GR 176154; (October, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 176154; October 5, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARCELINO PAREDES y ALGARA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Marcelino Paredes, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City for the rape of a ten-year-old girl, XXX. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the sworn statements of the victim and her mother, MMM, given to police investigators. In her Salaysay, XXX initially stated that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. However, during her in-court testimony, she declared that the appellant only placed his penis on top of her vagina and did not achieve penetration. The medico-legal report, conducted within 24 hours of the alleged incident, found XXX’s hymen to be intact, with no lacerations, concluding she was in a “virgin state physically.”
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the crime of rape, specifically carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse, beyond reasonable doubt given the inconsistencies between the victim’s extrajudicial statement and her judicial testimony, coupled with the medical findings.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused-appellant. The legal logic hinges on the fundamental requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the rule on judicial admissions. The victim’s categorical judicial testimony that there was no penetration constitutes a judicial admission that is binding on the prosecution. This admission directly negates an essential element of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires that the offender has carnal knowledge of a woman, defined as the penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight. The medico-legal report corroborating the intact hymen, while not conclusive, lent credence to her court declaration. The prosecution failed to explain this fatal inconsistency or present evidence to substantiate the initial claim of penetration. Consequently, the prosecution did not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.