G.R. No. 182550; March 23, 2011
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Ruel Velarde alias Doloy Belarde, Appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of November 2, 1999, AAA, who was nine years, nine months, and thirteen days old, was watching television at the house of her neighbors, the appellant’s family. She went home, spread her sleeping mat on the floor, and fell asleep. She was awakened when she felt the appellant on top of her. He covered her mouth when she tried to shout, removed her shorts and panties and his own pants, and inserted his penis into her vagina through pumping motions, causing her pain and making her cry. The assault stopped when AAA’s father appeared and chased the appellant, who escaped by jumping out of a window. The appellant was apprehended the next day. The prosecution presented AAA, her mother BBB (who presented AAA’s birth and baptismal certificates), and Dr. Alfonso Flores, who testified that while AAA’s hymen was intact, a confluent abrasion in her vagina indicated it had been “disturbed” by a hard and rough object. The defense relied on denial and alibi, claiming the appellant was elsewhere drinking tuba and then sleeping, and suggested the complaint was motivated by a grudge AAA’s father held against the appellant’s father. The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant of consummated rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the appellant’s conviction for rape, specifically concerning: (1) the credibility of AAA’s testimony despite alleged inconsistencies; (2) the positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator given the dim lighting; (3) the significance of the medical finding of an intact hymen; and (4) the prosecution’s failure to present AAA’s father as a witness.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with modification (regarding damages, though specifics are not detailed in the provided text). The Court held:
1. On Credibility: The alleged inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony (regarding the number of times raped, the exact location, and the sequence of events when her father appeared) do not affect her credibility. Inconsistencies are expected when recounting a traumatic experience, especially for a child witness. The trial court found AAA’s testimony “highly credible,” a assessment accorded great respect. No young woman would concoct a story of defloration and undergo public trial unless motivated by a desire for justice.
2. On Identification: The CA correctly held that AAA could positively identify the appellant. She knew him well as a neighbor, and he was already on top of her when she awoke, ensuring proximity. AAA positively identified the appellant twice in open court.
3. On Medical Findings: An intact hymen does not negate rape. The Court reiterated the doctrine that the absence of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. The medical finding of a confluent abrasion was consistent with the allegation of sexual assault.
4. On Failure to Present Witness: The non-presentation of AAA’s father is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The testimony of the victim alone, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape.
The appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The defenses of denial and alibi are weak and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the victim.