1.

 CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; FULL PENETRATION; NOT REQUIRED. — A

recent decision of this Court in a case of statutory rape observed that,
usually, the average adult's hymen measures 2.8 to 3 centimeters in
diameter making it compatible with, or usually penetrable by an
average-size penis. The victim being of tender age, the penetration of
the male organ could go only as deep as the labia. In any case, for
rape to be committed, full penetration is not required. It is enough
that there is proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia or
pudendum of the female organ. Even the slightest penetration is
sufficient to consummate the crime of rape. perfect penetration,
rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina are not essential for
the offense of consummated rape. Entry, to the least extent, of the
labia or lips of the female organ is sufficient. Diana's remaining a
virgin does not negate rape.
2. ID.; ID.; SEXUAL INTERCOURSE; PROBABLE EVEN IN STANDING
POSITION. — Sexual intercourse in a standing position, while perhaps
uncomfortable, is not improbable. The RTC decision explained: ". . .
For her account that she was made to stand to do the act as she was
too small and their private parts would not align unless she was
elevated to a higher position. The suggestion of the defense counsel
that a finger could have been used is absurd. For if it were only a
finger, there would have been no need to let Diana stand on the toilet
bowl. . ." The Solicitor General's brief, in turn, asserts that the position
asserts that the position Diana was forced to take, made it easier for
appellant to accomplish inserting of his organ than if Diana had been
made to lie down.

This is an appeal interposed by the accused, Delfin Castro y Lozada,

from the decision * of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch
110, imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua for statutory
rape defined under Art. 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code.
On the witness stand, six (6) year old Diana Rose Castro narrated
how, while playing with a neighbor sometime on 4 October 1986, she
was pulled by the accused inside a bathroom, prevented from going
out, and made to stand on the toilet bowl. Accused is a first cousin of
Diana Rose's mother. Kuya Delfin, as Diana Rose referred to the
accused, then put up her clothes, took off her panty, made her lean on
the wall and, despite her efforts to pull away he inserted his private
part into her causing pain. Then she was told by the accused to go
home. At home, she refused to have her private part washed by her
Auntie Alice because it was hurting and painful. 1
Mrs. Jacinta Castro, Diana's grandmother, testified that on 6 October
1986, in her house at No. 1692, F. Muñoz, Tramo, Pasay City, she was
asked by her husband to find out why Diana was crying. Her testimony
follows: 2
COURT:
q Was there anything unusual that happened on Oct. 6
particularly in your house?
a On Oct. 6 I was downstairs and there was a call by my
husband.
xxx xxx xxx
FISCAL:
xxx xxx xxx
q Now, what was the reason why your husband called you?
a He asked me to find out why my granddaughter does not
want to eat and just keeps on crying.
q And what did you do wen (sic) your husband told you to see
your granddaughter?
a I went upstairs and found out what was wring (sic) with her
whether she has fever.
q And what did you find out?
a At first she said she was complaining that her private
property was painful and when I investigated I
discovered that it swollen (sic).
q Then what happened after you found out that the private
property of your granddaughter was swollen?
a I asked her why.
q (sic). And what did your granddaughter tell you?
a At first she told me that "nasabit sa hiyero."
q And what did you do after that?
xxx xxx xxx
 a What I did was to examine her carefully her private part; I
lifted her two (2) legs and I discovered that her private
property was reddened as swollen.
q Did you ask her again what happened to her private
property?
a Yes, sir, she told me that she was invited by her Kuya Delfin
to the bathroom.
q And what else did she tell you?
a She told me that she was asked by her Kuya to stand on top
of the toilet bowl and he removed her panty and his (sic)
Kuya Delfin also removed his pants.
q What else did she tell you?
a She told me that his (sic) Kuya Delfin had sexual intercourse
with her.
COURT:
q Did you ask Diane Castro how Delfin allegedly had sexual
intercourse with her?
a Yes, Your Honor.
q What did she answer?
a. She was standing and she was made to lean on the wall,
Your Honor . . .
Because of Diana's revelation, the grandmother brought her to the
National Bureau of Investigation for examination on 8 October
1986. 3
Dr. Roberto Garcia, the NBI medico-legal, had this explanation:
xxx xxx xxx
a Under the single heading of "genital examination," the more
significant findings will be the contused or bruised
vetibular (sic) meaning the area inside the genital organ
of the subject person; the hymen of the subject person
was noted to be bruised or contused . . .
q Now what do you mean when you say that the genital parts
you mentioned were contused or bruised?  LLphil

