G.R. No. 92269 July 30, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Lucio Garcia y Bautista, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On February 2, 1989, in Barangay Tabuating, San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija, nine-year-old Marilou Santos, a retarded child, was playing hide-and-seek with her cousins. The accused-appellant, Lucio Garcia, grabbed her, covered her mouth, and dragged her near a river. Marilou screamed, and her cousin, Anna, heard her and followed them. Anna saw Lucio remove his pants and lie on top of Marilou. Marilou felt pain when he inserted his sex organ into hers. Anna fled. A passerby, Remigio Galang, saw Lucio forcing himself on Marilou and informed her father, Enrique Santos. They went to the scene, met Anna, and found Lucio wearing only his briefs with Marilou crying nearby. Lucio was apprehended. A medical examination of Marilou revealed a laceration on her labia majora with reddening and a small amount of blood oozing. The prosecution presented testimonies from Marilou (through leading questions due to her condition), Anna, Enrique, Remigio, and the examining physician. The defense presented only Lucio, who claimed he was sleeping drunk under a stage when Marilou kicked him, and he was later arrested. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of rape and sentenced him to “reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment” and indemnity of P15,000.00.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of rape despite alleged inconsistencies in prosecution testimonies and the claim that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, specifically arguing that the rape would not have been committed in a public view and that the medical report did not conclusively prove carnal intercourse.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and indemnity. The Court held that: (1) rape can be committed even in public places, as established in prior jurisprudence; (2) force or intimidation need not be proved when the victim is under twelve years old, as Marilou was nine and retarded; (3) a medical examination is not indispensable to prove rape, and even if conducted, full penetration is not required—entry into the labia majora suffices; (4) alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the young and retarded witnesses did not impair their essential veracity; and (5) the trial court’s factual findings on witness credibility are accorded respect. The penalty was corrected to reclusion perpetua only (not interchangeable with life imprisonment), and the civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.