FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 192941. November 13, 2013.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANIEL

ALCOBER, accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J : p

This is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals dated May
29, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00063, which affirmed with modification the
Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Carigara, Leyte finding accused-
appellant Daniel Alcober guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
Accused-appellant Alcober was charged in an Information dated February
12, 2001, as follows:
That on or about the 20th day of July, 1999, in the municipality of
Tuñga, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent and
with lewd designs and by use of force and intimidation then armed with
a long bolo (sundang), taking advantage of the minority of the victim
and their relationship, the accused being [the] common-law spouse of
the victim's mother, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously had (sic) carnal knowledge with AAA, 4 against her will and
to her damage and prejudice. 5 DcITHE

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.

During the pre-trial, accused-appellant admitted that the incident

happened on the 20th day of July 1999 in the municipality of Tunga, Leyte, and
that he is "the common-law spouse of the victim's mother." The prosecution
furthermore proposed to have the accused-appellant admit that AAA was a
minor at the time of the incident, but the court insisted that it be proven with a
Birth Certificate. 6
AAA testified that she was around 10 years old and was in Grade 5 when
accused-appellant and her mother started living together as husband and wife.
She considered accused-appellant to be her father and calls him "Tatay." Her
mother is the one earning for the family, by selling bananas in Carigara, Leyte.
7

On July 20, 1999, at around 2:00 a.m., AAA was in their house in Tunga,
Leyte. Her mother was away, selling bananas in Carigara, while her younger
siblings were upstairs, sleeping. At that time, AAA was in second year high
school and was thirteen years old. After working on her school assignment, AAA
cooked rice downstairs in the kitchen. While she was busy cooking rice, she did
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 not notice the arrival of accused-appellant, who suddenly embraced her from
her back. She identified accused-appellant as the person who embraced her
since she immediately turned around and the place was illuminated by a
kerosene lamp. AAA resisted and was able to release herself from accused-
appellant's hold. Accused-appellant unsheathed the long bolo, locally called a
sundang, from the scabbard on his waist and ordered her to go upstairs. Poking
the sundang at AAA's stomach, he then ordered AAA to take off her shorts, and
told her he will kill her, her siblings and her mother if she does not do as she
was told. 8 HcSaAD

AAA complied with accused-appellant's orders. When she was lying on the
floor, already undressed, accused-appellant placed the sundang beside her on
her left side. He took off his shirt and shorts and went on top of her. AAA did
not shout since accused-appellant threatened to kill them all if she did. He held
her hair with his right hand and touched her private parts with his left hand. He
then "poked" his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull movement.
AAA felt pain. Accused-appellant kissed her and said "Ah, you're still a virgin."
When accused-appellant was done, he stood and said "If you will tell this to
anybody, I will kill you." 9 cTESIa

AAA did not tell her mother about the incident as she was afraid accused-
appellant will execute his threat to kill them all. The sexual advances were
thereafter repeated every time AAA's mother sold bananas on Wednesdays and
Sundays. 10
On January 8, 2001, accused-appellant ordered AAA to pack and go with
him to Tabontabon, Leyte, threatening once more to kill her siblings if she does
not comply. In Tabontabon, accused-appellant once again forced AAA to have
sex with him. The following day, AAA's mother, accompanied by police officers
of Tunga, Leyte, arrived, searching for AAA and the accused-appellant. AAA was
finally able to talk to her mother, which led to AAA's filing a complaint for rape
against accused-appellant. Accused-appellant was arrested a few days later on
January 11, 2001. 11
Dr. Rogelio Gariando, Municipal Health Officer IV of the Carigara District
Hospital, requested a vaginal smear in the course of his physical examination
of AAA. Dr. Gariando testified that the specimen secured from AAA at around
2:00 p.m. of January 10, 2001 was positive for the presence of spermatozoa. 12
Medical Technologist II of Carigara District Hospital, Alicia Adizas, confirmed the
finding of Dr. Gariando. 13
BBB, the mother of AAA, testified that she and accused-appellant Alcober
lived together from 1989 to 2001. BBB and accused-appellant had three
children, who were three, eight and ten years old, as of her testimony on
October 30, 2001. AAA, however, was her daughter with a previous live-in
partner. AAA was six years old when she and accused-appellant Alcober started
living together. BBB was the one who supported their family the entire time
they lived together, since accused-appellant was not always gainfully
employed. AAA called accused-appellant "Tatay." 14 TaHIDS

