Title
People vs. XXX
Case
G.R. No. 225059
Decision Date
Jul 23, 2018
Father convicted of raping daughter multiple times over six years; Supreme Court upheld life sentences, citing credible testimony, threats, and moral ascendancy.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 225059)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

# Background and Charges

  • The accused-appellant, XXX, was charged with four counts of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code. The victim, BBB, is his daughter. The incidents occurred between 2004 and 2010 in Valenzuela City.
  • Criminal Case No. 671-V-10: Alleged rape on May 18, 2010, where XXX used force and intimidation to have sexual intercourse with BBB.
  • Criminal Case No. 672-V-10: Alleged rape in 2005 when BBB was 15 years old.
  • Criminal Case No. 673-V-10: Alleged rape in 2005, also when BBB was 15 years old.
  • Criminal Case No. 674-V-10: Alleged rape in 2004 when BBB was 14 years old.

# Prosecution’s Version

  • BBB testified that her father raped her on four occasions, starting when she was 14 years old. XXX used a knife to threaten her and warned her not to report the incidents, threatening to kill her mother if she did. BBB did not immediately report the rapes due to fear and shame.
  • The rapes occurred in their home, and XXX was often drunk during the incidents. BBB eventually disclosed the abuse to a friend, CCC, who helped her file a complaint with the police. A medico-legal report confirmed physical evidence consistent with sexual abuse.

# Defense’s Version

  • XXX denied all allegations, claiming BBB was influenced by her friend and had a childlike mind. He alleged that BBB visited him in jail to apologize for falsely accusing him, but this claim was uncorroborated.

Issues:

  • Whether XXX’s guilt for the four counts of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed XXX’s appeal, affirming his conviction for four counts of rape and modifying the damages awarded to the victim. The Court emphasized the credibility of BBB’s testimony, the inadequacy of XXX’s defenses, and the need to protect victims of sexual abuse.

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.