G.R. No. 189579 ; September 12, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSELITO ORJE y BORCE, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Information charged Joselito Orje with the rape of his 16-year-old daughter, AAA, on or about September 1, 2005, in Quezon City. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated that AAA is the accused’s biological daughter, was 16 years old at the time, and they were staying in the same house. The prosecution presented AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth.
AAA testified that on September 1, 2005, she woke up to find her father on top of her. He stripped her shorts and underwear, inserted his penis into her vagina, and covered her mouth. She struggled, eventually freed herself, and threw a chair at him. Two days later, after being slapped for arriving home late, the accused fondled her breasts as she combed her hair. She then ran to her cousin BBB, leading to a police report and the accused’s arrest. AAA also testified about prior molestations in December 2003 and March 2004, which she initially kept secret due to threats against her mother. The medico-legal report (Exhibit “B”) indicated deep healed hymenal lacerations at 2, 4, 7, and 8 o’clock positions, which the medico-legal officer testified were evidence of forceful, penetrating trauma.
The defense presented AAA as a witness, who had executed a “Sinumpaang Salaysay” (affidavit of desistance) dated December 16, 2005. In it, she recanted her accusation, stating the rape never happened, that her positive medical findings were from consensual relations with a boyfriend, and that her aunt CCC compelled her to file the false case out of anger towards her father for leaving the family. She testified she was mad at the appellant for slapping her.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in relation to R.A. 7610, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision, giving no credence to AAA’s recantation and noting her unequivocal testimony during trial.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution has established the accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the conviction.
The Court held that the prosecution proved the elements of rape: (1) carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) accomplished through force or intimidation. It emphasized that in rape cases, conviction often rests solely on the credibility of the victim’s testimony, as the crime is usually committed in seclusion.
The Court found AAA’s trial testimony to be clear, categorical, straightforward, and consistent on material points. It was corroborated by the medico-legal findings of healed hymenal lacerations indicative of forceful penetration. The Court gave no weight to AAA’s subsequent recantation, adhering to the doctrine that a recantation is exceedingly unreliable and viewed with suspicion, as it can easily be obtained through coercion or monetary consideration. The trial testimony, given under oath and subject to cross-examination, carries more weight than a later affidavit of desistance. The Court found no improper motive for AAA to falsely accuse her own father of a grave crime.
The qualifying circumstances of minority (AAA was 16) and relationship (father-daughter) were duly proven, warranting the imposition of reclusion perpetua. The award of damages was sustained.