G.R. No. 245926 - People vs. XXX accused-appellant

The accused-appellant, XXX, was charged with Qualified Rape under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B(1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997).
The information alleged that sometime on February 24, 2015, around midnight, in Misamis Oriental, the accused, knowing the minority of his "first cousin or relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity," forcibly and by intimidation and grave abuse of authority, had carnal knowledge of AAA, a 16-year-old girl, without her consent.
The information used the disjunctive "first cousin or relative within the third civil degree," which became a critical issue in the case.
AAA was below 18 years of age, and the offender was a relative within the third degree was alleged as qualifying circumstances.

The accused pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
Parties stipulated on: (a) identity of accused-appellant; (b) accused-appellant’s relationship to AAA as a relative within the third degree of consanguinity; and (c) that AAA was examined by a physician and had a medical certificate issued.
During trial, AAA testified that accused-appellant returned to their house around midnight, put his mouth over hers to cover it, undressed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina by force and intimidation.
AAA experienced pain and was later threatened by accused-appellant via text message to keep silent or else she and her father would be killed.
The victim’s younger brother, CCC, learned of the rape through a text message from AAA and informed their mother, BBB, who then helped AAA report the incident and have a medical examination conducted.
The medical certificate indicated an annular hymen with complete laceration at the 4 and 6 o’clock positions.

Accused-appellant denied the allegations, claiming to have been at his cousin WWW’s house celebrating a birthday from 4:30 p.m. of February 24, 2015, until 4:30 a.m. of the following day.
His sister YYY corroborated his alibi, testifying to his presence at the birthday celebration.

The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua in lieu of death penalty.
The RTC awarded AAA Php 100,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, all with legal interest.
The court held that the prosecution established all elements, including identity, relationship (stipulated), victim’s minority (confirmed by birth certificate), and force/intimidation.

The CA affirmed the RTC decision, confirming that AAA was 15 years old and that accused-appellant was a relative within the third degree of consanguinity.
The CA upheld the damages awarded.

Accused-appellant alleged failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically challenging identity, credibility of AAA, and sufficiency of evidence on force, threat, or intimidation.
Accused-appellant pointed to inconsistency in the information and judicial affidavit regarding force and intimidation; claimed AAA’s identification was unreliable due to darkness and lack of in-court identification.
He also questioned the weight of the medical certificate, which the prosecution admitted through stipulation of existence but did not prove the veracity of contents.
The prosecution countered, affirming all essential elements were proven and noting the proximity and lack of a credible alibi.

Whether the prosecution proved accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape, considering:

The identity of the accused as the perpetrator;
The credibility of AAA’s testimony;
The presence of force, threat, or intimidation;
The correctness of the stipulation regarding the relationship between accused-appellant and AAA;
Whether the information sufficiently alleged the qualifying circumstance of relationship for Qualified Rape.