Title
People vs. Aguilar
Case
G.R. No. 185206
Decision Date
Aug 25, 2010
Manuel Aguilar, live-in partner of AAA, raped 13-year-old XYZ, her daughter, in 1998. Medical evidence and testimonies confirmed the crime. Convicted of simple rape, he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua with civil liabilities.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 53552)

Accusation and Charges

Manuel Aguilar was indicted for the crime of Simple Rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that he, through force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of his 13-year-old stepdaughter, XYZ. Aguilar pleaded not guilty to the charges, and a trial ensued where both prosecution and defense presented their evidence.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution's case hinged on the testimonies of the victim, her mother AAA, and Dr. Rosita MuAoz, a health doctor who examined XYZ after the alleged incident. XYZ testified that Aguilar raped her while she was asleep and threatened her life if she screamed. Medical findings confirmed recent sexual intercourse, as evidenced by the presence of spermatozoa in her vaginal discharge. AAA testified that she caught Aguilar in the act and subsequently reported the matter to the police.

Defense and Appellant's Testimony

In his defense, Aguilar denied the allegations, suggesting that the interactions with AAA regarding his behavior with female neighbors led to the charges being brought against him. He argued that the environment and circumstances made it implausible that he could have committed the crime, and claimed that XYZ did not physically resist, implying consent.

Trial Court Decision

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Aguilar guilty beyond reasonable doubt and initially imposed the death penalty, ordering him to indemnify XYZ. The court's decision relied heavily on the credible testimonies of the victim and corroborating witnesses, along with medical evidence supporting the claims of rape.

Appellate Review

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in part, convicting Aguilar of Simple Rape instead of Qualified Rape, citing the failure to properly allege and prove the relationship between the accused and the victim as legally significant for the imposition of the death penalty. The CA reduced the civil liability to P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court sustained the CA's ruling, asserting that the charge of Qualified Rape required specific allegations regarding the legal relationship, which was not substantiated in this case. It emphasized that the prosecution had a duty to prove both the victim's minority and the relationship with the accused as qualifying circumstances for a higher penalty. The Court further reinforced the credibility of the victim's testimony, upholding the principle that in rape cases, the victim's credibility is paramount, and the defense of denial and implausibility was insufficient.

Analysis of Consent and Intimidation

The Supreme Court addressed the absence of consent and the nature of intimidation, noting that fear of death or serious harm could vitiate consent. It po

...continue reading

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