G.R. No. 231925, November 19, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CCC, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The case involves the conviction of appellant CCC for the qualified rape of his daughter, AAA. The victim, born in 1997, was sent to live with her biological parents in 2009 after residing with a foster mother. AAA testified that on November 27, 2011, while she was asleep, her father carried her to his bed, kissed her, undressed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She stated this act was repeated on several occasions, with the last incident occurring on December 30, 2012. On that date, appellant brought AAA by boat to a seashore, forced her to lie on the sand, and raped her again, delivering a fist blow to her abdomen when she resisted. AAA eventually confided in her twin sister, leading to the appellant’s arrest. An Information was filed, specifically alleging the rape occurred on or about December 30, 2012, with the qualifying circumstance that the victim was a minor and the offender was her father.
During trial, appellant denied the charges, presenting an alibi that he was at sea on the evening of December 30, 2012. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, also awarding damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s finding of guilt but modified the conviction to two counts of Qualified Rape, corresponding to the incidents on November 27, 2011, and December 30, 2012, and increased the awarded damages. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to establish the elements of rape.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed appellant’s conviction for Qualified Rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the CA decision with modification regarding the penalty. The Court held that all elements of qualified rape were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, rape requires (1) carnal knowledge of a woman accomplished through (2) force, threat, or intimidation. The Court emphasized that when the offender is the victim’s father, his moral ascendancy substitutes for physical force or intimidation. AAA’s detailed and consistent testimony, which remained unshaken during cross-examination, established the sexual acts. Her testimony was further corroborated by her Certificate of Live Birth, proving she was 15 years old at the time of the first rape and that appellant was her biological father. This relationship and the victim’s minority qualified the crime under Article 266-B.
The Court found AAA’s testimony credible, noting that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. Appellant’s defense of denial and alibi, uncorroborated by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over the positive identification and categorical testimony of the victim. The CA correctly convicted appellant of two counts of Qualified Rape for the distinct incidents proven during trial. However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty. Applying prevailing jurisprudence and Republic Act No. 9346, the proper penalty for qualified rape is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court thus imposed this penalty for each count and affirmed the CA’s award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages at P75,000.00 each per count, with interest.