People v. YYY

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251113. November 11, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.YYY, 1accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 251113 (People of the Philippines v. YYY). — Assailed in this appeal is the June 29, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07153, which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union, Branch 67 (RTC) convicting accused-appellant YYY of two (2) counts of qualified rape.

ANTECEDENTS

YYY was charged with Rape in two separate Informations, which read:

Criminal Case No. 4072-BG

That on or about the month of May 2010, in the [Municipality of] x x x, Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of force and intimidation and with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his own daughter, AAA, 3 a virgin of fourteen (14) years of age, against the will of the latter and with no other purpose except to satisfy his lascivious designs and desire, to the damage and prejudice of the said victim.

The crime is attended by special aggravating of [sic] circumstance of relationship.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

Criminal Case No. 4073-BG

That on or about the month of January 2008, in the [Municipality of] x x x, Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-name accused, actuated and lust and with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his own daughter, AAA, a virgin of Twelve (12) years of age, against the will of the latter and with no other purpose except to satisfy his lascivious designs and desire, to the damage and prejudice of the said victim.

The crime is attended by special aggravating circumstance of relationship.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

When arraigned, YYY pleaded "NOT GUILTY." Hence, trial ensued. 6

The prosecution, through the testimonies of AAA, Social Welfare Officer III Wilhemia Areola (Wilhemia), Pastor Evangeline Claro (Pastor Evangeline), Dr. Dona Belle P. Borbe (Dr. Dona), Psychologist Claire Baliaga (Claire), established that AAA is the daughter of YYY, born on December 25, 1995. In January 2008, AAA lived with his father in La Union, without her mother and siblings, in a house with two rooms separated only by a curtain. One night, around 10:00 p.m., while AAA was sleeping, she was suddenly awakened by her father, YYY, who was pointing a knife at her. YYY ordered her to undress, and she acceded out of fear. YYY also took off his clothes, then inserted his penis into AAA's vagina, and made pumping motions until something came out from his penis. YYY warned AAA not to disclose what happened to anyone. Afterwards, YYY dressed up and went to the other room to sleep. 7 YYY raped AAA several times after the first incident. 8

The last rape took place sometime in May 2010. AAA, then 14 years old, was sleeping when YYY, awakened her. Armed with a knife, he warned her not to tell anyone of the impending act and told her to remove her clothes. AAA obeyed him out of fear. YYY then undressed himself, inserted his penis into AAA's vagina, and made a pumping motion until something came out from his penis. Thereafter, YYY left and went to the other room. Feeling threatened and afraid, AAA just slept and did not report the incident to anyone. 9

In August 2010, while AAA attended church services, Pastor Evangeline noticed that AAA kept on going to the comfort room to vomit. When Pastor Evangeline talked to AAA, the latter confided about the two (2) incidents of rape committed by YYY. Worried about AAA's welfare, Pastor Evangeline met with YYY, who admitted his wrongdoing and promised to stop drinking alcohol, go to church and give support to AAA. After the meeting, AAA lived with Pastor Claro for a month. AAA then successively transferred to her paternal grandmother and her sister's house until she was finally turned over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development. 10

AAA was examined by Dr. Dona, a physician at Ilocos Training and Regional Medical Center OB-Gyne Department, who issued a Medico-Legal Certificate dated November 17, 2010 that noted "corrugations on the hymenal edges with old lacerations on 3 & 6 o'clock areas, introitus admits 2 fingers with ease." 11 AAA was also interviewed by Social Welfare Officer Wilhemia on December 15, 2010. During the interview, AAA disclosed that the rape incidents and that she attempted to commit suicide after the first rape was committed against her. Since AAA lacked support from relatives and had nowhere to stay, Wilhemia referred her to an institution for temporary shelter. 12

On February 15, 2011, Psychologist Claire interviewed and administered psychological tests on AAA. During the interview, AAA told Claire that she was raped by YYY. Claire observed that AAA appeared to be seeking love and affection, and that AAA did not feel secure at home and was afraid because of the sexual abuse. AAA also harbored anger and hostility against her father. Claire then recommended AAA to consult a psychiatrist, who prescribed anti-depressants. 13

Later, on cross-examination, AAA recanted her testimony against her father and claimed that it was her boyfriend who had sexual intercourse with her. She invented the story against YYY because he was always drunk and no longer supported her. 14

For his part, YYY denied the accusations against him, and claimed that there were three other persons who live with him and AAA. He described his relationship with AAA as good, but he would sometimes scold AAA whenever she came home late. YYY also alleged that no complaint was filed against him in 2008, and that AAA moved to the pastor's house in March 2008 and seldom went home. AAA filed the case because he did not attend the activities of the church, and it was possible that the case was filed against him because one of the members of the church had a grudge against him. Finally, YYY invoked AAA's recantation of her testimony. 15

In its Decision 16 dated September 23, 2014, the RTC gave credence to the testimony of AAA and the medical findings of Dr. Dona, and sentenced YYY as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the accused [YYY], Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape;

In Criminal Case No. 4072 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without benefit of Parole and to pay [AAA] the following:

1.) Civil indemnity of Seventy[-]Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00);

2.) Moral Damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00);

3.) Exemplary Damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) and to pay the cost of suit.

In Criminal Case No. 4073 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without benefit of Parole and to pay [AAA] the following:

1.) Civil indemnity of Seventy[-]Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00);

2.) Moral Damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00);

3.) Exemplary Damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) and to pay the cost of suit.

SO ORDERED. 17

The RTC noted that AAA had relayed her harrowing experience to several disinterested persons and later on, testified in detail before the court. 18 AAA's testimony is credible, natural and consistent to prove all the elements of qualified rape. 19 Her recantation was disregarded for being suspicious since she mentioned on cross-examination that she was staying with her paternal grandmother at that time and that she had no other place to go. 20 YYY's defense of denial bears no weight against the overwhelming proof given by the prosecution. 21

On appeal, YYY alleged that AAA's testimony should not be given weight for being too generalized and incredible. The details given for the two (2) incidents of rape are almost identical, casting doubt as to whether the second rape was indeed committed. The prosecution failed to substantiate the charges against him. YYY also argued that the testimony of Pastor Evangeline and Social Welfare Officer Wilhemia should not have been accorded weight and are inadmissible in evidence. Lastly, YYY insisted on AAA's recantation to exonerate him. 22 On the other hand, the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, averred that all the elements of qualified rape were established. AAA's testimony was straightforward and clear, and her recantation deserved scant consideration since it was not genuine, but borne out of fear. 23

On June 29, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision with modification as to the awards of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages. 24 The CA confirmed that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime that YYY had carnal knowledge of his own daughter by force and intimidation on two separate occasions. That the two incidents of rape were committed in almost the same manner is nothing extraordinary and does not necessarily render the testimony of AAA incredible. AAA's testimony was further bolstered by the medical findings of Dr. Dona. Anent the recantation, the CA ruled that from AAA's testimony, "it is clear that [she] recanted her original testimony not because she wanted to tell the truth; rather, it is because she was impelled by her situation. She testified in favor of her father because she had nowhere else to go but to stay with her paternal grandmother, who was not supportive of [her] cause." 25

Hence, this appeal. The People 26 and YYY 27 filed their separate manifestations stating that they will no longer file their respective briefs and instead adopt the allegations made in the briefs filed before the CA.

RULING

The appeal is bereft of merit.

In resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony. The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded weight and respect, and at times, even finality. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility. Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstance of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted. 28 Differently stated, when the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial court is generally given the highest degree of respect, if not finality. The assessment made by the trial court is even more enhanced when affirmed by the CA, as in this case. 29

Here, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, as to the credibility of AAA as a witness. To be sure, this Court has afforded great weight to the testimony of a rape victim against her parent. Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders and that it is unthinkable for a daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape against her, if such were not true. 30 Testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. 31

The assertion of YYY, that the testimony of AAA should not be given weight for being generalized statements and identical as to the two accounts, is specious. Notably, YYY raised this matter for the first time on appeal. Nonetheless, the CA pointed out that AAA's testimony was specific in describing the manner by which she was raped by her father. She testified that in both incidents YYY woke her up from her sleep, pointed a knife at her, forced her to undress, inserted his penis in her vagina and made pumping motions until something came out from his penis then left the room. The similarity in the manner of commission of the two rape charges, as testified to by AAA, does not affect her credibility.

Mere similarity of the manner of commission of the two rape charges does not deflect AAA's credibility as a witness. In People v. Candellada, 32 accused-appellant was charged with eight counts of rape committed in a span of eight months. The Court held that the uniform way by which the victim described the eight rape incidents did not necessarily mean that her testimony was coached, rehearsed, and contrived, and enunciated as follows:

Rape victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated. Thus, errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape. In addition, bearing in mind that AAA had been repeatedly raped by accused-appellant for a period of time x x x, it is not surprising for AAA to recall each incident in much the same way. What is important is that AAA had categorically testified that on eight specific dates, her father, accused-appellant, armed with a knife, successfully had sexual intercourse with her by inserting his penis into her vagina.

It is noteworthy to mention that even if accused-appellant did not use a knife or made threats to AAA, accused-appellant would still be guilty of raping AAA, for in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. 33

The cases cited by YYY in his brief filed with the CA are not applicable in this case. 34 While the accused-appellants in the given cases were charged with multiple counts of rape and were acquitted of the subsequent rapes committed, a review of the Court's findings reveal that the victims' testimony consisted of generalized statements that their molester repeated raping them and lacked details of the commission of the subsequent offenses, 35 which is not the case here. AAA recounted her harrowing experience in the hands of YYY, thus:

Q: So [AAA] in the evening of January 2008, could you tell us how did this rape happen?

A: I was then sleeping and at 10:00 o'clock [sic] my father suddenly woke up and he pointed a knife on me, ma'am.

Q: So what did you do when you woke up and you saw your father pointing a knife at you?

A: None, ma'am.

Q: What did you feel when you saw your father pointing a knife at you?

A: I was so afraid, ma'am.

Q: Did your father say anything to you?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: What did you[r] father tell you?

A: That I will not report, ma'am.

THE COURT:

Q: What will you not report?

A: The one that he did to me, your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx

PROS. LAMONG:

Q: So when your father told you to remove your clothes, what did you do?

A: I removed my clothes, ma'am.

Q: After removing your clothes, what happened?

A: He inserted his penis in my vagina, ma'am.

Q: When your father told you to remove your clothes, was your father wearing clothes?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: Before he inserted his penis into your vagina, did he remove any of his clothing?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: x x x, what did you feel [AAA] when your father inserted his penis into your vagina?

A: Painful, ma'am.

Q: Did your father do any movements after he inserted his penis into your vagina?

THE COURT:

Q: How did he move, you describe please? Did he make a pumping motion?

A: Yes, your Honor.

PROS. LAMONG:

Q: So after he made pumping motions, [AAA], what did your father do next?

A: He removed his penis from my vagina, ma'am.

THE COURT:

Q: How long did he make pumping motions [AAA]?

A: Until after something came out from his penis, your Honor.

Q: Did you feel that something came out from his penis?

A: Yes, your Honor. 36

As to the second incident of rape committed by YYY, AAA testified:

Q: Let us go now to the last incident of rape [AAA], and you said a while ago that it was in the month of May, 2010. Where did this last incident of rape take place?

A: In our house also, ma'am.

Q: You mean to say the same house in [BBB] where you were first rape[d] by your father?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: Could you still recall what time was that?

A: 10:00 o'clock [sic], ma'am.

Q: Was that in the evening [AAA]?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: In that evening [AAA] who were in your house in [BBB] before the rape occurred?

A: None, ma'am.

Q: So you mean to say only you and your father were in your house in [BBB]?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: Where in particular in your house did your father first raped you?

A: In my room, ma'am.

Q: You mean to say in the same room where he first raped you?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: So right before your father raped you, could you still recall what you were doing [AAA]?

A: I was then sleeping, ma'am.

Q: And did you wake up [AAA]?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: What woke you up?

A: Somebody woke me up, ma'am.

Q: Who is that person who woke you up?

A: My father, ma'am.

Q: When you woke up [AAA] and you saw your father[,] was he holding anything that time?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: What was your father holding?

A: A knife, ma'am.

Q: So when you woke up and you saw your father holding a knife, what did you feel?

A: I was afraid, ma'am.

Q: Did your father say anything to you after you woke up'?

A: That I will not report, ma'am.

Q: And what else [AAA]?

A: He let me remove my clothes, ma'am.

THE COURT:

Q: And did you remove your clothes?

A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: Why did you remove your clothes?

A: My father made me remove my clothes, your Honor.

PROS. LAMONG:

Q: What did you feel when your father told you to remove your clothes?

A: I was afraid, ma'am.

Q: So after you removed your clothes, what happened, [AAA]?

A: My father inserted his penis in my vagina, ma'am.

Q: Before your father inserted his penis into your vagina, did he remove his clothing?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: And what did you feel now when your father inserted his penis into your vagina?

A: It was painful, ma'am.

Q: So after your father inserted his penis into your vagina, did he make some movements?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: These movements you have mentioned, is it a pumping movements [sic] [AAA]?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: So how long did your father do that?

A: Until something came out from his penis, ma'am. 37

In both instances, AAA testified that in two separate occasions, YYY, armed with a knife, had carnal knowledge of her against her will. AAA's testimony was clear and categorical in positively identifying YYY as her molester. What is more, the CA noted that while testifying, she broke down in tears as she disclosed her ordeal and tearfully admitted that she loved her father, but was still willing to see him go to jail. 38 The crying of a victim during her testimony is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such emotion indicates the pain that the victim feels when asked to recount her traumatic experience. 39

The elements of qualified rape, under Article 266-A (1) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, 40 are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the rape; (5) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. 41

In this case, the testimony of AAA is sufficient to prove the commission of the two counts of rape. In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, as in this case. 42 In addition, AAA's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of the other witnesses including a physician who physically examined her and found that AAA had healed lacerations on the 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock areas. Finally, the elements of minority and relationship were admitted by YYY — AAA was born on December 25, 1995 and that she is the biological daughter of YYY. Thus, in January 2008 when the first rape was committed, AAA was 12 years old, and 14 years of age in May 2010 at the time of the second rape.

In a last attempt to exonerate himself, YYY insists on the recantation made by AAA when she testified in cross-examination that it was not her father, but her unnamed boyfriend, who had sexual intercourse with her. On this point, we agree with the RTC and CA in not giving credence to AAA's recantation. As pointed out by the CA, AAA's testimony revealed that she withdrew her previous testimony against accused-appellant because of the pressure exerted by her paternal grandmother, with whom she was staying with at that time. She was compelled to repudiate her testimony as she had nowhere else to go, thus:

PROS. LAMONG:

Q: Who are you afraid of? Who are these relatives of your father?

A: His siblings, sir.

Q: How about, there was a woman here a while ago, is that woman the mother of your father?

A: Yes, sir, the mother of my father.

Q: At present you are now staying under the care of your grandmother, the mother of your father, the accused in this case?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: The house of your grandmother is located in XXX, La Union?

A: Yes, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

PROS. LAMONG:

And may we just put on record, Your Honor that the witness seems to be nervous, Your Honor. She is pinching her arm.

Q: Now, you left the custody of the DSWD in October 2012. After you left, you went immediately to the house of your grandmother?

A: No, sir, I went on my mother side.

Q: But you were not treated well by the relatives of your mother?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: That is why you went to your grandmother?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And from then on, you are staying with your grandmother?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: The mother of the accused in this case?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: If you would leave your grandmother, of course, you have no other place to go, isn't it?

A: Yes, sir.

THE COURT:

Q: And that is the reason why you are now testifying in favor of your father?

A: Yes, your Honor.43 (Emphases supplied)

The foregoing clearly establish that AAA did not voluntarily recant her testimony to establish the truth but was made out of fear of ending up homeless. When a rape victim's testimony is clear, consistent and credible to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may be based on it, notwithstanding its subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate her original testimony as recantation is frowned by the courts. In People v. XXX, 44 citing People v. Teodoro, 45 the Court explained:

As a rule, recantation is viewed with disfavor firstly because the recantation of her testimony by a vital witness of the State like AAA is exceedingly unreliable, and secondly because there is always the possibility that such recantation may later be repudiated. Indeed, to disregard testimony solemnly given in court simply because the witness recants it ignores the possibility that intimidation or monetary considerations may have caused the recantation. Court proceedings, in which testimony upon oath or affirmation is required to be truthful under all circumstances, are trivialized by the recantation. The trial in which the recanted testimony was given is made a mockery, and the investigation is placed at the mercy of an unscrupulous witness. Before allowing the recantation, therefore, the court must not be too willing to accept it, but must test its value in a public trial with sufficient opportunity given to the party adversely affected to cross-examine the recanting witness both upon the substance of the recantation and the motivations for it. The recantation, like any other testimony, is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances, including the demeanor of the recanting witness on the stand. In that respect, the finding of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons necessitate its re-examination, the reason being that the trial court is in a better position to hear first-hand and observe the deportment, conduct and attitude of the witnesses.

Considering the foregoing, the RTC and the CA correctly held YYY guilty for two counts of qualified rape, punishable by death. However, the penalty of death cannot be imposed pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346. 46 Thus, in accordance with A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the eligibility for parole is proper. Likewise, the award of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count is sustained. Applying prevailing jurisprudence, the total award of damages shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from the finality of judgment until full satisfaction. 47

FOR THESE REASONS, the Decision dated June 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07153 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant YYY is guilty of two (2) counts of Qualified Rape, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered to pay AAA P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count. The monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum effective from the finality of judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Any information to establish or compromise the identity of the victim, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld, and fictitious initials are used, pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes; R.A. No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children. See also People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006.

