G.R. No. 186228; March 15, 2010
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Antonio Lauga y Pina alias Terio, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Antonio Lauga was accused of Qualified Rape of his 13-year-old daughter, AAA, on March 15, 2000, in Bukidnon. The prosecution presented AAA, her brother BBB, and Moises Boy Banting, a “bantay bayan.” AAA testified that on the evening of March 15, 2000, while she was alone at home, her intoxicated father woke her up, threatened her with his fist and a knife, removed her pants and underwear, and had carnal knowledge of her. BBB arrived to find AAA crying and was told by appellant that he had scolded her. After learning the truth from AAA, BBB took her to their grandmother’s house, and they subsequently sought help from Banting. Banting found appellant at home, invited him to the police station, and claimed appellant admitted to the rape. A medical examination confirmed fresh lacerations on AAA’s hymen. The defense consisted solely of appellant’s testimony, denying the rape and claiming the charge was ill-motivated due to his physical abuse of his wife and children as discipline. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of qualified rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications, increasing the damages and declaring appellant ineligible for parole.

ISSUE

1. Whether the extrajudicial confession made by appellant to Moises Boy Banting, a “bantay bayan,” is admissible in evidence.
2. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses AAA and BBB affect their credibility.
3. Whether the prosecution established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. The extrajudicial confession made by appellant to Moises Boy Banting is inadmissible in evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that a “bantay bayan,” as part of a barangay-based volunteer organization recognized by the local government to perform peace and order functions, is deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes of Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution (Miranda Rights). Since appellant’s confession was obtained without the assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver of such right, it is constitutionally infirm and inadmissible. However, the conviction was not based solely on this confession but on the confluence of other evidence.
2. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and BBB do not affect their credibility. The discrepancy pertained to whether they went to their grandmother’s house first before seeking the “bantay bayan” or went directly to the “bantay bayan.” The Court held this was a minor inconsistency on a collateral matter that did not touch upon the essential fact of the rape itself. The testimonies were consistent on the material points: the rape incident, AAA’s immediate report to BBB, and their seeking assistance. The Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies may even enhance credibility by showing the witnesses were not rehearsed.
3. The prosecution established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The credible and categorical testimony of AAA, corroborated by the medical findings of fresh hymenal lacerations, sufficiently proved the commission of rape. The qualifying circumstances of minority (AAA was 13 years old) and relationship (appellant is the father) were duly proven and stipulated during pre-trial. The defense of denial and ill-motive, based on appellant’s claim of disciplinary actions, was insufficient to overcome the positive identification and evidence presented. The Court affirmed the conviction for Qualified Rape under Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, and upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, along with the awarded damages.