Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Buenvinoto y Paglinawan
Case
G.R. No. 207990
Decision Date
Jun 9, 2014
A 13-year-old girl, informally adopted, accused her adoptive father of raping her four times. Despite no hymenal lacerations and delayed reporting, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, citing her credible testimony and medical evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 207990)

Background Details

The narrative began when AAA's biological mother, BBB, abandoned the family, leading her father, CCC, to place AAA and her siblings in the care of the accused-appellant and his common-law wife. The victim alleged that the accused raped her on four distinct occasions in 2004, with incidents dated June 14, July 7, August 18, and September 13. Following the last incident, where the victim reported the assaults, four cases were filed against the accused in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Camarines Sur.

Allegations of Rape

In the complaints, it was stated that the accused-appellant forcibly had carnal knowledge of the victim, emphasizing that at the time of the offenses, she was thirteen years old and he was in a position of authority as her stepfather. The descriptions of each incident depicted a pattern of violence and coercion, where the accused-appellant used threats or physical intimidation to complete the assaults.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA, her father CCC, Dr. Jane Perpetua Fajardo, a Medicolegal Officer, and Police Officer 1 Fara M. Bolong. AAA's testimony was detailed, recounting the nature of each assault, and was consistent throughout, despite being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. Dr. Fajardo’s examination revealed that while AAA's hymen showed no lacerations, it was pliable, indicating prior penetrative acts.

Defense Testimony

The defense rested on the testimony of the accused-appellant, who denied the allegations and claimed to have been elsewhere during each incident. His assertions were unsupported by corroborating evidence, and his common-law wife did not testify despite being subpoenaed. The accused tried to dismiss the charges as fabricated, suggesting AAA had motives to tarnish his reputation.

Ruling of the RTC

On August 25, 2009, the RTC convicted the accused-appellant of four counts of simple rape, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The court ruled that AAA’s clear and compelling testimony sufficed as evidence of the crime, and the accusations of lack of physical evidence (like hymenal lacerations) did not diminish her claims. The RTC also clarified the absence of evidence regarding the alleged relationship of stepfather and stepdaughter, which changed the context from qualified to simple rape.

Court of Appeals Review

Upon appeal, the accused-appellant argued mainly against the credibility of AAA’s testimony and the prosecution’s failure to prove the alleged facts regarding her injury and the timeline of reporting. The Office of 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.