G.R. No. 212205 - People vs. Bandril y Tabling

Case Summary (G.R. No. 212205)

Accusations and Informations Filed

The prosecution filed four Informations in separate criminal cases: Criminal Case No. CR-08-9204, CR-08-9205, and CR-08-9206 for three counts of rape, and CR-08-9207 for an act alleged in the Informations as rape attempted by overt acts but interrupted by the victim’s strong resistance, with relationship again treated as a qualifying circumstance. The alleged dates were March 2007, June 2007, and October 2007 for the three rape counts, and the evening of June 21, 2008 for the attempted rape case. Each Information described circumstances of force, violence, threats, intimidation, and appellant’s use of his moral authority and influence over the victim, and expressly alleged the qualifying circumstance of relationship because appellant was the victim’s father, with the victim being then under eighteen (18) years of age.

Factual Background: the Victim’s Narrative and the Pregnancy

The evidence established that AAA was born on December 17, 1993, making her fourteen at the time material to the charged incidents. AAA and her family resided at Sitio XXX, Barangay XXX, Municipality of Victoria, Province of Oriental Mindoro. The victim testified that in March 2007, at about 11:00 p.m., while her mother BBB was not in the house, appellant removed her clothes, removed his own clothes, and ordered her to lie down. Appellant mounted her and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain. After the act, appellant ordered her to wear her clothes and walk away. AAA did not report the incident because she feared her father’s threats.

In June 2007, while they were planting coconut seedlings in a coconut plantation, appellant again removed AAA’s clothes, directed her to lie down on a banana leaf gathered by him, inserted his penis into her vagina, and fondled her breast. In October 2007, at a lanzones plantation, appellant approached AAA, ordered her to lie down on the grass, removed her clothes, inserted his penis into her vagina, fondled her breast, and kissed her lips. Afterward, appellant dressed her and ordered her to collect lanzones.

The victim also stated that in 2008, appellant attempted to rape her inside their house. Appellant succeeded in undressing her but failed to rape her. Several months later, BBB observed that AAA’s stomach was getting bigger and brought AAA to a hilot, who told BBB that AAA was eight months pregnant. AAA then told BBB that she had been raped by her father. AAA gave birth to a baby boy that the family gave away for adoption. AAA expressed the desire that appellant should pay for his crime.

Defense Theory: Denial and Alleged Instigation

Appellant denied the charges and insisted that the accusations were instigated by unknown persons to destroy his good reputation and character. The RTC and later the CA found AAA’s testimony credible and rejected appellant’s denial as insufficient to overcome that testimony.

RTC Proceedings and Findings of Guilt

In a December 6, 2011 Decision, the RTC (Oriental Mindoro, Branch 39) found appellant guilty of three counts of rape and one count of acts of lasciviousness. The RTC held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant raped AAA in March 2007, June 2007, and October 2007. It relied on AAA’s categorical testimony describing the acts and appellant’s positive identification as the perpetrator. The RTC also cited a medico-legal report indicating that AAA had healed hymenal lacerations, which, in the RTC’s view, confirmed the victim’s account of penetration.

The RTC further found the qualifying circumstance of relationship. It noted that appellant admitted that AAA was his daughter. It also relied on AAA’s birth certificate to establish her age and her filiation, thereby confirming that appellant had carnal knowledge of his fourteen-year-old daughter.

On the fourth charge, the RTC found appellant guilty not of attempted rape but of acts of lasciviousness. It reasoned that although appellant managed to undress the victim and tried to sexually assault her, the evidence showed no penetration—in particular, there was no showing that appellant’s penis touched any part of AAA’s body. Accordingly, the RTC treated appellant’s conduct as lewd acts consisting of indecent behavior rather than attempted rape.

As to penalties and damages, the RTC imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each rape count, and ordered payment of damages per conviction: P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral damages, and P25,000.00 exemplary damages for each rape case. For the acts of lasciviousness conviction, the RTC imposed an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correctional as maximum, with damages of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Appellate Review Before the CA and Its Modifications

Appellant appealed, arguing that the RTC erred in convicting him despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with emphasis that the trial court should properly evaluate the victim’s testimony. The CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision with modification.

The CA agreed with the RTC that AAA had told the truth. It found AAA’s narration consistent across the separate incidents and accepted the victim’s accounts of abuse occurring in the family house, the coconut plantation, and the lanzones plantation. The CA also affirmed that the acts during the fourth incident constituted acts of lasciviousness, reasoning that appellant’s behavior was clearly lewd, indecent, and inappropriate. As to damages, the CA increased the exemplary damages awarded in each of the three rape cases to P30,000.00, and imposed interest at six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

Issues Presented for Review and Appellant’s Contentions

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant maintained that the lower courts expected to properly evaluate and weigh the testimony of witnesses, particularly the victim. The Supreme Court also addressed, within the proper legal framework applied by the CA and RTC, whether appellant’s acts on the fourth incident supported attempted rape or, instead, properly fell under acts of lasciviousness, given the trial evidence on penetration.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Credibility and Identification

The Supreme Court held that the RTC and CA did not err in convicting appellant. It stressed that when the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is affirmed by the appellate court, it is accorded great respect and is generally treated as conclusive. The Court examined AAA’s testimony and found no reason to disagree with the factual findings that AAA was a credible witness.

