G.R. No. 106831 - Pepsi-Cola Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

The alleged crime occurred on or about December 1997 in Taguig, Metro Manila, where the accused, Arnel Asuncion y Villadus, was charged with raping his daughter, Arlin C. Asuncion, then seven years old.
The information charged that, by means of force and intimidation, the accused committed the act against his daughter while they were at home and the accused’s wife, Erlinda, was away working.

In her testimony, the young victim recounted that the accused, who was then naked, instructed her to remove her clothes, including her panty, and to lie down on the bed.
While in that position, the accused positioned himself on top of her, spread her legs, and performed a “push and pull” movement that caused severe pain in her vagina.
Although she repeatedly stated that she did not see the accused insert his penis into her vagina, her account of rubbing and the push-pull movement suggested a form of penetration.
Being only seven years old at the time of the incident and eight at the time of her testimony, her limited understanding of sexual intercourse and vocabulary complicated the interpretation of her statements.

A physical examination conducted on February 4, 1998 by Dr. Emmanuel Reyes, Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, revealed “deep healed lacerations” on Arlin’s hymen at the 3 o’clock and 6 o’clock positions.
The physician opined that such lacerations, consistent with the insertion of a hard object akin to a male sex organ, provided objective evidence of penetration.
Additionally, Arlin’s report of blood in her urine shortly after the ordeal further corroborated physical trauma.

While Erlinda Asuncion had executed a sworn statement regarding the rape, she later recanted and wished for the case to be dismissed, thereby weakening her direct participation in the trial.
The accused, serving as the defense’s lone witness, provided an alternative narrative claiming that on December 26, 1997, his entire family—including Arlin—was at his father’s house in Caloocan, attempting to attribute the filing of the case to personal grudges and ulterior motives.
Despite the defense’s contention and the victim’s repeated denial of full insertion, the physical findings and her narrative details were deemed sufficient to establish that some degree of penetration had occurred.

The case is governed by Republic Act No. 8353, known as “The Anti-Rape Law of 1997,” which, among other provisions, underscores that even minimal penetration is sufficient to establish rape.
Jurisprudence, including decisions in People v. Salinas, People v. Castillo, People v. Alimon, and People v. Aguinaldo, has clarified that physical evidence such as hymenal lacerations can be pivotal to establishing the consummation of rape when the victim’s testimony is ambiguous.

How should the testimony of a seven- to eight-year-old, with limited understanding of sexual terminology, be evaluated in light of her repeated statement that no full insertion occurred?
Is the absence of a verbal admission of full insertion by the victim sufficient to negate the occurrence of rape, or should the testimony be read in light of her developmental limitations?

Does the physical evidence (i.e., the healed hymenal lacerations and the presence of blood in the urine) definitively establish that penetration occurred despite the victim’s ambiguous verbal testimony?
Must physical evidence be given more weight over testimonial evidence when the latter is provided by a minor with limited capacity to clearly describe sexual acts?

Were the special qualifying circumstances of minority and familial relationship adequately and conclusively proven as required under Article 266-B of the Anti-Rape Law?
In the absence of additional corroborative evidence (such as testimony from the mother or a Certificate of Live Birth), can the imposition of the death penalty be sustained?