G.R. No. 208716 , September 24, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Eladio B. Lumaho alias “Attumpang,” Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Eladio B. Lumaho was charged with one count of qualified rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Information alleged that sometime in the morning of December 2007, in Asipulo, Ifugao, Lumaho, by force and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with his daughter, AAA, who was seven years old at the time, against her will and consent. During pre-trial, it was stipulated that AAA is Lumaho’s daughter and was seven years old at the time of the alleged rape.
The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that during her school vacation in December 2007, she visited her father’s house. Lumaho brought her to a shanty, removed her clothes, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her pain. He then warned her not to tell anyone. Dr. Mae Codamon-Diaz, who medically examined AAA on January 28, 2008, found a month-old healed laceration on the victim’s hymen, consistent with the alleged December 2007 incident. BBB, a relative, testified that she learned of the incident from AAA’s cousin, CCC, and subsequently accompanied AAA to the police station to report the crime. The defense presented Roland Bennog, who testified that Lumaho was staying with him in a different location from August 2007 until January 3, 2008, and could not have been at his house in December 2007.
The Regional Trial Court found Lumaho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole, ordering him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the amounts of moral and exemplary damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction of accused-appellant Eladio B. Lumaho for the crime of qualified rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the rulings of the lower courts, finding the appeal without merit. The Court held that all elements of qualified rape were established: (1) AAA was under twelve years of age; (2) Lumaho had carnal knowledge of her; and (3) Lumaho is AAA’s father, a qualifying circumstance under Article 266-B. AAA’s positive, straightforward, and candid testimony, corroborated by the medical findings of a healed hymen laceration consistent with the timeframe of the crime, was sufficient to support the conviction. The Court rejected Lumaho’s alibi, noting it cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The Court also addressed the use of leading questions during AAA’s testimony, stating that liberality is acceptable given her tender age (seven at the time of the rape and ten when testifying) to serve the ends of justice, and such liberality did not diminish her credibility.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole was affirmed pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 . The awards of damages were modified in line with prevailing jurisprudence: civil indemnity of ₱75,000, moral damages of ₱75,000, and exemplary damages of ₱30,000.