G.R. No. 175880 ; July 6, 2007
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. RICARDO COMANDA y CAMOTE, Appellant.

FACTS

On January 11, 1998, appellant Ricardo Comanda, the paternal granduncle of the nine-year-old complainant AAA, was charged with rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Information alleged that by means of force and intimidation, he had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will. Appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial proceedings were initially suspended as psychiatric evaluation found him psychotic and unfit to stand trial. After further treatment, he was later declared fit for trial.
The prosecution evidence established that on January 11, 1998, AAA went with her father and appellant to her school for a “Bayanihan” project. AAA’s teacher instructed her to ask appellant to fetch another uncle to help. Appellant agreed and brought AAA along, taking a shortcut under the pretext that the uncle was on a hill. Appellant then laid on a grassy area, unzipped his pants, lowered AAA’s underwear, forced her to lie on top of him, kissed her, embraced her tightly, and inserted his penis into her vagina. After about thirty minutes, AAA heard her mother, BBB, shouting. AAA grabbed her underwear, ran to her mother crying, and fell unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness at her aunt’s house, AAA called appellant “yawa” and “bastos.” She was taken to the hospital and reported the incident to the police the next day. BBB testified to AAA’s age (nine years old) and the events, including that appellant later asked for forgiveness. The prosecution submitted a medical examination report of AAA but could not present the examining doctor. The defense presented only appellant, who testified he could not remember the incident and claimed AAA was a sickly child.
The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of ₱50,000 each. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the court a quo gravely erred in finding appellant guilty of the crime charged despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding appellant’s conviction for statutory rape.
The Court held that the erroneous designation of the statute violated in the Information (referring to the old rape law, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, instead of the then-effective Republic Act No. 8353 ) was not a fatal defect. The allegations of force and intimidation were mere superfluities, as they are not constitutive of statutory rape. The real nature of the charge is determined by the actual recital of facts, which sufficiently alleged carnal knowledge with a nine-year-old child.
On the merits, the Court found the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of AAA, a minor victim, was credible, straightforward, and consistent. The Court rejected appellant’s arguments that penetration was inconceivable based on the described position or that the alleged thirty-minute penetration was preposterous. It ruled that the exact posture of the bodies is not determinative of the possibility of penetration, and the duration of penetration does not negate its occurrence. AAA’s clear and categorical testimony on the insertion of appellant’s penis into her vagina was sufficient to establish the crime. The failure to present the examining physician was not fatal, as the medical report was admitted without objection, and the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape. The defense of denial and alleged memory loss could not prevail over the positive identification and credible testimony of the victim. The award of damages was sustained.