GR 207231; (June, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 207231 , June 29, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ROGER GALAGATI y GARDOCE, Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Roger Galagati, the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother, was charged with seven counts of rape. The Information for Criminal Case No. 2003-3215 alleged that on September 13, 2002, he had carnal knowledge of AAA, then a 15-year-old minor, through force and intimidation. Six other Informations alleged similar acts on different dates in October 2002. At trial, AAA testified that on September 13, 2002, appellant threatened to kill her mother and siblings, forced her to lie down, removed her underwear, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her to bleed. She further testified that on six subsequent dates in October 2002, appellant sexually assaulted her by inserting his index finger into her vagina and rubbing his penis against it, but without penile penetration. She did not immediately report the incidents due to appellant’s threats.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt, specifically distinguishing between the crime of rape through sexual intercourse under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and acts constituting rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A(2).
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s conviction for rape in Criminal Case No. 2003-3215 (September 13, 2002) but acquitted him for the six October 2002 incidents. For the September 13 incident, AAA’s credible, straightforward, and uncorroborated testimony, which remained consistent and unshaken on cross-examination, sufficiently established all elements of rape: carnal knowledge through force or intimidation. The Court found no ill motive for AAA to falsely accuse her stepfather. The defense of denial and alibi, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim.
However, for the six incidents in October 2002, the Court acquitted appellant. While AAA testified that these acts involved digital penetration and rubbing of the penis without insertion, the Informations uniformly alleged the crime of rape defined under Article 266-A(1)(a), which requires proof of penile penetration. The acts described for October constitute rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A(2), a distinct and separate crime. A conviction for rape through sexual intercourse cannot be sustained based on evidence proving only sexual assault, as this would violate appellant’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Since the prosecution failed to prove the specific crime charged for those dates, acquittal was mandated. The Court modified the damages, awarding civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for the September 13 rape, all with legal interest.