G.R. No. 188569 ; July 13, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROBERTO GARBIDA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Roberto Garbida, was charged with seven counts of rape committed against his 11-year-old stepdaughter, AAA, from April 1 to April 7, 1997. The incidents occurred inside their family home in Sua, Matnog, Sorsogon. The Amended Informations alleged that the acts were committed through force and intimidation, aggravated by ignominy as they were perpetrated in the presence and over the protestations of the victim’s mother. During trial, AAA and her mother testified consistently about the forcible assaults. Garbida, while admitting to the sexual acts, claimed they were consensual, alleging AAA consented because her mother was having affairs and because he was sending her to school.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Garbida of seven counts of statutory rape. While the informations alleged the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, the prosecution failed to present AAA’s birth certificate or the marriage certificate of Garbida and AAA’s mother. Consequently, the RTC held these special qualifiers were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. It nonetheless found AAA was 11 years old, making the crime statutory rape, and that ignominy attended the commission. The RTC initially imposed the death penalty for each count. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count, applying Republic Act No. 9346 , which abolished the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed accused-appellant Roberto Garbida’s conviction for seven counts of rape.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. The Court applied the guiding principles in rape cases: accusations are easy to make but hard to disprove; the complainant’s testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and the prosecution’s evidence must stand on its own merits. The Court found AAA’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent. It was corroborated by her mother, who was an eyewitness to the crimes. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect, as it is in the best position to observe demeanor.
Garbida’s defense of consent is utterly untenable. Consent is immaterial in statutory rape, where the victim is below 12 years of age. His admission to the sexual acts, coupled with the credible testimonies of the victim and her mother, conclusively established his guilt. The failure to prove the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship with documentary evidence merely resulted in the crime being treated as simple statutory rape, not qualified rape, but did not exonerate him. The penalty was properly modified to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to RA 9346. The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages were affirmed, and exemplary damages were additionally awarded.