complaint[22] against BBB, EEE, and Reyes. AAA was medically examined[23] for her bum marks and hematoma. The
accused-appellant was also advised to ascertain the exact address of BBB, EEE, and Reyes and to coordinate with
the barangay. When the accused-appellant went to the barangay, he learned that Reyes was
a kagawad (councilman).[24]
On 15 September 2001, the accused-appellant reported to the barangay that AAA was missing. AAA's grandmother
reported to him that AAA was taken by someone who rode a black vehicle. [25]
On 17 September 2001, the accused-appellant was arrested by two police officers on the basis of a complaint filed by
BBB for the rape of AAA.[26]
The RTC Ruling
The RTC held that the prosecution was able to competently and sufficiently establish the elements of violation of Art.
266-A of R.A. No. 8353. It pointed out that jurisprudence dictates that in an incestuous rape of a minor, neither actual
force nor intimidation need be employed; nor proof of force and violence exerted by the aggressor is essential. It
ruled that in a rape by a father of his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence substitute for
violence and intimidation.[27]
The RTC held that AAA's testimony and positive identification of the accused-appellant as her rapist were further
bolstered by DDD's categorical declaration during the trial of what he had heard and observed when his sister was
raped by the accused-appellant. The RTC found that, like AAA, DDD would gain nothing from falsely testifying
against the accused-appellant. The RTC noted that the inconsistencies as to the dates or events that transpired prior
to the rape on 14 September 2001 were inconsequential to the crime charged. On the one hand, the defense of the
accused-appellant failed to override the strong, clear, precise, and convincing evidence identifying him as the
perpetrator.[28]
The RTC resolved the case against the accused-appellant as follows:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds accused RICARDO TANGLAO y
EGANA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph
1(d) of Republic Act No. 8353 and sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the
complainant AAA the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity; Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.[29]
Not satisfied with the disposition of his case, the accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
The CA found no merit in the appeal. It held that the accused-appellant's contention that AAA could not have been
raped because there was "no evident injury" in her genitalia deserves no consideration. According to the CA, the
absence of external injuries does not negate rape and that an intact hymen does not disprove a finding that the victim
was actually sexually violated. It further ruled that it will not disturb the findings of the RTC that AAA's testimony
deserves full faith and credence especially that there were no facts or circumstances of weight or substance that the
trial court had overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted. [30]
While the CA affirmed the RTC ruling that the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed upon the accusedappellant, it found the need to modify the award of damages. Thus, the CA resolved the appeal as follows:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed January 6, 2012 Decision is
however MODIFIED by ORDERING the accused-appellant to pay AAA:
(1) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
(2) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and