G.R. No.

173307 July 17, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
VICTORINO REYES, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS:
At around 7:00 p.m., AAA and her 9-year-old sister, BBB, had watched television at his
house just across the street from their house. nly !eyes and his two sons, a"ed seven and
five, were the other persons in the house, for his wife had "one to another #aran"ay to sell
refreshments. By 9:00 p.m., AAA and BBB rose to "o home, #ut as they were leavin", !eyes
suddenly pulled AAA into the store attached to the sala of his house. $e told her in the dialect:
%may&an ta a"iyyot ta. '(ome here and let us have se)*. Alarmed #y what his words denoted,
AAA stru""led to free herself from him. BBB went to her succor #y pullin" her away from him,
#ut his superior stren"th prevailed. BBB could only cry as he dra""ed AAA into the store. BBB
was left outside the store cryin".
+nside the store, !eyes &issed AAA and mashed her #reasts. $e threatened her: +f you
will shout, + will &ill you. $e pulled down her lon" pants and panties #elow her &nees, too& out
his penis, "ra##ed her #y the waist, and used his #ody to anchor her #ac& to a near#y ta#le.
,he fou"ht #ac& #y #o)in" and pushin" him away, #ut her efforts were futile. $e twice tried to
pry open her le"s, #ut she strained hard to close them. n the second attempt, however, her
effort was not enou"h to prevent him from pullin" her le"s apart, and he then thrust his penis
into her va"ina and made push and pull movements. Althou"h his penis achieved only a sli"ht
penetration of her va"ina, he succeeded in satisfyin" his lust, as confirmed later on when (((,
the mother of the victim, found semen on AAA-s panties.
,u#se.uently, the ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pan"asinan filed the information
char"in" !eyes with rape.
Althou"h admittin" that AAA and BBB had watched television in his house at the time of
the rape, !eyes insisted that he had #een sleepin" on the sofa in front of the television set in
the sala of his house from 7:/0 p.m. of 0ecem#er 12, 3992 until 1:/0 a.m. of the ne)t day. $e
denied the accusation, and called attention to the medical findin"s showin" that AAA-s hymen
was intact4 hence, she was still a vir"in.
5he !5( found the accused 6ictorino !eyes "uilty #eyond reasona#le dou#t of the
crime of rape.
5he (A affirmed !eyes- conviction.
ISSUE:
78 the rape was consummated.
HEL:
5he ,upreme (ourt ruled in the affirmative.
Article //9 of the !evised Penal (ode, as amended #y ,ection 33 of !epu#lic Act 8o.
7299, the law applica#le at the time of the rape of AAA, defined and punished rape thusly:
Article //9. 7hen and how rape is committed. : !ape is committed #y havin" carnal &nowled"e
of a woman under any of the followin" circumstances:
3. By usin" force or intimidation4
1. 7hen the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious4 and
/. 7hen the woman is under twelve years of a"e or is demented.
As the te)t of the law itself shows, the #rea&in" of the hymen of the victim is not amon" the
means of consummatin" rape. All that the law re.uired is that the accused had carnal
&nowled"e of a woman under the circumstances descri#ed in the law. By definition, carnal
&nowled"e was ;the act of a man havin" se)ual #odily connections with a woman.; 5his
understandin" of rape e)plains why the sli"htest penetration of the female "enitalia
consummates the crime.
0urin" her e)amination of AAA, 0ra. <ancinia found pamama"a 'swellin"* on the victim-s la#ia
majora. 0ra. <ancinia opined that such swellin" was possi#ly caused #y the insertion of a hard
o#ject, li&e a hard penis, or #y friction with hard o#jects even without removin" the panties or
pants of AAA. Althou"h such medical findin", left alone, was suscepti#le of different pro#a#le
interpretations, AAA-s testimonial narration a#out how !eyes had se)ually assaulted her,
includin" how his penis had only sli"htly penetrated her va"ina, confirmed that he had carnal
&nowled"e of her.
=ore specifically, the presence of the swellin" in AAA-s la#ia majora was an indication of the
penetration #y the erect penis of the la#ia majora of the accused. As such, there was sufficient
factual foundation for findin" him "uilty #eyond reasona#le dou#t of rape, for, as the (ourt
e)plains in People v. 5eodoro.