Case Digest (G.R. No. 224295)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Ariel S. Mendoza, G.R. No. 224295, March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Ariel S. Mendoza (accused-appellant) in an Information filed February 10, 2010 with having raped his five-year-old daughter, identified in the record by the initials AAA, sometime in 2008–2009 at the grandfather’s house in San Antonio, Zambales, in violation of Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). On arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty; at the preliminary conference he admitted paternity and the veracity of AAA’s birth certificate.
At trial, AAA testified and consistently recounted that while the grandfather was away the accused stripped her, made her lie face down, and inserted his penis into her vagina and anus; the act was interrupted by the grandfather’s arrival. AAA’s sworn statement, admitted in evidence, was consistent with her in-court testimony. Her mother and live-in partner, EEE, testified that she had been away at the time and had left the children with the grandfather. The prosecution presented AAA’s sworn statement, EEE’s sworn statement, the joint arrest affidavit, AAA’s birth certificate, and an initial medico-legal report; the medico-legal officer who performed the examination did not testify.
The accused denied the charge, blaming a compadre and alleging that EEE instigated the complaint to pursue a new relationship. On December 9, 2010, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, Iba, Zambales, convicted Mendoza of qualified incestuous rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to R.A. No. 9346, and ordered payment of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages (P75,000; P75,000; P25,000 respectively). On March 13, 2015, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified damages, increasing exemplary damages to P30,000 and directing legal inte...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the conviction for qualified rape of a five-year-old victim properly supported by the evidence, notwithstanding the absence of testimony from the examining medico-legal officer?
- Should the awards for civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages be modified, and if ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)