Case Digest (G.R. No. 208071)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 208071)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Edgardo Perez y Alavado, G.R. No. 208071, March 9, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. The case is an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals' Decision dated February 27, 2013 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00176-MIN, which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court's Decision dated May 15, 2002 in Criminal Case No. 17071, Zamboanga City, finding accused-appellant Edgardo Perez y Alavado guilty of rape.On June 23, 2000, an Information charged appellant with rape for having carnal knowledge of his niece, AAA, then 13 years old, on or about January 3, 2000 in Zamboanga City, alleging force and intimidation and mentioning that the accused was an uncle by affinity. At arraignment on September 6, 2000, appellant pleaded not guilty. At trial the prosecution presented the testimony of the victim AAA, police investigator PO3 Maria Enriquez, examining physician Dr. Marian Calaycay (who issued a medico-legal certificate), and BBB, AAA’s father.
AAA testified she was born August 18, 1986 and described in detail that on January 3, 2000 she woke up inside appellant’s room at about 4:00 a.m.; appellant, wearing only a towel, forced her to the floor, removed her garments, kissed her, mounted her and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing pain; he then cleaned her and gave her P10.00. She said she returned to her father’s house on January 5, 2000 and revealed the incident later when confronted. Dr. Calaycay testified the medico-legal findings showed healed hymenal lacerations at 4 and 8 o’clock, introitus admitting one finger with ease, underdeveloped breasts and no spermatozoa detected; she stated an erect penis is among possible causes of the lacerations. PO3 Enriquez testified she received the complaint and the medico-legal certificate and forwarded the matter to the prosecutor.
Appellant denied the crime and asserted an alibi, claiming he was driving a passenger tricycle that night while many relatives from Curuan slept in his living room; he presented six defense witnesses—mostly close relatives—who corroborated that he was not in his bedroom at the time. The RTC, after trial, found AAA’s testimony credible and convicting, rejecting the alibi and the defense witnesses as biased; on May 15, 2002 it convicted appellant of rape under Article 266-A (as penalized by RA 8353) and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, imposed P100,000 civil indemnity and costs.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified damages to P75,000 civil indemnity, P75,000 moral damages and P30,000 exemplary damages. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court (filed March 14, 2013); the parties adopted their CA briefs as supplemental briefs and the case was submitted. In the Supreme Court appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt because AAA’s testimony contained inconsistencies, the alleged act could not have been committed unnoticed given other persons present, and there was an unreasonable delay in reporting.
Issues:
- Was the prosecution able to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in its awards of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)