G.R. No. 146854 - People vs. Balbarona

The case involves appellant Pascual B. Balbarona, who was charged with raping his minor daughter, Odette M. Balbarona.
The incident allegedly occurred on May 28, 2000, in Barangay Tambacan, Iligan City, Philippines.
The victim was fifteen years old at the time of the alleged rape.
A stipulation of facts was entered by both prosecution and defense, wherein it was admitted that the victim was the appellant’s daughter and that he lived with her and his two other daughters.

In the afternoon at around 2:00 p.m., the victim was at home with her two younger sisters, while the appellant was also present.
After her sisters left the house to watch television at a neighbor’s, the victim, who had finished cleaning the upper portion of their two-storey house, was about to go downstairs when the appellant unexpectedly pushed her.
The appellant then removed the victim’s clothes, pulled down her underwear, and made her lie on the floor.
Despite her resistance and attempts to fight back by kicking, the appellant managed to insert his penis into her vagina until the victim’s shouts of pain compelled him to withdraw.

The victim, in a state of shock, got dressed and sought help at the neighboring houses.
She eventually reported the incident to her elder sister, Tessie, and later to other members of the community, including a member of the paramilitary Civil Security Unit.
The victim was taken into custody by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and examined by medical personnel.

The pelvic examination showed the presence of hymenal notches at the 6, 1, and 11 o’clock positions, which he regarded as normal variants and not as lacerations.
Despite finding that the victim’s introitus admitted only one finger with minimal resistance, Dr. Labanon conceded the possibility of penetration up to the labial level by a partially erect penis.
The victim testified that her father had sexually abused her several times, including the incident on May 28, 2000.

The victim was diagnosed with a mood disorder, specifically major depression, and was noted to have an intelligence level below average.
Dr. Sagge confirmed that the victim was competent to testify, despite occasional difficulties in understanding some questions.

The appellant pleaded not guilty and instead offered an alibi, claiming that he was at his workplace in Barangay Saray at the time of the incident.
He testified that he left home early in the morning to work as a butcher and was engaged in his tasks, only returning home at around 7:00 p.m.
The defense highlighted the physical evidence:

The absence of lacerations in the victim’s hymen was argued to indicate that no complete penetration occurred.
The testimony noting that both the victim and appellant were allegedly still wearing their undergarments at the time of the assault was cited to cast doubt on her account.

Appellant challenged the trial court’s finding that he had indeed inserted his penis into his daughter’s vagina, asserting that the medical findings did not support such penetration.
He contended that the victim’s testimony was internally inconsistent, especially regarding her simultaneous claim of being raped and visiting a friend’s house at the same time.
The defense argued that superior physical evidence (medical findings) should have outweighed the testimonial evidence of the victim.

The trial court convicted the appellant of rape and imposed the supreme penalty of death initially.
On appeal, it was found that, while the victim’s testimony was bolstered by credible circumstantial details and community corroboration, the special qualifying circumstances (i.e., the victim’s age and the relationship requisite for the death penalty) were not conclusively established.
As a result, the appellant was convicted of simple rape, with the penalty reclusión perpetua.
The civil indemnity award was modified: reduced to P50,000.00 for the victim, while moral damages of P50,000.00 remained intact.

Whether the victim’s detailed account—despite some inconsistencies—was sufficient to prove that the appellant forcibly raped her.
Whether her testimony, as a young and traumatized individual, should be given full credence despite minor lapses in recollection.

Whether the absence of definitive medical findings (such as hymenal lacerations) negates the occurrence of rape.
The implications of Dr. Labanon’s medical opinion on the possibility of penetration limited to the labial level.

Whether the appellant’s claim of being at his workplace at the time of the rape is credible and adequately corroborated.
Whether the lack of corroborative evidence from his employer or workmates undermines his alibi.

Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the victim was a minor (under eighteen) and that the appellant was her parent.
Whether stipulations of facts regarding the victim’s age and their relationship are admissible to establish the qualifying circumstance necessary for the death penalty.