A.M. No. MTJ-02-1448 - Joson vs. Ortiz

Appellant Elmer Moya was charged with multiple counts of rape and qualified rape against his sister, AAA, a minor aged 13 at the time.
The incidents occurred in the appellant's residence in Balayan, Batangas in 2008.

On July 20, 2008, appellant entered AAA’s room while she was sleeping, covered her mouth, undressed her shorts and underwear; no penetration was alleged on this date.
On July 27, 2008, appellant again covered AAA’s mouth, undressed her, had carnal knowledge, and ejaculated inside her vagina.
On August 3, 2008, similar acts were committed: appellant covered her mouth, undressed her, and ejaculated.
On August 14, 2008, appellant covered AAA’s face and undressed her; then inserted his finger into her vagina.

On October 21, 2008, medico-legal examination showed deep healed laceration at 9 o’clock and shallow healed laceration at 3 o’clock position on the hymen, confirming blunt healed trauma consistent with sexual abuse.
No extra-genital injuries or discharge were noted.

Four separate informations were filed corresponding to the dates above, charging appellant with rape and qualified rape under the Revised Penal Code and violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
Appellant denied the charges and interposed a defense of denial and alibi, claiming he was out fishing with witnesses during the incidents.
Trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on victim testimony and medico-legal evidence.
Trial court sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in each case and awarded damages to the victim.

Criminal Case No. 6263 - Qualified rape; reclusion perpetua without parole; damages awarded.
Criminal Case Nos. 6264 and 6266 - Violation of R.A. No. 7610; imposed indeterminate penalty of 6 months arresto mayor to 6 years prision correccional; damages and fines imposed.
Criminal Case No. 6265 - Qualified rape by sexual assault; indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months, 1 day reclusion temporal; modified damages awarded.

Appellant argued errors in the trial court’s findings and questioned the credibility of the victim’s testimony.
He further claimed inconsistencies in her statements and insisted the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged, specifically Qualified Rape and violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.

Whether the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals for rape by sexual assault (Criminal Case No. 6265) and for acts of lasciviousness (Criminal Case Nos. 6264 and 6266) were proper or required modification.

Whether the inconsistencies in victim’s testimony and appellant’s defenses cast reasonable doubt on his guilt.