G.R. No. 218255 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JERRY BUGNA Y BRITANICO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered and discussed, the court finds the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused, Jerry B. Bugna, is therefore found GUILTY of the crime of two (2) counts of Rape against xxxxxxxxxxxxxx as charged in the above informations. ACCORDINGLY, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of the cases. He is further ordered to pay the private offended party the amount of P50,000.00 in each case, as moral damages. [11] Aggrieved, Bugna appealed before the CA. The CA Ruling In its assailed 17 December 2014 decision, the CA substantially affirmed the RTC judgment and modified only the damages awarded. The appellate court found AAA's testimony to be credible considering it was straightforward and consistent. It expounded that Bugna's xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx substituted the element of violence and intimidation. The CA explained that Bugna's unsubstantiated alibi has no leg to stand on in view of AAA's positive identification of him. It ruled: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated May 15, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, xxxxxxx South Cotabato, xxxxxxx in Criminal Cases Nos. 4613-S and 4614-S is hereby AFFIRMED, finding accused-appellant Jerry Bugna y Britanico GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of qualified rape, with MODIFICATION of the award of civil indemnity, ordering accused-appellant to pay [AAA], in each case, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The award of damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. [12] Hence, this appeal. ISSUE WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE THE COURT'S RULING The appeal has no merit. There is qualified rape when a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common-law spouse of the victim has carnal knowledge with a minor through force, threat or intimidation. [13] In other words, the element of qualified rape is as follows: (a) there is sexual congress; (b) with a woman; (c) done by force and without consent; (d) the victim is a minor at the time of the rape; and (e) offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim. [14] In the case at bench, all the foregoing elements are present to convict Bugna for two counts of rape committed against AAA. It is axiomatic that the evaluation of the RTC judge of the credibility of the witness, coupled by the fact that the CA affirmed the trial court's findings, is binding upon the Court, [15] unless it can be established that facts and circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted, which could materially affect the disposition of the case in a different manner. After a careful scrutiny of the records, the Court finds no reason to depart from th