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 BBB resided in Tunga, Leyte, while AAA was living with BBB's sister, CCC.
The house of CCC was around one kilometer away from her and accused-
appellant's house. AAA, however, was frequently in BBB's house since she had
lunch there and since it was nearer to her school than CCC's house. BBB
remembered AAA crying on July 20, 1999, but when she asked AAA, the latter
told her that she was merely fondled by accused-appellant. AAA was 13 years
old on July 20, 1999. 15
On January 8, 2001, when BBB learned that accused-appellant took AAA
to Tabontabon, Leyte, she immediately looked for them in Burauen, Leyte.
When she failed to find them there, she reported the apparent abduction of AAA
to the PNP in Tunga. Together with an uncle of accused-appellant, she reached
Tabontabon at around 9:30 in the morning, but found only AAA. She asked AAA
why she went with accused-appellant, to which AAA replied that she was
threatened by accused-appellant that he would kill them all. AAA also told her
that she was actually raped by accused-appellant on July 20, 1999. 16

For the defense, Tunga resident Ernesto Davocol testified that sometime
on July 20, 1999, he saw AAA and accused-appellant, carrying a bag and a bolo,
in front of the municipal cemetery of Tunga, Leyte. They hailed and boarded a
jeep bound for Tacloban. 17
Accused-appellant Alcober testified that on October 20, 1999, 18 at
around 2:00 a.m., he was inside their house in Tunga, Leyte, drinking coffee in
the kitchen when AAA unzipped her shirt and told him that "this is the gift that I
am offering you that you are longing for too long." They then proceeded to
have consensual sexual intercourse. He claimed that this was the only time
that they had sexual intercourse. On cross-examination, accused-appellant
admitted that AAA sometimes called him Papa and that he did not give her
monetary support since she grew up at her uncle's house. Accused-appellant
clarified that AAA was not in their house on July 20, 1999 and that their sexual
intercourse occurred on October 20, 1999. Accused-appellant categorically
admitted that he had sex with his 13-year old stepdaughter on October 20,
1999. Accused-appellant further testified on cross that BBB watched him
having sexual intercourse with AAA and that BBB was crying while watching
them. To prove that the sexual intercourse was consensual, accused-appellant
presented in court what he claimed was the underwear of AAA, alleging that
they agreed to exchange underwear with each other. 19 HCTaAS

On March 15, 2002, the RTC of Carigara, Leyte rendered its Decision
finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime of rape. The dispositive portion of
the Decision is as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, pursuant to paragraph 1(a),
Art. 266-A and the second paragraph of Art. 266-B (Rape Law of 1997,
R.A. No. 8353) of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and further
amended by R.A. No. 7659, (The Death Penalty Law), the Court found
DANIEL ALCOBER, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Rape and sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH, and
indemnify [AAA] the amount of Seventy[-]Five (P75,000.00) Thousand
Pesos and pay moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (P50,000.00) Pesos and pay the cost. 20

On May 29, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision with
several modifications:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the assailed
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13 in Carigara, Leyte in
Criminal Case No. 4025 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
Finding accused-appellant Daniel Alcober GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt as principal of the crime of rape qualified by the use of a deadly
weapon, the Court sentences him to reclusion perpetua. Accused-
appellant is further ordered to pay the following sums: Php75,000 as
civil indemnity; Php75,000 as moral damages; and Php25,000 as
exemplary damages. Costs against accused-appellant. 21

Accused-appellant appeals to this Court with the following Assignment of

Errors: CDTHSI

I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN COMPLETELY IGNORING THE
SWEETHEART THEORY INTERPOSED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE. 22

