G.R. No. 183569; April 13, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE PUBLICO y AMODIA, Accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case involves two consolidated criminal cases. In Criminal Case No. 5521-0, accused-appellant Vicente Publico was charged with the attempted rape of his 12-year-old daughter, AAA, on February 21, 1999. AAA testified that her father, while holding a bolo, ordered her to remove her panty, and when she refused, he removed it himself, mounted her, and attempted to insert his penis into her vagina. Full penetration was impossible due to her being a virgin, causing her immense pain. The attempt was interrupted by a neighbor knocking on the door. AAA and her brother reported the incident the next day. A medical examination showed no hymenal laceration.
In Criminal Case No. 5522-0, accused-appellant was charged with the rape of his other daughter, BBB, which began in June 1996 when she was 16 years old. BBB testified that her father dragged her into a room, poked a sharp weapon at her, and had sexual intercourse with her. He raped her repeatedly over two years, using threats and mauling to force compliance. She became pregnant and gave birth to their child in June 1997. She left home in November 1998 and filed a complaint in February 1999 after learning from her brother that their father had also attempted to rape AAA. A medical examination of BBB revealed old hymenal lacerations. The prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA, BBB, their brother CCC, a doctor, and a police officer. The defense consisted solely of accused-appellant’s denial and alibi, claiming he was in Manila in June 1996 and was drinking at home on February 21, 1999.
The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and attempted rape, imposing the death penalty for rape. On automatic review, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but modified the penalty for rape to reclusion perpetua, finding it was simple rape, not qualified by circumstances that would warrant the death penalty.

ISSUE

The core issue for the Supreme Court’s review was whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed accused-appellant’s convictions for rape and attempted rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications to the awarded damages.
The Court upheld the convictions, ruling that the testimonies of AAA and BBB were credible, straightforward, and consistent. The defense of denial and alibi could not prevail over the positive identification by the victims. For the rape of BBB (Criminal Case No. 5522-0), the Court agreed with the CA that it was simple rape, as the information did not allege the qualifying circumstance of the victim being under 18 and the offender being a parent, which was necessary for the imposition of the death penalty at the time. The penalty was thus reclusion perpetua. For the attempted rape of AAA (Criminal Case No. 5521-0), the Court affirmed the penalty imposed by the CA.
The Court modified the damages awarded. For the rape of BBB, accused-appellant was ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. For the attempted rape of AAA, he was ordered to pay P30,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages. All damages were subject to 6% annual interest from the finality of the judgment until full payment.