G.R. No. 124737 June 26, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rizalino Fundano, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rizalino Fundano was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati of three counts of rape committed against his 15-year-old daughter, Melody Fundano, on September 10, 11, and 12, 1993. The complaints were signed by Melody and her mother. The prosecution established that during those nights, in their one-room house in Comembo, Makati, Rizalino, by means of force, violence, and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of Melody against her will. He threatened to kill her and her relatives if she reported the incidents. Melody revealed the rapes to her sister-in-law, Lucita, in October 1993, after learning her father was no longer at their house. A medical examination revealed her hymen was intact but could admit an adult male organ, leading the medico-legal officer to conclude sexual intercourse was possible. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Rizalino was in Bulan, Sorsogon, bedridden and under treatment by an arbularyo during the entire month of September 1993. Rebuttal witness Ma. Luz Goña testified that Rizalino mortgaged his house to her in Makati on September 14, 1993, contradicting his claim of being in Sorsogon.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for three counts of rape beyond reasonable doubt, overcoming his defense of alibi and the medical finding of an intact hymen.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the positive and categorical identification by the victim, Melody, who testified in a straightforward and credible manner about the successive rapes, prevails over the accused’s denial and alibi. The defense of alibi was weak and uncorroborated, and was positively contradicted by the testimony of Ma. Luz Goña, who placed the accused in Makati on September 14, 1993, making it physically impossible for him to have been in Sorsogon for the entire month as claimed. The Court ruled that an intact hymen is not an essential element of rape, and its presence does not negate the commission of the crime, as penetration of the labia is sufficient. The delay in reporting the crime was satisfactorily explained by the victim’s fear of her father’s threats. The Court modified the penalty, imposing reclusion perpetua for each count instead of death, as the qualifying circumstance of relationship was not alleged in the informations, and awarded moral damages to the victim.