G.R. No. 249260 , May 05, 2021
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BBB, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant BBB was charged with four counts of Qualified Rape under Article 266-A and B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 , committed against his niece, AAA. The charges stemmed from incidents in 2007 and 2008. In Criminal Case No. 806-M-2010, he was accused of having carnal knowledge of AAA, a 7-year-old minor, on or about November 5, 2008. In Criminal Case Nos. 807-M-2010, 808-M-2010, and 809-M-2010, he was accused of committing sexual assault by inserting his finger into AAA’s vagina on different occasions when she was 5 and 6 years old. Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.
During trial, AAA testified that accused-appellant molested her on multiple occasions. On September 14, 2007, he dragged her into a room, removed her clothing, and inserted his finger into her vagina, warning her not to tell anyone. A month later, he again took her to a bedroom and inserted his fingers, while she resisted. In 2008, he used a key to enter her house, pulled her into a room, and repeated the act. On November 5, 2008, her 7th birthday, he entered through a hole in the kitchen, removed her clothing, and inserted his penis into her vagina several times until her father caught him. AAA later reported the incidents to her mother, who brought her to the police and for a medical examination.
Accused-appellant denied the allegations, claiming the charges were fabricated by AAA’s mother because he had caught her with another man. He also presented an alibi, stating he was in Bocaue selling tinapa during the alleged incidents in 2007 and 2008.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all charges. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications regarding the nomenclature of the crimes, penalties, and damages.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellant for the crimes charged was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the guilt of accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court denied the appeal, affirming the CA’s modified decision.
In Criminal Case No. 806-M-2010, the crime committed is Qualified Statutory Rape. The prosecution proved the elements: (1) accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA, and (2) AAA was under 12 years of age at the time. The qualifying circumstance of relationship (uncle-niece) was also established, warranting the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
For Criminal Case Nos. 807-M-2010, 808-M-2010, and 809-M-2010, the acts constitute Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, punishable under Republic Act No. 7610 . The prosecution proved that accused-appellant inserted his finger into AAA’s vagina on three separate occasions, committing lascivious conduct against a child.
The Court found AAA’s testimony credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical findings. The defenses of denial and alibi were rejected for being unsupported by clear evidence and inherently weak.
The CA’s modifications were upheld. In Criminal Case No. 806-M-2010, accused-appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without parole and ordered to pay AAA P100,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. In the three other cases, he is sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 15 years, 6 months, and 20 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay P75,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages per case. All damages shall earn interest at 6% per annum from finality until fully paid.