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]

x x x x

FISCAL:
QAnd 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]?
AYes, sir.
QWould 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?
AHe removed my clothes and then my under wear then he went on top of me.
x x x x
AHe had sexual intercourse with me, sir.
x x x x
QThe following day on May 15, 1995[,] were you in the house of Idring or the accused Enrique Galvez?
AYes, sir.
QWas there any unusual incident that happened between you [and the accused] on May 15, 1995?
AYes, sir.
QCould you tell us what was that unusual incident that happened between you and the accused on May 15, 1995[?]
AHe did the same thing to me sir, he again undressed me, I was naked.
COURT:
QAnd after you were undressed?
AHe again went on top of me ma’am.
QAnd?
ANone, your Honor. He again had a sexual intercourse with me.
x x x x
FISCAL:
QHow about on May 16, 1995 were you still in the house of [the accused]?
AYes, sir.
QAnd do you recall of any unusual incident that took place between you [and the accused] on the same date?
AYes, sir.
QWhat was that unusual incident that happened between you and [the accused on May 16, 1995]?
AThe same thing, sir.

[TSN, April 27, 1998]

FISCAL:
QWhile in the house of the accused on May 18, 1995, do you recall of any unusual incident that happened to you?
AYes, sir.
QWhat 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
QAnd after he removed your clothes, what did the accused do if any?
AHe went on top of me.
QAnd when he was already on top of you, what did the accused do?
AHe had sexual relation with me.
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 [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.

Popular Posts