G.R. Nos. 136592-93; November 27, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MANOLITO PANCHO, appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Manolito Pancho, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, for the rape and attempted rape of his eleven-year-old stepdaughter, Michelle dela Torre. The prosecution evidence established that in August 1994, appellant dragged Michelle, forced her to lie down, removed her clothing, and had carnal knowledge of her despite her resistance, threatening to kill her if she reported the incident. In December 1995, at a new residence, appellant again attempted to rape Michelle, dragging her by her feet until the arrival of her uncle thwarted the act.
The defense hinged on denial and alibi, claiming the presence of other family members made the crimes impossible. Crucially, the medico-legal report from the National Bureau of Investigation indicated Michelle’s hymen was intact, with an orifice too small to permit complete penetration by an average adult male organ without injury. The trial court nonetheless found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for rape and a prison term for attempted rape.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of rape and attempted rape despite the medico-legal finding of an intact hymen and the defense of denial.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. On the charge of rape, the Court clarified that an intact hymen does not negate rape. Complete penetration of the female organ is not required; mere entry of the male organ into the labia of the female organ, or even mere contact, constitutes carnal knowledge. The medico-legal conclusion that the hymenal orifice was small merely precluded complete penetration, not partial entry or contact, which is sufficient under the law. The credible and categorical testimony of the victim, who was a minor, detailing the force, pain, and bleeding she experienced, adequately established the fact of sexual intercourse.
Regarding the attempted rape, the victim’s testimony on the appellant’s overt acts—dragging her and his manifest intent to have carnal knowledge—which were only interrupted by the timely arrival of her uncle, clearly constituted an attempt. The defense of denial, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over the positive and credible identification by the victim. The delay in reporting the incidents was sufficiently explained by the appellant’s threats and the victim’s initial fear, and does not impair her credibility. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect.