G.R. No. 182193 November 7, 2008
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Fidel Canete, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Fidel Canete was charged with six counts of simple rape against his niece, AAA, who was nine years old in 1994. The Informations alleged that the rapes were committed “by means of force and intimidation” in BBB, Bulacan. During trial, AAA testified to multiple rape incidents from 1994 to 1999. The first rape occurred in June 1994 while she and accused-appellant were gathering wood; he undressed her and succeeded in having carnal knowledge despite her protests. Subsequent rapes occurred at their home, often while her grandmother and sister were asleep nearby, with accused-appellant using threats (e.g., threatening to kill her or that she would “no longer see the light of day”) and physical force (e.g., punching, slapping, covering her mouth) to subdue her. AAA eventually disclosed the abuse to a friend and executed a barangay affidavit. The defense presented only accused-appellant, who denied all charges and claimed he was living with an employer elsewhere during some of the alleged incidents. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of six counts of simple rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, plus damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Fidel Canete for six counts of simple rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that AAA’s testimony was credible, consistent, and replete with details, positively identifying accused-appellant as her rapist. The moral ascendancy of accused-appellant as AAA’s uncle constituted intimidation sufficient to produce fear and submission. The defense of alibi was rejected for failure to prove it was physically impossible for accused-appellant to be at the crime scene. The Court also ruled that the failure of the Informations to specifically allege AAA’s minority and her relationship with accused-appellant meant he could only be convicted of simple rape, not qualified rape. Consequently, the awards were modified: civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 and moral damages of PhP 50,000 for each count were sustained, but exemplary damages were correctly deleted by the CA as there were no aggravating circumstances.