Carnal knowledge; victim's testimony; medical findings
Carnal knowledge is proven by proof of the entry or introduction of the male organ into the female organ; the touching or entry of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim’s genitalia constitutes consummated rape.In the case of People v. Galvez (G.R. No. 212929. July 29, 2015), the RTC and the CA both found that the element of carnal knowledge was sufficiently established by AAA’s narration that accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with her, to wit:
[TSN, December 13, 1995]The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that carnal knowledge was proved. The Court disagreed with accused-appellant that the prosecution failed to prove rape because the testimony of AAA was not detailed.In People v. Salvador (433 Phil. 602, 2002), it was held that the credible testimony of the victim narrating that she was defiled, such as the testimony of AAA in this case, is sufficient for a conviction of rape, to wit:
x x x x
FISCAL: Q And you stayed [at the accused’s house] on May 14, 1995 and while you were there do you know of any unusual incident that happened between you and [the accused]? A Yes, sir. Q Would you please tell this Honorable Court [w]hat was that unusual incident that happened between you and [the accused] on May 14, 1995 while you stayed with him? A He removed my clothes and then my under wear then he went on top of me. x x x x A He had sexual intercourse with me, sir. x x x x Q The following day on May 15, 1995[,] were you in the house of Idring or the accused Enrique Galvez? A Yes, sir. Q Was there any unusual incident that happened between you [and the accused] on May 15, 1995? A Yes, sir. Q Could you tell us what was that unusual incident that happened between you and the accused on May 15, 1995[?] A He did the same thing to me sir, he again undressed me, I was naked. COURT: Q And after you were undressed? A He again went on top of me ma’am. Q And? A None, your Honor. He again had a sexual intercourse with me. x x x x FISCAL: Q How about on May 16, 1995 were you still in the house of [the accused]? A Yes, sir. Q And do you recall of any unusual incident that took place between you [and the accused] on the same date? A Yes, sir. Q What was that unusual incident that happened between you and [the accused on May 16, 1995]? A The same thing, sir.
[TSN, April 27, 1998]
FISCAL: Q While in the house of the accused on May 18, 1995, do you recall of any unusual incident that happened to you? A Yes, sir. Q What was that unusual incident that happened to you inside the house of the accused on May 18, 1995 at around 12:00 noon? A [The accused] undressed me and thereafter he had sexual intercourse with me. x x x x Q And after he removed your clothes, what did the accused do if any? A He went on top of me. Q And when he was already on top of you, what did the accused do? A He had sexual relation with me.
x x x [W]hen a victim of rape says that she was defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. This is a basic rule, founded on reason and experience and becomes even more apparent when the victim is a minor. In fact, more compelling is the application of this doctrine when the culprit is her close relative.In People v. Gecomo (324 Phil. 297, 1996), it was also held that what is merely required in establishing rape through testimonial evidence is that the victim be categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank in her statements about the incident of rape.
Going back to the case of People v. Galvez (G.R. No. 212929. July 29, 2015), the Supreme Court agreed with the RTC that the testimony of AAA was straightforward, honest, and consistent on all material points and it is sufficient to establish carnal knowledge as an element of rape.
Further, while AAA may not have described the incidents of rape in detail during the trial, she identified her sworn statement containing a detailed account of the incidents of rape and admitted placing her thumb mark on said statement. The testimony of AAA, while not as detailed, is consistent with what is stated in the sworn statement and accurately reflects points such as the approximate time when the rape incidents on May 14, 16 and 18, 1995 occurred and the fact that the incidents occurred while accused-appellant’s wife was away.
Furthermore, it was also noted by the Court that AAA’s testimony is corroborated by the findings stated in the Medico-Legal Certificate[34] issued by Dr. Echaluse after her examination of AAA.
In People v. Mercado (664 Phil. 747, 751. 2011), it was ruled that when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that there has been carnal knowledge.
Based on the foregoing, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the element of carnal knowledge has been sufficiently established.
