G.R. No. 177145; February 9, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOEY TORIAGA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Joey Toriaga appealed his conviction for the rape of AAA, a 13-year-old, affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Toriaga was a close friend of AAA’s father and a trusted employee of AAA’s aunt, CCC, who allowed him to sleep inside her house. On the evening of November 26, 1995, while AAA was alone in CCC’s house, Toriaga, who had been drinking with AAA’s father, returned to the house. AAA let him in. Later, Toriaga grabbed AAA, poked an icepick at her neck, forced her to strip and lie on a folding bed, and inserted his penis into her vagina. After about 10 minutes, AAA pretended to lose consciousness. Toriaga then brought her upstairs, covered her mouth with a pillow, and stabbed her multiple times in the back and other areas with the icepick, likely believing she was dead. When he left to wash his hands, AAA crawled to a window and shouted for help. Neighbors took her to the hospital. Medico-legal findings confirmed her injuries, including a superficial laceration on her fourchette with bleeding edges, a congested vestibule with a contusion, and an intact but thick hymen. An information for rape was filed, alleging the use of a bladed weapon. Toriaga initially pleaded not guilty, later changed his plea to guilty, then withdrew it. At trial, he denied the rape, claiming AAA’s father instigated the charge due to a previous misunderstanding. The RTC convicted him of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity and moral damages. On appeal to the CA, Toriaga changed his defense to consensual sexual intercourse, arguing he should only be liable for qualified seduction. The CA rejected this, affirming the rape conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of Joey Toriaga for the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with modification to award exemplary damages. The appeal failed for several reasons. First, Toriaga’s defense of consensual sexual intercourse, raised belatedly on appeal, was uncorroborated and self-serving, deserving scant consideration. Second, the physical evidence, specifically AAA’s multiple stab wounds and injuries, contradicted the claim of consensual intercourse and confirmed the use of brutal force and violence. Third, the CA correctly rejected the claim of liability only for qualified seduction, as the information did not allege its essential elements, such as abuse of authority, confidence, or relationship. Fourth, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. The information alleged the use of a deadly weapon (an icepick), which under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code warrants the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was proper under Article 63(2). Fifth, the awards of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱75,000.00 as moral damages were sustained. Additionally, exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00 were awarded due to the qualifying circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon, pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code.