GR 136252; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136252 ; October 20, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIO FRANCISCO y LOPEZ, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the night of December 25, 1997, in Hagonoy, Bulacan, twelve-year-old Marilyn Perez awoke to find her stepfather, Julio Francisco, sexually assaulting her. The family was sleeping side-by-side on a single mat under one mosquito net. Marilyn, sleeping beside her mother, was able to tap her mother awake after the act. Her mother, Felicidad, discovered Francisco on top of Marilyn and confronted him. Marilyn and her mother reported the incident to authorities. During trial, Marilyn testified that this was not the first instance of abuse, revealing Francisco had been sexually molesting her since she was eight years old. Medical examination confirmed recent sexual manipulation.
Francisco denied the accusation, claiming he was asleep and alleging the complaint was fabricated by Felicidad due to marital strife. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of qualified rape and imposed the death penalty, considering the victim’s minority and her relationship to the offender as qualifying circumstances.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused of qualified rape punishable by death.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, ruling that the testimonies of the victim and her mother were credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence. The defense of denial could not prevail over the positive identification and straightforward narration of the victim.
However, the Court reduced the crime from qualified to simple rape. For the death penalty to be imposed based on the qualifying circumstance of relationship, the information must specifically allege such relationship. In this case, the information described Francisco as the “stepfather” but failed to expressly allege the stepfather-stepdaughter relationship as a qualifying circumstance under the law. This omission violated the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Consequently, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court also modified the damages, ordering the accused to pay the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.