G.R. No. 179277 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. REMON COJA Y SIMEON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Remon Coja guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under paragraph (1) (b) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. [No.] 8353, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . Further, he is hereby ordered to pay to private complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. [14] The issues boil down to two, namely: whether rape was consummated, and whether criminal culpability may be imputed to appellant. In concluding that AAA was raped, the RTC relied on the findings of the medico-legal officer, thus: In the case at bar, the report of the medico-legal officer shows that [AAA] did not sustain extra-genital physical injury and her hymen was intact. Recent injury was, however, noted on her genitalia. Thus, the labia majora was gaping, the labia minora `coaptated,' and the fourchette was tense with "reddish superficial abrasion." To the mind of this Court, these medical findings indicate more than mere scraping of the mons pubis or pudendum. At the very least, they show that there was touching of the labia majora and labia minora and therefore it may be legally said that private complainant's private organ was indeed penetrated or entered. Indeed, a gaping labia minora shows consummation of rape x x x The nature of the genital injuries are [ sic ] also reasonably consistent with penetration by the male organ. Anent the abrasion on the fourchette, Dr. Soliman testified the same could have been caused by pressure by a male organ on the outer part of the genitalia. [AAA] also stated that she felt pain on her abdominal area and her legs. Such pain could have been caused by pressure exerted on that area, such as by a person lying on top of her. (Citations omitted) [15] On the basis of circumstantial evidence presented, the RTC had no doubt that appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. It found that: In the case at bar, the evidence shows that accused was known to [AAA] at the time of the incident and she could have easily identified him as the person who covered her mouth while two men held her arms. It is also reasonable to deduce that only the accused and his companions could have had control over the person of [AAA] after she was rendered unconscious and it was only they who could have sexually molested her. The evidence also shows that after she regained consciousness, [AAA] realized that she was abandoned at the wooded and grassy area and she felt weak. Her shoes were missing, her legs were spread apart, her pants have been lowered, and her bra was inverted. As earlier stated, she also felt pain in her abdominal area and her legs. These circumstances are telltale signs of sexual assault and this Court gives full faith and credence to [AAA's] testimony thereon. She testified in a direct and forthright manner on the witness stand and there is nothing in the