G.R. No. 262581 , August 16, 2023
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Sps. XXX262581 and YYY262581, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants, spouses XXX262581 and YYY262581, were charged with incestuous rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, for an alleged incident in 2008 in Pangasinan. The Information alleged they conspired, with YYY262581 holding their 14-year-old daughter, AAA262581, while XXX262581 had carnal knowledge of her against her will. The parties stipulated on the identities of the accused as parents, the minority of AAA at the time, and the authenticity of her medico-legal report. AAA testified that on December 15, 2008, her mother woke her, told her to lie beside her father, held her feet, and her father removed her clothing, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina for five minutes while she cried in pain. She did not report immediately due to fear and only disclosed the incident to an aunt on May 29, 2017. The prosecution also presented BBB262581 (another daughter) and PO2 Joan Claire Espelita. BBB initially went to the police but later recanted, claiming she was forced by relatives to file charges. PO2 Espelita testified that AAA appeared relieved and teary-eyed when informed of the report. The defense denied the allegations, claiming the house had no separate rooms and that XXX was often out working. The Regional Trial Court convicted the spouses of rape, finding AAA’s testimony credible and corroborated by the medico-legal report showing an old hymenal scar. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, dismissing the appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants for the crime of rape.

RULING

The appeal is unmeritorious. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution established all elements of rape under Article 266-A: (1) AAA, then 14, was under 18 and the accused are her parents, and (2) XXX had carnal knowledge of her. The testimony of AAA was found credible, categorical, positive, and straightforward. The delay in reporting was justified by her fear and the moral ascendancy of her parents. The medico-legal report, though not essential given AAA’s credible testimony, corroborated the claim. The defenses of denial and alibi are weak and cannot prevail over AAA’s positive identification. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, each set at ₱100,000.00 with interest, were upheld. The accused are ineligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 .