G.R. No. 176744 June 5, 2009
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Adelado Anguac y Ragadao, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Adelado Anguac is the common-law spouse of BBB, the mother of the victim AAA. On March 28, 1998, AAA, then 17 years old, was asleep with her siblings in their residence in Palauig, Zambales, when Anguac awakened her, poked a knife at her, and threatened to kill them all if she made noise. He then removed her underwear and sexually assaulted her while pointing a knife below her ear, threatening her again afterward not to disclose the incident. This assault was repeated five more times between April 1998 and February 1999. In July 1999, AAA, upon questioning by her aunts, admitted she was pregnant as a result of these acts, leading to the filing of a complaint. She gave birth on October 4, 1999. Two separate Informations were filed against Anguac for rape (Criminal Case No. RTC-2756-I for the March 28, 1998 incident) and violation of Republic Act No. 7610 (Criminal Case No. RTC-2757-I for the incidents from April 1998 to February 1999). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Anguac of both charges. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision but modified the characterization of the crime in Criminal Case No. RTC-2757-I to a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 instead of Section 5(a), and modified the monetary awards. Anguac appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution witness and the sufficiency of the evidence.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution witness (AAA) is credible.
2. Whether the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient to prove Anguac’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for rape and violation of RA 7610.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the August 29, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications to the damages. The Court held that the findings of both the RTC and CA on the credibility of AAA were conclusive. AAA’s testimony was categorical and unwavering, and the trial court’s assessment of her demeanor carried great weight. The Court found no ill motive for AAA to falsely accuse Anguac, rejecting his claim that she resented being sent to work to pay off a loan. The Court also held that the alleged impossibility of the rape occurring without waking AAA’s siblings was untenable, as lust respects no time or place. The Court affirmed Anguac’s conviction for rape in Criminal Case No. RTC-2756-I and for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 in Criminal Case No. RTC-2757-I. The Supreme Court modified the CA decision by ordering Anguac to pay PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages for rape and increasing the moral damages for the violation of RA 7610 to PhP 50,000.