G.R. No. 150501 ; June 3, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. GERONIMO BOROMEO y MARCO, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Geronimo Boromeo, the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother, Luzviminda Tiquis, was charged with the rape of ten-year-old Christine Liezel Mendoza. The prosecution’s evidence established that on the evening of October 19, 1999, while Luzviminda was at a wake, appellant ordered Christine into their room. He placed himself on top of her and forcibly inserted his organ through the hole in her shorts, causing her pain. Luzviminda arrived home, discovered appellant on top of Christine, and immediately confronted him. She and Christine left to report the incident to the police. A medico-legal examination revealed Christine’s hymen was intact.
The defense presented a denial. Appellant claimed he was drunk and asleep when Luzviminda arrived home. Luzviminda, testifying for the defense, recanted her prior sworn statement to the police, claiming she did not actually see the rape and was merely angry upon finding appellant and Christine together. She asserted her sworn statement was a product of police coercion.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the victim’s intact hymen and the recantation of the mother’s testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty, modified to reclusion perpetua due to the abolition of the death penalty. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence conclusive. In rape cases, an intact hymen does not negate rape, as full penetration of the female organ is not required; even the slightest penetration suffices. Christine’s credible and categorical testimony that appellant inserted his organ into hers, which she felt as painful, constitutes consummated rape.
The Court gave no credence to Luzviminda’s recantation. A recantation is notoriously unreliable and viewed with extreme suspicion, as it can easily be secured through intimidation or monetary consideration. Her sworn statement, given shortly after the traumatic event, carries greater weight than her subsequent retraction during trial. Her original account—that she saw appellant naked on top of her naked daughter—was corroborative of Christine’s testimony. The defense of denial, especially when uncorroborated, cannot prevail over the positive and credible identification by the victim. The qualifying circumstance of the victim’s minority (being under twelve years old) and her relationship to appellant as a stepdaughter were both proven, warranting the supreme penalty under the law at the time of the offense.