G.R. No. 121539 October 21, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Honesto Manuel y Padilla, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Honesto Manuel y Padilla was charged with the rape of his 11-year-old cousin-in-law, Nestcel Marzo. The incident occurred on May 23, 1993, in Quezon City. Nestcel, who was vacationing from Binalonan, Pangasinan, was left in the care of the accused-appellant and his wife at a rented room in Camp Aguinaldo. As the wife was recuperating in a hospital after childbirth, Nestcel was left solely with the accused-appellant. On the night in question, Nestcel was awakened to find the accused-appellant beside her. He undressed her, embraced her, and attempted to penetrate her from behind. She felt his penis touch her vagina and subsequently felt a sticky fluid. The next day, Nestcel was found crying and reported the incident, leading to the accused-appellant’s arrest. A medical examination revealed findings “compatible with recent loss of virginity” but no external signs of violence. The accused-appellant denied rape, claiming he desisted from the act and only masturbated. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay moral damages.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the accused-appellant on appeal are: (1) whether the trial court gravely erred in giving credence to the testimony of the victim, Nestcel Marzo; and (2) whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. The Court found the testimony of the 11-year-old victim credible and consistent. It held that for statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, where the victim is under twelve years of age, the only circumstance that needs to be proved is the fact of intercourse; proof of force or involuntariness is not necessary as the victim is legally incapable of consent. The Court ruled that full penetration is not required for rape to be consummated; the entrance of the male organ within the labia of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen, suffices. The absence of semen in the vagina does not negate rape, as the crime is consummated by the sexual act, not the emission. The Court also noted that the victim’s young age and rural upbringing made it improbable for her to fabricate such a story. The penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, as the crime was committed before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659 , which would have imposed the death penalty due to the aggravating circumstance of the accused being the victim’s guardian. The Court modified the damages, ordering the accused-appellant to pay indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 to the victim.