People v. Rocabo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Nilo Rocabo (appellant) was charged with three counts of incestuous rape against his 11-year-old daughter, AAA, on April 27 and 29, 1999, and May 1, 1999. AAA testified that on April 27, 1999, the appellant woke her up, took her to their house, removed her clothes, kissed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. On April 29, 1999, he kissed her on the neck. On May 1, 1999, he again undressed her, made her lie down, kissed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA's mother, BBB, brought her for a medical examination, which revealed an old healed hymenal laceration. The appellant denied the charges, claiming he was roasting pig on April 27 and at home with his family on April 29 and May 1, 1999. He alleged BBB instigated the case due to fear of an adultery case. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted the appellant for the April 29, 1999 incident but found him guilty of two counts of incestuous rape for April 27 and May 1, 1999, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count and ordering him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, upholding AAA's credibility despite inconsistencies and the delay in reporting, and noting that the absence of fresh hymenal lacerations does not negate rape. The Petition: The appellant appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape. Whether the penalty imposed and the civil liabilities are in accordance with law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with modification. Appellant Nilo Rocabo was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Qualified Rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, without eligibility for parole. He was also ordered to pay AAA ₱75,000 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000 as moral damages, and ₱30,000 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape: The Court found AAA's testimony to be convincing and straightforward, giving no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC and CA on her credibility. The appellant's denial was rejected as an inherently weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the offended party. The Court noted that the Informations clearly alleged the appellant had carnal knowledge of his daughter, AAA, who was only 11 years old at the time of the rapes on April 27 and May 1, 1999. The prosecution's evidence, including AAA's Certificate of Live Birth, duly proved AAA's age and filiation to the appellant. Therefore, the basic elements of the crime charged, AAA's minority, and her relationship to the appellant were established, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of two counts of qualified rape. On whether the penalty imposed and the civil liabilities are in accordance with law: The Court applied Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Article 266-A(d) defines rape when the offended party is under twelve years of age. Article 266-B provides for reclusion perpetua for rape, with the death penalty imposed if committed with aggravating/qualifying circumstances, including when the victim is under eighteen and the offender is a parent. In this case, AAA's minority (11 years old) and her relationship as the appellant's daughter qualified the rape. The Court noted that while the death penalty would have been applicable under the law at the time of the offense, Republic Act No. 9346 mandates reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for such offenses. The Court also modified the civil liability, awarding ₱75,000 as civil indemnity (automatically awarded upon proof of crime), ₱75,000 as moral damages, and ₱30,000 as exemplary damages for each count, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence and to deter similar offenses.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for two counts of qualified rape, emphasizing that the victim's minority and the offender's filiation are qualifying circumstances. The penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and civil liabilities for indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages were awarded.