The Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction of a man who raped his minor cousin and her adult but mentally disabled sister, reducing the amount of damages as well as jail terms imposed on him.
In a decision promulgated on Nov. 20, 2023, the CA’s Tenth Division denied the appeal of Abdullah Torzar Nietes against the Regional Trial Court’s decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable of one count of rape, two counts of qualified rape and one count of qualified rape by sexual assault.
However, it reduced the penalty of imprisonment in two of the cases and decreased the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages.
During the trial at RTC Branch 42, the prosecution claimed that AAA, who lived with her mother and four siblings with special needs, was sexually abused multiple times in a span of six years from 2013 to 2019.
However, she was able to recall only three (3) separate instances of abuse at the hands of her cousin, who lived near their house about 10 meters away.
In 2013 when she was 13 years old, he asked her to clean his house. She yielded and went with her sister, BBB, to his house.
While BBB was outside, Nietes was able to have her way with AAA and used his cellphone to take a video of the act, telling her not to tell anyone about what he was doing with her.
In November 2018, he again asked her to clean his house and this time, AAA and BBB were able to enter the house.
While they were cleaning the house, he pulled both of them towards the living room. He undressed BBB and sexually abused her in the presence of her sister, whom he threatened that he would expose their sex video.
Afterwards, he also undressed AAA and had carnal knowledge with her in full view of BBB, who also got Nietes’ carnal attentions later.
On April 8, 2019, the accused suddenly entered AAA’s house, dragged her toward his backyard where he told his brother to guard the gate.
At the back of his house, Nietes tried to sexually assault the victim but was thwarted after her mother arrived and witnessed the incident.
When the mother asked what was happening, the accused asked her not to tell his mother or everybody will be affected.
It was only in July, more than three months later, that AAA disclosed to her mother that Nietes had been sexually abusing her for a long time and that her sister BBB was also abused.
In his defense, Nietes denied the accusations and claimed that AAA and her family filed the case to destroy him and his parents.
In May 2020, the RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and two counts of qualified rape. sentencing him to three penalties of reclusion perpetua and to pay a total of P825,000 in civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages to the two victims.
He was also convicted of qualified rape through sexual assault, for which he was to be imprisoned for eight to 14 years and to pay another P90,000 in damages.
He was likewise convicted of attempted rape, for another prison term of 28 months and damages of P150,000.
In filing a notice of appeal, the accused said that AAA’s testimony was full of inconsistencies, that she was unable to specify the date and time of the commission of the felonies, and that his witnesses’ testimonies prove that they were inside his house during the alleged incidents.
In ruling on the alleged inconsistent testimony, the appeals court found that it pertains to a trivial detail in the sequence of events and was merely aimed to cast doubts on her testimony.
“Such instances of minor flaws bemoaned by the appellant pale in comparison to AAA’s candid and straightforward testimony when taken as a whole,” it stated.
On her failure to give the precise date and time of her ordeal in 2013, the court said the accused’s contention is untenable, as the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure counts as sufficient the approximate date of the commission of her ordeal in 2013.
Regarding Nietes’ argument that the RTC erred in not giving credence to the testimonies of his witnesses, the court noted that the lack of corroborating evidence was among the reasons why the RTC gave scant consideration to the testimonies of his witnesses.
On the penalties imposed by the lower court, the CA said the RTC was correct in imposing reclusion perpetua in the first three cases.
However, on the attempted rape case, the CA lowered the penalty of imprisonment to a maximum of 20 years and reduced the award of damages to P25,000 each.
The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Emily San Gaspar-Gito, was concurred in by Tenth Division chairperson Associate Justice Eduardo Peralta Jr. and Associate Justice Walter Ong.