Delay in reporting rape does not create doubt as to credibility of complainant
People vs. Baring, Jr.
G.R. No. 137933, January 28, 2002
Buena, J.
Facts: When her parents separated, Fe lived with her grandmother and the latter’s common-law husband, Baring. Baring sexually abused Fe since she was seven years old whenever she was left alone in the house. Baring touched Fe’s private parts, removed her panty, mounted on her and violated her. When Fe’s mother learned about Baring’s beastly acts, Baring was charged with statutory rape.
The trial court convicted Baring of statutory rape and sentenced him to death. On appeal, Baring claimed that the trial court erred in convicting him of rape despite prosecution’s failure to present the examining physician, thus depriving him of his constitutional right to confront a witness against him. He likewise impugned Fe’s credibility by pointing out that the rape was filed one year after its commission, which allegedly leaves doubt as to the identity of the culprit. He accused the lover of Fe’s mother to be the perpetrator of the alleged rape.
Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua because Fe was already 7 years old at the time of the incident. There was, therefore, no statutory rape that would warrant the imposition of the death penalty.
A review of the transcript of the stenographic notes revealed that Baring’s counsel waived the presentation of the medico-legal officer. Hence, Baring was not deprived of his constitutional right to confront the witness.
The Supreme Court ruled that a medical certificate is not indispensable to prove the commission of rape inasmuch as the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. Besides, testimonies of rape victims who are of tender age are credible and are given full weight and credit.
Delay in reporting an incident of rape does not create any doubt over the credibility of the complainant nor can it be taken against the victim.
Baring contended that the trial court denied him his right to subject the blood on the victim’s panty for DNA testing (supposedly to prove that the lover of Fe’s mother committed the rape). It must be noted that in the prosecution of rape cases, the presentation of the bloodstained panty is not even essential. Fe’s credible testimony, standing alone, is sufficient basis for Baring’s conviction.
In commenting on the results of Fe’s medico-legal examination, the Supreme Court found occasion to discuss how the examination of a child’s vagina should be properly conducted, viz:
“This Court is disturbed by the method of physical examination done on the seven-year-old victim. We noticed that in the examiner’s effort to show the existence of abuse, the examining physician inserted his smallest finger, as shown in the medico-legal report that the ‘external vaginal orifice admits tip of the examiner’s finger.’
It bears to stress that this particular manner of establishing evidence – by determining the diameter/hymenal opening in rape cases – was a common practice in the past. With the passage of R.A. 7610, this Court has nonetheless allowed the utilization of the same kind of evidence in the prosecution of Child Abuse cases. In light however of radical medical developments and findings, specifically as to the determination of the existence of child sexual abuse, this Court deems it necessary to firmly adopt a more “child sensitive” approach in dealing with this specie or genre of crime.
In the international scientific community, recent medical studies have shown that measurement of hymenal opening is unreliable in determining and/or proving child sexual abuse –
“The diameter of the hymenal opening previously has been used as a diagnostic criterion for abuse. More recent studies have shown this to be undependable (Paradise, 1989). Factors affecting hymenal and anal diameter include the examination position (McCann, Voris, Simon, & Wells, 1990) and the degree of relaxation of the child. The anal diameter is also affected by the presence of stool in the ampulla. Hymenal diameter may increase with age and with the onset of pubertal development.”
x x x
Hence, insertion of a finger or any foreign matter inside the hymenal opening under the pretext of determining abuse is unnecessary and inappropriate. The Philippine Judicial Academy [PHILJA] training program for family court judges, through the auspices of the U.P.-P.G.H. Child Protection Unit, sanctioned that in pre-pubertal girls without active bleeding; all that is needed is an external examination with a good light source and magnification. Be that as it may, the physical findings alone will not be conclusive of child sexual abuse, for a child who gives a clear, consistent, detailed, spontaneous description of being sexually molested may still have normal genital examination. Despite the physical or laboratory findings, however, a child’s clear and convincing description of the abuse has a high rate of probability.”
