G.R. No. 262846 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. XXX262846,* ACCUSED-.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua , and was ordered to pay AAA262846 the amounts of PHP 100,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto , PHP 100,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 100,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the ruling until full payment; and (b) in F.C. Crim Case No. 066-M (2013) , XXX262846 was found guilty of unjust vexation instead of attempted rape, and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 30 days of arresto menor , and was ordered to pay AAA262846 the amount of PHP 10,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto , with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the ruling until full payment. [21] In F.C. Crim Case No. 065-M (2013) , the RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of rape, warranting XXX262846's conviction. [22] It found AAA262846's testimony to be credible, since it was supported by Dr. Bajan's report. Moreover, citing current jurisprudence, the RTC held that AAA262846 would not have undergone the investigation by the police, be medically examined by a doctor, and be presented in court if the incident did not happen to her. [23] In addition, AAA262846 had no malevolent motive to testify against XXX262846. The RTC convicted XXX262846 of rape and not qualified rape because AAA262846's minority was not alleged in the Information. As such, AAA262846's minority was considered as an aggravating circumstance. [24] Similarly, it also held that XXX262846's relationship with AAA262846, the former being the latter's father, constituted an aggravating circumstance as well. [25] As for XXX262846's defense of denial and alibi and his witnesses' testimonies, it found the same to be not credible and convincing. [26] After all, the testimonies of XXX262846's witnesses conflicted with each other. [27] In F.C. Crim. Case No. 066-M (2013) , the RTC found that the attempted rape was not committed because XXX262846 spontaneously desisted from completing all the acts of rape when AAA262846's bent knee hit his stomach, which deterred him from pursuing his original intention. Instead, it convicted XXX262846 of unjust vexation under Article 287(2) of the RPC. In so ruling, it found that XXX262846's acts caused annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance to AAA262846 and that AAA262846's disturbance and distress were duly proven in the trial. [28] Aggrieved, XXX262846 appealed [29] to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [30] dated January 26, 2021, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. [31] In so ruling, the CA gave credence to AAA262846's testimony, finding it to be categorical and unqualified. [32] Further, the CA held that AAA262846's narration was corroborated by Dr. Bajan's medical findings of the existence of hymenal lacerations. It ruled that when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, then there was sufficient basis to conclude that there had been