G.R. No. 174472 ; June 19, 2007
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Benigno Fetalino y Gabaldon, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Benigno Fetalino, was charged with two counts of acts of lasciviousness and three counts of rape committed against his 16-year-old daughter, AAA, on consecutive days in March 1999. During trial, AAA was presented as a hostile witness by the prosecution due to her recantation and desire to desist from the case. Despite this, she testified that her father raped her on three occasions, undressed her, and threatened to kill her and her mother if she reported the incidents. Her mother, BBB, confirmed that AAA disclosed the abuse, leading to a medical examination.
The medico-legal report by Dr. Winston Tan revealed deep, healed hymenal lacerations, consistent with the introduction of a penis or similar object. The Regional Trial Court convicted Fetalino on all charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for two counts of acts of lasciviousness and one count of rape but acquitted him on two rape counts due to reasonable doubt, noting AAA’s testimony was unclear and inconsistent regarding the specific details of those alleged incidents.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction for one count of rape and two counts of acts of lasciviousness while acquitting for two counts of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. On the conviction for one count of rape (March 23, 1999), the Court found AAA’s testimony credible and consistent with the medico-legal findings. The healed lacerations corroborated her account of sexual violation. The Court emphasized that a recantation is inherently unreliable and does not automatically void original testimony, especially when the initial account is credible and supported by evidence. The threat from her father explained her subsequent reluctance to prosecute.
Regarding the acquittals for two rape counts (March 24 and 25, 1999), the Court upheld the appellate court’s finding of reasonable doubt. AAA’s testimony for these dates was vague and lacked the specific, consistent details required for a moral certainty of guilt in rape cases. The prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt for these specific incidents. For the two counts of acts of lasciviousness (March 21 and 22, 1999), the Court sustained the convictions. AAA’s clear testimony about the digital penetration, coupled with the medical evidence and the inherent credibility of a young victim’s disclosure of abuse by a parent, established guilt. The modifying circumstances of minority and relationship were duly considered in the penalties and awards of damages.