G.R. No. 138664 , August 6, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Sotero Serado, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Sotero Serado was charged with the rape of eleven-year-old Arlene Paraiso. The prosecution established that on September 6, 1998, the victim spent the night in a small room in the house of the accused-appellant’s daughter, together with the accused-appellant and his granddaughter. In the middle of the night, Arlene was awakened when she felt the accused-appellant removing her panties. He then inserted his penis into her vagina and made thrusting motions. She recognized him in the dark and told him, “Nong, enough,” prompting him to stop. The next morning, she slapped and kicked him when he tried to kiss her. She later reported the incident. The defense consisted of denial and an allegation of ill motive, claiming the case was filed in retaliation because the victim’s mother’s brother-in-law was caught stealing from the accused-appellant’s family. The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay moral and exemplary damages.

ISSUE

The main issues raised on appeal were: (1) whether the medical finding of “possibility” of partial penetration was sufficient to prove carnal knowledge; (2) whether the accused-appellant was positively identified as the perpetrator; (3) whether the ill motive of the victim’s mother affected the case; and (4) whether inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony cast reasonable doubt on the accused-appellant’s guilt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The Court ruled that: (1) For rape, full penetration is not required; proof of the entrance of the male organ within the labia of the female organ suffices. The victim’s young age (11 years) meant no proof of force or lack of consent was necessary; only intercourse needed to be proved. (2) The victim’s positive and candid identification of the accused-appellant was credible and prevailed over his denial. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. (3) The alleged ill motive was inconsequential against the victim’s affirmative and categorical declarations. (4) The alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony were not material and did not detract from her credibility; a child victim’s testimony is given full weight. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court modified the damages, ordering the accused-appellant to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, and deleted the award of exemplary damages for lack of factual basis. The Court also noted that the trial court should have cited Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 , instead of Article 335 as amended by R.A. No. 7659 .