Accused-appellant asserts that AAA's testimony that the sexual

intercourse between them was not consensual is "patently incredible."
According to accused-appellant, AAA could have escaped after she was raped
for the first time on July 20, 1999. Since AAA was already residing in her aunt's
house, she should never have returned to BBB and accused-appellant's house
in order to prevent the repeated sexual intercourse after July 20, 1999 and the
before the incident in Tabontabon. 23 Accused-appellant furthermore claim that
the delay in revealing her alleged sexual ordeals from July 20, 1999 up to
January 10, 2001 creates serious doubts as to her contention that she was
raped. 24
We must emphasize that when the accused in a rape case claims, as in
the case at bar, that the sexual intercourse between him and the complainant
was consensual, the burden of evidence shifts to him, such that he is now
enjoined to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the relationship. Being an
affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence, such as
by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters,
notes, pictures and the like. 25 Thus, in People v. Mirandilla, Jr., 26 we held:
The sweetheart theory as a defense, however, necessarily admits
carnal knowledge, the first element of rape. Effectively, it leaves the
prosecution the burden to prove only force or intimidation, the coupling
element of rape. . . . .
ACDTcE

This admission makes the sweetheart theory more difficult to

defend, for it is not only an affirmative defense that needs convincing
proof; after the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 case, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused, who has to
adduce evidence that the intercourse was consensual. (Citations
omitted.)

Other than his self-serving testimony, however, accused-appellant failed

to adduce evidence of his supposed relationship with AAA. The testimony of
Davocol as regards seeing AAA and accused-appellant on July 20, 1999
boarding a jeep bound for Tacloban does not in any way suggest a romantic or
sexual relationship between them. On the other hand, we are convinced that
the sordid version of facts presented by accused-appellant is nothing but a
depraved concoction by a very twisted and obnoxious imagination. Accused-
appellant's tale of being seduced by his 13-year old stepdaughter who calls him
"Tatay" or "Papa," and having sexual intercourse with her while her mother was
watching and crying is not only nauseatingly repulsive but is likewise utterly
incredible. It is unthinkable for BBB, who helped AAA file the complaint and
testified against accused-appellant, to just passively endure such an outrage
happening before her very eyes. The trial court, which observed the demeanor
of AAA, BBB and the accused-appellant on the witness stand, did not find
accused-appellant's account plausible, and instead gave full faith and credence
to the testimonies of AAA and BBB. The trial court, in fact, described accused-
appellant's demeanor as boastful and his narration as a make-believe story: cHAIES

While at the witness stand, the accused boastfully testified and

took out from the back pocket of his pants a panty of a woman which
according to him was given to him by [AAA] after their sexual
intercourse to which he exchanged it with his own brief as a proof that
[AAA] enjoyed having sexual intercourse with him; viz.:
xxx xxx xxx

PROS. MERIN:
Q So, you are telling this court that [AAA] was enjoying?
A Yes, sir, and her panty is even here. I brought this to the Court as
evidence.
Q What was then in your mind that you would make your own
stepdaughter without a panty after you had sex with her? What
was in your mind?

A Because this was given to me by her and we exchanged our

underwear, she gave me her panty and I gave her my brief.
Q And it was in the presence of her mother?

A Yes sir. TSN [pp]. 10-11. March 5, 2002.)

This make-believe story of the sex escapade of accused Daniel
Alcober and the minor [AAA], conveying to the court that the 13 year
old [AAA] enjoyed the morbid situation that [befell] on her life is
unavailing and deserves no credence. The trauma, the shame and the
embarrassment and the public humiliation to which [accused-
appellant] has forced the minor child to stop her studies, denying her
the proper education and a bright future, all because of the [insatiable]
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 beastful lust of her stepfather who virtually reduced her to a sex slave,
a pawn for almost two (2) years, who cannot do anything but obey the
whims and caprices of the accused Alcober until he was apprehended
and formally charged in court on March 21, 2001. . . . . 27 ICHcaD

Accused-appellant's incredulous testimony appears even more

unconvincing in contrast to the believable account of AAA of the incident on July
20, 1999:
Q: After you noticed that it was your stepfather who embraced you,
what else transpired, if any?

A: I resisted, but at that time he was always bringing with him a

long bolo, locally known as "sundang." He took it off from the
scabbard.
Q: You mean when he embraced you, he was already holding a
long bolo?
A: It was still tucked at his waist, together with the scabbard.

Q: You said that you resisted. When was that time when he
unsheathed his bolo then tucked on his waist?

A: When I resisted.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When you went upstairs, what next transpired, if any?
A: He ordered me to take off my short pants.
Q: What was then your attire that time? DCTHaS

A: I was then wearing shorts and t-shirt.

Q: How about that bolo, what did the accused do with that bolo?
A: It was poked on me.
Q: Where, what portion of your body?

A: Towards my stomach.
Q: Did you comply with his order that you would have to undress
yourself and took your attire?

A: Yes sir.
Q: Why did you have to comply to that?
A: Because, he told me that if I will not follow him, he will kill me,
my brothers and sisters and my mother.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After you were already undressed, what next transpired, if any?
A: That was the time that he placed his long bolo "sundang" beside
me on my left side.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Q: You mean, you were already lying on the floor?

A: Yes sir. ITAaHc

Q: Now, after he placed that bolo beside you, what next transpired,
if any?
A: He took off his t-shirt and shorts and thereafter, he placed
himself on top of me.

Q: Did you not make any shout that which you would be heard?
A: I did not shout, because he told me not to shout or make any
noise.
Q: Did you comply to such order?
A: Yes sir. EICScD

Q: Why?
A: Because, he threatened me that if I shout, he will kill me, all of
us.
Q: After he placed himself on top of you, what did the accused do, if
any?
A: He held every part of my body.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: What portion of your body was touched by the accused?
A: My breast.
Q: What else, if any?
A: Until down.

Q: You mean, to include your vagina?

A: Yes sir.
Q: How did he touch your breast, your vagina and other extremities
of your body. Describe that.
A: While he places himself on top of me, his other hands was used
in touching other parts of my body.
Q: What hand was touching the other parts of your body?
A: His right hand. aSTAHD

Q: And where was his left hand, then?

A: It was on my hair.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After he did that touching of your private parts, your breast,
vagina and touching your hair gently, what transpired next?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 A: He took my womanhood.
Q: How?

A: He poked his penis to my vagina.

xxx xxx xxx
Q: After the accused poked his penis to your vagina, what did the
accused then do after poking his penis to your vagina?
A: He did the act of pulling and pushing.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When this penis of the accused was placed in your vagina as you
earlier testified, what else did you feel?
A: I felt the pain. ACcISa

Q: After he was through with this push and pull movement, what
did the accused do next, after he caressed you and told you that
statement that you are still a virgin?
A: He stood up and said this things, "if you will tell this to anybody, I
will kill you."
Q: Did you tell your mother of what the accused did to you?
A: I did not.

Q: Why?
A: Because I was afraid he will execute his threats to kill us all. 28

Contrary to the assertions of accused-appellant, the fact that AAA was not
able to escape when she had the opportunity to do so, her continued visit to
their home after the incident, and her delay in filing the complaint does not at
all contradict her credibility. As discussed by the Court of Appeals, when a rape
victim is paralyzed with fear, she cannot be expected to think and act
coherently. Her failure to take advantage of an opportunity to escape does not
automatically vitiate the credibility of her account. 29 Similarly, in People v.
Lazaro, 30 we propounded on the impropriety of judging the actions of child
rape victims by the norms of behavior that can be expected from adults under
similar circumstances: cDHCAE

It is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal for some time the
assault on her virtue. Her initial hesitation may be due to her youth
and the molester's threat against her. Besides, rape victims,
especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way
mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. It is not
proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone
traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults
under similar circumstances. . . . . It is, thus, unrealistic to expect
uniform reactions from them. Certainly, the Court has not laid down
any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she
has been violated. This experience is relative and may be dealt with
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her
credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Indeed,
different people react differently to a given stimulus or type of
situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when
one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience. . .
. . (Citations omitted.)

Indeed, AAA's explanation for the delay in reporting the crime is more
than adequate: cCSEaA

Q: Would you kindly tell the Court the reason why you did not
immediately file a case against your stepfather on July 20, 1999?
A: Because I was afraid of his threat that he will kill my mother, my
brother and sisters including me.
Q: When was this threat by the way?
A: At the time when I was already at the kitchen.
Q: You mean this date of July 20, 1999?
A: Yes, sir. 31

In all, we do not find sufficient ground to overturn the guilty verdict

rendered by the lower courts. We note, however, that the trial court and the
Court of Appeals differed in the penalty imposed and in their appreciation of
aggravating circumstances. We proceed to pass upon these matters.
The trial court imposed the death penalty upon accused-appellant on the
basis of the fifth paragraph, number 1, of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code, which provides:
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, stepparent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-
law spouse of the parent of the victim[.] DaEcTC

The Court of Appeals, however, found the fifth paragraph of Article 266-B
inapplicable. According to the appellate court, although it is undisputed that
accused-appellant is the common-law spouse of the victim's mother, the
records are bereft of independent evidence to prove that AAA is a minor, apart
from the testimonies of AAA and her mother. 32

We disagree.
In People v. Pruna , 33 the Court established the guidelines in appreciating
age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, as
follows:
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is
an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 party.
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar
authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records
which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.

3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is

shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the
testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a
member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is
qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the
exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under
the following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and
what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
DCIEac

b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and

what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age
and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years
old. TaDSHC

4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth,

authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or
relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's
testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age
of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the
testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.
6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as
to the age of the victim. (Emphases supplied, citation omitted.)

In the case at bar, no birth or baptismal certificate or school record

showing the date of birth of AAA was presented. AHCTEa

Pursuant to number 4 of the guidelines, however, in the absence of the

foregoing documents (certificate of live birth or authentic document), the
complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused. In the case at bar, AAA testified that she was 13 years
old on July 20, 1999 and that her birthday was in February. 34 Accused-
appellant, who insists that the incident occurred on October 20, 1999, expressly
and clearly admitted that AAA was still 13 years old on that date, which was
three months later:
Q: I am referring to October 20, 1999 when she accompanied her
mother[,] you made sex with your stepdaughter on October 20,
1999 when she was still 13 years of age?
A: Yes, sir. 35

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Several more questions were propounded to accused-appellant to
ascertain that he was aware of AAA's minority at the time of the sexual
intercourse, and accused-appellant's answers plainly showed that he was fully
cognizant of this fact:
Q: But you would admit that you have sexual intercourse with [AAA]
while she was still 13 years old?
A: No, sir, it was her uncle who raped her and that was according to
[AAA] on that date of July 20, 1999.
Q: I am referring to October 20, 1999 when she accompanied her
mother you [had] sex with your stepdaughter on October 20,
1999 when she was still 13 years of age?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Is it not a conscious revolting act in your part to have sex with
your stepdaughter who was still a minor when your wife was in
the premises where you live? TcCSIa

A: The mother of [AAA] knew that sexual intercourse happened to

us on that early morning.

Q: You mean to tell this Court that you made sex with a minor
daughter of your common-law-wife in her presence?
A: Yes, sir she was by the door.

Q: You mean, she was looking [at] both of you having sex?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: You would like this Court to believe that your own wife was there
looking at you having sex with her daughter, her eldest minor
daughter?
A: It depends to the Court if the Court will believe to that I have
stated but that is the truth. 36

Furthermore, BBB categorically testified that AAA was 13 years old at the
time material to this case. To be sure, there is no disparity between the
evidence for the prosecution and the defense on the point that the accused had
carnal knowledge of AAA when she was only 13 years old.

Taking into account that the minority of the victim and accused-
appellant's being the common-law spouse of the victim's mother, this Court
finds it proper to appreciate this qualifying circumstance under the fifth
paragraph, item number 1, Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. HaTISE

The Court of Appeals also made several modifications with regard to the
appreciation of aggravating circumstances. The trial court considered the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling, use of weapon, force and intimidation,
nighttime and ignominy. 37 The Court of Appeals correctly modified the RTC
Decision in finding the appreciation of force and intimidation improper for being
an element of the crime of rape. The Court of Appeals likewise correctly
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 reversed the consideration of dwelling, nocturnity and ignominy as these
circumstances were not alleged in the Information. Furthermore, this Court
observes that nocturnity cannot be appreciated in this case since there was no
showing that it was deliberately sought to prevent the accused from being
recognized or to ensure his escape. 38

The Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the appreciation of the

aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon. We agree with this
assessment. As discussed by the Court of Appeals, this circumstance was
sufficiently alleged in the Information and proven during the trial through AAA's
credible testimony, which clearly showed that the sundang was used to make
the victim submit to the will of the offender.

The proper penalty for qualified rape is reclusion perpetua pursuant to

Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibited the imposition of the death penalty.
Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, we modify the amount of exemplary
damages for qualified rape by increasing the same from Twenty-Five Thousand
Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) following established
jurisprudence. 39 LLpr

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 29, 2009 in
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00063 which affirmed with modifications the finding of the
Regional Trial Court of Carigara, Leyte finding accused-appellant Daniel Alcober
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, is further MODIFIED as
follows: (1) accused-appellant Alcober is hereby found GUILTY of the crime of
rape qualified by minority and relationship under number 1, fifth paragraph,
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code for which the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole is imposed; (2) aside from the civil
indemnity of P75,000.00 and moral damages of P75,000.00, the liability of
accused-appellant for exemplary damages is hereby increased to P30,000.00;
and (3) accused-appellant Alcober is likewise ORDERED to pay AAA interest at
the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum in all amounts of damages
awarded, commencing from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1.CA rollo, pp. 144-147.

2.Rollo , pp. 5-16; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. de los Santos with
Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring.
3.CA rollo, pp. 13-28.

4.The real names of the victim and her family, with the exception of accused-
appellant, are withheld per Republic Act No. 7610 and Republic Act No. 9262,
as held in People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006).

5.Records, p. 1.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 6.TSN, June 11, 2001, pp. 2-3.
7.TSN, July 31, 2001, pp. 4-5.

8.Id. at 5-9.
9.Id. at 9-13.

10.Id. at 14.

11.Id. at 15-20.
12.TSN, October 9, 2001, pp. 3-4.

13.TSN, November 16, 2001, pp. 6-8.

14.TSN, October 30, 2001, pp. 2-4.

15.Id. at 4-7.

16.Id. at 6-10.
17.TSN, January 30, 2002, pp. 2-6.

18.Accused-appellant was asked about his whereabouts on July 20, 1999, but he
answered using the date October 20, 1999. Later into the testimony,
accused-appellant Alcober stated that AAA was not at home on July 20, 1999.
Accused-appellant, however, admitted during pre-trial that the incident
occurred on July 20, 1999. (TSN, June 11, 2001, p. 2.)

19.TSN, March 5, 2002, pp. 2-11.

20.CA rollo, p. 74.

21.Rollo , p. 15.

22.CA rollo, p. 49.

23.Id. at 51-52.

24.Id. at 52.

25.People v. Bautista , G.R. No. 140278, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 469, 490.
26.G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 761, 772.

27.CA rollo, pp. 72-73.

28.TSN, July 31, 2001, pp. 7-13.

29.CA rollo, p. 134.

30.G.R. No. 186379, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 587, 601-602.
31.TSN, September 14, 2001, p. 14.

32.Rollo , pp. 13-14.

33.439 Phil. 440, 470-471 (2002).

34.TSN, July 31, 2001, pp. 5-6.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 35.TSN, March 5, 2002, p. 9.

36.Id.
37.Records, p. 69.

38.See People v. Fortich , 346 Phil. 596, 617 (1997).

39.People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 181827, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 472, 484-485.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com