G.R. No. 252214 . June 14, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BBB, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant BBB, the biological father of AAA, was charged with two counts of rape under two Informations. Criminal Case No. 18941 alleged rape sometime in July 2013, and Criminal Case No. 18942 alleged rape on or about February 9, 2014. During trial, the victim AAA was unable to testify as she had returned to her home province after being misinformed that the DNA test results required a payment of P75,000.00. The prosecution primarily relied on DNA evidence. Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Bravo testified that DNA analysis confirmed AAA was BBB’s daughter and that BBB was the biological father of AAA’s child, CCC, with a 99.9999% probability of paternity. The defense stipulated to testimonies that AAA’s aunt, DDD, reported the pregnancy and that the father was BBB, and that police apprehended BBB based on a complaint. BBB denied the allegations, claiming AAA was prodded by DDD due to a misunderstanding, and he insisted the DNA results were not true despite confirming that samples were taken from him, AAA, and CCC. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted BBB of rape in Criminal Case No. 18942, acquitting him in Criminal Case No. 18941 for failure of proof, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification. BBB appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove force or intimidation due to AAA’s absence, that witnesses lacked personal knowledge, and that the child’s birth date (August 2014) made rape in July 2013 or February 2014 unlikely.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming BBB’s conviction for rape based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the DNA test results, despite the victim’s failure to testify and the alleged lack of proof of force, threat, or intimidation.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the CA Decision with MODIFICATION. The Court held that the conviction was based on sufficient circumstantial evidence. The DNA test result, which established BBB as the biological father of AAA’s child, is a conclusive fact that carnal knowledge occurred. In cases of rape committed by a father against his own minor daughter, the law presumes that the element of force, threat, or intimidation is present due to the moral ascendancy and influence inherent in the parental relationship; thus, the prosecution did not need to present AAA’s testimony specifically on this element. The discrepancy between the alleged dates of rape and the child’s birth date is immaterial, as the date is not an essential element of the crime, especially when paternity is conclusively proven. The combination of circumstances—BBB’s paternity of CCC, AAA’s minority, and BBB’s parental authority—constitutes an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that BBB raped AAA. The Court modified the awarded damages, increasing civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each, and awarded interest on all damages at 6% per annum from finality of judgment until full payment.