G.R. No. 183100 , November 28, 2012
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Rogelio Abrencillo, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Rogelio Abrencillo, was convicted of raping AAA, the 15-year-old daughter of his common-law wife, BBB. The prosecution established that Abrencillo had lived with BBB and her twin daughters since the girls were three years old, developing a father-daughter relationship. On March 1, 1999, taking advantage of AAA being alone in their house, Abrencillo laid beside her, removed her shorts, and when she resisted, threatened her with a bolo. Petrified, AAA was unable to resist further as Abrencillo proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her. She immediately reported the incident to her grandfather and the police. A medico-legal examination revealed old healed hymenal lacerations.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Abrencillo of qualified rape, imposing the death penalty based on the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship as a stepfather. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the ruling, holding that the crime was simple rape. The CA found that the qualifying circumstance of relationship did not apply because Abrencillo was not the legitimate stepfather of the victim, as he was not legally married to her mother. The penalty was thus reduced to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly convicted the accused of simple rape instead of qualified rape.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision convicting the accused of simple rape. The legal logic hinges on the proper application of qualifying circumstances. For rape to be qualified under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code due to relationship, the offender must be the stepfather of the victim. The Court clarified that a “stepfather” is legally defined as the husband of one’s mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person is the offspring. Since Abrencillo was merely the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother, with no legal marriage existing between them, he did not qualify as a legitimate stepfather. This legal relationship is a substantive requirement for the aggravating circumstance; cohabitation alone, no matter how long, does not create a stepfather-stepdaughter relationship in the legal sense for purposes of qualifying the crime.
Consequently, only the circumstance of the victim’s minority (15 years old) was duly proven. However, for the rape to be qualified under paragraph 5 of Article 266-B, both minority and relationship must concur. The absence of the legitimate stepfather relationship thus downgraded the crime to simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. The Court further upheld the credibility of the victim’s testimony, which was consistent and corroborated by her immediate outcry, and found the defense of denial unconvincing. The award of damages was modified in line with prevailing jurisprudence.