G.R. No. 140873-77, February 6,
2004
FACTS:
The spouses Vivencio and
Teodora Brigole had four children. Two of them were girls and named- Norelyn
and Doneza. Teodora left Vivencio and kept custody of their four children.
Then, Teodora and Levi started living together as husband and wife.
Sometime in 1995, Norelyn, who
was barely ten years old, was gathering firewood with the appellant Levi in his
farm. While they were nearing a guava tree, the appellant suddenly boxed her on
the stomach. Norelyn lost consciousness. She had her clothes when she woke up.
She had a terrible headache and felt pain in her vagina. She also had a bruise
in the middle portion of her right leg. The appellant warned not to tell her
mother about it, otherwise he would kill her.
The sexual assaults were
repeated several times so she decided to tell her sister and eventually her
mother. The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime rape and
sentenced him to death.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Levi
Sumaragao is guilty of the crime charged.
RULING:
Yes, the accused is
guilty of the crime charged. For the accused to held guilty of consummated
rape, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: 1) there had
been carnal knowledge of the victim by the accused; and 2) the accused achieves the
act through force or intimidation upon the victim because the latter is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. Carnal knowledge of the victim by
the accused may be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence that rape had been committed and that the accused is the perpetrator
thereof. A finding of guilt of the accused for rape may be based solely on the
victim’s testimony if such testimony meets the test of credibility.
Corroborating testimony frequently unavailable in rape cases is not
indispensable to warrant a conviction of the accused for the crime. This Court
has ruled that when a woman states that she has been raped, she says in effect
all that would necessary to show rape did take place. However, the testimony of
the victim must be scrutinized with extreme caution. The prosecution must stand
or fall on its own merits.
The credibility of Norelyn and
the probative weight of her testimony cannot be assailed simply because her
admission that it took the appellant only short time to insert his penis into
her vagina and to satiate his lust. The mere entry of his penis into the labia
of the pudendum, even if only for a short while, is enough insofar as the
consummation of the crime of rape is concerned, the brevity of time that the
appellant inserted penis into the victim’s vagina is of no particular
importance.
