G.R. No. 166544 ; July 27, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ARDEL CANUTO, Appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Ardel Canuto, was charged with the qualified rape of AAA, a 15-year-old minor. The Amended Information alleged that on June 28, 1999, in Baao, Camarines Sur, appellant, by means of force and intimidation and while armed with an ice pick, had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will. A qualifying circumstance was alleged, as appellant was the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother. The prosecution’s evidence established that appellant entered the house of AAA’s grandmother at night, threatened AAA with an ice pick, and forcibly raped her on a bench. The incident was reported months later, and a medical examination confirmed old hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse.
Appellant denied the accusation, presenting an alibi that he was asleep in his own house at the time. He also challenged AAA’s credibility, pointing to her alleged failure to recognize him initially due to poor lighting, her delay in reporting the incident, and the lack of precaution after a prior alleged rape. AAA’s mother, CCC, corroborated appellant’s alibi and testified that AAA never reported the rape to her.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for qualified rape, despite his claims challenging the credibility of the victim and the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found AAA’s testimony to be credible, straightforward, and consistent on material points, thereby withstanding appellant’s challenges. The minor inconsistencies regarding lighting and immediate recognition were deemed inconsequential, as AAA ultimately positively identified appellant, whom she knew well as her mother’s partner. The delay in reporting was sufficiently explained by the threats made against her and her family, a common reaction in rape cases, especially where the perpetrator holds a position of influence. The medical findings corroborated her account.
On the qualifying circumstance, the Court ruled that the relationship of stepfather-stepdaughter, which would warrant the death penalty under the law at the time of commission, requires a legitimate marital union. Since appellant was only the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother, the qualifying circumstance of stepfather-stepdaughter relationship under Article 266-B was not present. However, the minority of the victim (15 years old) and the use of a deadly weapon (ice pick) were properly proven and constituted qualifying circumstances under the law. Consequently, the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua, not death. The civil indemnity and damages awarded by the Court of Appeals were sustained.