G.R. No. 258054 , October 25, 2023
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. XXX258054, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, XXX258054, was charged with the qualified rape of his 14-year-old daughter, AAA258054. The Information alleged that on or about May 24, 2018, he used force, threat, intimidation, and a knife to have carnal knowledge of the victim. During trial, the prosecution was unable to present AAA258054 as a witness because her mother had sent her abroad to prevent her from testifying against her father. In lieu of her direct testimony, the prosecution offered her sworn statement (Sinumpaang Salaysay) and the Sexual Abuse Protocol she accomplished, applying the doctrine of the unavailable child witness.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim’s aunt, CCC258054, and cousin, GGG258054. CCC258054 testified that AAA258054 confided in her about the rape and a history of sexual abuse since she was ten years old. GGG258054 corroborated this, recounting the victim’s distressed account of the incident. The medico-legal officer, PCINSP Reah Cornelio, confirmed that her examination revealed deep-healed hymenal lacerations consistent with penetration by a blunt object like an erect penis. The defense consisted of a denial and an alibi, with the accused and his other daughter testifying he was asleep in a different house at the time.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction for qualified rape can be sustained despite the victim’s unavailability to testify in court.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the application of the doctrine of the unavailable child witness under Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness. This rule allows the admission of a child’s out-of-court testimony when the child is unavailable due to reasons such as death, insanity, or, as in this case, being kept away by a family member to prevent testimony. The Court emphasized the state’s mandate to protect children and that the unavailability of the child, especially when orchestrated to obstruct justice, should not result in the accused’s acquittal.
The legal logic proceeds from the admissibility of the victim’s sworn statement and protocol, which were properly authenticated and found to possess the requisite trustworthiness. These documents, coupled with the consistent and credible testimonies of two competent witnesses (CCC258054 and GGG258054) who personally heard the victim’s account immediately after the incident, provided a reliable basis for establishing the facts of the rape. Their testimonies constituted admissible hearsay under the doctrine of res gestae, as the victim’s statements were made spontaneously while under the stress of a startling event. The medico-legal findings provided physical corroboration. The defense of denial and alibi, uncorroborated and inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive and credible evidence of the prosecution. All elements of qualified rape—carnal knowledge through force or intimidation, the victim’s minority, and the accused’s relationship as father—were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court thus affirmed the penalties of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and the awarded damages.