G.R. No. 252214 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BBB,[1] ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, finding the Accused BBB guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Rape defined under Article 266-A par. 1 and penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances in attendance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua (Criminal Case No. 18942). Further, the accused is hereby ordered to indemnify AAA and her mother the amount of Seventy[-]Five Thousand (Php75,000.00) Pesos as moral damages plus the sum of Forty Thousand (Php40,000.00) Pesos, as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs. Furthermore, accused is ordered to support the child he bore on AAA. For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the rape committed sometime in July 2013, herein Accused BBB is acquitted (Criminal Case No. 18941). Considering that Accused BBB has undergone preventive imprisonment, being a detention prisoner, and there being no evidence to show that he is a recidivist, he shall be credited in the service of sentence with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, had he agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, he shall be credited only with four[-] fifths (4/5) of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, as provided for in Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Jail Warden, Provincial Jail, Batangas City or any of his duly authorized representatives is hereby directed to immediately commit the herein accused to the custody of the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City. Let a commitment order be issued for this purpose. SO ORDERED . [10] Aggrieved, BBB interposed an appeal with the CA. He argued, in the main, that because AAA was unable to testify before the trial court, the prosecution was not able to prove one of the elements of the crime of rape, i.e ., that there be force, threat, intimidation, or coercion. BBB also contended that the witnesses who testified for the prosecution had no personal knowledge of the act of rape purportedly committed against AAA; and that the fact that AAA's child was born sometime in August 2014 shows that it was very unlikely that she was raped either in July 2013 or on February 9, 2014. [11] The CA Ruling On November 11, 2019, the CA issued the herein assailed decision affirming with modification BBB's conviction. [12] The appellate court held that, indeed, the fact that BBB fathered AAA's child, is irrefutable. It is conclusive proof that BBB had carnal knowledge of his own minor daughter. [13] The CA further ruled that because BBB is AAA's father, there was no more need for the prosecution to prove that there was actual threat, force, or intimidation in the commission of the crime of rape. BBB's moral ascendancy over AAA already exists by virtue of their relationship as father and daughter, respect