People v. Sampior
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 5, 1994, the private complainant, the eldest daughter of the accused-appellant, was left at home with her younger siblings. The accused-appellant returned home alone and instructed the younger children to go downstairs. He then proceeded to sexually abuse the private complainant. Later that afternoon, he returned home smelling of liquor and sexually abused her again. The private complainant did not report the incidents immediately due to confusion and school examinations. She eventually confided in her mother, and they decided to report the matter to the police. Procedural History: On March 14, 1994, the private complainant reported the rapes to the police. She was examined at the Roxas Memorial General Hospital, with the physician noting a grossly normal female genitalia, an intact hymen, and negative spermatozoa and pregnancy tests. Two separate complaints for rape were filed against the accused-appellant, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. C-4515 and C-4516. The trial court, the Regional Trial Court of Capiz, Branch 15, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the decision, not seeking acquittal, but arguing that he should have been convicted of frustrated rape only and that his sentence should be reduced. He assigned two errors: (I) the court erred in convicting him of consummated rape, and (II) the court erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of consummated rape. Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count. The Court modified the award by granting civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for each count of rape.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of consummated rape: The Court held that the appellant's claim of frustrated rape was contradicted by the credible and convincing testimony of the private complainant, who categorically stated that there was phallic penetration. The Court emphasized that a woman's testimony in a rape case deserves full credence, especially when no ill motive is attributed to her. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a broken hymen or lacerations are not prerequisites for a rape conviction, nor is a medical examination indispensable. The mere touch of the male organ upon the labia of the pudendum, no matter how slight, consummates the rape, thereby abandoning the old ruling in People v. Erinia. The Court also noted that the private complainant's testimony was clear, unequivocal, and credible, and that a daughter would not accuse her father of such a crime unless it were true. On the issue of the penalty: The Court found that the appellant's conviction for two counts of rape was well-supported by the evidence. Consequently, the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, was deemed correct. The Court also awarded civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00, and exemplary damages of P25,000.00 for each count of rape, in line with current jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
The crime of frustrated rape is non-existent in Philippine criminal law. The merest touch of the male organ upon the labia of the pudendum, no matter how slight, consummates the rape. A broken hymen or laceration is not a prerequisite for a rape conviction, nor is a medical examination indispensable if the testimony is credible.