The Supreme Court agreed with the RTC’s rejection of appellant’s denial on the ground that appellant’s negative defense could not prevail against AAA’s credible and positive testimony that appellant raped her. The decision pointed out that the RTC had quoted AAA’s direct answers in court, including her narration that appellant raped her and that his penis was inserted into her vagina during each rape incident.

Legal Characterization of the Offenses: Rape and Incestuous Rape of a Minor

The Court applied Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, stating that rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under circumstances including rape by force, threat or intimidation, and also where the offended party is under twelve years of age or demented. The Court explained, in the specific context of incestuous rape of a minor, that actual force or intimidation need not be employed where the father’s overpowering moral influence would suffice. It then held that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA three times, while she was only fourteen years old, and thus upheld the convictions for rape. The Court also found the penalties and the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for each rape count to be correct.

Acts of Lasciviousness and the Rejection of Attempted Rape

As to the fourth case, the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of acts of lasciviousness and rejected attempted rape. It held that appellant could not be convicted of attempted rape because the evidence showed that his penis never touched any part of AAA’s body. The Court reiterated the governing standard for attempted rape: for conviction as attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the vagina, and the penetration—however slight—must have been stopped for some cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. Since

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 212205)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines acted as the plaintiff-appellee, while Obaldo Bandril y Tabling appeared as the accused-appellant.
The appeal challenged the September 24, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 05527.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the appellant’s conviction for three counts of rape and one count of acts of lasciviousness.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision.
The Court emphasized that the trial court’s credibility findings, when affirmed on appeal, received full respect.
The Court also noted that the appellant filed a manifestation in lieu of a supplemental brief, which did not alter the outcome.

Key Factual Allegations

The appellant was charged with raping his daughter AAA three times and attempting to rape her another time.
The four Informations alleged rape by carnal knowledge committed with force, violence, threats and intimidation, and by taking advantage of moral authority and influence, with the qualifying circumstance of relationship because appellant was the father and AAA was under eighteen (18).
The first rape was alleged to have occurred in March 2007 at about 11:00 p.m. when AAA was fourteen years old.
The second rape was alleged to have occurred in June 2007 at about 11:30 a.m..
The third rape was alleged to have occurred in October 2007 at about 8:00 a.m..
The attempted rape was alleged to have occurred in the evening of June 21, 2008, where appellant removed AAA’s clothes and commenced the offense by overt acts but allegedly did not complete it due to the complainant’s strong resistance.
The prosecution presented that AAA was born on December 17, 1993, making her fourteen at the time of the rapes.
AAA and the appellant resided at Sitio XXX, Barangay XXX, Municipality of Victoria, Province of Oriental Mindoro.

Prosecution Evidence Summary

The prosecution proved through AAA’s testimony that in March 2007, while her mother BBB was not in the house, the appellant removed AAA’s clothes, ordered her to lie down, mounted her, and inserted his penis into her vagina.
AAA testified she felt pain and that after the incident appellant ordered her to wear her clothes and walk away.
AAA explained she did not report the rape due to fear of her father’s threats.
The prosecution established a second incident in June 2007 while appellant and AAA were planting coconut seedlings, where appellant removed her clothes, ordered her to lie down on a banana leaf, inserted his penis into her vagina, and fondled her breast.
The prosecution established a third incident in October 2007 at a lanzones plantation, where appellant ordered AAA to lie down, removed her clothes, inserted his penis into her vagina, fondled her breast, and kissed her lips.
The prosecution established that after the third incident appellant dressed AAA and ordered her to collect lanzones.
For the attempted rape in 2008, the prosecution showed that appellant undressed AAA but failed to complete the rape.
BBB later noticed AAA’s pregnancy and brought her to a hilot, who told BBB that AAA was about eight months pregnant.
At that time AAA disclosed to BBB that she was raped by her father.
AAA gave birth to a baby boy whom they gave away for adoption.
AAA stated that she wanted her father to pay for his crime.

Defense and Issues Raised

The appellant denied the charges.
The appellant claimed that unnamed persons instigated the accusations to destroy his reputation and character.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial court erred by convicting him despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellant asserted that the trial court was expected to properly evaluate and weigh the testimony of the witnesses, particularly AAA as the victim.
The core appellate issue centered on whether AAA’s testimony and the corroborating evidence established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the charged rapes and acts of lasciviousness.

Statutory Framework

The Court discussed Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code on rape, which provides that rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under specified circumstances.
The Court focused on