GR 226144; (October, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 226144 , October 14, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ZZZ, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, ZZZ, was charged with three counts of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 . The victim, AAA, is his stepdaughter. The informations alleged that the rapes occurred in 1999 (when AAA was eight years old), on September 13, 2007, and on November 6, 2007. AAA testified that the sexual abuse began when she was in grade five and occurred frequently, often when her mother was absent. ZZZ would threaten to kill her and her mother if she disclosed the acts. The abuse came to light after AAA confided in her boyfriend. A medico-legal examination revealed an indentation on AAA’s hymen consistent with penetration. Despite AAA later filing an affidavit of desistance, the trial proceeded. The defense consisted of a denial, alleging the charges were fabricated due to his strict disapproval of AAA’s relationship.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for three counts of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that an affidavit of desistance, especially in rape cases, is viewed with suspicion and does not automatically negate the commission of the crime. The victim’s recantation is inherently unreliable, particularly when the accused holds moral ascendancy over her as a stepfather residing in the same home. The Court found AAA’s detailed and categorical testimony, given in a straightforward manner, to be credible and sufficient to establish the elements of rape. Her testimony was consistent on material points, and her initial silence was reasonably explained by the threats made against her and her mother.
The defense of bare denial cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the victim. Denial is inherently weak and, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, merits no weight in law. The medico-legal findings, while not showing fresh injuries, corroborated the possibility of penetration, which is consistent with the victim’s account of repeated abuse. The Court upheld the penalties of reclusion perpetua for each count and awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The conviction stands as the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.