People vs Garcia, GR 177740 April 05, 2010

Facts: According to the prosecution, during the afternoon of Jan. 06, 2000, the 5 yr
old niece of the accused, while playing with some friends outside their house was
called by the former and brought in to the house. They went to the room of the
accused and the latter removed the clothes of the child. After the accused removed
his clothes and inserted his penis into the childs vagina. The latter was unable to
cry because she was threatened by the accused. On the same day, the
grandmother noticed something wrong when she tried to bathe the child but the
latter refused to be touched on her private part because it was painful. The
grandmother suspected that the child was abused, brought the latter to the house
of her sister-in-law where the child confessed what happened. The child was later on
subjected for examination but the results showed that her hymen was not broken
and that there were no signs of extragenital injuries. On the other hand, the
accused interposed the defense of alibi hereby saying that he was fixing a water
pump during the alleged time of the event. RTC convicted the accused for the crime
of rape. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC which led the accused to file an appeal
interposing that the courts erred in convicting him despite the fact that the medicolegal shows there were no swelling on the victims private part and the hymen was
not broken.
Issue: Whether the crime of rape has been sufficiently proven to convict the
accused?
Ruling: The court ruled in the affirmative. The Court stated that the lack of
lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not
an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the hymen of the victim is still
intact does not rule out rape since research show that the hymen may not be torn
despite repeated coitus. In any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration
is not necessary. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into
the labia of the pudendum of the female organ.
The court gave credence to the testimony of the victim. It stated that a rape victim
who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and
remains consistent, is a credible witness.