G.R. No. 205379 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HENRY CALADCADAN, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the [c]ourt finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape and hereby imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the benefit of xxx parole. The [c]ourt further orders accused to pay the sum of Seventy Five Thousand (Php75,000.00) Pesos as indemnity, another Seventy Five Thousand (Php75,000.00) Pesos as moral damages and exemplary damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand (Php30,000.00) Pesos. He is further ordered to recognize the child begotten as a result of the crime of rape named CCC as his illegitimate child and to give support to the child. [11] Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 25 June 2010. [12] On 25 May 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision affirming with modification the trial court's decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE , the Appeal is hereby DENIED . The Decision of conviction dated 5 May 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Second Judicial Region, Lagawe, Ifugao, Branch 14, in Criminal Case Nos. 1146-A and 1146-B, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Hehry Caladcadan is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole , and to pay P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages, for two counts of rape. [13] Accused-appellant filed the instant appeal. In a Resolution [14] dated 1 April 2013, accused-appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) were required to; file their respective supplemental briefs if they so desired. Both parties manifested that they were adopting their respective briefs filed before the appellate court. [15] In his Brief, accused-appellant maintains that AAA's testimony is incredible. First accused-appellant reveals that AAA had a boyfriend who could have impregnated her. Second, accused-appellant claims that at the time of the supposed rape, two of his children were sleeping with him so it was impossible for him to have raped his daughter in the presence of his two other children who could have witnessed it. Third, accused-appellant argues that he was not in his house when the second rape incident allegedly took place. Fourth, accused-appellant avers that he spent the night of 23 June 1999 at a friend's boarding house. On the other hand, the OSG vouches for the credibility of AAA, relying on the adage that a daughter would not concoct a story of rape against her father, taking to mind the reverence and respect for elders that is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children. Furthermore, the OSG believes that AAA's positive and categorical assertions prevail over accused-appellant's bare denials. The basic issue is whether or not accused-appellant is guilty for two counts-of rape beyond reasonable doubt. The applicable provisions related to the crime of rape are Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which provide: Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed . - Rape is commi