GR 135511; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 135511-13 November 17, 2000
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Enrico Mariano, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Enrico Mariano was charged with three counts of rape committed against his daughter, Jenalyn F. Mariano. The first incident occurred in 1992, shortly after Jenalyn’s mother left for abroad. Then ten years old, Jenalyn was forced to drink gin, and while she slept, her naked father attempted carnal knowledge, causing her pain. Two subsequent rapes occurred in September 1996 and February 1997. In these instances, a drunk Enrico, often brandishing a knife, would order Jenalyn to bed, remove her clothing, and attempt sexual intercourse. Full penetration was not achieved due to Jenalyn’s physical immaturity and her struggles, but the accused would then masturbate to completion. Jenalyn eventually disclosed the abuse to her aunt, leading to the filing of charges.
ISSUE
The core issue for automatic review is whether the trial court correctly convicted Enrico Mariano of three counts of rape and properly imposed the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty for each count. The Court found Jenalyn’s testimony to be credible, consistent, and candid, detailing the abuse with the natural reticence of a victim. Her failure to immediately report the crimes was reasonably explained by her profound fear of her father, who threatened to kill her. The Court clarified that in rape, penetration is consummated by the mere introduction of the male organ into the labia of the female organ; full penetration or rupture of the hymen is not required. The attempts at penetration, coupled with the overt sexual acts, constituted rape.
The qualifying circumstance warranting the death penalty was present. At the time of all three rapes, Jenalyn was under eighteen years of age, and the offender was her parent. This relationship, explicitly stated in Republic Act No. 7659 , qualifies the crime for capital punishment. The Court found no mitigating circumstances to warrant a lesser penalty. The decision was affirmed in toto, including the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.