Case Digest (G.R. No. 207815)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Jose Salvador a.k.a. "Felix", G.R. No. 207815, June 22, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The appeal arises from the Court of Appeals’ January 9, 2013 decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 34484 affirming with modification a Regional Trial Court judgment.The accused-appellant is Jose Salvador (hereafter "appellant"), a tricycle driver and father of the alleged victims. The offended parties — identified in the record only as BBB, CCC, and AAA — are appellant’s daughters; their real names were withheld pursuant to applicable safeguards for minor victims. On February 5, 2009 appellant was charged by Information in Criminal Case No. 4112 with rape (in relation to R.A. No. 7610) allegedly committed against BBB sometime in July 2007 and prior thereto. He was separately charged in Criminal Case No. 4113 with acts of lasciviousness against CCC. Arraignment took place on July 8, 2010; appellant pleaded not guilty and a joint trial followed.
At trial the prosecution presented the testimony of BBB, Ms. Celestina Abellera (MSWD officer), PO3 Myra Novilla (Women and Children Protection Desk officer), and Dr. Arturo A. Parilla, Jr. BBB executed a sworn Sinumpaang Salaysay on July 11, 2007 and later, while 19 years old, affirmed that statement in court: she narrated repeated molestation beginning when she was in Grade VI, stated appellant inserted his finger into her vagina causing pain, and recounted occasions when appellant, wearing only underwear, massaged and later “pointed” his penis at her vagina though she clarified he did not insert his penis. She explained her delay in reporting was due to fear of appellant’s “pamalo” and a gun. Dr. Parilla’s medico-legal report (exam dated July 11, 2007) found no evident injury but noted that the medical evaluation did not exclude sexual abuse.
Appellant testified in denial and claimed that AAA had orchestrated a scheme to extort money from him by persuading her sisters to file false complaints; he offered no corroborating evidence of that allegation. In a July 22, 2011 decision, the RTC, Branch 96, Baler, Aurora, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code and acquitted him of acts of lasciviousness, imposing an indeterminate penalty and awarding damages to BBB.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s factual findings but concluded that, because BBB was under 18 and appellant was her father, the crime constituted qualified rape; it therefore modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua (no parole) and increased the civil indemnity. The case reached the Sup...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was appellant’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged (rape under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Cod...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)