G.R. No. 207819, March 12, 2014
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GUILLERMO B. CADANO, JR., Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Three Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City charging accused-appellant Guillermo B. Cadano, Jr. with three counts of statutory rape against AAA, the daughter of his common-law spouse BBB. The first two incidents occurred on December 26 and 27, 1996, when AAA was about 8 years and 5 months old. The third incident occurred in June 2000, when AAA was about 11 years and 11 months old. The first two charges were under the old rape provision (Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code), while the third was under the amended provision (Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353). AAA testified that Cadano sexually assaulted her on each occasion, using force and intimidation, and threatened her with a knife during the first incident. She disclosed the rapes to her mother in October 2000, leading to a medical examination that confirmed penetration. Cadano denied the allegations, claiming the charges were filed due to family problems. The RTC convicted Cadano of three counts of statutory rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count and ordering him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether or not accused-appellant Guillermo B. Cadano, Jr.’s conviction for three counts of statutory rape should be upheld.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is sustained. The Court found that all elements of statutory rape were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (a) AAA was below 12 years old at the time of each incident, as evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth; (b) Cadano was positively identified as the perpetrator; and (c) sexual intercourse occurred, as established by AAA’s credible, categorical, and spontaneous testimony, corroborated by the medico-legal report. The Court upheld the lower courts’ assessment of AAA’s credibility, noting that minor inconsistencies in her testimony did not impair her credibility. For the first two incidents (December 1996), the penalty was reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the RPC. For the third incident (June 2000), the qualifying circumstance of relationship (Cadano being the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother) was appreciated under Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, which would have warranted the death penalty, but due to Republic Act No. 9346 prohibiting the death penalty, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were affirmed.