Title
Supreme Court
People vs. YYY
Case
G.R. No. 224626
Decision Date
Jun 27, 2018
YYY convicted of raping minor half-sister AAA on three occasions; threats delayed reporting. Court upheld conviction, citing credible testimony, minor's age, and relationship, awarding damages per *Jugueta*.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 224626)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Charges and Incident Details
    • YYY was charged with three counts of rape committed against his half-sister AAA on three separate occasions through three separate Informations dated 25 August 2000.
    • The incidents occurred on:
      • 17 June 1993 – AAA, aged nine, was forced by YYY at her home in Benguet.
      • 11 September 1993 – AAA, aged nine, was again assaulted while sleeping; YYY carried her and raped her near a carton pile.
      • 26 March 1994 – AAA, then aged ten, was assaulted as she slept, with YYY employing threats to ensure her silence.
  • Prosecution Version of Events
    • Detailed narration of the assaults described how YYY used force, violence, and intimidation.
    • Specific elements included the use of a handkerchief to silence AAA, procedures of undressing, and explicit recitation of the manner in which the crime was committed.
    • AAA’s testimony was consistent and detailed, describing her inability to resist due to threats of murder directed at her and her sibling.
  • Defense Version and Alleged Alibi
    • YYY contended that during the time around the incidents, he was involved in a separate altercation with family members while visiting his siblings at a picnic.
    • He alleged that he was assaulted by other parties while attempting to catch up with AAA, thus suggesting an alternative scenario.
    • YYY also argued that the perfection in AAA’s retelling of the events raised the possibility of rehearsed testimony, especially given the lapse of about nine years since the incident.
  • Trial Court and Appellate Proceedings
    • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a consolidated judgment on 23 April 2012 finding YYY guilty of three counts of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
      • RTC noted AAA’s positive identification and the consistency in her narration, dismissing YYY’s defenses and alibi.
      • The RTC also considered the delay in filing the complaint as a product of YYY’s threats against AAA.
    • The Court of Appeals (CA) in its 11 November 2015 decision affirmed, with modifications, the RTC ruling, convicting YYY for simple rape (given the absence of a qualifying relationship circumstance) and adjusting damages awarded.
    • The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, with the appeal challenging the reliance on AAA’s testimony and the absence of corroborative medico-legal evidence.

Issues:

  • Whether the trial court gravely erred in convicting YYY based solely on the testimony of the victim, considering the alleged perfection or rehearsed quality of her account.
  • Whether the absence of a corroborative medico-legal report should have influenced the evaluation of the credibility of AAA’s testimony and the subsequent conviction of YYY.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.