a The area was noted to be purplish or red darker than the

normal appearance of the said portion being bruised or
 contused it would mean that this particular portion was
subject to some amount of force or it could have come in
contact with a hard object, the contract must have been
done with a certain amount of force.
q Under No. 2 of the conclusion of this report it reads — "signs
of recent genital trauma, present, consistent with the
alleged date of infliction."
 Would you explain this?
 This witness meant that the appearance of the genital or prior
of those mentioned was seen by this witness which
brought about the trauma and that it has to be recent,
meaning it could have been sustained by the subject
person in a matter of days prior to the date of the
examination.
q Now, was the hymen of the subject lacerated?
a No, sir.
q Now this genital trauma which you said to have been suffered
by the subject from what could this injury or trauman
(sic), what was the cause?
a Any hard object would have produced this bruise or
contusion.
q Now, this is a case of rape, Doctor, would you venture to
state from what object this could have been inflicted?
a Under the normal course of events injuries of this nature
involving this particular portion of the body of a female or
woman is produced by the insertion of a male organ." 4
xxx xxx xxx
A sworn complaint for rape was filed against Delfin Castro y Lozada. It
charged as follows:
"That on or about the 4th day of October, 1986 in Pasay City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above named accused, Delfin Castro y Lozada, with lewd
designs and taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over the
undersigned complainant who is his niece, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse
with or carnal knowledge of the undersigned." 5
Accused pleaded not guilty and posted bail for his provisional liberty.
Delfin's alibi begins on 3 October 1986 in 1692 Muñoz, Pasay City,
where he lives two (2) houses away from complainant's. At about
12:00 P.M., Diana went to his house while he was taking a bath. She
was crying and went inside the bathroom. When asked by the accused
why, she replied that while going down the stairs, a dog whose two (2)
hind legs were limping, chased her and so she tripped. The accused
told Diana to go out because their dog might bite her. He proceeded to
dress up and saw the victim playing outside.  Cdpr

In the morning of 4 October 1986, he woke up at about quarter to

seven, 6 left the house at 7:30 7 took a jeep plying the Pasay-Taft-
Luneta route, arrived in school (Adamson University) at 8:15 in the
morning. He proceeded to see Dolores Rivera, a godsister who worked
in the treasurer's office of the university to ask the latter to type a
term paper which was due that day. After submitting the term paper,
he treated his godsister to lunch. Around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon,
he went home.
Mrs. Teresita Castro's testimony dovetails with her son Delfin's saying
that at around 12:30 P.M. on 4 October 1986, he arrived and ate lunch
at home. 8 Mother and son talked of enmity between Mrs. Jacinta
Castro, Diana's grandmother and their family. This rape case against
Delfin is a result allegedly of the envy of Diana's said grandmother
over his (Delfin's) fine scholastic performance. 9
Delfin further narrated that on or about 8 October 1986, he was
invited to the Pasay Police Headquarters for questioning. While there,
he was asked to undress, was blindfolded and beaten by around 7 to
10 policemen for about half an hour and made to admit that he raped
Diana. Since he could no longer stand the torture, he told them that
he used his small finger to touch her private part. 10 After the incident,
Delfin left their house in order to avoid trouble; occasionally he would
visit his parents. 11
Finding the testimony of Diana positive, clear and credible, the
Regional Trial Court disregarded the alibi of the accused and convicted
him. The trial court, inter alia, stated:
". . . The accused's claim that he was, in the morning of
October 4, 1986, at Adamson University waiting for his term
paper engenders disbelief. By his evidence, he was enrolled at
the Adamson University for the second semester of school
1986-1987 classes for which usually start in October. Term
 papers are usually submitted at the end of the semester, not at
the beginning of the semester. In any event, Delfin has not
shown that it was physically impossible for him to be at the
place of the incident on October 4, 1986 as, by his evidence, he
returned to his house after noontime, rested for a while, then
left and returned again in the afternoon. His suggestion that
Diana's genital bruises could have resulted from trippling down
the stairs when she was chased by a limping dog is ridiculous.
A dog whose two hind legs are limping chasing her (where did
the dog come from?) while she was going down the stairs?
Granted that were possible or that actually happened, the fall
would cause abrasions, not hymenal contusions. Finally the
defense's insinuation that Diana's grandmother Jacinta who
was pictured to be supercilious and envious was behind the
filing of this case is difficult to believe, there being no concrete
proof thereof. Besides, it would be unthinkable for Jacinta to
alienate her relations with all her in-laws, the Castros, who are
staying in different houses of the same compound, by
fabricating a charge against the accused.
Finally, the accused's flight from his house after the filing of the
present case is not consistent with his professed innocence. He
did not, according to him, have any good relationship with
Diana's grandmother even before October 4, 1986. So what
was he fleeing from? His answer, that he wanted to avoid
trouble, tells it all . . .
xxx xxx xxx"
From the said decision sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and indemnify the victim in the amount of
P20,000.00 by way of damages, the accused appealed to this Court
pointing out the following alleged errors:
1. there is no rape because —
a. the hymen of the victim was not lacerated.
b. the victim was allegedly standing while the crime was being
committed.
c. the victim is still a virgin.
2. reliance on the conflicting testimony of the victim and not that of
the accused.
A recent decision of this Court in a case of statutory rape observed
that, usually, the average adult's hymen measures 2.8 to 3
centimeters in diameter, making it compatible with, or easily
penetrable by an average-size penis. The victim being of tender age,
the penetration of the male organ could go only as deep as the labia.
In any case, for rape to be committed, full penetration is not required.
It is enough that there is proof of entrance of the male organ within
the labia or pudendum of the female organ. Even the slightest
penetration is sufficient to consummate the crime of rape. 12
Perfect penetration, rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina
are not essential for the offense of consummated rape. Entry, to the
least extent, of the labia or lips of the female organ is
sufficient. 13 Diana's remaining a virgin does not negate rape.
Sexual intercourse in a standing position, while perhaps
uncomfortable, is not improbable. The RTC decision explained:  LLphil

