G.R. No. 192239 ; June 5, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RICARDO PAMINTUAN y SAHAGUN, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ricardo Pamintuan y Sahagun was charged with rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Information alleged that sometime in September 2003, in XXX, Philippines, he committed lascivious acts and had carnal knowledge of AAA, an 11-year-old minor, against her will and consent. He pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented AAA, the victim, who testified that accused-appellant, her uncle and the common-law husband of her mother (CCC), started sexually abusing her in September 2003 inside their house when no one else was around. He dragged her to a room, touched her breasts and vagina, inserted his penis halfway into her vagina (which caused her pain), kissed her lips, and licked her vagina. She cried and fought back but he continued. The abuse happened seven times. She did not bleed. She revealed the incident to her sister (DDD), who informed their aunt (EEE). AAA did not tell her mother because she was afraid of accused-appellant, who had threatened to burn their house when drunk. AAA’s birth certificate confirmed she was born on November 6, 1992.
Social worker Maria Cristina E. Viray testified that AAA and EEE sought assistance from Bantay Bata 163 on May 28, 2005. AAA narrated the incident, and Viray was convinced AAA was raped. The testimony of PO1 Aireen Talattad was stipulated upon. Dr. Merle Tan, a consultant at the UP-PGH Child Protection Unit, presented a medico-legal report dated December 29, 2003. The report’s impression stated: “no evident injury at the time of examination but medical evaluation cannot exclude sexual abuse.” Dr. Tan explained on cross-examination that the absence of injury could be due to factors like the healing rate of the hymen, the degree of force, the perpetrator’s relationship to the victim (less serious injuries if not a stranger), and the elasticity of a child’s hymen, which can stretch without laceration even with multiple insertions.
For the defense, accused-appellant denied the rape accusation. He claimed AAA and her siblings held a grudge against him for living with their mother, and that a cousin also held a grudge against him and CCC.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 38, found accused-appellant guilty of statutory rape on June 17, 2008, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay AAA Php50,000 as civil indemnity and Php50,000 as moral damages. The RTC gave credence to AAA’s categorical and straightforward testimony, and held that the absence of injuries did not negate rape, as the hymen need not be penetrated or ruptured. It considered only statutory rape, as the qualifying circumstance of relationship (being the common-law husband of AAA’s mother) was not alleged in the Information.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto on November 24, 2009. It held that the elements of rape were proven, AAA’s testimony was credible, and carnal knowledge does not require penetration of the vagina or rupture of the hymen. It agreed that no qualifying circumstance was attendant due to the Information’s failure to allege the specific relationship.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant despite his guilt not being proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the elements of rape were established beyond reasonable doubt. AAA’s testimony was credible, categorical, straightforward, and consistent. The Court emphasized that the credibility of a rape victim, especially a minor, is not diminished by the absence of fresh physical injuries or lacerations. It cited Dr. Tan’s expert testimony explaining that the absence of injuries is possible due to factors like the healing rate of the hymen, the degree of force, the perpetrator’s relationship to the victim, and the elasticity of a child’s hymen. The Court reiterated that carnal knowledge, in the context of rape, does not require full penetration or rupture of the hymen; even the slightest penetration suffices. Accused-appellant’s defense of bare denial could not prevail over AAA’s positive identification and credible testimony. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages were affirmed.