G.R. No. 177144 ; July 23, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DIOSDADO CODILAN y PALAJURIN, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Diosdado Codilan, was charged with two counts of rape and two counts of acts of lasciviousness against his eight-year-old stepdaughter, AAA, occurring in September, October, November, and December 1998 in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. The prosecution established through AAA’s testimony that Codilan, whom she called “Tatay,” pulled her into a room in his house on these occasions, licked her genitalia, and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA initially kept silent due to Codilan’s threats to kill her but later disclosed the assaults after being confronted by her cousin, “Ate Bing Bing,” whose own daughter, BBB, had witnessed the December 1998 incident. BBB corroborated AAA’s account. A medical examination revealed AAA’s hymen was intact. Codilan denied the charges, claiming they were fabricated by his daughter due to a family grudge.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Codilan of two counts of rape and two counts of acts of lasciviousness, imposing penalties including reclusion perpetua for each rape count. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions with modifications to the awarded damages, increasing civil indemnity and adding exemplary damages due to the aggravating circumstance of relationship.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Codilan’s conviction for two counts of rape despite the medical finding of an intact hymen and his challenge to the credibility of the child victim’s testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions. The Court upheld the credibility of AAA’s testimony, which was found to be candid, straightforward, and consistent even under rigorous cross-examination. The testimony of a child victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect, as it is in the best position to observe their demeanor.
Regarding the intact hymen, the Court ruled that this does not negate rape. Penetration in rape is consummated by the mere entry of the male organ into the labia of the female genitalia; full penetration or hymenal laceration is not required. A hymen can be elastic and stretch without tearing. Thus, the medical finding was not inconsistent with AAA’s account of sexual violation. The aggravating circumstance of relationship, Codilan being AAA’s uncle by affinity within the third civil degree, was properly considered, justifying the award of exemplary damages. The conviction was therefore sustained based on the credible and sufficient evidence presented.