G.R. No. 205888 - People vs. XXX

An appeal was filed by accused-appellant XXX under Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Rules of Court.
The appeal challenges the Decision of the RTC of Bais City, Branch 45, which had convicted XXX for three counts of rape committed on April 15, 2001, and acquitted him in other related cases.
The RTC’s Decision, initially rendered in a Joint Decision on February 16, 2005, was subsequently affirmed in part by the Court of Appeals (CA) on April 19, 2012.

The incident allegedly took place on July 18, 1999, in the Municipality of Ayungon, Negros Oriental.
XXX, the father of the 16‑year‑old victim (AAA), is accused of taking advantage of his ascendancy to commit attempted rape while the victim was asleep, involving forcible removal of clothing and physical assault.
The facts indicate that XXX’s act was an incomplete attempt, as he did not succeed in fully executing the rape due to the victim’s resistance.

The incident allegedly occurred on April 8, 2001 in Ayungon, Negros Oriental.
XXX is charged with having forcibly and unlawfully had sexual intercourse with his daughter, AAA, by means of force, violence, and intimidation.

These cases pertain to a series of rape incidents committed on April 15, 2001 during different times of the night (approximately at 7:00 p.m., 9:00 p.m., and 12:00 midnight, respectively).
In each instance, XXX is alleged to have taken advantage of his position as the victim’s father and used force, violence, and intimidation to commit rape.

The primary victim, AAA, initially gave direct testimony regarding the incidents but died on January 4, 2003, before she could be subjected to cross-examination.
Due to her untimely death, AAA’s direct testimony was expunged from the records to preserve the rights of cross-examination.
The prosecution then relied on the secondary testimonies of other witnesses:

EEE, an aunt of the victim, testified that on April 16, 2001, she observed AAA in a state of distress and received from her a spontaneous account detailing the rape incidents.
Gelmie Calug, encountered by AAA while she was engaged in househelp duties, testified regarding AAA’s statements made three days after the April 15, 2001 incidents.

The evidence presented, including the spontaneous utterances of the victim relayed to EEE, was offered under the doctrine of res gestae as an exception to the general rule on hearsay.

Detailed accounts revealed that on the night of April 15, 2001, the victim suffered three separate acts of rape at distinct times, all committed by her own father.
In contrast, the earlier cases (July 18, 1999 and April 8, 2001) were not supported by sufficiently contemporaneous evidence and were therefore not considered part of the res gestae.
The RTC gave significant weight to the spontaneous and continuous nature of the victim’s statements made to EEE, holding that they were intimately connected to the events and free from premeditation.
Additional witness testimonies and medico-legal findings corroborated the disturbing nature of the crimes, forming the evidentiary basis for the conviction in the RTC Decision.

The RTC convicted XXX beyond reasonable doubt for three counts of rape (those on April 15, 2001).
The RTC dismissed charges in the cases of F-02-03-A (Attempted Rape) and F-02-01-A (Rape) due to insufficient evidence when the acts fell outside the ambit of the res gestae exception.
XXX’s defenses, including his denial of the allegations and his unsupported alibi (claiming presence in Palawan), were found inconsistent and unsubstantiated.
The CA, while reviewing the case, affirmed the RTC’s findings and sustained the evidentiary rulings, modifying only the monetary awards in line with prevailing legal standards.

Whether the evidence presented, particularly the secondary testimonies considered as res gestae, was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that XXX committed the three counts of rape on April 15, 2001.

Whether the spontaneous statements of the victim, although relayed by witnesses after a lapse in time, fall within the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule.
Whether the exclusion of the victim’s direct testimony, due to her demise and the consequent lack of cross-examination, compromised the accused’s constitutional right to confront witnesses.
Whether the accused’s ancillary defenses (denial and alibi) were adequately supported by coherent and corroborative evidence.