G.R. No. 186228 - People vs. Lauga y Pina

On 21 September 2000, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information accusing appellant Antonio Lauga y Pina of qualified rape of his 13-year-old daughter AAA, alleging use of force and intimidation in Barangay xxx, Bukidnon, on 15 March 2000.
On 12 October 2000, appellant pleaded not guilty.
At the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated to the correctness of the medical certificate, AAA’s age, and her relationship to appellant.

AAA testified that at about 10:00 p.m. on 15 March 2000, her father woke her, removed both their garments, threatened her with his fist and a knife over her head, and inserted his penis into her vagina.
BBB testified that he found AAA crying, escorted her to their grandmother’s house, and together with relatives sought the assistance of barangay “bantay bayan.”
Moises Boy Banting, a “bantay bayan,” located appellant at home, brought him to the police outpost, and recorded his admission of inability to control himself.

Dr. Josefa Alsula’s medical certificate noted a freshly lacerated hymen at 4 o’clock and 6 o’clock positions and minimal to moderate bloody discharges.

Appellant denied the rape charge, narrated an alibi of sleeping after dinner, admitted to occasional physical chastisement of wife and children, and claimed no sexual assault occurred.

On 8 July 2006, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Malaybalay City, convicted appellant of qualified rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, indemnify AAA P50,000 as moral damages, P50,000 as civil indemnity, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
On 30 September 2008, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00456-MIN affirmed with modifications, increasing moral and civil damages to P75,000 each and ruling appellant ineligible for parole.
On 24 November 2008, the Supreme Court docketed the appeal and ordered supplemental briefs, which the parties waived.

Whether appellant’s extrajudicial confession to a “bantay bayan” is admissible absent counsel and waiver of Miranda rights.
Whether inconsistencies in AAA’s and BBB’s testimonies destroy their credibility.
Whether the prosecution proved the elements of qualified rape and the aggravating/qualifying circumstances of parent-child relationship and victim’s minority.
Whether the awards of damages and penalty were proper.