G.R. No. 229937. December 02, 2020.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BBB, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, BBB, was charged with five counts of rape committed against his daughter, AAA, from 1995 to 1997, when she was between 14 and 16 years old. The Informations alleged the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. The prosecution evidence established that BBB, through force, intimidation, and the use of weapons like a knife and a scythe, sexually assaulted AAA on multiple occasions within their family home. AAA testified in detail about these incidents, and her mother corroborated aspects of her testimony. The Regional Trial Court convicted BBB of four counts of qualified rape, imposing the death penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of qualified rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, considering the allegations of minority and relationship.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the legal characterization and penalty. The Court held that the crimes committed were not qualified rape under the Revised Penal Code but were violations of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The legal logic is grounded in the principle of pro reo. At the time of the commission of the crimes in 1995-1997, Republic Act No. 8353 (the Anti-Rape Law of 1997) was not yet in effect. The applicable law was Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. Under this old law, the circumstance of relationship (father-daughter) qualified the crime and warranted the death penalty. However, minority (the victim being under 18) was merely a generic aggravating circumstance. For it to be a qualifying circumstance, the law required the victim to be under 12 years of age. Since AAA was over 12 at the time of the assaults, her minority could not qualify the crime under the old rape law. Consequently, the Informations erroneously alleged both as qualifying circumstances. Applying the pro reo principle, the Court construed the allegations in favor of the accused. The crimes were properly classified under R.A. 7610, which protects children from sexual abuse. The penalty imposed by the CA—reclusion perpetua without parole—was correct for violations of Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 when the victim is under 18 and the offender is a parent. The Court found AAA’s testimony credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish moral certainty of BBB’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.