G.R. No. 197363 ; June 26, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROMAN ZAFRA y SERRANO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Roman Zafra y Serrano was charged with the qualified rape of his minor daughter, AAA, under an Information dated December 19, 2001. The parties stipulated that AAA was Zafra’s daughter and was 17 years old on December 14, 2001, the date of the alleged rape.
The prosecution’s version, as testified to by AAA, was that Zafra had been sexually molesting her since she was 13 or 14 years old, which escalated to sexual intercourse when she was about 15. On December 14, 2001, her brother fetched her from her aunt’s house to do chores at their home. After her brother left, Zafra locked her in a room, slapped and punched her when she resisted, and then had carnal knowledge of her against her will. After the act, Zafra warned her not to tell anyone. AAA later reported the incident to the authorities and was medically examined. Dr. Voltaire P. Nulud’s medico-legal report concluded she was in a “non-virgin state physically” but found no external signs of physical trauma.
The defense version, presented by Zafra, was that the charge was fabricated by his wife in retaliation for a family dispute concerning the rental of a room and because he had driven AAA and his in-laws out of the house. He presented letters allegedly written by AAA admitting she fabricated the charge, that she had worked at a beer house, and had prostituted herself.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 159, found Zafra guilty of qualified rape and sentenced him to death, ordering him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 and increased the moral damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court gravely erred in giving credence to AAA’s allegedly inconsistent and unrealistic testimony.
2. Whether the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.
3. Assuming guilt, whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the modified decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the credibility of AAA: The Court found AAA’s testimony to be credible, consistent, and worthy of belief. It held that minor inconsistencies in her narration did not detract from her credibility but instead indicated truthfulness. The Court rejected Zafra’s arguments that her lack of physical injuries and her prior return to the house undermined her claim, noting that (a) the absence of external injuries is not unusual in rape cases, especially given the father-daughter relationship and the threat of force, and (b) a victim’s non-flight from her abuser, particularly when the abuser is a parent upon whom she is dependent, does not make her testimony less credible. The alleged retraction letters were deemed unreliable as they were not authenticated, and the defense failed to present AAA to confirm or deny them.
2. On the presumption of innocence: The Court ruled that the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proving Zafra’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. AAA’s positive and categorical testimony, which the Court found credible, was sufficient to establish all the elements of rape. The defense of denial and frame-up, being inherently weak, could not prevail over AAA’s affirmative testimony.
3. On the penalty: The Court sustained the modification made by the Court of Appeals. While the crime of rape committed by a parent against a minor child under 18 years of age is punishable by death under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, Republic Act No. 9346 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. Consequently, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
The Court AFFIRMED the award of damages as modified by the Court of Appeals: ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages.