GR 216937; (June, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 216937 June 5, 2017
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Tito Amoc y Mambatalan, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Tito Amoc was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City for two counts of rape against his 13-year-old stepdaughter, AAA. The first incident occurred in April 2009, where Amoc brought AAA to a bedroom, tied her legs with a rope, undressed her, covered her mouth, pointed a knife at her, and had carnal knowledge. The second incident happened on July 12, 2009, under similar circumstances. AAA later became pregnant and gave birth in December 2009, subsequently revealing Amoc as the father. Amoc admitted to the sexual acts but claimed they were consensual, arguing it was an accepted practice within their indigenous Ata-Manobo group to take a daughter as a second wife.
The RTC found Amoc guilty beyond reasonable doubt for both counts, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each and awarding damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the damages. Amoc appealed to the Supreme Court, contending the prosecution failed to prove the element of force and intimidation and that his admission did not equate to rape.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for two counts of rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages. The Court held that the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, are generally binding unless shown to be plainly overlooked or misapplied, which Amoc failed to demonstrate. The legal logic centered on the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code: (1) carnal knowledge and (2) the use of force, threat, or intimidation. Amoc admitted to the first element. Regarding the second, the Court found that the evidence—tying AAA’s legs, covering her mouth, and threatening her with a knife—sufficiently established force and intimidation, vitiating any claim of consent. His defense of cultural practice was rejected as neither a justifying nor exempting circumstance under the law. The Court modified the awards to align with prevailing jurisprudence, setting civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages at Php 75,000 each per count, all with 6% annual interest from finality until paid.