Case Digest (G.R. No. 218575)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Francis Ursua y Bernal, G.R. No. 218575, October 04, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The complainant, AAA, born January 16 (1992 or 1994 per conflicting records), was the biological daughter of accused-appellant Francis Ursua y Bernal. AAA lived with her father and brother BBB in a one-room dwelling. On the nights of January 17–18, 2006, AAA testified that a drunken Ursua woke her to buy food, then twice in the early hours and once in the evening on January 18, 2006, undressed her, touched her breasts and vagina, and on two occasions inserted his penis into her vagina; she said she cried but did not resist because he threatened to hit her. BBB testified for the defense and claimed he slept between them and noticed nothing.
AAA left home on January 19, 2006, and later executed a sworn statement with the assistance of a DSWD liaison on November 14, 2006. A medico-legal exam performed on November 9, 2006, by PSI Marianne Ebdane found healed lacerations to AAA’s hymen consistent with remote blunt force or penetrating trauma; AAA attributed these injuries to her father.
Three Informations dated February 20, 2007 charged Ursua with three counts of qualified rape (Criminal Cases Nos. 134832‑H, 134833‑H, 134834‑H) alleging commission on January 17 and two instances on January 18, 2006. Ursua pleaded not guilty and asserted alibi/denial, including that AAA had been friendly with her godfather and fabricated the charges. Trial at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 261, Pasig City, resulted in a November 22, 2012 Decision convicting Ursua of three counts of qualified rape and sentencing him to three counts of reclusion perpetua, and ordering monetary damages.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06105 (Decision dated July 17, 2014) affirmed two rape convictions but, finding lack of proof of penile penetration for the third incident, modified the third count to acts of lasciviousness and adjusted penalties and damages for that count. The Office of the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Ursua proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the two counts of qualified rape as charged?
- Should the third information (Criminal Case No. 134834‑H) be sustained as rape, or modified to another sexual offense given the proof?
- Are the penalties and damages imposed by the lower courts proper or ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)