GR 79434; (February, 1990) (Digest)
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, got on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her pain and bleeding. Luzviminda cried and reported the incident to her mother, who saw blood on her legs and rushed her to the hospital. A medical examination confirmed lacerations on her hymen and fourchette. A complaint was filed but David evaded arrest for sixteen years.
After his eventual arrest and a procedural history involving a dismissed information, a new information for rape based on Luzviminda’s sworn complaint was filed. The trial court convicted David only of attempted rape, citing the doctrine in People v. Lagmay that penetration by a finger constitutes attempted rape. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the conviction to consummated rape. David then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether David is guilty of consummated rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, specifically whether the act constituted carnal knowledge.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ finding of consummated rape but modified the penalty. The Court held that carnal knowledge in rape is consummated by the slightest penetration of the female organ by the male organ. The medical evidence of hymenal laceration, coupled with the victim’s consistent and credible testimony that David inserted his penis, sufficiently established penetration. The Court rejected the trial court’s reliance on People v. Lagmay, noting that the facts there involved digital penetration, which is legally distinct from penile penetration. The victim’s testimony, given with sincerity and devoid of ill motive, was accorded full credence.
The Court found David guilty of consummated rape. Applying Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty is reclusion perpetua. However, David was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of minority, as he was sixteen at the time of the crime. With no aggravating circumstances, the penalty was reduced by one degree to reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Supreme 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. The moral damages were also increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). The petition was denied.