ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 123160. June 20, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. CARLOS BATION y ALAMAG

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 20 2000.

G.R. No. 123160 (People of the Philippines vs. Carlos Bation y Alamag.)

This refers to the motion for reconsideration filed by the accused submitting that "for a complaint (for rape) to prosper, it is essential that there must be at least some penetration of the accused's male organ into that of the victim's organ." Allegedly, the prosecution failed to present evidence of sexual intercourse between accused and victim or even the requirement of slightest penetration.

We disagree.

It is the rule that full penetration of the vaginal canal is not an essential element of rape. The slightest introduction of the male organ into the labia of the victim already constitutes rape. It is enough that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum of the female organ.1 People v. Abundo Tolentino, 308 SCRA 485 (1999); People v. Dionisio Monfero y Solte, 308 SCRA 396 1999; People v. Primo Campuhan y Bello, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000.

In the instant case, the direct and the positive testimony of the victim plus the medical findings of the medico-legal officer convince us with moral certainty that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim. She testified that the accused-appellant after overpowering her, brought her to a pile of rice husks. He undressed himself and the victim as well, pulled down the victim's panties, placed himself on top of her, and made a push and pull movement. The victim later experienced pain in her vagina.2 Supra . Upon medical examination, the medico-legal officer found that there were hymenal lacerations at 8:00, 4:00 and 6:00 positions. In People v. Campuhan,3 G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000. we held that "in cases of rape where there is a positive testimony and a medical certificate, both should in all respect complement each other in order to carefully ascertain whether the penis of the accused in reality entered the labial threshold of the female organ to accurately conclude that rape was committed." We have carefully assessed the testimony of the victim and the physical evidence. When the victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physician's findings of a penetration, then there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

Vitug, J., is abroad on official business.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE