G.R. No. 131818 -19 February 3, 2000
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNABE SANCHA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Bernabe Sancha was charged with two counts of rape against his 15-year-old daughter, Bermalyne. The informations alleged that on June 20 and 21, 1996, in their home in Camarines Norte, he had sexual intercourse with her against her will, taking advantage of his parental authority. The prosecution evidence established that after the death of Bermalyne’s mother, the family lived in a small, unpartitioned house. On the evening of June 20, 1996, after her siblings fell asleep, the appellant raped Bermalyne three times, threatening to kill her if she resisted. He raped her again on the morning of June 21. Bermalyne did not immediately report the incidents due to fear and shame.
The matter was revealed in September 1996 when her uncle, Artemio Aban, learned of the rapes. Bermalyne was brought to authorities, and a medical examination confirmed healed hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse. The defense consisted of bare denials, with the appellant claiming he was asleep during the alleged incidents and suggesting the complaint was fabricated due to a family grudge over land.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for two counts of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Bermalyne, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. The defense of denial cannot prevail over her positive identification. The Court also ruled that the delay in reporting the crime, attributed to the victim’s fear of her father and feelings of shame, is understandable and does not undermine her credibility. The medical findings corroborated her account of sexual abuse.
Regarding the penalty, the Court held that the death penalty could not be imposed. While the rape was committed by a parent, which is a qualifying circumstance under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the law in effect at the time of the crime ( Republic Act No. 7659 ) required that for the death penalty to apply, the victim must be under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender must be a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. The informations failed to allege the minority of the victim with specificity, merely stating she was “a girl of 15 years of age.” This was a fatal omission, as the age of the victim is a qualifying circumstance for the imposition of the death penalty and must be specifically alleged in the information to afford the accused the right to be properly informed of the nature of the accusation against him. Consequently, the qualifying circumstance could not be appreciated, and the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua for each count. The Court affirmed the award of civil indemnity and moral damages.