Title
Supreme Court
People vs. XXX70149
Case
G.R. No. 270149
Decision Date
Oct 23, 2024
Accused-appellant XXX270149 convicted of qualified rape against his 6-year-old daughter, AF, by inserting his penis into her vagina. The ruling affirmed by CA and appealed by accused.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29966)

Applicable Law

The relevant laws considered in this case include Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, which governs the definitions and penalties for rape, particularly qualified rape.

Charges and Proceedings

On November 20, 2019, the City Prosecutor initiated charges against XXX270149 for rape, later docketed as Criminal Case No. FC-15-1707. The case was initially dismissed due to a lack of authority by the signing prosecutor, leading to a re-filing on December 12, 2019, as Criminal Case No. FC-19-3112. During the pre-trial, it was stipulated that XXX270149 is the biological father of AAA270149, which formed a critical aspect of the case.

Incident Overview

Testimonies from the victim, AAA270149, and other witnesses detailed a traumatic incident during a visit to a friend’s house. It was described that after AAA270149 called for her father while in the bathroom, XXX270149 assaulted her by inserting his finger and subsequently his penis into her vagina, which was corroborated by the unexpected entry of a witnessing adult, Melody Amboyao, who reported seeing the assault.

Trial and Witness Testimonies

The RTC conducted trial proceedings where the victim's testimony, supported by witness accounts, outlined the events clearly and convincingly. The victim's recounting of the abuse was established with clarity, indicating the physical and emotional pain she suffered, as evidenced by her crying out during the assault.

Verdict of the RTC

The RTC ultimately found XXX270149 guilty of qualified rape under Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, alongside civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, each set at PHP 100,000.

Court of Appeals Decision

XXX270149 appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the RTC's judgment. However, the CA affirmed the prior ruling, emphasizing that the prosecution had met the burden of proof to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while dismissing the accused's defenses of denial and alibi as insufficient against the compelling evidence presented.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal on the basis of whether the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court, maintaining the principle that only questions of law may be raised in such appeals, reaffirmed the factual findings of the lower courts, concluding that the

...continue reading

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.