G.R. No. 218913 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROMULO BANDOQUILLO Y OPALDA, ACCUSED-.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer thy penalty of reclusion perpetua and likewise ordered appellant to pay "AAA" P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages. [12] Appellant thereafter appealed the RTC Decision before the CA. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its Decision dated July 21, 2014, the CA affirmed the assailed RTC Decision with the following modifications: a) it convicted appellant of the crime of qualified rape; [13] b) it declared appellant ineligible for parole; c) it awarded P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in favor of "AAA;" and d) it imposed interest at six percent (6%) per annum on all awarded damages, reckoned from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid. [14] The CA agreed with the RTC's findings that AAA had testified in a firm, consistent, credible and believable manner in recounting how appellant had carnal knowledge of her in the early morning of December 27, 2003. [15] It explained that: Significantly, AAA never wavered in her direct testimonies on 07 December 2005 and 07 March 2007 that appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her on the date of the incident. In her 07 December 2005 testimony, AAA confirmed the entry of appellant's penis into 'the labia of [her sexual] organ...' For rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary, as proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ suffices to consummate the crime of rape. During her direct testimony on 07 March 2007, and her testimony on cross-examination on 13 June 2007, AAA also remained consistent in her assertion that appellant 'inserted [his] penis into [her] vagina...' Contrary to the assertion of appellant, AAA consistently declared that the tape perpetrated by appellant in the early morning of 27 December [2003] was consummated. [16] On this point, the CA noted that appellant had failed to adduce evidence "to convincingly show any dubious reason or ill-motive on the part of "AAA" to falsely accuse him of such serious offense as rape." [17] It thus concluded that "[i]n the absence of ill motive on the part of "AAA," appellant's denial cannot prevail over her categorical and positive testimony." [18] The CA also rejected appellant's claim that his alleged act of spanking "AAA" on the eve of the rape incident had prompted her to make such false accusations. It ruled that "[m]ere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino family invent a charge that would only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their own family and make them the object of gossip." [19] Finally, the CA held that the crime committed by appellant against "AAA" is qualified rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, given that "AAA" is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent. [20] Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal. The Issues Appellant raises the following issues for the Court's resolution: First , whether "AAA's" testimony