G.R. No. 79434 February 26, 1990
DEOCRECIO DAVID, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

On September 2, 1960, six-year-old Luzviminda Ganiban was playing inside petitioner Deocrecio David’s house in Aklan. David, then sixteen years old, joined the children’s game. He followed Luzviminda into a rolled mat, grabbed her, covered her mouth, and sexually assaulted her. Upon hearing her mother call, David released her. Luzviminda, crying and bleeding, reported the assault to her mother, who rushed her to the hospital. A medical examination revealed a lacerated hymen and a wound on the fourchette. An information for rape was filed.
The trial court convicted David of the lesser offense of attempted rape, finding that he had only inserted his finger into the victim’s vagina. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the conviction to consummated rape. David then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review, arguing that the evidence only supported attempted, not consummated, rape.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioner of consummated rape instead of attempted rape based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction for consummated rape, with a modification to the penalty. The Court held that the totality of evidence, particularly the credible and consistent testimony of the victim, sufficiently established the elements of consummated rape. Luzviminda, despite her young age at the time of the incident, provided a clear and unwavering account over the years that David had carnal knowledge of her. Her immediate report to her mother, the physical evidence of bleeding, and the medically documented genital injuries corroborated her testimony.
The Court rejected the trial court’s reliance on the doctrine from People v. Lagmay, which suggested that digital penetration constituted only attempted rape. It emphasized that the determination of consummation depends on the evidence of each case. Here, the victim’s positive identification of the act of sexual intercourse, coupled with the physical findings, outweighed the absence of spermatozoa examination. The Court found no ill motive for the victim to falsely accuse David after many years. Crediting David with the mitigating circumstance of minority, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and increased the moral damages to Thirty Thousand Pesos.