G.R. No. 218277 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. XXX[1], ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated November 11, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 106, Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. Q-08-151411, finding accused-appellant [XXX] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED . [45] (Emphasis in the original) Discontented, accused-appellant appealed [46] his case before Us. Issue The main issue is whether or not accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Statutory Rape. Accused-appellant argues that AAA's testimony does not deserve full credit since there is doubt as to her motive, considering that he was known to be a stern disciplinarian who usually spanked her and hit her mother. Thus, the victim, for fear that she would be left behind with him if her mother left, invented a story in order to escape further harm. [47] Moreover, he contends that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact of carnal knowledge, the central element in the crime of Rape. [48] He emphasizes that AAA did not respond to material questions such as: "(1) why she did not immediately tell her mother about the incident; (2) what was [he] doing while in the act of penetrating her; and (3) x x x why she was afraid of [him]." [49] He adds that AAA's testimony bore inconsistencies which invited uncertainty as to the veracity of her statements. [50] He further avers that the physical evidence, specifically the medical findings of PCI Baluyot, did not corroborate AAA's testimony as supposedly, the possibility that a penis might have caused trauma in the vagina was ruled out. [51] In the same way, he asserts that he should be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, given that an accusation is not synonymous with guilt. [52] The People counters that AAA's straightforward testimony was corroborated by PCI Baluyot's testimony who stated that "there was redness on both sides of the labia minora, while the hymen was swollen or 'maga' which [may] have been caused by a blunt trauma, or by an object that is not sharp." [53] PCI Baluyot testified that it is possible that a penis did not penetrate the vagina but only stayed at the opening. The People argues that mere touching of the labia of the female organ already consummates the crime of rape, even if the hymen is still intact. [54] It asserts that although accused-appellant claims that AAA's credibility and motives are doubtful, her statements should not be discounted given that people react differently to a situation involving a startling occurrence. Additionally, it opines that the testimony of a child-witness is normally given full weight, and the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of a witness should be considered as it had the opportunity to directly observe the testimonies of the witnesses. [55] Our Ruling The appeal lacks merit. Article 266-A, paragraph (1) of the RPC describes how rape is committed as follows: Article 266-A. Rape: When and Ho