G.R. Nos. 134628-30 October 13, 2000
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Orlando Arves y Buenavista, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Orlando Arves was charged with three counts of rape committed against his daughter, Nerissa Arves, on July 27, July 31, and August 27, 1997, in Liliw, Laguna. The prosecution established that the sexual abuse had been ongoing since 1994. Nerissa testified in detail about the incidents, describing how her father would abuse her when they were alone at home. Her account was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Marilou Cordon, which indicated that the victim had sustained injuries consistent with repeated sexual intercourse. The defense relied on alibi and denial, with Arves claiming he was elsewhere during the alleged dates. Notably, the victim’s mother, Remedios Arves, initially supported the complaint but later recanted during trial, testifying that her daughter was not telling the truth.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Orlando Arves of three counts of rape and imposed the death penalty for each count, citing the qualifying circumstance of relationship under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review due to the penalty imposed.

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 but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Nerissa, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. It ruled that her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape. The medical evidence provided strong corroboration, as the findings of healed lacerations were consistent with repeated sexual abuse. The Court gave little weight to the mother’s recantation, noting that such retractions are notoriously unreliable and are often made out of fear or familial pressure. The defense of alibi was rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, as it failed to prove the physical impossibility for the accused to be at the crime scene.
However, the Court modified the penalty. While relationship as a qualifying circumstance was properly appreciated, warranting the death penalty under the law at the time of the crime, Republic Act No. 8344 had subsequently taken effect. This law prohibited the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed before its effectivity. Consequently, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were affirmed, as they are automatically warranted in rape cases, with the aggravating circumstance of relationship justifying exemplary damages.