G.R. No. 143375 - Bautista vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves accused Virgilio Lorica, who is charged with having raped his daughter, Elenita P. Lorica.
The abuse allegedly started in Quezon Province when the victim was ten (10) years old and continued after the family transferred to Brgy. Linga, Pila, Laguna.
The sexual abuse occurred when the mother and other family members were absent, and the accused threatened the victim not to disclose the incidents.

On the specified date, Elenita P. Lorica was raped twice by her father.
The victim, despite her evident fear and pain, reported the incident to a relative (“Ate Inday”) and her friend Richel Rizal.
Richel accompanied Elenita to the local barangay captain, Rodolfo Enriquez, who immediately referred the case to the Philippine National Police.
Elenita’s medical examination at the Laguna Provincial Hospital revealed physical evidence (“vagina admits one finger with ease at 3, 5, 7 and 9 o’clock positions with old hymenal tear”), supporting her account.

On October 21, 1997, following Elenita’s complaint, a formal complaint for rape was filed before the Municipal Trial Court of Pila, Laguna; the accused was arrested on the same day.
The trial court ordered the accused to file his counter-affidavit along with those of his witnesses pursuant to Section 3(b) of Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
An Information was filed on November 20, 1997 before the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, charging the accused with having carnal knowledge of his daughter against her will, with a detailed description of the incident.

Elenita’s testimony provided a detailed, albeit understandably partial, recollection of the rape, including the manner in which her father approached her, the physical actions (touching of thighs, kissing on lips, cheeks, and neck, and insertion of his penis), and his threats to kill her if she attempted to resist.
Despite some reluctance and the use of leading questions by counsel—as deemed necessary due to her tender age, immaturity, and the trauma she experienced—her testimony was considered credible and sufficient to prove that a rape had occurred.
The physical evidence (medical examination findings) corroborated aspects of her testimony.

During arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty and offered an alibi, asserting his presence at a pet store and later at another residence on the day of the incident.
On September 18, 1998, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
The trial court sentenced the accused to the death penalty and ordered him to pay various damages: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The case was subjected to automatic review due to the gravity of the sentence.

Whether the testimony of Elenita, which was elicited with the help of leading questions due to her age and condition, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the narrative details provided by the victim, despite any lapses in complete recall, were enough to meet the burden of proof in a rape case.

Whether the prosecution satisfied the requirement of proving that the victim, Elenita, was indeed a minor at the time of the offense.
Whether the absence of independent documentary evidence (such as the victim’s birth certificate) and reliance on hearsay statements affected the qualification of the rape as one against a minor.

Whether the imposition of the death penalty was justified in light of the evidence presented, particularly given the alleged failure to conclusively establish the victim’s age.
Whether the awarded damages, including civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.