GR 238176; (January, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 238176 , January 14, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. RAMON BAY-OD, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Ramon Bay-od, was charged with qualified statutory rape for allegedly having carnal knowledge of AAA, who was six years old at the time of the incident in 2011. The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that Bay-od called her into his house, removed her clothes, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her pain. She did not immediately report the incident out of fear but later confided in her brother. The revelation came to light in 2013 when the victim’s mother, BBB, overheard the brother teasing AAA about it and confronted her, leading to AAA’s confirmation. The defense relied solely on Bay-od’s denial, claiming the charge was fabricated by envious relatives. A medical examination conducted in 2013 found no lacerations on AAA’s hymen, which the defense argued disproved the rape.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Bay-od of qualified statutory rape, imposing reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and awarding damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in toto. Bay-od appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the medical finding of an intact hymen negated the allegation of penetration, rendering AAA’s testimony incredible.
ISSUE
Whether the medical finding of an intact hymen negates a conviction for statutory rape based on the victim’s credible testimony.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the absence of hymenal laceration does not disprove rape. Medical jurisprudence establishes that a hymen can remain intact even after sexual intercourse due to its elastic and distensible nature, especially in young children. The Court emphasized that in cases of statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, where the victim is below twelve years of age, the sole basis for conviction is the credible testimony of the victim regarding carnal knowledge. The law presumes coercion, and proof of force or physical injury is unnecessary. The victim’s testimony was found to be straightforward, consistent, and credible, meeting the required quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the child victim. The qualifying circumstance of the victim being below seven years old was duly proven, warranting the penalty of reclusion perpetua without parole. The awarded damages were also sustained.