Deocrecio David v. Honorable Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: A sworn complaint was filed in September 1960 alleging that the crime charged (rape) had been committed against a minor. The initial complaint before the Justice of the Peace was archived after the arrest warrant was returned unserved. Years later, informations were filed in the Court of First Instance and subsequently in the provincial prosecutorial office. A medical examination contemporaneous to the alleged incident disclosed genital lacerations that required hospitalization. 2. Procedural History: An information was filed in the Court of First Instance in July 1978 and the trial court, after trial, found the accused guilty of attempted rape and imposed a penalty referencing Act 335 of the Revised Penal Code; the trial court's decision was rendered on 6 March 1986. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, by decision dated 31 July 1987, modified the judgment and convicted the petitioner of consummated rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, imposing a determinate sentence. The petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioner challenged (a) whether he is guilty of rape as defined by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and (b) whether the Court of Appeals correctly appreciated the entire evidence on record.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is guilty of rape as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly appreciated the entire evidence on record.
Ruling
The petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals convicting petitioner of consummated rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code is AFFIRMED in substance but MODIFIED as to the indeterminate sentence imposed. The Supreme Court credited the mitigating circumstance of minority and, applying the indeterminate sentence law and the penalty next lower in degree, imposed an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The petitioner shall pay Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as moral damages. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the petitioner is guilty of rape as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code: The Supreme Court found that the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals were amply supported by the evidence of record. The Court held that the testimony of the offended party was straightforward, explicit and convincing and that she did not change her story under cross-examination, making her account worthy of credence. The Court noted corroboration in the medical findings which disclosed lacerations of the hymen and of the fourchette with hematoma and significant bleeding requiring hospitalization; these findings, in the Court's view, were consistent with penetration and therefore sufficient to qualify the offense as consummated rape. The Court expressly rejected the notion that the injuries could have resulted from an accidental act as alleged by the petitioner, emphasizing the nature and extent of the injuries and the circumstances under which the incident occurred. Applying settled doctrine that even the slightest penetration suffices to consummate the crime of rape, the Court concluded that the elements of consummated rape were established beyond reasonable doubt. On Whether the Court of Appeals correctly appreciated the entire evidence on record: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly appreciated the totality of the evidence. It examined the credibility of witnesses, the res gestae statement made to the victim's mother immediately after the incident, and the medical evidence and concluded these factors, taken together, supported the appellate court's finding of consummated rape. The Court distinguished the trial court's reliance on People v. Lagmay by explaining that Lagmay involved facts where penetration was not accomplished due to vigorous resistance and where the accused resorted to digital penetration; those factual circumstances were materially different from the case at bar. The Court also considered the prolonged delay between the incident and prosecution and observed that the persistence of the victim and her family in pursuing the case despite the intervening years and personal inconvenience reinforced the credibility of the claim and negated an inference of ill motive. The Supreme Court therefore found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' fact-finding and affirmed the conviction while adjusting the sentence consistent with mitigating circumstance of minority.
Main Doctrine
Even the slightest penetration suffices to consummate the crime of rape; the credible testimony of the victim corroborated by medical findings can sustain a conviction under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.