People v. Dumdum

 

People v. Dumdum

G.R. No. 221436

June 26, 2019

FACTS:

                The RTC and CA convicted Eric Dumdum for the crime of Rape. As AAA, 14 years old, was walking, she heard appellant call her name so she approached him. She knew appellant was one of the workers in Metaphil Corporation where she delivered food. Appellant dragged her to a dark area near the comer of the road where there were no vehicles passing by. There were also no houses around. Appellant lifted her and laid her down on the grass. She tried resisting him but failed. He threatened to kill her and her parents. Appellant then removed her t-shirt and shorts, sucked her breast, and kissed her neck. He took off her panty and went on top of her. He, too, removed his briefs, spread her legs open, and inserted his penis in her vagina. She felt pain while appellant made push and pull movements for about a minute. He continued kissing her neck while she cried. When appellant had finished ravishing her, he let her leave. She did not tell anyone about the rape because she was scared appellant would make good his threat to kill her and her parents. Two days later, her co-worker told her parents about the kiss marks on her neck. Consequently, she was constrained to tell her parents what really happened to her.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA erred in affirming appellant’s conviction

HELD:

                No. The trial court keenly noted AAA's positive, straightforward, and categorical narration on how accused "dragged her to a dark place; threatened to kill her should she tell anyone; removed her t-shirt, city shorts, and panty despite her resistance; forcibly laid her on the grass; kissed her and sucked her breast; removed his brief, laid on top of her; inserted his penis in her vagina and made push and pull movements for about one minute." A victim of tender age would not have narrated such sordid details had she not experienced them. In a long line of cases, the Court has given full weight and credence to the testimony of child victims. For it is highly improbable that a girl of tender years would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true. Thus, AAA's testimony rings a bell of truth. Even standing alone, her credible testimony is sufficient to convict appellant given the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved. But this is not all. AAA's testimony firmly conformed with Dr. Asagra's medical report that she sustained contusions on her left breast, her vagina admitted one finger with ease, and the hymen was lacerated at 10 o'clock position most likely caused by a penetrating penis. These findings solidly supported AAA's testimony that appellant dragged her to a dark place, forced her to lie on the ground, kissed her, sucked her breast, and inserted his penis in her vagina. Indeed, when the forthright testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, it is sufficient to support a verdict of guilt for rape. Appellant, nonetheless, undermines AAA's testimony for being allegedly improbable on three counts: first, he refers to the improbability of allowing himself to be exposed to the eyes and ears of people living along a well-lighted national highway near the supposed locus criminis; second, the improbability that AAA stopped by a store to buy food, considering that the store attendant could not even recall having seen her; and third, the improbability that she crossed paths with complainant around 9 o'clock in the evening of November 1 7, 1997 considering that around that time, he had already left the same sari-sari store and boarded a tricycle to take him home.