G.R. No. 192941 ; November 13, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DANIEL ALCOBER, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Daniel Alcober, was charged with the rape of AAA, the daughter of his common-law spouse. The Information alleged that on July 20, 1999, in Tunga, Leyte, Alcober, armed with a bolo (sundang), used force and intimidation to have carnal knowledge of AAA, taking advantage of her minority and their relationship. During trial, AAA testified that she was 13 years old at the time. While she was cooking alone at night, Alcober embraced her, poked the bolo at her stomach, and threatened to kill her and her family if she did not comply. He then forced her to have sexual intercourse. AAA did not immediately report the incident due to fear, and the abuse was repeated. The case was filed in 2001 after AAA finally confided in her mother. Medical examination confirmed the presence of spermatozoa.
For the defense, Alcober denied the accusation, claiming AAA was not home on the date in question. He presented a witness who claimed to have seen AAA and Alcober together elsewhere. The Regional Trial Court convicted Alcober of qualified rape, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals with modifications to the damages awarded. Alcober appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Daniel Alcober for qualified rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the credibility of AAA’s testimony, which was clear, consistent, and candid. The defense of alibi was properly rejected as it was not physically impossible for Alcober to have been at the crime scene. His admission during pre-trial that the incident occurred on July 20, 1999, in Tunga, Leyte, further weakened his denial. The Court emphasized that in rape cases, the victim’s testimony, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
The qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were duly proven. AAA’s birth certificate established she was 13 years old at the time of the rape. Alcober, as the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother, was considered a stepfather, constituting the relationship of “ascendant” under the law. The use of a deadly weapon (the bolo) and the threat to kill constituted force and intimidation. The presence of spermatozoa corroborated AAA’s account. Consequently, the crime was properly classified as qualified rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, warranting the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The awarded damages, including civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, were affirmed with interest.