G.R. No. 148869 -74; December 11, 2003
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. REMARIO PALMA Y ROMERA alias “MARIO,” appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Remario Palma y Romera was charged with six counts of qualified rape before the trial court. The informations, identical except for the specified week and time of day, alleged that on or about the second week of October 1997 (morning, afternoon, and evening in three separate cases) and the first week of November 1997 (morning, afternoon, and evening in three separate cases), in Macasihi, Camagong, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, the accused, by means of force and intimidation, willfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of his daughter Marife B. Palma, a minor below ten years of age, against her will. Appellant pleaded not guilty.
During trial, the prosecution presented the victim, Marife B. Palma, and Dr. Zosima A. Padillo, the examining physician. Marife testified to multiple instances of sexual abuse by appellant while she was living with him. She clarified that appellant was not her biological father but was the husband of her aunt, Fe Palma, who was her guardian while her mother worked abroad. Her detailed testimony described specific acts, including penile insertion, digital penetration, fondling, and licking. Dr. Padillo testified to an incomplete laceration on Marife’s genital.
The defense presented appellant, who denied all charges, claiming Marife was coached by his estranged wife, who allegedly offered to drop the case for P30,000.00. He suggested the genital laceration could have resulted from Marife’s fondness for riding bicycles, climbing trees, or a childhood fall, presenting a hospital record from 1989. He also claimed a certain Norman Marimon had previously fondled and attempted to rape Marife in March 1998.
The trial court convicted appellant of two counts of rape (Criminal Case Nos. 8173 and 8176) and three counts of acts of lasciviousness (Criminal Case Nos. 8174, 8175, and 8177). It imposed the death penalty for each rape count, citing the qualifying circumstance of relationship (appellant being the victim’s guardian and uncle, a relative within the third degree of affinity), and imprisonment for the acts of lasciviousness. Appellant was also ordered to pay civil indemnity and moral damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court gravely erred in convicting appellant of rape and acts of lasciviousness despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the trial court gravely erred in imposing the death penalty despite an alleged inaccurate designation of the relationship between the victim and the accused in the information.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties and awards.
1. On the convictions: The Court found the testimony of the victim, Marife, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. Her detailed account of the sexual assaults was deemed sufficient to establish the crimes charged. The Court rejected appellant’s defenses as unconvincing and noted that the medical findings corroborated her testimony. The argument that mere epidermal contact of the penis on the vagina (as described in one incident) does not constitute rape was addressed by reference to legislative intent, indicating that under certain circumstances, even the slightest contact can consummate the crime.
2. On the penalty: The Court held that the imposition of the death penalty was erroneous. The informations alleged appellant was the victim’s “father.” The evidence, however, established he was her uncle by affinity (her aunt’s husband) and her guardian. This relationship, while a qualifying circumstance under the law, was not accurately alleged in the informations. For the death penalty to be imposed based on relationship, the specific qualifying relationship must be both alleged in the information and proved during trial. Since it was not accurately alleged, the qualifying circumstance could not be appreciated to raise the penalty to death. Consequently, the proper penalty for each count of rape is reclusion perpetua.
The Court modified the trial court’s decision accordingly, sentencing appellant to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape and affirming the penalties for acts of lasciviousness. The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages were also modified in line with prevailing jurisprudence.