G.R. Nos. 132673-75; October 17, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINADOR GOMEZ y CANAMO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Dominador Gomez was charged with three counts of rape committed against his sixteen-year-old daughter, Myrna Gomez, in July, August 5, and August 15 of 1996. The prosecution evidence established that the rapes occurred in their family home in Bukidnon. Myrna testified that her father would enter her room at night, use force and intimidation, and have carnal knowledge of her against her will. She initially did not report the incidents due to threats from her father. Her pregnancy, which resulted in a child who later died, was eventually discovered by her aunt, Amalia Tania, who overheard a conversation about it. This led to a police report where Myrna finally disclosed the rapes.
The defense consisted solely of a blanket denial. Dominador Gomez claimed his daughter was lying and speculated that a relative instigated the charges because they disagreed about withdrawing the case. He asserted he was innocent and suggested the accusations arose from difficulty in identifying the real father of Myrna’s child. The trial court found the testimony of the victim credible and convicted Gomez on all three counts, imposing the death penalty for each.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of three counts of rape and imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty for each count of rape. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the victim’s credibility, which was categorical, consistent, and unwavering. The defense of denial, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the victim. The Court found all elements of rape present: carnal knowledge was proven, force and intimidation were employed, and the acts were against the victim’s will.
Regarding the penalty, the Court applied Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 . The law mandates the imposition of the death penalty when the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent. The victim’s Certificate of Birth proved she was sixteen at the time of the rapes, and the accused-appellant is her father. These qualifying circumstances were duly alleged in the informations and proven during trial. Consequently, the imposition of the supreme penalty for each count was legally correct. The Court also modified the award of damages, ordering the accused-appellant to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for each count of rape.