G.R. No. 240441, December 04, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. XXX, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant XXX was charged in three separate Informations. In Criminal Case No. IR-7893, he was accused of Violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 (lascivious conduct) against BBB, a 14-year-old, in December 2006. In Criminal Case Nos. IR-7957 and IR-7958, he was accused of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) (statutory rape) and Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, respectively, against AAA, alleged to be his stepdaughter, in August 1998 and April 2002. The prosecution established that XXX was the common-law spouse of the victims’ mother, CCC. AAA testified that XXX raped her on two occasions, threatening her with a bolo. BBB testified that XXX performed lascivious acts on her. The accused denied the charges, claiming he started cohabiting with CCC when AAA was already 10 years old and that he no longer lived with them during the alleged incident involving BBB. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted XXX of all charges. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties and damages. The CA held that for the rape charges, XXX could only be convicted of simple rape, not qualified rape, as the allegation that he was AAA’s “stepfather” was not proven; only his status as the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother was established. For the lascivious conduct charge, the CA modified the penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt XXX’s guilt for the crimes charged.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the CA Decision with modifications. The Court held that the prosecution proved XXX’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The minor inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony regarding her age (initially stating 8, then correcting to 10 years old during the first rape) did not undermine her credibility. The Court found AAA’s testimony on the rape incidents clear and convincing. The defense of denial could not prevail over the positive identification by the victims. For Criminal Case Nos. IR-7957 and IR-7958 (rape of AAA), the Court sustained the conviction for simple rape, not qualified rape. The qualifying circumstance of relationship as a “stepfather” alleged in the Informations was not proven; it was only established that XXX was the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother. The terms “common-law spouse” and “step-parent” are distinct and not interchangeable. Thus, the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape was proper. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were increased to P100,000.00 each for every count of rape. For Criminal Case No. IR-7893 (lascivious conduct against BBB), the Court affirmed the conviction under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. The penalty was an indeterminate sentence of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum, plus a fine of P15,000.00. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were set at P50,000.00 each. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.