PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

MENALING y CANEDO
G.R. NO. 208676
Promulgated: April 13, 2016
This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 November 2012, dismissing
the appeal of the respondent and affirming the judgment of the RTC of Olongapo City finding appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape.
FACTS: Appellant was charged with two (2) counts of qualified rape.
First on Criminal Case No. 353-2006, that on or about January 21, 2006 in Olongapo, the accused did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and with force, threat and said intimidation, have sexual
intercourse with his 12 year old daughter. Second on Criminal Case No. 354-2006, that on or about January
26, 2006 in Olongapo, five days after the first incident, the accused again had sexual intercourse with the child
against the latters will and consent.
APPELLANT PLEADED NOT GUILTY TO THE CHARGES.
In the evening of January 21, 2006, the 12 year old child was sleeping with her sibling and mother on
a bed when her father, appellant, woke her up and asked her to transfer to the floor where he was sleeping.
The appellant directed to remove her clothing, however, she refused. As a result, it was the father who
removed her clothing. He kissed her and inserted his male organ into her. Appellant threatened the child with
harm if she would tell her mother about the incident. The second incident happened on January, 26 2006. One
afternoon, when the victim and her four siblings were sleeping, accused again woke her up and sexually
assaulted her. Her brother witnessed the incident and told his aunt. The mother learned about it not until
February 28, 2006 and so she immediately reported the crime to the police resulting in the filing of charges
against his husband.
The victims Medico Legal Certificate dated March 3, 2006 would prove that her hymen was not intact.
It was actually found that her healed lacerations at 7 oclock position was 30 days old or more. Two fingers
could be inserted with ease into her female anatomy indicating previous multiple sexual intercourse. Upon
having the victims psychological test, she appeared disturbed by the abuse committed by her father. She was
observed to harbor intense feelings of hatred, dissatisfaction and resentment against her father.
On February 1 and April 18, 2008, the victim and her mother were respectively called back to the
witness stand by the defense counsel and recanted their previous testimonies against appellant. The child
declared that the real perpetrator was her grandfather, the uncle of her mother, now deceased.
The RTC of Olongapo rejected the child and mothers recantations in an Order dated January 12, 2009,
noting that the alleged real culprit had died in 2004, two (2) years before the commission of the rape
charges in 2006. The trial court dismissed it as incredulous and unworthy of belief.
On 23 November 2010, appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape in
Criminal Case No. 353-2006 (first case). However, he was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 354-2006 (second
case) due to reasonable doubt. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 21 December 2010.
On 26 November 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision affirming with
modification the trial courts judgment adding the payment of damages to the private complainant.
Appellant filed the instant appeal. They filed Supplemental Brief arguing that the victims initial
testimony regarding the rape incident is doubtful. Appellant stresses that the mother and child had the motive
to falsely charge him because they feared him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the child and mothers recantations be reconsidered and be given weight.
RULING: It is extant in the records that the prosecution has successfully proven beyond reasonable
doubt that appellant had carnal knowledge with his twelve (12) year old daughter, through force and
intimidation.
Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret, usually leaving only the
victim to testify about the commission of the crime. Thus, the accused may be convicted of rape on the
basis of the victims sole testimony provided such testimony is logical, credible, consistent and convincing.
Moreover, the testimony of a young rape victim is given full weight and credence considering that her
denunciation against him for rape would necessarily expose herself and her family to shame and perhaps
ridicule.
A retraction is looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. It is exceedingly unreliable for
there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be repudiated. It can easily be obtained from
witnesses through intimidation or monetary consideration. Like any other testimony, it is subject to the test of
credibility based on the relevant circumstances and, especially, on the demeanor of the witness on the stand.
Supreme Court upheld the appellate courts declaration that victims recantation is unreliable. All
told, appellants guilt of the crime charged was established beyond reasonable doubt.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant shall suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Appellant is ordered to pay the private
offended party as follows: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.