G.R. No. 212934 , June 7, 2017
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Blas Gaa y Rodriguez, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Blas Gaa was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of two counts of Qualified Statutory Rape against his daughter, AAA. The first incident occurred on April 4, 2001, when AAA was nine years old. While alone with her in their house, Gaa ordered her to remove her clothing, placed himself on top of her, and attempted to insert his penis into her vagina. While he did not achieve full penetration, his penis reached the “bokana” or entrance of her vagina, and he also inserted his fingers inside it. The second incident occurred in March 2003, when AAA was eleven. Gaa again forced himself on her, this time while threatening her with a bolo. The victim reported the incidents in April 2003 after her younger brother informed their mother.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Gaa claimed he was cutting grass during the time of the first alleged incident and suggested the charges were fabricated because his wife was having an affair. He also pointed to a medical certificate showing no laceration or spermatozoa. The RTC found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without parole for each count, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals with modifications to the awarded damages.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for two counts of qualified statutory rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously applied the elements of statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. For the first count, the victim was conclusively proven to be under twelve years old at the time of the crime. The Court clarified that full penetration of the female organ is not required; even the slightest penetration or the mere touching of the labia majora or entry into the “bokana” constitutes carnal knowledge. AAA’s credible testimony that Gaa’s penis reached the entrance of her vagina, coupled with his act of digital insertion, satisfied this element. For the second count, the victim’s age and the fact of carnal knowledge were likewise established, with the threat of a bolo satisfying the requisite force or intimidation for rape under Article 266-A(1)(a).
The Court found AAA’s testimony to be straightforward, candid, and consistent, bearing the hallmarks of truth. The delay in reporting was sufficiently explained by her young age, fear of her father, and the continuing threats. The relationship of filiation, a qualifying circumstance, was proven by the victim’s testimony and the allegations in the Informations, which the accused-appellant did not contest during arraignment. His denial and imputation of ill motive could not prevail over the positive and credible identification by the victim. The medical certificate’s negative findings do not negate rape, as the absence of physical injuries is inconsequential, especially in statutory rape. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the penalties and, following prevailing jurisprudence, increased the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to ₱100,000.00 each for every count of rape.