Daily TribuneRecords showed that the rape happened sometime in the month of September 2014 with the father as the suspect
The Supreme Court recently junked the motion filed by a father accused of raping his 13-year old daughter which affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and decision of the lower court.
"This Court rejects the defenses of denial and alibi of the accused-appellant stating that the charges were borne out of his wife and children's resentment due to his constant drinking, and that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed based on his daily schedule," said the SC.
The ruling was borne out of the appeal of the accused on the CA decision affirming the 8 March 2019 decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch 194 of in Criminal Case No. 2016-0033 which found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified Rape under Article 266-A (l) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Art. 266-B(l), as amended by Republic Act 83534 or the Anti-Rape law of 1997.
Records showed that the rape happened sometime in the month of September 2014 with the father as the suspect.
Previous investigations revealed that it took the victim four days to tell her mother what she suffered in the hands of her very own father but the mother did nothing as she herself was afraid of her husband.
It was only in 2015 when the incident was reported to the authorities when the victim's cousin learned of the rape and accompanied the victim to the police to report the defilement of the suspect.
They were then referred to the office of Department of Social Welfare and Development in which endorsed them to the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General Hospital in order for her to be examined.
The father was arrested on 12 April 2016 and upon arraignment pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged as the suspect denied the narration of the prosecution and refuted the charges against him and averred that it was merely concocted and was borne out of his wife and children's resentment against him because of his constant drinking.
The SC said the denial and alibi of the accused-appellant failed the test as his defense was not only uncorroborated but also flimsy and unworthy of belief.
It agreed to the CA decision convicting the accused and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and appropriately modified the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000 each.
