People of the Philippines vs. Bay-od

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. RAMON BAY-OD, Accused-Apellant

G.R. №238176, January 14, 2019

FACTS:

In 2011, AAA, who has then 6 years old, was looking for playmates along their neighborhood when Ramon Bay-od, the appellant, called her to go inside the house at CCC. Once inside, he forcibly had sex with AAA by removing her clothes and by inserting his penis into her vagina. AAA felt the pain and cried and so the appellant stopped. The appellant warned her not to tell anyone about the incident. However, the victim decided to tell Afterwards, AAA put on her clothes and went home. She decided not to tell her parents about the incident because the appellant warned her not to tell anyone about the incident. However, she told her brother about what the appellant did to her. In October 2013, the victim’s mother immediately confronted AAA about the incident upon hearing her conversation with her brother. AAA confessed that she was indeed raped by the appellant. The prosecution also called in to the witness stand a medical officer, Dr. Florilyn Joyce Bentrez. The latter conducted a physical examination on AAA on November 2013 and issued a medical certificated attesting that upon examination of the victim, she found no laceration, hematoma and bleeding on the victim’s genital area. Nevertheless, she testified that despite the absence of laceration on the victim’s vagina and that even if the vagina remains intact, it is still possible that AAA was raped because not all patients have the same shape of hymen and not all penetrations injure the hymen. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the appellant guilty of qualified statutory rape. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the appeal and affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. Undeterred, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court, claiming that the victim’s accusation against him was actually disproved by the results of the medical examination conducted by Dr. Bentrez on AAA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ramon Bay-od, the appellant, was guilty of statutory rape despite medical finding that the victim’s hymen remains intact

RULING:

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the appeal and ruled that AAA’s claim of rape is not negated by medical finding that her hymen is intact. Carnal knowledge, as an element of rape under Article 266-A(l) of the RPC, is not synonymous to sexual intercourse for it implies neither the complete penetration of the vagina nor the rupture of the hymen. However, in cases of rape, mere proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum or lips of the female organ is sufficient to constitute a basis for conviction. The Court further held that when the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.

WHEREFORE, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Decision of the CA in toto.