G.R. No. 179477 February 6, 2008
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JIMMY TABIO, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Jimmy Tabio was charged in a single Information with three counts of rape allegedly committed against AAA, a mentally retarded woman, on separate nights in June 2002. AAA testified that on the first occasion, appellant entered her house at night, pressed a knife to her breast, undressed her, and had carnal knowledge of her. She identified him by the light of a gas lamp. She further claimed the same acts were repeated on two subsequent nights. Medical testimony established that AAA, while 23 years old, had the mental age of a six-year-old child. Appellant denied the accusations and presented an alibi, claiming he was in the mountains during the alleged incidents.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Tabio of three counts of qualified rape and imposed the death penalty. On automatic review, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court modified the conviction to three counts of simple rape, removing the death qualification, and adjusted the damages awarded. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final disposition.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the Information validly alleged qualified rape warranting the death penalty; (2) whether the prosecution proved three separate counts of rape beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) the propriety of the awarded civil indemnity.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but only for one count of simple rape. On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the Information did not validly allege qualified rape. While it stated the victim was mentally retarded, it failed to specifically allege that the appellant had knowledge of her mental disability at the time of the commission, a requisite under Article 266-B(10) of the Revised Penal Code for imposing the death penalty. Under Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, qualifying circumstances must be alleged with specificity. Consequently, only simple rape was proven from the Information.
On the second issue, the Court applied the principle that in rape cases, the complainant’s testimony must be scrutinized with utmost caution. While AAA’s testimony on the first rape was clear, convincing, and credible, her account of the second and third incidents lacked the same degree of particularity. She provided no specific dates or distinguishing details for the subsequent alleged rapes, merely stating they happened again. The Court ruled that for multiple rape charges, each count must be proven with equal certainty. The prosecution failed to establish the second and third incidents beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, appellant could only be convicted for the first conclusively proven act of rape. The Court also noted the Information was defective for charging three offenses in a single count (duplicity), but this defect was deemed waived as appellant failed to object before arraignment. The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages were sustained for the single count of rape.