G.R. No. 186235; January 25, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DANIEL ORTEGA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Daniel Ortega was charged with two counts of rape committed against his daughter, AAA. The first incident allegedly occurred in 1990 when AAA was 11 years old, and the second in 1995 when she was 16. The Informations alleged that the rapes were committed by means of force and intimidation at their residence in Polomolok, South Cotabato. Ortega pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented AAA and Dr. Porfirio P. Pasuelo, Jr. AAA testified that in 1990, her father dragged her from the kitchen to her bedroom, forcibly undressed her, overpowered her, and inserted his penis into her vagina while she cried and resisted. He threatened her not to tell anyone. In 1995, he again undressed her, laid her on a bed, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her pain. As a result, she became pregnant but later had a miscarriage. She eventually ran away and reported the incidents. Dr. Pasuelo’s medical examination revealed a loose vaginal opening that easily admitted a forefinger, indicating prior intrusion, but found no lacerations.
The defense presented Ortega as its lone witness. He denied the rape allegations, claiming he was assigned elsewhere in 1990 and was not in Polomolok. He admitted maltreating AAA to discipline her and suggested she fabricated the charges due to jealousy of his children from his second wife. He also claimed a friend told him AAA was molested by an admirer in 1995.
The Regional Trial Court found Ortega guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, ordering him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Ortega appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Ortega’s conviction despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings and credibility assessments of the trial court, which were affirmed by the appellate court.
The Court held that AAA’s testimony was credible, straightforward, and consistent. The minor inconsistencies raised by the defense (such as the exact age at the first incident, the precise date, and details about her pregnancy) did not undermine her core narrative of rape. The Court reiterated that testimonies of child-victims of rape are given full weight and credit. The medical finding of a loose vaginal opening, while not conclusive by itself, corroborated AAA’s claim of prior sexual intercourse. The defense of denial and alibi, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over AAA’s positive identification and testimony. The elements of rape through force and intimidation were sufficiently proven for both counts. The penalties and awards of damages imposed by the lower courts were sustained.