G.R. No. 181633, September 12, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROGER UGOS, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On August 7, 1997, in Davao City, accused-appellant Roger Ugos, while intoxicated, asked his seven-year-old stepdaughter, AAA, to look for her mother. When they could not find her, Ugos brought AAA to a nearby creek. There, he undressed her, inserted his finger into her vagina four times, bit her face, and then inserted his penis into her vagina. He further assaulted her by holding her neck and punching her face and stomach, threatening to kill her if she reported the incident. Upon returning home, AAA initially told her mother she had fallen at a waiting shed to explain her injuries. The following morning, however, she disclosed the rape. AAA and her mother reported the incident to the barangay captain, who ignored them, prompting them to file a formal complaint at the Toril Police Station. Accused-appellant was subsequently apprehended. A medical examination conducted on August 11, 1997, by Dr. Danilo Ledesma revealed contusions on AAA’s left eye and cheek, hemorrhage in both eyeballs, and a complete hymenal laceration at the 5 and 9 o’clock positions, indicating recent genital trauma.
The defense presented only accused-appellant, who denied the rape. He claimed that on the evening in question, he was searching for his wife and had asked AAA to accompany him. He alleged that AAA fell on a dark and slippery road, which caused her injuries, and that he had no knowledge of why he was charged.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 15, found Ugos guilty of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay PHP 50,000 as civil indemnity. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the damages by adding PHP 50,000 in moral damages. Ugos appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of rape instead of acts of lasciviousness.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the appeal and AFFIRMED the CA decision in toto, upholding the conviction for rape.
The Court held that the conviction was based on the credible, categorical, and consistent testimony of the victim, AAA. Despite her young age, her narration of events—both on direct and cross-examination—was clear, straightforward, and unwavering. She explicitly testified that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a child victim, when credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Minor inconsistencies, such as AAA’s initial statement to her mother about being “fingered,” did not undermine her credibility but were natural for a traumatized child. The medical findings of hymenal laceration corroborated her account of recent sexual penetration.
The Court rejected accused-appellant’s argument that only acts of lasciviousness were committed. It clarified that even under the expanded definition of rape under Republic Act No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997), which includes sexual assault by inserting any instrument or object into the genital orifice, the act of “fingering” could constitute rape. However, in this case, the evidence conclusively proved penile penetration. The Court also affirmed the award of PHP 50,000 as civil indemnity and PHP 50,000 as moral damages, noting that moral damages in rape cases are mandatory and require no further proof of suffering.