G.R. No. 224597 , July 29, 2019
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Dante Cubay y Ugsalan, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Dante Cubay, a school watchman, was charged with forty-four counts of rape against AAA, a congenital deaf-mute student residing at the Special Education (SPED) dormitory. The Informations alleged that the rapes occurred on specific dates from September 2007 to January 2008. AAA, through sign language interpreters, testified that Cubay entered her room on each of those dates, undressed her, and had carnal knowledge against her will. Her pregnancy, later confirmed by medical test, was discovered by her aunt, prompting the disclosure that Cubay was the father. The defense consisted of Cubay’s denial, claiming the charges were fabricated due to a grudge held by AAA’s aunt, a SPED teacher.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Cubay on all forty-four counts, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Cubay appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He questioned AAA’s credibility, the plausibility of the rape frequency, and the lack of physical evidence like semen stains. He also contended that AAA’s testimony, given through interpreters, was insufficient for conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant Dante Cubay’s conviction for forty-four counts of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that AAA’s testimony, delivered clearly and consistently through competent sign language interpreters, was credible and sufficient to establish guilt. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a rape victim, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction. It found no ill motive for AAA, a hearing-impaired minor, to falsely accuse Cubay. The detailed account of each incident, including specific dates, demonstrated her clear recollection of the traumatic events.
The Court rejected the defense of denial and alibi as weak and unsubstantiated. It ruled that the frequency of the rapes, while shocking, did not render AAA’s testimony implausible, as lust is no respecter of time. The absence of semen stains was inconsequential, as pregnancy itself is physical evidence of sexual intercourse. The Court also found that the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code were duly proven: sexual intercourse occurred through force or intimidation, and AAA’s deaf-mute condition made her particularly vulnerable. The affirmance of the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, with corresponding damages, was upheld.