G.R. No. 128129 September 30, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TUNDAGUI GAYOMMA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On September 8, 1994, twelve-year-old Monalisa Mangili spent the night at the house of her playmate and neighbor, Teresita Gayomma. While Monalisa was asleep, accused Tundagui Gayomma, Teresita’s father, entered the room, placed himself on top of her, and threatened to kill her if she shouted or moved. He then lifted her skirt, pulled down her panties, and copulated with her. The following morning, Monalisa went home but kept silent for four days due to the accused’s threat to kill her parents if she told anyone. She eventually disclosed the rape to her mother, who brought her to the barangay captain. Monalisa’s statement was taken, and she was medically examined by Dr. Ruben C. Sinfuego. The medical report noted a perforated hymen and erythema on the lateral sides of the vaginal canal but found no injuries on the labia and no sperm cells. An Information for rape was filed against Tundagui Gayomma. The accused denied the charge, claiming he was awakened by a loud cry from the girls’ room, inquired, and was told by Monalisa that she had a bad dream, after which he returned to sleep. The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim P50,000.00. The accused appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in convicting accused-appellant Tundagui Gayomma of the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with modification. The Court held that the prosecution proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the accused’s arguments: (1) The victim’s account was not contrary to human experience, as lust is no respecter of time or place, and there is no standard norm of behavior for rape victims, especially children; the threats were sufficient to silence her. (2) The victim positively identified the accused not only by his weight and smell but, more importantly, by recognizing his voice when he uttered the death threats, given their familiarity as neighbors. (3) The perceived inconsistency in the victim’s testimony regarding hearing words was not damaging, as a rape victim, particularly a child, cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of the traumatic experience. (4) The medical findings do not negate rape; the absence of injuries and sperm cells is explained by the four-day lapse before examination, during which injuries could have healed and sperm cells could have been lost. The Court modified the penalty by ordering the accused to pay an additional P50,000.00 as moral damages to the offended party.