G.R. No. 244255, August 26, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. XYZ, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Two Informations were filed against accused-appellant XYZ for allegedly raping his daughter, BBB. The first incident allegedly occurred on November 20, 2009, when BBB was 11 years old. The second incident allegedly occurred on December 22, 2011, when BBB was 13 years old. The Informations alleged the commission of rape by means of force, intimidation, and moral ascendancy, and stated that the aggravating circumstance of relationship was attendant as the accused was the natural father of the victim. Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution presented BBB, who testified that accused-appellant sexually abused her on said dates, threatening to kill her mother and brother. Her testimony was corroborated by Dr. Salve B. Sapinoso, who found healed hymenal lacerations. The defense presented accused-appellant, who denied the charges, claimed he was not BBB’s biological father, and offered an alibi that he was working in another barangay three kilometers away during the alleged incidents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellant guilty of two counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, finding accused-appellant guilty of two counts of qualified rape due to the father-daughter relationship, and increased the awards of damages. Accused-appellant appealed, questioning the credibility of the victim, the sufficiency of evidence, and the disregard of his defense.

ISSUE

Whether or not accused-appellant is entitled to an acquittal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the CA decision with modification. The Court held that the credibility of the victim’s testimony, given in a categorical and straightforward manner and corroborated by medical evidence, was upheld. The defense of alibi and denial could not prevail over the victim’s positive identification, as the alleged distance of three kilometers did not constitute physical impossibility. However, the Court found that the Informations did not sufficiently allege the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship for qualified rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The Informations failed to specifically allege that the victim was under twelve (12) years of age at the time of the first rape. While the relationship was alleged as an aggravating circumstance, it was not specifically alleged as a qualifying circumstance. Consequently, the Court modified the conviction from qualified rape to simple rape for both counts. The penalties were reduced to reclusion perpetua for each count of simple rape, without eligibility for parole. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were reduced to P75,000.00 each for every count. All damages shall earn interest at 6% per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.