G.R. No. 1618 - Siojo vs. Diaz

On 23 September 1988, at around nine o’clock in the morning, Edievien Banados—who was only eleven (11) years old—was playing “shatung” with her brothers in front of the house of Danilo Palicte.
Danilo Palicte called Edievien inside his house and instructed her to run errands; he asked her to purchase coke, bread, an egg, and cigarettes, first sending her brothers home.

After Edievien returned with the goods, she and the accused stayed in the living room where they drank the coke.
As Edievien was about to leave, Palicte blocked her way by closing the door, then gave her a T-shirt.
He proceeded to take her to his room where he undressed her, began kissing her, and forced her to lie on the bed.
Palicte then inserted his penis into her vagina, an act which he maintained continued for about half an hour.
During the assault, Edievien experienced considerable pain and, upon hearing her brothers calling her name from outside, she was unable to respond as Palicte covered her mouth.

After the incident, Edievien eventually went home and, on the following day, related the incident to her mother, Vivian Banados.
On 28 September 1988, Edievien was taken for a medico-legal examination by Dr. Jose Ladrido, Jr., a Davao City Health Officer, who noted that she was still a virgin (with an intact hymen).

Provided a clear and detailed account of events inside Palicte’s house including being blocked from leaving, given a T-shirt, being forced to lie on the bed, and the act of penile penetration causing her pain.
Described how her brothers arrived and called out her name but she could not respond because her mouth was held shut by Palicte.

Claimed that Edievien and her brother roused him from sleep to ask for "balimbing.”
Stated that after buying the items, he gave her a dress and, later on, while she was naked, he merely engaged in kissing and masturbated without inserting his penis into her vagina.
Asserted that she dressed and left on her own without his forcible interference.

Despite the conflicting accounts, the trial court placed significant credence on the credible, consistent, and straightforward testimony of Edievien.
The prosecution relied on the legal principle that statutory rape is committed when a minor under twelve (12) years of age is defiled, regardless of any physical evidence of deep penetration or injury.
The medical opinion, which noted an intact hymen, was contextualized within the possibility that a child victim’s hymenal resistance could prevent full penetration, without negating the occurrence of rape.
The trial court convicted Palicte of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering the payment of civil indemnity to the victim.

Whether the court erred in giving significant weight and credence to the testimony of Edievien, despite claims of its being incredible and improbable by the accused.

Whether the medical finding that Edievien was still a virgin should have precluded the conviction for rape, given the absence of evidence of deep penetration or physical injury.

Whether the trial court reasonably rejected the accused’s version of events, which denied penetration and characterized the interaction as consensual or non-forcible, in favor of the victim’s account.