GR 123546; (July, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123546 July 2, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOERAL GALLENO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Joeral Galleno was charged with Statutory Rape for allegedly having carnal knowledge of five-year-old Evelyn Obligar Garganera on the afternoon of August 16, 1994, in Brgy. Balighot, Maayon, Capiz. The child was left under the care of her uncle and aunt, Emeterio and Penicola Obligar, while her mother worked in Manila. Accused-appellant, a 19-year-old neighbor who frequently visited the Obligar household to court their eldest daughter, arrived at the house while the child and her younger brother were alone. The prosecution’s version, based on the child’s testimony and medical evidence, was that accused-appellant forcibly inserted his penis into the child’s vagina, causing a laceration and profuse bleeding. He attempted to stop the bleeding by applying sap from “madre de cacao” leaves before leaving. The child was later examined by doctors who confirmed a vaginal laceration consistent with the forcible insertion of a blunt instrument like an erect penis. The defense presented a denial, claiming accused-appellant only accidentally inserted his finger into the child’s vagina while playing with her, causing the injury. The trial court convicted accused-appellant and sentenced him to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant for the crime of Statutory Rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the five-year-old victim credible and consistent with the medical findings of the doctors, which established that a fully erect penis caused the vaginal laceration. The defense of denial and the claim of accidental finger insertion were deemed unconvincing and could not overcome the positive identification and medical evidence. The Court also noted that the financial assistance offered by accused-appellant’s father to the victim’s family was an attempt to settle the case, indicative of guilt. The penalty of death was imposed in accordance with Republic Act No. 7659 . The decision was affirmed in toto.