People v. Bay-od

 

People v. Bay-od

G.R. No. 238176

January 14, 2019

FACTS:

                RTC and CA convicted Bay-od of qualified statutory rape. AAA, 6 years old, was outside looking for playmates. Meanwhile, Bay-od invited her to his house. When he penetrated her AAA’s private part, she was hurt and she cried so the accused stopped. AAA put on her clothes and went home but decided not to tell what happened except to his brother. Two years have lapsed, when she and her brother are having a quarrel, the latter said that she was sexually assaulted by Bay-od which was overheard by their mother. This led to AAA’s examination that according to the Doctor, her hymen was intact but was still possible of having previously penetrated. Appellant denied such accusation and his defense was that AAA’s family was envied to him fabricating this complaint against him.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the condition of the hymen is a determining factor for rape.

HELD:

                No. The medical finding of Dr. Bentrez that AAA has no injury in her hymen is not fatal to the accusation of rape against the appellant. In People v. Gabayron, medical researches show that negative findings of lacerations are of no significance, as the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. It was noted that many cases of pregnancy had been reported about women with unruptured hymens, and that there could still be a finding of rape even if, despite repeated intercourse over a period of years, the victim still retained an intact hymen without signs of injury. Also in People v. Aguinaldo, medical findings suggest that it is possible for the victim's hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse. We elucidated that the strength and dilatability of the hymen varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse; on the other hand, it may be so resistant that its surgical removal is necessary before intercourse can ensue. Moreover in People v. Pamintuan, The presence or absence of injuries would depend on different factors, such as the forcefulness of the insertion, the size of the object inserted, the method by which the injury was caused, the changes occurring in a female child's body, and the length of healing time, if indeed injuries were caused. The fact that AAA did not sustain any injury in her sex organ does not ipso facto mean that she was not raped.

                Carnal knowledge, as an element of rape under Article 266-A(1) of the RPC is not synonymous to sexual intercourse in its ordinary sense. It implies neither the complete penetration of the vagina nor the rupture of the hymen. Jurisprudence has held that even the slightest penetration of the victim’s genitals, that is, the touching by the penis of the vagina’s labia is enough to satisfy the element. In People v. Borromeo, carnal knowledge has been defined as the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman; sexual intercourse. In cases of rape, however, 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. In People v. Piosang, testimonies of child victims are in general accorded full weight and credit.