People v Chingh; G.R. No. 178323; March 16, 2011; Peralta, J.

FACTS:

Respondent Armando Chingh was charged of raping VVV, a 10-year old minor. VVV was playing when accused pulled her. she threatened her not to shout or ask for help. He then proceeded to do carnal knowledge of her. VVV went home with an uneasy demeanor and her mother noticed that her underwear had blood stains. They went to the police station and VVV underwent medical examination finding lacerations on her genital. Armando denied this saying he was with his granddaughter that night. He decided to buy food and saw VVV with her companions. VVV approached him to go with him to the market but accused denied. Upon arriving home, he watched television with his wife and children until the police came. RTC and CA found him guilty. Accused challenges the credibility of testimony of VVV and the failure to present evidence to overcome his presumption of innocence. He alleged that it was unnatural to remain quiet when she was pulled with the presence of several companion, she did not resist, he could have run away, and it is impossible to consummate the crime when both of them were standing.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is guilty of rape.

RULING:

Yes.

On the credibility of testimony, the court relies on the findings of the RTC since they had the opportunity to personally witness the parties. Also, the victim is a young girl, hence the court gives credence to the testimony because no one would testify that will cause shame and embarrassment. Moreover, accused testified that he saw VVV. The testimony of VVV was not unnatural.

In this case, the offended party was ten years old at the time of the commission of the offense. Pursuant to the above-quoted provision of law, Armando was aptly prosecuted under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, for Rape Through Sexual Assault. However, instead of applying the penalty prescribed therein, which is prision mayor, considering that VVV was below 12 years of age, and considering further that Armando's act of inserting his finger in VVV's private part undeniably amounted to lascivious conduct, the appropriate imposable penalty should be that provided in Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which is

reclusion temporal in its medium period.