G.R. Nos. 111563-64; February 20, 1996
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBINO GALIMBA Y SISON, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Two separate Informations charged accused-appellant Albino Galimba, the maternal uncle of ten-year-old Maria Sarah Villareal, with rape committed in September and on December 19, 1991, in Manila. At trial, Sarah testified that in September 1991, appellant pulled her into a bed, removed her panty, applied cooking oil to his penis, and inserted it into her vagina despite her protests, threatening to whip her. She testified to a second incident on December 19, 1991, wherein appellant, after sending other children away, removed her panty and was on top of her when her aunt knocked on the door. Her younger sister, Sheryll, corroborated the December incident, stating she witnessed appellant on top of Sarah through a hole in the roof. A medico-legal examination on December 20, 1991, however, revealed an intact hymen and no lacerations, leading the doctor to opine she remained a virgin. The defense, relying on this medical finding, waived its right to present evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of two counts of rape based on the victim’s testimony despite the medical finding of an intact hymen.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for the September 1991 rape but modified the trial court’s decision by acquitting appellant for the December 1991 incident and adjusting the penalty and indemnity. On the core issue, the Court upheld the conviction based on Sarah’s credible testimony. The Court reiterated that the credibility of a witness is best assessed by the trial court, and its findings are accorded great respect. A young victim’s testimony, given in a categorical, straightforward, and spontaneous manner, deserves full credence. The medical finding of an intact hymen does not negate rape. Legal doctrine establishes that the crime of rape is consummated by the slightest penetration of the female organ; full penetration or rupture of the hymen is not required. Sarah’s clear testimony that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina in September 1991 constituted sufficient proof of penetration, notwithstanding the intact hymen. However, for the December incident, the prosecution failed to prove consummation, as Sarah’s testimony lacked a clear assertion of penetration during that specific event. Thus, conviction was warranted only for the first count. The penalty was corrected to reclusion perpetua, and civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 due to the victim’s minority.