G.R. No. 115983 , April 12, 1996
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Clemente Ulpindo, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Clemente Ulpindo, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, for the rape of seven-year-old Regina Pelayo. The prosecution alleged that in December 1990, Ulpindo pulled Regina into his kitchen and had carnal knowledge of her. Regina testified that the act caused her vaginal pain, lasted about five minutes, and that Ulpindo threatened to kill her if she told anyone. The incident was reportedly discovered weeks later when Regina’s mother, Resurreccion, noticed swelling in her daughter’s vagina and brought her to a midwife, Jessimar Lascota. Lascota observed bruises and, upon questioning, Regina named “Menteng” (Ulpindo) as the perpetrator.
However, the defense presented a conflicting narrative. On cross-examination, Regina stated that on the day in question, she was in Ulpindo’s yard picking mangoes. When Ulpindo caught her, he scolded her, dragged her, and whipped her with a belt, which accidentally hit her vagina, causing her to cry. She testified that he then released her. This account was corroborated by her mother, who admitted Regina had been whipped by Ulpindo for stealing mangoes. The defense argued the vaginal injuries could have resulted from this whipping, not from rape.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Clemente Ulpindo committed the crime of rape against Regina Pelayo.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Clemente Ulpindo based on reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in statutory rape, where the victim is below twelve, the gravamen is carnal knowledge, and the prosecution must prove this element beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient and unreliable. Regina’s testimony was inconsistent; she gave divergent accounts of the same event—initially describing a rape but later admitting to a whipping incident that caused injury to her vagina. This inconsistency cast serious doubt on the occurrence of sexual intercourse.
Furthermore, the medical evidence was inconclusive. The prosecution’s own medical expert could not definitively state that the hymenal lacerations were caused by penile penetration, as they could have resulted from other trauma, such as the admitted whipping. The Court ruled that evidence must not only come from a credible witness but must be credible in itself. Here, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The Court clarified it was not concluding the charge was false, but that the evidence did not meet the required standard of moral certainty for a criminal conviction. The acquittal was ordered, with Ulpindo’s immediate release unless detained for another lawful cause.