". . . For her account that she was made to stand on the toilet
bowl made it easy for the accused to do the act as she was too
small and their private parts would not align unless she was
elevated to a higher position. The suggestion of the defense
counsel that a finger could have been used is absurd. For if it
were only a finger there would have been no need to let Diana
stand on the toilet bowl. . . ." 14
The Solicitor General's brief, in turn, asserts that the position Diana
was forced to take, made it easier for appellant to accomplish insertion
of his organ than if Diana had been made to lie down. 15
Experience has shown that unfounded charges of rape have frequently
been proffered by women actuated by some sinister, ulterior or
undisclosed motive. Convictions in such cases should not be sustained
without clear and convincing proof of guilt, 16 considering the gravity
of the offense and the penalty it carries.
VIRGINITY DOES NOT NEGATE THE CRIME OF RAPE
On the alleged sinister motive of Diana's grandmother engendered by
envy, we find this incredulous. For, what grandmother would exact
vengeance on her enemies at the perpetual humiliation and disrepute
of her six (6) year old granddaughter?
Finally, the issue of credibility. Who among the contending parties is
telling the truth? The prosecution's evidence is simple and
straightforward. Appellant's alibi must fall. Claims of his scholastic
achievements, assuming they are relevant, were unsubstantiated. His
counsel did not even formally offer the exhibits attesting to his
enrollment at Adamson University where he was supposed to have
submitted in the morning of 4 October 1986 a term paper. His
credibility is dubious; he was not able to even identify the topic of his
alleged term paper. To discredit the victim he testified on her alleged
propensity to tell lies. 17 The trial court, however, categorically held:
"While Diana's testimony was in some instances flawed, the
flaw was minor and only with respect to dates. She is a young
girl. She sat at the witness stand four times, yet she survived
the rigors of testifying, unwavering in her claim that she was
raped." 18
Accused-appellant claims he was coerced and tortured by Pasay
policemen to admit the rape, showing to the trial court bodily signs of
said abuse. 19 Aside from his self-serving assertion, the truth of such
allegation was not proven. Besides, this allegedly coerced admission of
guilt cannot affect the prosecution's case which has been established
by other positive evidence pointing to his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
Finding no reversible error in the decision subject of this appeal, we
affirm the same in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, the decision is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify
the victim, Diana Rose Castro in the amount of P30,000.00 in line with
prevailing jurisprudence. Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
 (People v. Castro y Lozada, G.R. No. 91490, [May 6, 1991], 274
|||

PHIL 80-90)