Facts:

*The case involves the appeal of appellant Allan Menaling y Canedo, who was charged with two
counts of qualified rape. The
*The victim, referred to as AAA, was a 12-year-old minor at the time of the incidents, and the
appellant is her biological father. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges.
*Medical examinations conducted on AAA revealed that her hymen was not intact and had old
healed lacerations. The psychologist who interviewed AAA noted that she harbored intense
feelings of hatred and resentment towards her father. The prosecution presented four witnesses,
including AAA, a doctor, a psychologist, and BBB. The appellant was the sole witness for the
defense.
*The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
qualified rape in the first count but acquitted him in the second count due to reasonable doubt.
The RTC sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua.
*The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision but modified it by ordering the appellant to
pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to AAA.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape.

Ruling:
Yes. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved that the appellant had carnal
knowledge of his 12-year-old daughter through force and intimidation. The court relied on
AAA's detailed testimony and the medical evidence presented. AAA's testimony was found to be
logical, credible, consistent, and convincing. The court also considered the fact that the incident
occurred in the presence of AAA's brother, who witnessed the assault and reported it to their
aunt. The court rejected the recantations made by AAA and BBB, noting that the alleged real
culprit had died before the commission of the rape charges.
The court emphasized that rape is often committed in isolation or secrecy, making the victim's
testimony crucial in establishing the commission of the crime. The court cited the adage that no
young Filipina would publicly admit to being criminally abused unless it is the truth, as it is her
natural instinct to protect her honor.
The court gave weight to the medical findings that corroborated AAA's testimony of sexual
abuse. It emphasized that when a victim's testimony is supported by medical evidence of
penetration, there is sufficient basis to conclude that sexual intercourse took place.