G.R. No. 190620, June 18, 2014.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Herminigildo B. Tabayan, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Herminigildo B. Tabayan, was charged with the rape of his eight-year-old granddaughter, AAA, on the evening of July 24, 2006, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610. The prosecution’s evidence established that on that night, AAA and her younger brother stayed at the appellant’s house as their parents were out of town. While sleeping in the same room, AAA was awakened when the appellant removed her short pants and panty, took off his own short pants, and inserted his penis into her vagina, though he was unable to achieve full penetration. AAA cried out in pain, but the appellant told her not to cry and, after the act, warned her not to tell anyone or she would be harmed. The next day, AAA disclosed the incident to her aunt, leading to a police report and a medical examination. Dr. Josephine Guiang’s examination revealed AAA’s hymen was intact but there was a greenish vaginal discharge (gonorrhea) and erythematous or reddening of the labia. Medical Technologist Virgie Castillo confirmed the gonococcal infection. The defense presented only the appellant, who admitted to touching AAA’s vagina but denied rape, claiming he was drunk and unaware of his actions, and he denied having a sexually transmitted disease. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications to the awards of damages. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the victim, AAA, was found to be clear, credible, convincing, and worthy of belief. The Court emphasized that the credibility of the victim is paramount in rape cases, and AAA’s candid and straightforward narration withstood rigorous cross-examination. The medical findings, though indicating an intact hymen, were consistent with attempted or incomplete penetration, and the presence of gonorrhea, coupled with the appellant’s admission of touching AAA’s vagina, supported the occurrence of sexual abuse. The Court rejected the appellant’s claim that the inconsistencies between AAA’s court testimony and sworn statement (which referred to multiple incidents) discredited her, noting that such minor inconsistencies did not affect her core testimony about the July 24, 2006 incident. The Court also held that the appellant’s defense of denial could not prevail over AAA’s positive identification. The crime was qualified by the relationship (grandfather-granddaughter) and the victim’s minority, warranting the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as the death penalty was prohibited at the time of the offense. The Court affirmed the awards of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and additionally awarded ₱30,000.00 as temperate damages.