G.R. No. 126115 - People vs. Balgos

The case involves the People of the Philippines charging Alfonso Balgos, alias “Lupog,” with the crime of rape committed against a six-year-old child, Crisselle Fuentes.
The criminal complaint was filed on November 9, 1995, and the incident allegedly occurred on October 8, 1995 in Roxas City, Philippines, near the accused-appellant’s residence adjacent to a river.

On October 8, 1995, at around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Crisselle Fuentes went to the house of the accused-appellant to play with two nieces, Michelle and Waday.
The location allowed the children to play near a window facing a river where they watched small crabs.
During the play, the accused-appellant first called Michelle to go outside to buy cheese curls.
After Michelle left, he directed his attention toward Crisselle, unzipped his pants, and initiated physical contact by taking her right forearm and briefly making her hold his penis.
Upon the return of Michelle and Waday, he locked the door, removed Crisselle’s shorts and underwear, and undressed himself before laying her on a mat.
The accused-appellant then proceeded to position himself on top of Crisselle and attempted repeated insertion of his penis into her vagina, employing a push and pull motion.
Although he made several attempts, he did not achieve complete penetration; his actions were, however, painful for the victim.
Realizing that the other children were about to unlock the door, he ceased his “bestial act,” redressed both himself and the victim, covering her with a blanket.

Crisselle did not immediately report the incident; however, on October 12, 1995, her older brother informed their mother, prompting further inquiry and the eventual formal reporting of the abuse to the Barangay Captain.
The Barangay Captain, along with tanods, apprehended the accused-appellant and brought him in for questioning at the Barangay Hall and subsequently to the police station.
A medical examination conducted at Roxas Memorial General Hospital by Dr. Ma. Lourdes B. LaAada on October 9, 1995, revealed a lacerated wound (0.2 cm) on the victim’s hymen and other pertinent observations, despite no bruises or hemorrhaging.

The accused-appellant, represented by counsel de oficio, pleaded “not guilty,” denying the rape charge and contending that he only inserted his finger into the victim’s vagina due to sexual arousal.
He argued that if his penis (noted to have a circumference of 3 ½ inches) had been inserted, the injury would have been more severe than the observed 0.2 cm laceration.
During rebuttal, the accused also claimed that he was not alone with the victim at all times, asserting the presence of other relatives in the house and later presenting an inconsistent alibi stating he was at sea on October 6, 1995, and only returned on October 8, 1995.
The trial court, relying on the “straightforward, clear and convincing” testimony of Crisselle and the physical evidence, rejected the accused-appellant’s version and convicted him for rape, imposing the supreme penalty of death.

The victim’s testimony was detailed, describing how the act was performed, the sequence of actions (including the door being locked and her being covered by a blanket), and the sensations of pain experienced during the ordeal.
The medical certificate served as corroborative evidence though it showed a minimal laceration, which the court interpreted as consistent with the act described rather than a mere finger insertion.
The inconsistencies and change in defense theories further damaged the credibility of the accused.

Whether the trial court erred in giving full credence to the victim’s testimony over the inconsistent explanations of the accused-appellant.
Whether the physical evidence, particularly the minimal laceration on the victim’s hymen, supports the conclusion of rape.

Whether the act committed by the accused-appellant constitutes rape even if complete penetration was not achieved, considering that mere introduction of the penis at the vaginal opening may already consummate the crime.
Whether the accused-appellant’s claim of having inserted only his finger can be reconciled with the detailed physical and testimonial evidence.

Whether the defense’s subsequent shift in theory—from finger insertion to an alibi regarding his whereabouts—compromised the credibility of the accused-appellant’s account.
Whether the chain of events, including the locking of the door and isolation of the victim, negates the accused-appellant’s defenses.

Whether the original civil indemnity of Fifty Thousand Pesos was sufficient given the aggravating circumstances, namely, the victim’s age and the nature of the crime.
Whether awarding additional moral damages is consistent with current jurisprudence on cases of rape involving minor victims.