G.R. No. 112986 May 7, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANSELMO O. BUTRON alias “ANSING,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

On August 18, 1992, ten-year-old Jocelyn Bautista was alone in her family’s house under the Cabadbaran bridge, caring for her younger brother. Appellant Anselmo Butron arrived, sniffed rugby, and then sexually assaulted her. The prosecution’s evidence, through Jocelyn’s testimony and medical findings, established that Butron first inserted his fingers into her vagina and then proceeded to have carnal knowledge by inserting his penis. After the act, he threatened her with a knife. A medical examination conducted the following day by Dr. Teonista Mora revealed a torn hymen, bleeding in the vaginal canal, and the presence of spermatozoa, corroborating the rape.
The defense presented only the accused-appellant himself, who admitted to the sexual molestation but claimed he only inserted his finger into the victim’s vagina. He denied raping her, arguing that his actions constituted only acts of lasciviousness. He pointed to portions of the victim’s testimony during preliminary investigation where she initially stated he “fingered” her and seemed hesitant, to support his claim that there was no penile penetration.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of rape or merely acts of lasciviousness based on the evidence of penile penetration.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for rape. The Court held that the appellant’s admission of digital penetration did not preclude a finding of penile penetration, which constitutes rape. The medical evidence was conclusive: the presence of spermatozoa in the victim’s vagina, a torn hymen, and vaginal bleeding are physical proofs consistent with penile penetration, not merely digital intrusion. The Court emphasized that the positive medical findings objectively corroborated the victim’s clear and credible testimony during the trial that the appellant inserted his penis.
The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on the victim’s preliminary investigation testimony, applying the doctrine of “incompleteness of expression.” A witness’s single statement, taken out of context, cannot prevail over her complete and categorical declaration in open court. The trial court correctly found the victim’s trial testimony—that the appellant went on top of her and inserted his male organ—to be credible and sufficient to establish the crime. The defense of denial, especially when juxtaposed with the strong physical and testimonial evidence for the prosecution, deserved no weight. Thus, the elements of rape, including carnal knowledge through penile penetration, were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, with civil indemnity increased to P50,000.00.