial court gave more weight to her testimony, which was found to be categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and delivered in a frank manner. The trial court also downplayed the absence of injuries on the part of AAA as a result of the sexual abuse, citing rulings of the Court that such may be attributed to numerous factors and that the hymen of the victim need not be penetrated or ruptured for rape to be consummated. On the other hand, accused-appellants unsubstantiated defense of denial was disregarded by the trial court. Accused-appellant was only convicted of statutory rape punishable by reclusion perpetua as the qualifying circumstance of relationship, i.e., that he was the common-law husband of AAAs mother, was not alleged in the information. Accused-appellant appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. [21] The Decision of the Court of Appeals On November 24, 2009, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the RTC in this wise: WHEREFORE , for lack of merit, the instant appeal is DISMISSED . The June 17, 2008 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 38 is AFFIRMED in toto . [22] The Court of Appeals was convinced that the elements of the crime of rape had been proven in this case. The appellate court gave more weight to AAAs testimony as compared to the bare denial of accused-appellant. The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument of accused-appellant that the absence of external signs, indicating that AAA was sexually abused, negated her claim of rape. The appellate court ruled that carnal knowledge, unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual intercourse, does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured. As the relationship of AAA to accused-appellant was not specifically alleged in the information, the Court of Appeals held that no qualifying circumstance was attendant in the case. The Ruling of the Court On appeal [23] before this Court, accused-appellant again pleads for his acquittal, arguing that the trial court gravely erred in rendering a verdict of conviction despite the fact that [his] guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. [24] Accused-appellant insists that the medical findings and the testimony of Dr. Merle Tan belied AAAs claim that she was raped seven times. Accused-appellant points out that if he in