vaginal canal indicating that she was no longer a virgin at that time.
BBB testified that upon learning of the sexual abuses committed by YYY in 2002, BBB confronted her sister and the
latter related to her what their father did. After which, they decided to file the cases against YYY.
Evidence of the Defense
The defense presented YYY as its sole witness. He vehemently denied the allegations against him. He testified that
during the entire month of March 1993, he was living in XXX, Cagayan and never left the place. Likewise, on
November 14, 2001, he was at his house in Cagayan, together with his children because his wife was in Manila.
The RTC Ruling
In its Decision dated April 22, 2014, the RTC found YYY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of: Rape under Article 226A, (1) and (2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in Criminal Case No. 10648; and Qualified Rape under Article 226-A
(1), in relation to Article 226-B(1) of the RPC in Criminal Case No. 10649.
The RTC ruled that all the elements of the crimes of rape and qualified rape were present. It opined that YYY had
carnal knowledge with AAA against her will and while she was unconscious in the year 1993 and asleep in the year
2001. The RTC also highlighted that the delayed reporting of the incident in 2004 could not be taken against AAA as
she was threatened by YYY. The fallo of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the GUILT of accused [YYY] having been established beyond reasonable
doubt, sentence is hereby pronounced against him as follows:
1.
In Criminal Case No. 10648, accused is held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is ordered to pay the offended party, [AAA], P50,000.00
by way of civil indemnity and P50,000.00 by way of moral damages;
2.
In Criminal Case No. 10649, accused is hereby held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape and
that, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered to
pay the private offended party civil indemnity in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), moral
damages also in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), and exemplary damages in the
amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00);
The accused who is [a] detained prisoner is hereby credited in full of the period of this preventive imprisonment in
accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Aggrieved, YYY appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its Decision dated July 31, 2017, the CA found YYY guilty of qualified rape in Criminal Case No. 10648. However, it
acquitted YYY of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 10649 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
As to the March 1993 incident, the CA sustained YYY's conviction for qualified rape. It held that the prosecution
established several circumstantial evidence, to wit: (1) the use of force and intimidation rendering AAA unconscious
because YYY hit her with a broom; (2) when AAA regained consciousness, she found herself naked and felt pain in
her body, particularly in her hands and vagina; (3) AAA saw her father in the veranda; and (4) YYY then threatened to
kill AAA if she would report the incident. The CA underscored that AAA's testimony was corroborated by the
physician's testimony because the latter found healed hymenal lacerations. It also highlighted that YYY should be
convicted of qualified rape in Criminal Case No. 10648 because the prosecution was able to prove the minority of the
victim and her relationship with appellant.
As to the November 14, 2001 incident, the CA acquitted YYY of the crime charged because AAA 's testimony on the
alleged second rape did not satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Based on AAA's testimony, the
CA observed there was no admissible evidence to show that YYY inserted his penis into AAA's mouth or anal orifice,
or any instrument or object into the victim's genital or anal orifice. The CA emphasized that AAA merely stated she
was raped but failed to testify on the facts and circumstances that would lead the court to conclude that there was
rape. It determined that the testimony of AAA with respect to the second rape was too general as it failed to focus on
material details as to how the said rape was committed.
As to the award of damages, the CA modified the same to conform with prevailing jurisprudence. It increased the