GR 211049; (August, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 211049, August 6, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Romeo Closa y Lualhati, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Romeo Closa y Lualhati was charged with two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape against his minor daughter, AAA. The first rape allegedly occurred in 2006 when AAA was ten years old. The second rape occurred on October 26, 2009, when she was thirteen. The attempted rape occurred on November 4, 2009. AAA testified that her father sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions over three years. She became pregnant and initially identified her father as the perpetrator. During trial, however, AAA executed an affidavit of desistance, recanting her previous testimony and claiming her boyfriend impregnated her. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each rape count and an indeterminate penalty for attempted rape, plus damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision with modification, adjusting the penalty for attempted rape and increasing exemplary damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape, despite the victim’s recantation.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that AAA’s original testimony was credible, straightforward, and forthright. The recantation was unreliable and likely due to family pressure. The Court emphasized that testimonies of young rape victims deserve full credence, as it is improbable for a minor to fabricate a story of rape against her father without motive. The sole testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts. The penalty for attempted rape was properly modified by the CA, and exemplary damages were correctly increased due to the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship.