In People v. Tabayan, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Herminigildo B. Tabayan for the crime of qualified rape against his eight-year-old granddaughter. The Court emphasized the credibility of the child’s testimony, even in the absence of hymenal lacerations, and underscored the importance of protecting vulnerable victims. This ruling reinforces the principle that the testimony of a young victim, if clear and convincing, can be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that physical evidence is not the sole determinant in rape cases.

When Trust Betrays Innocence: Can a Grandfather’s Act Overshadow a Child’s Truth?

The case of People v. Herminigildo B. Tabayan revolves around the harrowing experience of AAA, an eight-year-old girl, who accused her grandfather, Herminigildo B. Tabayan, of rape. The incident allegedly occurred on the evening of July 24, 2006, when AAA and her brother were staying at the appellant’s house. AAA testified that she was awakened to find her grandfather removing her shorts and underwear, after which he attempted to penetrate her. Despite not achieving full penetration, the contact caused her pain and prompted her to cry out. The prosecution presented AAA’s testimony, along with medical evidence indicating a gonorrheal infection and reddening of her labia, as proof of the crime. The defense, on the other hand, relied on denial, with Tabayan admitting only to touching AAA’s vagina, claiming he was unaware of his actions due to intoxication. The central legal question is whether the testimony of a child victim, coupled with corroborating medical evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a rape case, even in the absence of physical signs of forced penetration.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Tabayan guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, increasing the moral damages and awarding exemplary damages. The Supreme Court, in its review, underscored several pivotal principles that guided its decision. Central to the Court’s affirmation was the credibility of AAA’s testimony. It highlighted that in rape cases, particularly when the victim is a child, the court places significant weight on the victim’s account, provided it is clear, credible, and convincing. The Court noted that AAA’s narration of the events was candid and straightforward, and she remained consistent despite cross-examination. “After poring through the records and the transcript of stenographic notes, this Court finds AAA’s testimony, who was only eight (8) years old when the rape occurred on 24 July 2006, to be clear, credible, convincing and worthy of belief.”

The absence of hymenal lacerations was a point of contention raised by the defense, arguing that it negated the possibility of rape. However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this argument, citing established jurisprudence. The Court reiterated that a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, and the absence of lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse, especially when the victim is of tender age. The Court emphasized that even the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient to consummate the crime. To further illustrate, the court stated: “It has been the consistent ruling of this Court that absence of hymenal lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse especially when the victim is of tender age.” This principle acknowledges the physiological realities of child sexual abuse, where penetration may not always result in physical trauma.

The presence of gonorrhea and the reddening of AAA’s labia served as corroborating medical evidence. While the defense argued that these conditions could have been caused by other factors, such as pseudomonas infection or droplet transmission, the Court gave credence to the medical expert’s testimony that the greenish vaginal discharge was caused by a sexually transmitted disease, specifically gonorrhea. The Court clarified that the reddening of the labia could result from mere contact with a male private organ, even without deep penetration. These findings supported the conclusion that penile contact had occurred, contradicting the appellant’s claim that he merely touched AAA’s vagina. “Hence, both the presence of the greenish vaginal discharge at AAA’s vaginal opening and the reddening of her labia prove penile contact and negates appellant’s claim that he merely touched AAA’s vagina.”

The defense also pointed to inconsistencies between AAA’s sworn statement and her open court testimony, particularly regarding the number of times the alleged rape occurred. The Court addressed this issue by stating that discrepancies between sworn statements and testimonies do not necessarily discredit a witness. Sworn statements are often executed under circumstances where the affiant’s mental faculties may not be at their best, while testimonies given during trials are more exact and elaborate. The Court emphasized that what was important was the fact that AAA established that she was raped by the appellant on July 24, 2006. The assertion in court stands to be more credible than an affidavit made by a potential victim of a crime as per the ruling in People v. Mangat, 369 Phil. 347, 360 (1999):

Thus testimonial evidence carries more weight than sworn statements/affidavits.”

The Court also rejected the appellant’s defense of denial, stating that it was unsubstantiated and uncorroborated. Mere denial, if unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, carries no weight in law and cannot outweigh the positive testimony of a rape victim. The Court further noted that the appellant’s admission of touching the victim’s vagina amounted to an admission of criminal lust, which further undermined his defense. The court reiterated its stance on the weight of the victim’s statement in these types of cases. In People v. Basmayor, supra note 26 at 384-385, the court stated:

Denial is intrinsically weak, being a negative and self-serving assertion.

The Supreme Court further addressed the proper designation of the crime committed. While both the trial court and the Court of Appeals appreciated the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship, they designated the crime as merely rape. The Supreme Court clarified that the crime committed was qualified rape, as the aggravating circumstances of minority (AAA was under twelve years old) and relationship (AAA was the granddaughter of the appellant) were alleged in the Information and duly proven during trial. This distinction is crucial because qualified rape carries a heavier penalty.

With the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty for qualified rape was reduced to reclusion perpetua. However, the Court emphasized that even with this reduction, the appellant is not eligible for parole. Regarding damages, the Supreme Court increased the awards for civil indemnity and moral damages from P75,000.00 to P100,000.00 each, and the award for exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P100,000.00. The Court also imposed an interest rate of 6% per annum on all damages awarded from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid. These adjustments were made in line with prevailing jurisprudence, which seeks to provide adequate compensation to victims of heinous crimes. These adjustments were based on the ruling in People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, 1 October 2013, which set the minimum indemnity and damages in cases where death is the penalty warranted by the facts but is not imposable under present law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the testimony of a child victim, coupled with corroborating medical evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a rape case, even in the absence of physical signs of forced penetration.
Did the absence of hymenal lacerations affect the Court’s decision?	No, the Court explicitly stated that the absence of hymenal lacerations does not negate the crime of rape, especially when the victim is of tender age. It is not an essential element to prove sexual abuse.
What medical evidence was presented in the case?	Medical evidence included findings of greenish vaginal discharge caused by gonorrhea and reddening of the labia. These findings, according to the medical expert, indicated penile contact.
How did the Court address inconsistencies between the victim’s sworn statement and testimony?	The Court stated that discrepancies between sworn statements and testimonies do not necessarily discredit a witness. Trial testimonies are considered more exact and elaborate.
What was the appellant’s defense?	The appellant relied on denial, admitting only to touching the victim’s vagina and claiming he was unaware of his actions due to intoxication.
What crime was the appellant ultimately convicted of?	The appellant was convicted of qualified rape due to the aggravating circumstances of minority (victim under 12) and relationship (granddaughter-grandfather).
What penalty did the appellant receive?	The appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, the penalty prescribed for qualified rape in the absence of the death penalty. He is also ineligible for parole.
How were damages awarded in this case?	The Supreme Court increased the awards for civil indemnity and moral damages to P100,000.00 each, and exemplary damages to P100,000.00. An interest rate of 6% per annum was imposed on all damages.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Tabayan serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting vulnerable members of society, particularly children, from sexual abuse. The ruling underscores that the testimony of a child victim, if credible and convincing, can be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, it reinforces the principle that physical evidence is not the sole determinant in rape cases, and the absence of hymenal lacerations does not negate the commission of the crime.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Tabayan, G.R. No. 190620, June 18, 2014