2. Rollo, pp. 3-23. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Florito S. Macalino.

3. Supra note 1.

4. Rollo, p. 4.

5. Id.

6. Id., CA rollo, p. 69.

7. Rollo, p. 5; CA rollo, p. 69.

8. Rollo, p. 5.

9. Id., CA rollo, pp. 69-70.

10. Rollo, p. 6; CA rollo, p. 70.

11. Rollo, pp. 6-7; CA rollo, pp. 71-72.

12. Rollo, pp. 6-7; CA rollo, pp. 70-71.

13. Rollo, p. 7; CA rollo, p. 72.

14. Rollo, pp. 8-9; CA rollo, pp. 74-75.

15. Rollo, pp. 7-8; CA rollo, pp. 73-74.

16. CA rollo, pp. 68-79. Rendered by Judge Ferdinand A. Fe.

17. Id. at 79.

18. Id. at 78.

19. Id. at 77.

20. Id. at 78.

21. Id.

22. Id. at 48-64.

23. Id.

24. Rollo, p. 22. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed September 23, 2014 Decision of Branch 67, Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union in Criminal Case Nos. 4072-BG and 4073-BG is hereby AFFIRMED withMODIFICATION. Accused-appellant [YYY] is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of qualified rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the eligibility for parole, for each count of rape. He is also ORDERED to pay private complainant, for each count of rape, in the following amounts: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. He is further ordered to pay interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until the amounts shall have been fully paid.

 SO ORDERED.

25. Id. at 19.

26. Id. at 37-38.

27. Id. at 33-36.

28. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 235562, July 25, 2019.

29. People v. Subesa, 676 Phil. 403 (2011).

30. People v. Pangilinan y Trinidad, 547 Phil. 260 (2007).

31. Id.

32. 713 Phil. 623 (2013).

33. Id. at 636-637.

34. People v. Garcia, 695 Phil. 576 (2012); People v. Valenzuela, 597 Phil. 732 (2009); People v. Tabio, 568 Phil. 144 (2008); People v. Manalo, 444 Phil. 654 (2003); People v. Eduardo, 427 Phil. 746 (2002); People v. De Leon, 377 Phil. 776 (1999).

35. Id. In People v. Manalo, the victim's testimony on the second count of rape consisted merely of an allegation that accused-appellant repeatedly abused her without providing any detail as to the commission of the subsequent rape. In People v. Restituto, the victim testified that accused-appellant undressed her and repeated raping her. In People v. Garcia, accused-appellant's conviction for the second count of rape was downgraded to acts of lasciviousness for lack of proof sexual intercourse; as to the third count, accused-appellant was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to convince the court that rape was committed — the victim's bare statement that accused-appellant raped her just like what he had done to her the first time is inadequate to establish rape. In People v. De Leon, accused-appellant was convicted of one count of qualified rape out of the 17 charged because the victim's narration, which was limited to giving the number of times that she was molested by her father, was deemed by the Court as short of the requirement of the law on the quantum of evidence required in the prosecution of criminal cases. In People v. Eduard, the accused-appellant was acquitted for failure to prove his identity as the perpetrator, as well as, inadequate proof of sexual assault; as to the fourth count, accused-appellant was found guilty of acts of lasciviousness. In People v. Tabio, the Court acquitted accused-appellant of the second and third counts of rape because the only evidence presented to prove the charge were the victim's monosyllabic affirmative answers to two leading questions if appellant repeated during the second and third times he was in her house what he had done during the first time.

36. CA rollo, pp. 49-51.

37. Id. at 51-53.

38. Rollo, p. 15.

39. People v. Vidaña, 720 Phil. 531 (2013).

40. The provisions pertinently provide:

Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is committed:

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a. Through force, threat or intimidation;

b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above are present.

Article 266-B. Penalty. — x x x

xxx xxx xxx

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;

xxx xxx xxx

41. The People of the Philippines v. XXX, G.R. No. 235562, July 25, 2019.

42. Id., citing People v. Manjares, G.R. No. 185844, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 227, 243.

43. Rollo, pp. 185-187.

44. G.R. No. 236562, September 22, 2020.

45. 704 Phil. 335, 356-357 (2013).

46. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.

47. People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.