G.R. No. 234841, June 3, 2019
Manuel Barallas Ramilo, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent

FACTS

Manuel Barallas Ramilo was charged with rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about August 27, 2013, in Marikina City, the accused, with lewd design and by means of force, threat, and intimidation, committed sexual abuse upon his daughter, AAA, a 12-year-old minor, by lying beside her, embracing her, and inserting his fingers inside her vagina. The crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of relationship.
During trial, AAA testified that on the morning of August 28, 2013, her father, Manuel, held her wrist, threatened to kill her if she reported him, forced her to lie on the floor, embraced her, and inserted his finger into her vagina for about five minutes until it became painful. She did not immediately report the incident due to fear but later disclosed it to her school principal. Her sister, BBB, testified about her own prior abuse by Manuel and her suspicion that AAA was also a victim, which prompted her to go to AAA’s school. The medico-legal officer found no hymenal lacerations or injuries on AAA. The defense presented Manuel, who denied the charges, claiming AAA was influenced by BBB due to familial discord, and his wife, CCC, who testified about their tumultuous relationship and Manuel’s abusive behavior but did not witness the alleged incident.
The Regional Trial Court found Manuel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of sexual assault and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, considering the aggravating circumstance of relationship, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Manuel Barallas Ramilo for rape through sexual assault.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications. The Court held that all elements of sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the accused inserted his finger into the victim’s vagina; (2) the act was accomplished through force or intimidation; and (3) the victim was under twelve years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. AAA’s testimony was found to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. The defense of denial could not prevail over AAA’s positive identification and categorical testimony. The lack of hymenal laceration does not negate rape, as penetration of the labia is sufficient. The aggravating circumstance of relationship was duly alleged and proven.
The Court modified the award of damages. Applying prevailing jurisprudence, the victim being a minor below 13 years old, the awards were increased to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid.