AAA, a fourteen-year old minor, lived in a small house with her father Ursua and elder brother, BBB. As the house had no divisions, the three would share the common bed space and sleep side by side.
On 12:00 midnight on January 17, 2006, Ursua undressed AAA, touched her vagina, held her breast, removed his underpants, moved on top of her, pulled his penis, and inserted it into her vagina.
Early dawn the next day, accused repeated the same acts on AAA. Later in the evening of the same day, Ursua once more held AAA’s breasts and vagina and placed himself on top of her.
The genital examination of AAA conducted by the medico-legal officer of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory confirmed that there is a clear evidence of remote history of blunt force or penetrating trauma to AAA’s hymen.
The Regional Trial Court found Ursua guilty beyond reasonable doubt for three (3) counts of qualified rape and there being aggravating circumstances, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of three (3) counts of reclusion perpetua. Accused was ordered to pay AAA the amount of PHP 150,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral damages, and PHP 60,000 as exemplary damages.
The trial court found AAA as a witness and her testimony credible. She positively identified her father as the one who raped her and testified consistently and convincingly on the material facts, including the dates and time that transpired in the alleged incidents.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals ruled that Ursua’s denial cannot overcome the positive testimony of AAA. However, in view of failure of the prosecution to prove the fact of penile penetration with regard to the alleged rape that occurred in the evening of January 18, 2006, the appellate court downgraded the offense to acts of lasciviousness. Damages awarded were also modified by said court.
Issue:
Whether the appellate court erred in the penalty imposed and damages awarded to the accused
Ruling:
The Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision but modified it as to the penalty imposed and the damages awarded in the first two criminal cases with respect to two (2) counts of qualified rape by sexual intercourse and to the third criminal case as sexual abuse instead of acts of lasciviousness.
Ursua was made to suffer the penalty of two (2) counts of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and was ordered to pay AAA the amount of PHP 100,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 100,000 as moral damages, and PHP 100,000 as exemplary damages for each count for two (2) counts of qualified rape in the first two criminal cases. He was also made to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with a fine of PHP 15,000, and to pay AAA the amount of PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral damages, and PHP 75,000 for exemplary damages for one (1) count of sexual abuse in the third criminal case.
Republic Act No. 9346, in connection with A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, states that when circumstances are present warranting the imposition of death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of the said Republic Act, the qualification “without eligibility for parole” shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346.
As for the amount of damages awarded, People v. Jugueta provided that in cases of qualified rape where the imposable penalty is death but the same is reduced to reclusion perpetua because of R.A. No. 9346, amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages shall be PHP 100,000 each.
