G.R. No. 200597 ; February 19, 2014
Emilio Raga y Casikat, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Emilio Raga was charged with two counts of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 . The Informations alleged that in the year 2000 and in May 2004, in Quezon City, he committed acts of sexual abuse upon his daughter, AAA, who was five and nine years old at the respective times. The acts involved undressing the victim, attempting to insert his penis into her vagina, and, upon failure, inserting his finger into her vagina instead. The prosecution presented AAA, who gave a clear and consistent account of the incidents, detailing how her father assaulted her while her mother was away and she was sleeping. She testified to the fear instilled by her father, who used to whip her. The defense relied on denial and alibi, claiming he was a stay-in worker in 2000 and that the case stemmed from his act of disciplining AAA for watching an X-rated movie in 2004.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Raga of two counts of rape by sexual assault, sentencing him under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Raga elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for two counts of rape by sexual assault.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction with modifications to the penalty and damages. The Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the victim, AAA. In cases of rape, the credibility of the complainant is paramount. The Court found AAA’s testimony to be straightforward, candid, and consistent on material points, thereby passing the test of credibility. Her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court emphasized that when the victim’s testimony is credible, the defense of denial and alibi, which are inherently weak, must fail.
On the legal qualification of the crime, the Court clarified that the acts committed—the insertion of a finger into the victim’s genitalia—constitute rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, not child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 . Since the Information specifically alleged the elements of rape by sexual assault and the special qualifying circumstance of relationship (father-daughter), the crime is qualified rape. However, the penalty was erroneously imposed under R.A. No. 7610 . The proper penalty for qualified rape through sexual assault is reclusion perpetua. Nevertheless, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each count. The Court also modified the awards of damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence, ordering petitioner to pay AAA civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of ₱30,000 each for every count of rape.