GR 91734; (March, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91734 . March 30, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTOR BORMEO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the afternoon of April 2, 1989, in Barangay San Fernando, Laur, Nueva Ecija, Carmelita Galzote was met by her 2 1/2-year-old granddaughter, Raylin, who was running with legs wide apart and crying. Carmelita discovered Raylin’s private organ was bleeding. When asked why, Raylin replied, “Tatay,” referring to the accused, Victor Bormeo, Carmelita’s common-law husband. The following day, Raylin was examined by Dr. Felimon V. Veneracion, who found a fresh laceration of her hymen and concluded her physical virginity was lost. Carmelita reported the incident to the police, and a criminal complaint for rape was filed. An Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court charging Bormeo with rape. The prosecution presented Carmelita and Dr. Veneracion as witnesses but dispensed with Raylin’s testimony due to her tender age. The accused testified in his defense. The trial court convicted Bormeo of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and indemnity. Bormeo appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Victor Bormeo committed the crime of rape.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted Victor Bormeo on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of carnal knowledge, defined as the penetration of the female sexual organ by the male organ. The medical findings of a fresh hymenal laceration and loss of virginity did not conclusively establish that the injury was caused by sexual intercourse, as the doctor did not categorically testify it was caused by a male organ and could not pinpoint the specific object that caused it. The testimony of Raylin’s statement (“Tatay”) was considered hearsay and did not qualify as part of the res gestae because it was not shown to have been made immediately after a startling event without time for fabrication. The Court emphasized the constitutional presumption of innocence and that the prosecution’s evidence must stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Since the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal was warranted.