Title
People vs. Rullepa y Guinto
Case
G.R. No. 131516
Decision Date
Mar 5, 2003
A 3-year-old minor was raped by accused-appellant, who admitted to the act. Medical evidence and testimony corroborated the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed guilt, modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua due to insufficient proof of the victim's exact age.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 131516)

Trial Court Proceedings

At the Quezon City RTC, AAA, her mother, the medico-legal officer, and a police officer testified for the prosecution. The defense presented only the accused, who denied the acts and suggested malice by AAA’s mother. The court admitted respondent’s out-of-court admission to AAA’s parents and took note of his silence at trial regarding that admission.

Medical Findings

Dr. Ma. Cristina Preyra examined AAA on November 21, 1995. She found congested and abraded labia minora, an intact hymen, and no external signs of recent trauma. She opined that the abrasions could have been caused by friction with an erect penis and discounted other causes.

Defense’s Account

Respondent claimed he merely bought medicine for AAA’s urinary difficulty and that Gloria Buenafe harbored personal animus against him. He denied any sexual contact with AAA and suggested the complaint was maliciously fabricated.

Trial Court Judgment

The RTC convicted respondent of rape and imposed the death penalty, plus P 40,000 civil indemnity. The conviction rested on AAA’s credible testimony, respondent’s admission to her parents, and the medical report.

Issues on Appeal

Respondent argued that:

  1. His out-of-court admission was coerced and inadmissible.
  2. His silence at trial should not be treated as an implied admission.
  3. The evidence failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  4. The death penalty was excessive.

Admission of Guilt and Admissibility

The Supreme Court held that even if respondent’s admission to AAA’s parents were disregarded, the remaining evidence—AAA’s testimony and the medical report—sufficed to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt. His silence at trial did not alter the outcome.

Credibility of the Victim’s Testimony

AAA’s detailed, spontaneous, and consistent narrative was found credible. Despite her tender age, she demonstrated intelligence, awareness of right and wrong, and provided vivid descriptions of the assault, which she repeated under cross-examination.

Medical Corroboration of Penetration

Dr. Preyra’s findings of labial abrasions directly beneath the labia majora corroborated AAA’s account of penile penetration. These injuries could not reasonably be self-inflicted nor caused by innocuous activities such as bicycle riding.

Age as Element and Qualifying Circumstance

Statutory rape under Article 335 requires carnal knowledge of a woman under 12. The victim and her mother testified that AAA was three years old. No birth or bap

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.